IIIIIIIII

Document No. 4040-001-600

Feasibil ity StudyKoppers TexarkanaTexarkana, TexasVolume II - Appendices

portitetnvOOJV"*O

Prepared for

Pittsburgh, PAJune 1988

An ENSR Company

^^^^IIIIII

TREATABILITY STUDY REPORTKOPPERS COMPANY, INC.

TEXARKANA, TEXAS

CMinvOCM^—O

II

Prepared for:KOPPERS COMPANY, INC.

PREVIOUSLY OPERATED PROPERTYTEXARKANA, TEXAS

Prepared by:KEYSTONE ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES, INC.

440 COLLEGE PARK DRIVEMONROEVILLE, PENNSYLVANIA 15146

PROJECT 157673-08

FEBRUARY 1988

™*^^IIIIII

TABLE OF CONTENTSPage

II

LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,,,,,,.,,.,,,,,..iiiLIST OF FIGURES ,.,,,,.,,,,.,,.,,,,..,,,.,,,,,.,,,,,,,,,,,,,,..,..,,,,^EXECUTIVE SUMMARY,.,.,,.,.,,...,,.,,,,.,,,,,...,,,,...,,,.,,.,,,,....,,.,,..,,,,,,ES-^1.0 INTRODUCTION,,,,,,,,,..,,,,,,,,...,,,,.,...,,2.0 BACKGROUND,,,,.,,,.,.,,.,..,,,,,,,.,,,,,..,,,,,,.,,.,,,,,,,,,,,,,.,,,,,,,2-1

2.1 Site FTistory,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,..,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,.,,,,,,2-12.2 Site Description ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,„,,,„,„,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,„„,,,.,2-13.0 STUDY OVERVIEW.,.,,...,.,,.,...,,.,.,,,,.,..,.,.,,,.,,..,,,.,,,,,,..,.,.,,,,,,,,3-1 ^

3.1 Sample Collection ,,,,,,,,.,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,.,,,,,,,,,,,,..,,,,,.,,3-l c\J3.2 Sample Analysis.,,,,,,,,,,,,,,..,,,...,,,...... ,,„„„„„,„.„„„„„„ ..,3-1 ,_3.3 Groundwater Treatability,,,,,,,..,,,,...,,.,.,,,,.....,,,..,,,,,,,,,.,.,,,,3-l _3.4 Activated Carbon Adsorbtion Testing,,,,„,.,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,.,,,,,,,3-23.5 UV/Ozone Oxidation.,,,,,.,,,,.,.,,,,.,,.,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,.,3-23.6 Biological Treatment ,„,,.„.,,,,,„„.,.,„.,,,.,.,,,,„„,,„.,,,,,„„,,,,.,,,.3-33.7 Soil Treatment,,,,,,,,„,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,.,,„,,,„,„„.,,..,.,,,.,,,,3-4

4.0 TREATABILITY STUDY SPECIFICS AND RESULTS ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,4-l4.1 Sample Collection...... . . . . . . . . . . . . .,.,.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .,.. .,.. . . . . . . . . .,.. . . . .,,.. . . . . . . . .,.. . . . . . . . .,4-l4.2 Groundwater Treatability.....,,,,,,,,,.,,,,,,,,,,.,,.,,,,,,,.,.,,.,.,..,,,.,4-34.3 Activated Carbon Adsorbtion „,„.,,,,,„,,,„„,,,,,,„„,,„,,,,,.,4-44.4 ExSitu Soil Treatment (Soil Washing).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .„„„,... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4-64.5 InSitu Soil Treatment (Soi! Column) ,,,,,,,„„,„.„„,„„.,„„„„„,,4-64.6 UV/Ozone Oxidation 63 ,,,,,,,.,..,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,.,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,.,,,4-74.7 Biological Treatment .,,„,.,,,„,,,,„,,,„,,,..,,„,„„„.„„„„.,,.,4-84.8 Biological Treatment Units Discussion of Results,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, 4*12i 5.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS... . . . . . . , . » . . . . . , . . » . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .^ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5-I

APPENDICESAPPEND IX AAPPENDIX BAPPENDIX CAPPENDIX DAPPENDIX EAPPENDIX FAPPENDIX G

Groundwater QA/QC Sampling DataCarbon Adsorbtion ACT ResultsUV/Ozone Oxidation ResultsBiological Treatment Influet ResultsAeration Tank Treatment ResultsFixed Film Treatment ResultsFluidized Bed Treatment Results

it

^™™

II

II

I

3-13-24-14-24-34-44-54-6

4-1

LIST OF TABLES

PageAnalytical Methods - Water Analysis................................................................ 3-laAnalytical Methods • Soil Analysis ...... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-IbJar Testing Results............................................................................................. 4-4aCarbon Adsorption Isotherms............................................................................ 4-5aOyUV Screening Run Results .... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-8a

*yUV/Ozone Treatment .................................................................................... . .4-8c ^Biological Treatment Comparison .... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-12aBiological Treatment Phenolics Reduction.................................................... 4-13a ^~

O

LIST OF FIGURES

Groundwater Treatment Overview................................................................... 4-3aOzone Applied vs Naphthalene... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-Sb

ui

^^^IIIII

IIIII

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This document summarizes the results of performance testing conducted byKeystone Environmental Resources, Inc. for the purpose of evaluating the technicalfeasibility of various treatment processes for the remediation of groundwater and soilcontaminated with coal tar related organics. The coal tar organics present in the soiland groundwater originated from the past operations of a former Koppers woodtreating and preserving plant.

The technologies examined herein have passed the initial screening process and havebeen considered for treatability investigation. The technologies considered in thescreening where based on the characterization work performed during the remedialinvestigation. The analytical results from surface water, groundwater and soilsamples, were used as the basis to examine the different technologies.

With the exception of the Accelerated Carbon Testing performed by Calgon CarbonCorporation, all treatability work was performed by Keystone EnvironmentalResources at the Science and Technology Center in Monroeville, PA. Groundwaterand soil samples were collected by Keystone Field Service technicians for use in thetreatability work. All related analysis were performed by Keystone's AnalyticalDivision.

Following pretreatment for removal of oil and grease associated contaminants, threegroundwater methods were evaluated. These included: (i) carbon adsorption, (ii)chemical oxidation, and (iii) biological treatment. Carbon adsorption treatmentincluded carbon adsorption isotherms and Accelerated Carbon Column Testing.Chemical oxidation focused on UV/Ozone Oxidation treatment. The biologicaltreatment alternatives evaluated were: (i) activated sludge, (ii) aeration tank, (iii)fixed film, and (iv) fluidized bed.

In-situ and ex-situ soil treatment technologies were also evaluated. Five soil columnswere set up to investigate variations of bioreclamation treatment methodologies. Inaddition, soil washing was investigated for removal of contaminants from the soilmatrix.

ininvO

o

ES- l

•IBM*

I

I

I

I

I

1

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

With the exception of activated sludge treatment, all other groundwater treatmentprocesses tested were successful for reduction of groundwater contaminants. Thetwo activated sludge treatment reactors were converted to an aeration tank and afixed film reactor when the data indicated the groundwater organic substrate was tolow to support an activated sludge biomass.

Shortly following start-up of the soil columns , plugging occurred and the columnswere shut down. Soil washing was completed with preliminary successful results.Complete soil washing results will be issued as an addendum when all results areavailable.

Pretreatmem results showed an 83% reduction of oil and grease with acorresponding removal of 90.7% of total PAH compounds. Carbon adsorbtionisotherms and ACT results show reduction of TOC and naphthalene. UV-Ozone/Oxidation reduced the total PAH concentration 88%. Aeration tanktreatment reduced total PAH compounds >99%. Fixed film treatment reduced totalPAH compounds >86%. The best treatment was realized with the fluidized bed with>99.9% removal of total PAH compounds,

The data presented in this report can be used in a more detailed evaluation of theseand other technologies as needed for Feasibility Study (FS) purposes.

LAvDCMs—O

ES-2

IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII

1.0 INTRDDIJCTlpN

Presented in this document are the results from treatability work performed aspartial fulfillment of the Feasibility Study (FS) for the Koppers Texarkana formerwood-treating plant site in Texarkana, Texas.

Koppers and the U.S. EPA have conducted several separate surface and subsurfaceinvestigations and collected extensive soil and groundwater quality data at theTexarkana site. The results of these studies have identified the contaminants andextent of contamination. These data were used to select the treatability alternativesfor laboratory experimentation best suited for remediation.

The focus of the study is to evaluate cleanup methods for soil and groundwatercontamination from creosote compounds used in past wood treating operations.Data compiled during the remedial investigation was used in the evaluation andscreening of technologies to be considered for treatability investigation.

The results of the following studies demonstrate the treatability of groundwater andsoil at the Texarkana site. This data can be used to determine the most feasibletreatment alternatives and for generating cost comparisons of the various treatmentalternatives.

All results included with the exception of soil washing which will be issued as anaddendum.

Section 2 presents a brief background summary. A summary of each of thetechnologies is given in Section 3. The procedures and results from the treatabilitywork are presented in Section 4. Section 5 includes a brief summary and conclusionof the results.

LAvOOJ^~o

••"

I 2.0 BACKGJROJMn

2.1 SJteJBLstory

Wood preserving and treating operations were initiated in 1903 by National Lumberand Creosoting Company. National Lumber and Creosoting Company was acquiredin 1931 by the Wood Preserving Corporation (subsidiary of Koppers). Koppersoperated the facility from 1939 to 1961. Wood preservatives used at the site includedcreosote, pentachlorophenol and chromated zinc chloride. The total site occupiessome 62 acres. In 1961, Koppers sold the site to Carver Terrace Inc., who developedapproximately 33.5 acres for residential housing. Carver Terrace sold the southernhalf of the property to Bruce Kennedy, a local sand and gravel operator, who to date,has excavated two gravel pits approximately 700 feet long, 25 feet wide, and 15 feetdeep.

2.2 Site Description

The Koppers Texarkana site is located in Bowie County, the northeastern mostcounty of Texas, in the city of Texarkana. Texarkana, itself, is actually situated onthe Texas-Arkansas state line. The 62-acre Koppers site is located within the Texasboundaries of Texarkana in the southern section of the city about 1 mile from theTexas-Arkansas state line.

00LTv\OCMv-O

Locally, the site is bordered by the Texas and Pacific Railroad to the north, anunnamed tributary to the northwest, Wagner creek to the southwest, Jameson Streetto the south, and a drainage ditch to the southeast,

The Koppers Texarkana site is generally flat. There is a drainage ditch to the eastand the Wagner Creek stream valley and gravel pits to the south. The site gentlyslopes from the northeast to the southwest.

The site geology consists of deposits which range from gravels to silts. These depositsare found over the entire site from ground surface to a maximum depth of 24 feet,

Within the site, the area consists of a housing development, a former sand and graveloperation, and a church. The housing development, Carver Terrace Subdivision,

IIIIIIIIII

occupies the northern 33-1/2 acres and consists of 79 one-story houses. The Mt. ZionMissionary Baptist Church occupies a 1/2 acre lot just south of West Third Street andwest of Tilson Avenue. The remainder of the site, the southern 28 acres, is fencedand owned by Mr. Bruce Kennedy of Kennedy Sand and Gravel Company.

LT\vOCM«c—O

IIII

2 - 2

IIIIIII

3.0

III

3-1 Sample Collection

Groundwater and soil samples used in the treatability work were collected at theTexarkana site by Keystone Field Services personnel. Strict QA/QC and chain ofcustody procedures were followed during sample collection

Ground water

Groundwater samples used in the treatability work were collected from wells MW-2MW-4, MW-5. MW-6, MW-7 and OW-5. The samples were bailed and pumped into55 gallon drums for collection and transport.

Soil

Both shallow and deep samples were collected for use in the treatability work.Shallow samples were collected with the use of a shovel. Deep soil samples (7-8 feet)were collected with the use of a backhoe. A 55 gallon drum and 5 gallon pails wereused for sample collection and transport.

3.2 Sample Analysis

Both sample collection nd analysis were performed by Keystone EnvironmentalResources. The metii used for the analysis of water and soil samples wereperformed in accordance with strict QA/QC and chain of custody procedures. Thevarious analytical methods used in analysis of both water and soil samples arepresented in Tables 3-1 and 3-2, respectively.

3.3 Groundwater Treatability

Pre treatment

Prior to further treatment, gravity oil/water separation pretreatment was used for theremoval oil and grease and suspended solids. Both cationic and anionic polymerswere used to aid the separation and settling of the emulsified components and the

OvDvOCMT"O

3 - 1

IIIIIIIII

Parameter

TABLE 3-1KOPPERS COMPANY, INC

TEXARKANA,TX TREATABILITY STUDYANALYTICAL METHODSWATER ANALYSIS

MethodBOD5Carbon (TOC)CODCyanide, totalOil & GreasepHPhenols (total recoverable)Solids (dissolved)Solids (suspended)Solids (total;Solids (volatile)MetalsPurgeable AromaticsPhenolicsPoiynuciear Aromatic HydrocarbonsVolatile OrganicsSemi-Volatile Organics (AE/BN)

EPA 405.1EPA 415.1EPA 410.4EPA 335.3EPA 4 13.1EPA 150EPA 420.2EPA 160.1EPA 160.2EPA 160.3EPA 160.4EPA 200.7EPA 602EPA 604EPA 610EPA 624EPA 625

UCIC^UH f.invjj

1 mg/I1 mg/I

10 mg/I T~10 ug/I ^<? ^$mg/l ^

5ug/l Olmg/Ilmg/Ilmg/I1 nig/1CDCDCDCDCDCD

CD - Compound Dependent

3-la

TABLE 3-2KOPPERS COMPANY, INC

TEXARKANA,TX TREATABILITY STUDYANALYTICAL METHODSSOIL ANALYSIS

Parameter

PHCarbon (TOC)Solids (%)@ 105°CMetals

Be, Ed, Cr, Cu, Fe, Hi, ZLead (Pb)Mercury

Purgeable HalocarbonsPurgeable AromaticsPhenolicsPolynuclear Aromatic HydrocarbonsPetroleum Hydrocarbons

Method

EPA9045Walkey-BlackASTM D2216

EPA6010EPA7421EPA7471EPA8010EPA8020EPA8040EPA8310EPA 3540/418.1

1000 mg/kg

CD500 mg/kg

Lff tor

100 ug/kgCDCDCDCD

100 mg/kg

C\JvOvOCVJ

O

CD - Compound Dependent

3-lb

^MH

IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII

water. PAH reduction is achieved by removing the portion that stays within the oilphase.

3.4 Activated Carbon Adsorption Testing

Activated carbon adsorption was evaluated as a potential treatment alternative.Carbon adsorption isotherm tests and Calgon's Accelerated Carbon Test (ACT)were performed to estimate the applicability of using activated carbon for removal ofcontaminants in the groundwater at this site. The carbon adsorption isotherm testswere conducted in order to estimate the adsorption capacity of the carbon atdifferent contaminant influent concentrations and the ACT test was performed udetermine the carbon usage rate.

CarboRLlsotherrns

Carbon adsorption isotherms can be used in the laboratory as a relatively simplemethod to determine the feasibility of using granular activated carbon treatment. Byusing a set of samples with graduated doses of carbon, the distribution of theadsorbable compound can determined and plotted. This will indicate the amount ofcompound adsorbed per unit weight of carbon verses the concentration of aparticular chemical compound in the applied influent.

Accelerated Carbon Testing

The accelerated carbon treatment was contracted to Calgon Carbon Corporation byKeystone. The purpose of this testing is to determine the carbon use rate for removalof TOC and Naphthalene. The results from this and carbon isotherm testing wereused in the development of design data for engineering evaluation purposes.

3.5 UV/Qzone Oxidation

UV/OxiJation using ozone for treatment of the groundwater was investigated.Ozone is a powerful oxidizing agent which has the ability to degrade organiccompounds through chemical oxidation. Among the list of chemicals that can besuccessfully treated are purgeable organics, phenolics, PAH compounds andnaphthalene. The use of ultraviolet light in combination with ozone has been shown

vO\oCM,.—o

3 - 2

:o enhance the reactivity of ozone with certain chemical constituents.

Ozone gas is produced in an ozone generator from either compressed air or oxygen.The ozone gas is injected into an enclosed reactor of which the water to be treated ispumped through. Also in the reactor are a number of ultraviolet lamps. The reactoris designed with several chambers separated by baffles to provide intimate contactbetween the ozone enriched gas stream and the water to be treated.

3.<> BiolQgicaLTreairoent

Activated Sludge

Activated sludge treatment is a proven technology for removal of biodegradablechemical compounds generally present in wood preservative site groundwaters andsurface waters. However, it is possible that the organic substrate concentration in thegroundwater is to low to sustain a microbial mass and thus maintain an activatedsludge treatment process.

The activated sludge process utilizes a biological slurry containing an active mass ofbacteria which is contacted with the wastewater in an aeration basin where microbialoxidation and assimilation (treatment) occur. In the basin, the organic componentsof the wastewater serve as carbon and energy sources for microbial growth. Theorganic matter is converted into microbial cell tissue and oxidized end products(mainly carbon dioxide). The mixture of the microbial mass and wastewater isreferred to as the mixed liquor. The mixed liquor flows from the aeration tank to asettling tank where the biomass is separated from the treated wastewater (effluent).A portion of the settled biomass is recycled to the head of the aeration basin tomaintain the desired mass of organisms in the basin. The remaining sludge isremoved from the system for final stabilization and ultimate disposal. The sludge isreferred to as the waste sludge. The treated effluent is then left for discharge.

Aeration .Tank

Aeration tank treatment is similar to activated sludge treatment with the exceptionthat the mixed liquor suspended solids are discharged with the effluent rather thanrecycled. As with activated sludge treatment, it is possible that the organic substrate

vDvOCMT~o

3-3

SPECTRIX MONROEVILLEPage- 3

III

TABLE 3: SUMMARY OF GC601 DATA

Sample : 87090546Date Co l l e c t e d : 0 <?/24/S7Date Rece ived : 09/25/S7Date Ex t ra c t ed : 10/03/87Date Ana lyz ed : 10/03/37

Source : TBDes c r i p t i o n : OA/DC SAMPLES

IIII

Pu.-geable Halocarbons1 . 1 , l-Tnch loro ethane. « • . . .1 , t ,2 ,2-Te l ra c : h l c ro e t hane . .t , 1 . S-T - ichlo roe thane. . . . . .1 , i~Dich lore-ethane . , . . . . . . «

t -D i e h lorc 'ethene. . . . . . . . .3-D i e h lorobenzene . . . . . . . .S-Dich lc«r c-athane . . . . * . . . .2-D i c h loropropane . . . . , . . .3-Dich Ic-robenrene . . . . . . . .

ch 1 orobenzene . . - . • . . .

I111112-Chloroe thy lv i ny l e t h e r . . .Dromcd i c h loromethanc . . . . . . .Brcmof c- rm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Carbon Tetrach l o r ide, . . . . . .Ch 1 orc-Dennene . . . . . . . . f . . . . .Ch lore-ethane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Ch 1 orof c-.-ff l , . . . . . . . . , . . . . ...D ib romoch l o rome thane . . . . . . .Me thy 1 Bromide . . . . . . . . . . . . .Methy l C h l o r i d e . . . . . . . . . . . .Methv l sne Ch lor ide. . . . . . . . .Tetrach loroethene. . . . . . . . . .Tr i ch lorof luorome thane.Tr ich lorocthene, . . . . . . . . . . .Vinyl C h l o r i d e . . . . * . . . . . . . .c i s - l ,3-D i c h loropropene. . . .trans-l , S-Dich loroethene . . ,trans- l ,3-Dich lo ropropene . .

< }

LA\OMDCM*<r-O

The aLove resu l ts are reported in ug/L .All GC601 ident i f i ca t ions . r e from retent ion d * t * c- i

Drum Sample #ParametersTOCCODPhenols (4-AAP)

T-TX-1

KOPPERS COMPANY, INC.TCXARKANA, TEXAS

CROUNDWATER QA/QC ANALYSES

T-TX-2 T-TX-3 T-TX-4 T-TX-S T-TX-6 T-TX-7

45.9145

0.263

46.6250

0.254

75.53001.23

49.2300

0.332

49.8180

0.302

4.20<10.00.008

60.2200

0.341

Each sample is from I or more of the following wells: MW-2, MW-3, MW-4, MW-S, MW-6 and OW-S.AH values reported in units of mg/L.

0 1 2 6 6 6

iiiiiii

concentration in the groundwater is to low to sustain a microbial mass and thusmaintain an aeration tank treatment process.

Fixed _Fi Im .Reactor

The fixed film (or fixed bed) process is similar to aeration tank treatment. Thedifference is that the reactor is filled with a synthetic packing which provides supportfor microbial growth and contact between the organic substrate and microbes.

Fluidized.Bcd

Fiuidized bed treatment is a proven technology for removal of biodegradablechemical compounds generally present in wood preservative site groundwaters andsurface waters. The process consists of a cylindrical column with adistribution/support plate located in its base. The column is partially filled with a finegrained medium, such as sand, A tank is used as a reservoir from which water ispumped through the column at a high flow rate to provide a stream of waternecessary for fluidizing the bed. Growth of the microbes and contact with theorganic substrate takes place within the fluidized bed.

3.7 Soil Treatment

Both in situ and ex situ soil treatment were proposed for treatment of soils from thesite.

In.situ Soil Treatment

The in situ soil treatment methodology investigated is more specifically referred to asin situ bioreclarnation. In situ bioreclamation is a method for remediating soils andgroundwater aquifers contaminated with biodegradable materials through theaddition of water enriched with nutrients and oxygen into the subsurface. Thisresults in the enhanced growth and activity of bacteria which use the contaminants asa source of carbon and energy to convert these materials to carbon dioxide andwater.

Field and laboratory studies confirm that naturally occurring bacteria have the ability

r-vOvOCM<r=O

3 - 4

•••IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII

:o degrade phenoh'cs and petroleum hydrocarbons (PAH compounds). In-situbioreclamation can be employed in conjunction with soil extraction where significantvolumes of soil are contaminated and existing structures make excavationimpractical,

Soil Teamen t

Ex situ soil washing involves the removal of contaminants from the soil substrate,using a washing technique. It is a physical separation procedure for detoxifyingcontaminated soil that involves the washing of the soil into a liquid medium. The exsitu process is carried out in equipment that is designed for contacting excavated soilswith the liquid.

Removal of contaminants from the soil matrix involves both physical displacement ofloosely held contaminants and desorption of the contaminants that are more tightlybound to the soil particles.

COvO\OCMVO

3 - 5

^•••BIII

4.0 TREATABILITY STUDY SPECIFICS AND RESULTS

4.1 Sample Collection

Groiindwatcr Samples

Groundwater samples to be used in the treatability work were collected from wellsMW-2, MW-4, MW-5, MW-6, MW-7 and OW-5. The samples were pumped orbailed and placed into 7 - 55 gallon drums for collection and transport. Each of thedrums contained samples from i or more wells.

An effort was made to collect water and immiscible layers within the wells. Forcollection of the well samples, bottom fill teflon bailers, top fill stainless steel bailersand peristaltic pumps were used.

Following collection of groundwater samples, a composite sample was made byobtaining an aliquot from each drum, mixing it in a clean jar and distributing it intoindividual sample jars for QA/OC analytical purposes. The results from thissampling indicate the initial quality of the groundwater to be used in treatability workand can be found in Appendix A. In addition, each drum was sampled for specificindicator parameters when it arrived at the research center in Monroeviile. Thesesresults can also be found in Appendix A.

Upon arrival at the research center in Monroeville, each of the 55 gallon drums weredesignated with a sample code number. The sample codes are as follows, T-TX-1, T-TX-2, T-TX-3, T-TX-4, T-TX-5, T-TX-6, and T-TX-7.

Soil Samples

Both shallow and deep soil samples were collected for use in the treatability work.Shallow soil samples were collected with the use of a shovel. Deep soil samples (7-8feet) were collected with the use of a backhoe,

A local contractor was hired to dig the deep sample with a backhoe. The deepsample was obtained at the 7 - 8 feet level, within the saturated soil zone. Thissample was used in the in situ (soil column) treatability work.

\D<M^"O

4 - 1

^^H

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

Shallow soil samples were collected by Keystone field services personnel. A cleanedshovel was used. These samples was placed in 5 gallon pails for transport. Theshallow samples were used in the ex-situ (soil washing) treatabilily work. Deepsamples were used for the in-situ (bioreclamation) treatability work.

Upon arrival at the research center in MonroeviJIe, the samples codes were specifiedfor each of the sample containers. The codes and corresponding descriptions arelisted below.Sample DescriptionDeep sample adjacentto church (55 gallon drum)Surface Soil near DW-01(S gallon pail)Surface soil under creosotecontaminated area (5 gallon pail)Surface soil from creosotecontaminated area (5 gallon pail)Surface soil, from heavy naphthalenecontamination area (5 gallon pail)

Sample CodeT-TX-8

T-TX-9

T-TX-10

T-TX-11

T-TX-12

The sampling plan for this site was reviewed by the KER Health and Safety Managerprior to the sampling trip. The normal safety level, level D, was required at this site.This is the minimal level of safety, requiring a standard work uniform, steel toedboots, safety goggles and a hard hat.

In addition to the standard safety gear, an HGNU meter for measurement of thepresence of organic vapors was issued to the sampling crew. The HGNU meter wasused to ensure that the level of vapors around soil and groundwater collection areaswere at a safe level.

4 - 2

IIIIIII

II

4.2 Gtomtdaater. TreatebUity

For all treatability work to follow, an equal aliquot of sample was taken from each ofthe 7 - 55 gallon drums, composited and utilized. An overview of the groundwatertreatment steps is presented in Figure 4-1 .

Prc treatment

Procedure

Standard jar testing procedures were used to screen several cationic and anionicpolymers for the removal of oil & greases and suspended solids from thegroundwater prior to further treatment. Composite samples of the groundwaterwere used in the jar testing evaluation.

The Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) #109, Jar Testing Procedures, wasfollowed in testing this water. These procedures are as follows:

1. Add the cationic polymer first while stirring at 100 rpm, Continue stirring forone minute.

2. Add anionic polymer and stir an additional thirty seconds.

3. Decrease the stirring speed to 20 rpm and stir for twenty minutes.

4. After twenty minutes shut off the stirrer and let the sample sit undisturbed forthirty minutes.

5. Remove the supernatant by siphoning and sample for the desired parameters.

Following the procedures described above, several combination of polymers wereevaluated. Polymers that have proven successful for treating water of similarcharacteristics were targeted. The screening process involved a visible evaluation ofthe various polymers and their effectiveness to enhance gravity separation andsettling of the emulsified compounds in the groundwater. From the visual screening,

vO

o

4-3

FIGURE 4-1Texarkana, TX

GROUNDWATER TREATMENT OVERVIEWGroundwater Samples

T-TX-1 T-TX-2 T-TX-3 T-TX-4 T-TX-5 T-TX-6 T-TX-7

GROUNDWATERCOMPOSITE

SAMPLE

PRETREATMENTOILyWATERSEPARATION

OZONE/UV CARBONADSORBTION

AERATtONTANK

RXEDFILM

FLUIDtZEDBED

0 1 2 6 7 2

warn

IIIIIIIII

the best polymers were used to treat a final sample for analytical testing forconfirmation. Both untreated and treated samples were submitted for analysis.

Results

The polymer combination that provided the best results were as follows;

Cationic polymerAnionic polymer

300 ppm Anierfloc 104 ppm Amerfloc 5260

The treatment results are presented in Table 4-1. As indicated, the sample wasanalyzed for pH, oil & grease and PAH compounds. The pH was in the range of 6.5- 7.0, so that pH adjustment was not required. Oil <£ grease removal was greaterthan 83 % with a corresponding removal of 90.7 % of the total PAH compounds.

Prior to all further treatability work, the groundwater samples were pretreated withthis polymer combination. When a sample was needed for treatability, a compositewas collected by taking an equal aliquot from each drum and compositing it in acontainer of sufficient volume required for the specific application. This sample wasthen pretreated and used in the treatability evaluation.

4,3 Adsorption

A composite sample of groundwater was pretreated to remove oil & grease prior toactivated carbon adsorption. Carbon adsorption isotherm tests and Calgon'sAccelerated Carbon Test (ACT) were performed to estimate the applicability ofusing activated carbon for removal of contaminants in the groundwater. The carbonadsorption isotherm tests were conducted in order to estimate the adsorptioncapacity of the carbon and the ACT test was done to determine the carbon usage.

vOCMV**O

4 - 4

TABLE 4-1

iiii

KOPPERS COMPANY. INCTEXAKKANA.TX TREATABILITY STUDYJAR TESTING RESULTS

SamplePacaJnaeterpH (units)Oil & Grease (mg/1)FAH_CornpmimisAcenaphtheneAcenaphthylene.AnthraceneBenzoBenzoBenzoBenzoBenzo

a)amhracenea)pyreneh)fluoramheneg,h,i)peryienek)fluoramheneChrysene

Dibenz(a,h)anthraceneFiuorantheneFluoreneFrideno(l,2,3-c,d)pyrenePhenanthrenePyreneTOTAL DETECTABLE PAH

CarbazoleNaphthalene

6.682.6

3370<5GO84541816021712388

35696

155019705634560

15,726

81514,800

6.813,9

1,469.43

1767,950

Percent

83.2

98.7NA

97.099.999,999.999.799.999.999.798.688.799.995.499.8

r-vOCM*~O

90.7

78.446.3

N'A - Not Applicable

IIIIIII

Carbon Isotherms

Procedure

A composite groundwater sample was pretreated to remove emulsified oils & grease.In accordance with SOP #104, carbon adsorption isotherms were performed on thewater.

Ten 400 ml samples were combined with varying doses of carbon and agitated. Aone hour contact time was selected for the testing. The samples were allowed tosettle and then filtered. The filtrate was submitted for TOC and naphthaleneanalysis. A pretreatment and 0 dose (control) sample were included for analysis.

Results

The results of the adsorption isotherm testing are summarized and presented inTable 4-2. The adsorbate (naphthalene) was used to indicate the amount ofnaphthalene adsorbed per unit weight of carbon. As indicated in Table 4-2, thenaphthalene was reduced to below detectable limits.

From these results, amount of carbon necessary to adsorbed a given amount ofnaphthalene can be determined, A conservative estimate indicates that 0.8188 mgnaphthalene is adsorbed per 0.4 grams carbon.

Accelerated £arbon_Te_stine

Procedure

A fifteen gallon groundwater sample was pretreated by Keystone for removal ofemulsified oils and grease. The sample was shipped to Calgon Carbon Corporationfor accelerated carbon testing (ACT) for TOC and naphthalene removal efficiency.

The ACT method is used to determine breakthrough for TOC and naphthalene.The test simulated a 10 gpm flow rate for a 4' diameter adsorber system for a totalsimulated 2.588 million gallons treated.

r-

4 - 5

1II11111m

f

TABLE 4-2TEXARKANA,TX TREATABILITY STUDYCARBON ADSORPTION ISOTHERMS

ParameterSmuiite-grams carbon/400Raw*

00.20.40.87if410204080

fiHmi water)

6.26.97,17.17.172' •£*7.57 Q/.o7.8*7 Q/.o7.9

TQCto^)

44.535.4

3.4414,26.5

Q1 1oi.l1.742.15

24.42.012.98

>&p^hajejK(mr!/

6.202.05

.0054 ^< 0.003 vO< 0,003 oj< 0,003 T-< 0.003 °< 0.003< 0.003< 0.003< 0.003

It*)Raw is unflocc and unfiltered sample

I

4-5a

iiiiiii

The ACT test simulated an adsorber unit with 2000 Ibs. of FS-300 carbon. Flow andsurface loading rates were 10 gpm and 0.8 gpm/ft , respectively. The empty bedcontact time (EBCT) was SO minutes.

The ACT was run for seven days. No naphthalene breakthrough had occurred by theend of the study. At study termination, the simulated performance was 180 days on-line, 2.588 million gallons treated and a 0.8 lb/1000 gallon usage rate. The loadingwas 0.11 mg naphthalene/g F-300 carbon.

4.4 Ex^Uu,SmJJreatment (Soil Washing)

Procedure

The soil washing evaluation was performed to investigate the potential applicabilityfor soil excavation and decontamination and also to evaluate different surfactants forpossible use with regard to surfactant in situ bioreclamation. The surfactants will beused in bioreclamation for removal of tightly bound contaminants from the soilmatrix so that soil microbes can assimilate them more effectively.

A total of five soils were washed to determine the most effective surfactants for each.

Keystone's Standard Operating Procedures were followed for all five runs.

Results

Soil washing results are not yet available and will be submitted as an addendum tothis report.

4.5 In Situ Soil TreatmentJSoiJL Column)

Procedure

Five soil columns were set up to determine the effectiveness of in situ soil treatment

<Ms—O

4 - 6

on the degradation of soil contaminants. The columns were loaded with soil takenfrom the area adjacent to the Church, designated as T-TX-8. Three columns were torun aerobically. Two of these columns were to use Hydrogen peroxide (H^C^) as:he oxygen source (proton donor) with one as a control, and two columnsanaerobically, using nitrate (NO^) as a proton acceptor. Pretreated and nutrientenriched groundwater was pumped into the columns.

Results

Within the first week of operation, the columns plugged sufficiently to restrict flow.Ii was determined that the soil sample was not as permeable as indicated by previoussoil testing. The columns were shut down and dismantled. Because of theoperational problems encountered, not enough data was collected to properlyevaluate this technology. In-situ soil treatment should remain as an option but willrequire future field testing if deemed feasible based on FS results.

4.6 UV/Ozone Oxidation - O3

Procedure

This phase of the study involved the evaluation of chemical oxidation byozone/ultraviolet light (OyUV) for the destruction of groundwater contaminants. Agroundwater composite sample was pretreated for removal of oil and grease asdescribed in section 4.2.

Keystones standard Operating Procedure #110 for Q$/UV testing was followed. Abench scale ozonation unit was used for the testing. The unit consisted of an ozonegenerator and a 3-liter reaction vessel equipped with ultraviolet light.

An initial screening run was performed to determine the optimum 63 dosage andreaction time based on naphthalene removal. During the screening run, the unit wasrun in a batch mode with samples taken at the following time intervals (minutes):O(control), 1, 3 ,5, 7, 9, 11, 13 , 15 , 17 ,20.

ODr~\ocvj^__o

4 - 7

IIIIII

II

Results

Samples from the screening run were analyzed for pH, naphthalene and TOG Theresults from this testing are presented in Table 4-3- Also presented in this table areihe ozone usage rates indicating a 71% utilization rate. These results show that asthe ozone dosage (63 applied) increase, the naphthalene and TOC values decrease.From these results, the optimum dosage and reaction time was chosen and a final runwas performed to generate treated samples for analysis.

Figure 4-2 shows the relationship between the amount of ozone applied and removalof naphthalene. Based on this relationship, the first order reaction rate constant forUV/ozone treated groundwater for C = Ce - K(O^ applied);

4K - -5.54722 (mg O used/1)

The correlation coefficient for the fit of this line is r^-0.9732.

As indicated in Table 4-3, the greatest reduction occurred at approximately 7-9minutes. A 10 minute reaction time was chosen for the final run; this corresponds toan ozone dosage of approximately 244 mg/1. Treated and untreated samples weresubmitted for the analysis. Table 4-4 shows the analytical results, operatingconditions, and percent removals for the treatment run. The results show a goodremoval for most PAH's and purgeable aromatics. In addition, a sample wasanalyzed for purgeable halocarbons which can be found in Appendix C.

4.7 Biological .Treatment

Activated Sludge

Procedure

The activated sludge unit used in the bench-scale treatability work was a HorizonEcology bio-oxidation unit equipped with an internal clarifier. Biological solids in thereactor effluent were settled out in the clarifier and returned to the reactor mixedliquor. Sludge was wasted from the system as required to maintain a specified solidsretention time. Nutrient addition and pH control were provided to the unit as

r-\ocvi^_o

4 - 8

NC - Not Calcufatect

KOPPERS COMPANY, INC.TKXARKANA, TKXAS pop SITKSCKKKNINC RUN RKSIILTS

OSp

Reaction/minutes)

0I3579if13151720

O-* Appliedfmff oyi Sample) (

024.581.6153245220299398367462612

'me Oyi Sample)

NCNCNCNC174NCNC284NCNC473

Utilization Naphthalene TOC

71

6.06.46.66.76.76.66.66.66.56.56.5

1.9501.8501.0100.1750.009< 0.003<0.003<aOQ3<0.0030.0074<OJM>3

27.597.691.892.889.324.221.419.113. 117.914.6

0 1 2 6 8 0

ICOcr -J

\o>E

uv^1

c

FIGURE 4 - 2

EXRRKRNH.OZONE RPPLIED vs. NRPHTHRLENE

C - CONCENTRRTION OF NRPHTHRLENE

75 100 125 J50OZONE RPPLIED

0IIIIIIII

Reaction TimeOzone AppliedOzone UsedOzone Utilization

pH funits)TOO (mgl)Purgeable Aromatics (uBenzeneEthyl BenzeneStyreneTolueneTotal Xylenes

TABLE 4-4KOPPERS COMPANY, INC

TEXARKANA.TX TREATABILITY STUDYUV/OZONE TREATMENT

10 minutes244mg/l183mg/l75%

PAH CompoundsNaphthaleneAcenapthyieneAcenapht'heneFluorenePhenanthreneAnthraceneFluoranthenePyreneBenzo(a)anthraceneChryseneBenzo(a)pyreneBenzo(b)fluorantheneBenzo(k)fluorantheneDibenzo(a.h)anthraceneBenzofg^OpyerlyeneIndeno(l,2,3-c,d)pyieneTotal PAH*

Influent

6.323.1

Effluent6.920.5

40.822.2<30.077.1

164.0

20.4<20.0<30.0<20.0<30.0

Bia£s. Solubility

2333334444555566

31,700-3,9301,9801,290732601351423.8•-2.49•-

54.6010.033.73.62.150< 0.5000.4440.5080.053

<0.150< 0.0200.023<0.020< 0.030<0.050<JLQ50

<2,00<2.00<2.00<2.00

0.672< 0.500

0.5000.547< 0.020<0.150<0.020

0.0450.020

<0.030< 0.050<0.050

^Removal

XAH.3

50> 10NA>74

>80>94>9469NANANA>62NANANANANANA

CV00vOCMT—o

105.898 8.804 92

NA - Not Applicable(*) - Total PAH value includes < detectable values

I necessary to maintain optimum conditions for biological growth. In addition, atemperature controller and heat source were provided to maintain a constanttemperature.

The initial set up consisted of two 6.5 liter reactors with internal clarifiers. One unitwas operated with granular activated carbon and the other without carbon as acontrol.

The operation of the activated sludge reactor was to be carried out in two phases.Phase one consisted of startup and seed sludge washout. Phase two consisted ofsteady state operation to run for 21 days. The units were seeded with an acclimatedbiological seed sludge at an approximate concentration of 5000 mg/1. Initial influentfeed flow was set at .9 ml/min. Within 3 days the feed rate was increased to 2.3ml/min for an HRT * 2 days. Phase one was scheduled to run for 40 days.for anSRT = 20 days (2 x 20 * 40 days) and phase two only long enough to collect asufficient number of samples for a statistical evaluation.

Results

The TSS concentration within the activated sludge reactors steadily declinedfollowing start-up. An evaluation of the operation of each of the two units indicatedthat the organic substrate concentration of the influent feed was to low to support anactivated sludge biomass.

The activated sludge unit was converted to an aeration tank treatment process andthe control unit was converted to a fixed film reactor. Each of these unit wereevaluated separately and are presented below.

Aeration Tank

Procedure

The Horizon Ecology bio-oxidation unit was also used for the aeration tank reactor,although no clarifier was used. The volume was maintained at 6.5 liters. The unitwas operated as a continuous flow through reactor with no provisions for solidssettling or recycle. This unit was operated the same as the activated sludge unit

ccvOCM,—,o

4 - 9

IIIIIIIIIII

above, except for the removal of the clarifier and a different flow rate. This aerationtank influent flow rate was maintained at 1.29 ml/min.

Nutrient and pH control were provided to the unit. A temperature controller and aheat source were provided to maintain the reactor at 20 - 21 "C. The nutrients wereadded to the influent tank. The influent for this unit was the same as for the otherunits.

Results

The analytical results for influent sampling are summarized on weekly tables inappendix D. The influent was sampled on a weekly basis and is the same for each ofthe 3 biological treatment units. In addition to the weekly tables, raw data for PAHcompounds are included as well as a statistical summary for the data.

Analytical results fr; the aeration tank are presented in Appendix E. Daily resultsare summarized on weekly tables for the mixed liquor and effluent. GC/MS volatilesand semi volatile compounds for the effluent are also included in the appendix.Methylene chloride was detected at 10 ug/1 and acetone at 220 ug/1, though these twocompounds are used for cleaning the glassware which may account for the presenceof these compounds. Priority pollutant metals were analyzed and included in theappendix. Mercury was detected at 0.303 ug/1 and zinc at 246 ug/1. A statisticalsummary comparison with % removals for all biological units operated is presentedin Section 4,8.

ccvOCMT"-O

ELxed_Film_ReactQ_t

The Horizon Ecology bio-oxidation unit was also used in this application. Noprovision for solids recycle was provided. The "fixed film" consisted of a bed of bio-rings suspended by wire mesh. The purpose of the fixed film is to provide a growthsupport media for the bacteria. This allows a larger population of bacteria to stay inthe reactor by limiting flushing of the microbes.

4 - 1 0

iiiiiiiiii

Procedure

The activated sludge control unit was converted to a fixed film reactor by removingthe internal clarifier and packing it with bio-rings. The bio-rings provided supportfor biological growth. The volume of this reactor was maintained at 6.5 liters. Theinfluent flow rate was 1.29 ml/min. On November 11, the reactor was re-seeded withbiological sludge. Approximately 3000 ml of sludge was drained from the reactor andreplaced. The fixed film reactor was allowed to re-acclimate. Influent feed to theunit was from the same source as the other treatment units.

Following re-seeding, the fixed film reactor was operated for 17 days to allow forseed sludge washout prior to steady state sampling. On November 23, the first steadystate samples were collected,

Results

The summary of results for *he fixed film reactor are presented in Appendix F, Rawdata for the mixed liquor and effluent are included, GC/MS volatiles and semivolatile compounds are also included in the appendix. Methylene chloride wasdetected at 7 ug/1. Priority pollutant metals were analyzed and included in theappendix. Mercury was detected at 1.15 ug/1 and zinc at 1430 ug/1. Influent resultsare presented in Appendix D. A statistical summary comparison and % removals forall biological units operated is presented in Section 4.8.

The metals data is also presented in the appendix. The only compounds detectedwere mercury at 1.15 ug/I and zinc at 1430 ug/1.

Fliiidlzed Bed Reactor

Procedure

The fluidized bed was constructed using a 1" diameter glass commn. The column bedwas packed with a fine grained growth support medium. The influent flow rate wasmaintained at 1.29 ml/min. for an HRT =* 3 hours.

in00\OCMv~O

4- 1 1

^^H

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

Air and nutrients were introduced to the recycle chamber. Ammonium phosphatedibasic was used to supply ammonia nitrogen and phosphate to the bacteria. TheD,O. of the unit was measured in the recycle chamber and maintained at 7.0 orabove. Sulfuric acid (5%) addition was required to maintain the pH in the 7.0 • 7.5range with a pH controller as the pH steadily increased once steady state wasreached.

The summary of results for the fluidized bed reactor and recycle chamber arepresented in Appendix G. Raw data and a statistical summary are included. Dailyresults are summarized on weekly tables for the recycle chamber and effluent.GC/MS volatiles and semi volatile compounds for the effluent are also included inthe appendix. Methylene chloride was detected at 8 ug/1. Priority pollutant metalswere analyzed and included in the appendix. Cadmium was detected at 9.10 ug/1 andzinc at 125 ug/1. influent results are presented in Appendix D.

A statistical comparison of all biological units operated is presented in Section 4.8.Overall, the results from the fluidized bed treatment show reduction to below thedetection limit for nearly all soluble organics. No PAH compounds were detected inany of the five sets of effluent samples from the reactor.

4.8 )^ologi_cal_Treatment_Units Discussion of Results

A statistical comparison of influent and effluent data for each of the three biologicaltreatment processes is presented in Table 4-5. Each of the processes show goodreduction for concentrations of conventional parameters.

For the fixed film reactor, 51.6% of the TOC was removed, 48% of the BOD wasremoved as well as 32% of the COD. In addition, 86% of total PAH compoundswere removed as were 57% of the PCP and 93% of phenols (4-AAP).

In the effluent from the fluidized bed, oil & grease was detected at an averageconcentration of 7.32 mg/1. The concentration of oil & grease in effluent from theaeration tank and fixed film reactors averaged 81.42 and 92.65 respectively. Theseconcentrations indicate an increase in oil & grease levels. The geometric mean

CO\DCMv-O

4 - 1 2

01

TABLE 4-5KOPPERS COMPANY, INC.

TEXARKANA, TEXAS TREATABILITY STUDYSTATISTICAL SUMMARY

BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT COMPARISON

AQUEOUSSOLUBILITY

3 , 9 3 0

ParametersPhenols (4-AAP)TOCBOD (5)-TotalCOD -TotalOil & GreasePCP (ug/1)Cyanide -Total

jf OFPAH COMPOUNDS (ug/1) RINGSAcenaphthylene 3Acenaphthene 3Fluorene 3Phenanthrene 3Anthracene 3Fluoranthene 4Pyrene 4Benzo(a)anthracene 4Chrysene 4Benzo(a)pyrane 5Benzo C b)fluoranthene 5Benzo(k)fluoranthene 5Di benz(ah)anthracene 5Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 6Indeno( 123~cci)pyrene 6TOTAL DETECTABLE PAHCarbazoleNaphthalene 2% REM - Indicates % removal(-} - Indicates an increase of the indicated parameterBDL. - Below Detection Limit

980290

7326013514

23 . 8

2 . 4 9

InfluentMean

0 . 2 62 5 . 8 724 . 187 2 . 8 36 . 1 ?4 1 . 2BDL

293. 131 8 2 . 3 31 0 5 . 5 796 .6?12 .3 1

9 . 0 68 . 3 90 . 4 80 . 4 50 . 1 90 . 2 80. 100 . 3 10 .280 . 2 0

364 . 501 1 2 .00

1 2 9 6 . 1 9

FixedMean0 . 0 1 91 2 . 5 31 2 . 6 3

4 9 . 69 2 . 6 5

1 7 . 80 .0 1 1

BDLBDLRDL0 . 9 40 . 6 41 . 3 42 . 2 91 . 5 91 . 7 65 .2 18 .862 . 1 17 . 7 2

1 1 . 3 48 . 1 7

5 0 . 1 8BDLBDL

FilmK REH92 .695 1 . 5 64 7 . 7 63 1 . 8 9+5 6 . 7 9

NA

>99 .99> 9 9 . 9 9> 99 .9999.029 4 . 8 08 5 . 2 072 .70

++*•i-•(-•(-.i.+

8 6 . 2 3>99 .99> 9 9 . 9 9

Aeration TankMean % RKH0.0 19 92 .691 4 . 8 8 4 2 . 4 81 1 . 1 1 5 4 . 0 54 8 . 6 33 .268 1 . 4 2 +

2 3 . 9 4 1 . 9 9BDL NA

>99 .99>99 .99>99 .9997.0270.834 4 . 4 4

•t-

BDL >99 .99BDLBDLBDLBDL0 .250 . 1 40 . 2 50 . 2 80 .49 +0 . 1 3 +0 . 4 6 +0 .60 *0 .45 *2 . 8 0 $9 .23BDL >99 .99BDL >99 .99

Fluidized BedMean % REM

BDL >99.997 . 3 5 7 1 . 5 93 . 3 1 8 6 . 3 11 3 . 2 8 1 . 887 . 3 2 +

BDL > 9 9 . 9 9BDL >99 .99

BDLBDLBDLBDLBDLBDLBDLBDLBDLBDLBDLBDLBDLBDLBDLBDL

>99.99> 9 9 . 9 9>99 .99> 99 .99>99 .99>99 .99>99 .99>99.99> 9 9 . 9 9>99 .99>99 .99> 9 9 . 9 9>99 .99>9S .99> 9 9 . 9 9

BDL >99 .99BDL > 9 9 . 9 9

0 1 2 6 8 7

IIIIIIIIIIIII

reveals an oil & grease concentration of 14.95 mg/I for the aeration tank and 16.53mg/I for the fixed film reactor. This number indicates that a large deviation wasexperienced for one of the data points, though this number remains comparativelyhigh, it is more representative of the oil & grease concentrations.

The aeration tank reactor showed a reduction of 93% for TOC, 42% for BOD and33% for the COD effluent concentrations. In addition, total PAH compounds werereduced 99%, PCP 42% and phenols (4-AAP) 93%.

For the fluidized bed reactor, 72% of the TOC, 86% of the BOD and 82% of theCOD were removed. No PAH, phenols (4-AAP) or Pentachlorophenol weredetected in the effluent for a removal >99.99%.

Acid extractable phenolics are summarized for each of the three biological units inTable 4-6. The results indicate a total reduction of 58.7% for the aeration tanktreatment process and 66.5% reduction for the fixed film reactor. The fluidized bedtreatment unit demonstrated greater than 99% removal for total phenolics. Phenolwas detected in the effluent at 1.56 ug/1 and all other compounds were below thedetection limit.

COCOvO

o

4 - 1 3

U;ftf

TABLE 4-6KOPPKRS COMPANY. I NC .

TEXARKANA, TX TREATABIL1TV STUDYBIOLOGICAL TREATMENT PHENOL1CS REDUCTION

Acid Extractabie Phenolics (uff/12,3,5,6~Tetrachlorophenol2,4,6'Trichlorophenol2,4-Dichlorophenol2,4-Dimethylphenol2,4-Dinitrophenoi2-Chlorophenol2-Ni trophenol2-Methyl-4 t 6-dinitrophenol4-Nitrophenol4 Chloro-3-methylphenolPentachlorophenolPhenolTotal Detectable Phenolics

NA - Not Applicable

Aeration TankInflut^t, Effluent % Removal

b^.b 1 9 .7 66 .32 3 . 94 .99

< 0 . 5 0 03 6 . 8

< 0 . 5 0 02 . 0 72 1 . 92 8 . 74. 145 1 . 42 . 1 8

2 3 4 . 5 8

4 . 9 61 . 7 5

< 0 . 5 0 Q14

< 0 . 5 0 00 . 7 57. 395 . 7 1

13 9 . 22 . 3 2

9 6 . 7 8

7 9 . 26 4 . 9

NA62. 0

NA6 3 . 866 .380. 175 Rt ij t nj2 3 . 7-t-5 8 . 7

FixedEffluent %

1 7 . 24 . 8 41 . 6 2

< 0 . 5 0 01 1 , 8

< 0 . 5 0 0< 0 . 5 0 0

6 . 36 . 2 8

12 7 . 12 .42

7 8 . 5 6

Film. Removal

70 . 67 9 . 76 7 . 5

NA&7 <4U ( . C7

NA> yg . y71 .27 8 . 1*J £. Of £> . o4 7 . 3

•t-6 6 . 5

Fluidiaed BedEffluent % Removal

O .00 suu "a .00<U . 500< 0 . 5 0 0a .00<0 .500<0. i»00< i .oo< l .00<0 .500

< 1 . 0 01 .561. 56

'~ vr v* . O\. UQ Q> C7C7 , O•>. U> Ul U> c*y . t*

NA> 9 9 . 9

NA>^Q <4* C? CJ . c?>99 .9> 9 9 . 9>99 .9> 9 9 . 928 .49 9 . 3

0 1 2 6 8 9

IIIIIIIIIII

5.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

In-situ treatment of soils at this site could prove to be the most cost effectivealternative and should remain as an alternative. The in-situ treatment alternativemust be further investigated with different soils prior to implementation.

Soil washing results will be forv/arded as an adendum when the data becomesavailable.

The results indicate that activated sludge treatment is not a feasible treatmentalternative for this site and should not be considered further.

Activated carbon adsorption showed good results for groundwater treatment. Bothcarbon adsorbtion isotherms and ACT results show reduction of TOC andnaphthalene.

The three biological treatment processes, aeration tank fixed film and fluidized bedshowed good results and should be included for further consideration. Aeration tanktreatment reduced total PAH compounds >99%. Fixed film treatment reduced totalPAH compounds >86% the best treatment was realized with the fluidized bed with>99.9% removal of total PAH compounds.

.Analytical results from UV-ozone/Oxidation show good removal rates. Total PAHwere reduced 88%. Good removal rates were also realized for individual purgeablearomatic compounds.

o

o

5 - 1

IIIIIAPPENDIX A(Groundwater QA/QC Sampling Data)

II

C".MDCMr—O

II

IIIII

III

KOPPERS COMPANY, INCTEXARKANA, TEXAS

GROUNDWATER QA/QC COMPOSITE SAMPLE ANALYSIS

IMLBlank

I

PARAMETERpH (units)BOD*CODTOC

METALS (ug/i)ArsenicBerylliumCadmiumChromiumCopperIronLeadMercuryNicke]Zinc

Purgeable Aromatics (ug/i)BenzeneEthyl BenzeneStyreneTolueneTotal Xylenes

6.727.5158.054.9

13.7<5.00<5.00

<10.0<25.016900<5.00< 0.200<40.0

1160

11.031.543.659.246.8

6.9<1.00<10.0<1 .00

<10.0<5.00<5.00

<10.0<25.0105<5.00<0.200<40.0

<20.0

<2.00<2.00<3.00<2.00<3.00

TdP Blank

8.1<LOO<10.0<LOO

<2.00<2.00<3.00<2.00<3.00

CM

< 10.0<5.00<5.00<10.0

<25.02466.00

< 0.200<40.0<20.0

vOCMT-O

i SPECTRIX MONROGVILLE

TABLE 3: SUMMARY OF GC&Ol DATA

iiiiii

Sample: 87090544DateDate

Col l e c t ea :Received: 09/84/87

Source: QA/QCDescr ipt ion : QA/DC SAMPLES

Date Ex t r a c t e d :Date Analysed: 10/03/87

10/05/87

Halocarbons1 , 1 , 1 -Tr i c h lore-ethane . . . . . . <0 ,0301 ,1 , 2,5-Tetrach lore-ethane . . <0 .0301 , 1 ,2 -T r i c h 1 oroethane. . . . . . - '0 . 1001 , 1 -Dich lo roe thane . , . . . . . , , , - 'O .OSO1 , l -D i c h l o r c - e t h e n e . . . . . . . . . <O .O501 ,S-Di ch lore-benzene . . . . . . . . :0. 1501 ,S-Di ch lore-ethane. . . . . . . . . <0 .0501 , 2 -D i c h l o r o p r o p a n e . . . . . . . . <0.10OI , ,3-Dich lorobenzene . . . . . . . . ,0 .30O1 ,4 -D i c h l o r o b e n z e n e . . . . . . . . <0 , ^502-Chloroethy lv iny l e t h e r . . . <0 .02OEromod i ch Ic-romethane. . . . . . . <0 . 100B r o m o f o r m . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <0.130Carbon Tetrach lor i d e . . . , . . . <0.030Ch lore-benzene. . . . . . . . . . . . . . <0 ,25OC h l o r o e t h a n e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <0 ,250Chlo ro fo rm . , . , . . , . . . . . . , . . „ . < '0 .050Dibromc-ch Joromethane . . . . . . . <0. 100Methyl B r o m i d e . , . . . . . . . . . . <2 .00Methyl Ch l o r i d e . . . . . . . . . . . . - .0 .250Methylene C h l o r i d e . . . . . . . . . ^O .SSOT e t r a c h l o r o e t h e n e . . . . . . . . . . ^O . aOOTr ich loro-^luoroft ie thane. . . . . 0 . 05OTr ich lc-roethene, . . . . . . . . . . . - : 0 . 3 0 0Vinyl C h l o r i d e . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 .55Oc i s - 1 ,3-D i c h l o r o p r op e n s . . . . '0 .030t r a r s - l .H-Di ch l o roe th ene . . . .'O . 050t r a n s - 1 ,3 -D i c h l o - o p r o p e n e , . O . O S O

vDCM^r-o

The abo\,e -esu l fcs ar. ' sported in ug/L .Al 1 GC601 i d en t i f i c a t i on s ^rc-m r e t en t i on data on ly .

IIIIII

SPECTPIX MONRCJEVILLEPage- a

TABLE 3: SUMMARY OF GC601 DATA

Sample : 87090545Date Col lected! 09/34/87

Received: 09/25/87

Source: FBDesc r i p t i on s GA/OC SAMPLES

Date Extracted: 10/03/87Date Analyzed) 10/03/87

Purgeable Halocarbons, 1 , 1 -Tr ichioroethane., 1 ,2,2-Tetrachloroethane.

1 . 1 ,2-Tr i c h i o r o e t h a n e . . . . .1 , 1 -D i ch 1 o ro e t hane . . . . . . . .1 . 1 -D i c h l o r o e t h e n e . . . . . . . .1 .2 -D i c h l o r o b e n z e n e . . . . . . .i, 2-D i ch lore-ethane. . . . . . * .I ,2-D i c h l o r op r opan e . . . . . . .1 «3 -D i c n I o r o b e n z e n e . . . . . . .i , 4~Dich lore-benzene. . . . . . .S-Chloroethylvinyl ether . .Bromod i c h l o r om e t h a n e . . . . . .Bromof o rm . . . . . „ . . , . . . « . * . . .Carbon Tetrachlor i d e . . . . . .C h l o r o b e n n e n e . . . . . . . . . . . . .Ch l o r o e t h a n e . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Ch lor of or fn . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . .D i b r omo c h l o r om e t h a n e . . . . . .Methyl B r om i d e . . . . . . . . . . . .Methyl C h l o r i d e . . . . . . . . . . .Methylene C h l o r i d e . . . . . . . .Tetrach l o roe thene . . . . . . . . .Trichlorofluoromethane. . - .Tr i c h l o r o e t h e n e . . . . . . . . . . .Vinyl C h l o r i d e - . . . . . . . . . . .cis-1»3-Dich1oropropens . . .trans-1 ,2-Dich loroethene . .trans-1,3-Dichloropropene.

. 030

. 030

. 020

. 050. 050. 150. 030. 030. 300.250. 130. 100. 200. 10O. 250.350. 050. 100.00. 250. 050. 030. O50. 100. 250. 300. 050. aoo

CM

O

The above results are reported in ug/L »All GC601 identif ications are from retent ion data only.

IIIIIIIIIII

APPENDIX 2-AMAXIMUM AND MINIMUM PCOC

CONCENTRATIONS in&vCCM•e—O

2 0 6 9 T 4 0 4 0 - 0 0 1 - 6 0 0

EW^

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

APPENDIX 2 -AMAXIMUM AMD MINIMUM CONCENTRATIONS OF PCOCs IN EACH MEDIUM

Tables summarizing maximum and minimiconcentrat ions , and their locations, are presented ::n thisAppendix, If a PCOC was analyzed for and not detected in apart icu lar medium, one half: of the contract laboratorydetection limit was used as a substitute value. For a list ofapplicable detection limits see Appendix K o£ the RI Report(ERT 1987 ) . Treble A-l presents the maximum and minimumconcentrat ions of PCOCs, and their locations, in Carver Terracesurface soi ls . Note that at some Carver Terrace surface soilsampling locations, two samples, one from 0 to 6 inches and theother from 6 to 12 inches, were taken. The arithmetic averageof these samples is used in determining maximum and minimumconcentrations. Maximum and minimum values in the RI Report(ERT 1987) are not based on the average of these samples andmay, therefore, be different than the maximums and minimumsreported here.

Table A-2 presents maximum and minimum concentrat ions ofPCOCs in Carver Terrace subsurface soi ls . Because utilityworkers were the exposed population and they were not expectedto dig deeper than 10 feet , deeper soils were not included inthe summary and scenario. Table A~3 summarizes maximum andminimum PCOC concentrations for Kennedy Sand and Gravel surfacesoi ls . Table A-4 summarizes maximum and minimum PCOCconcentrations in sediments and Table A-5 summarizes maximumand minimum PCOC concentrations is seeps. The concentration ofPCOCs in the groundwater well used to evaluate the hypothet icalfuture groundwater scenario is presented in Table A -6 .

CMr—O

A-l

2 0 6 9 T 4 0 4 0 - 0 0 1 - 6 0 0

Z . 693

TflfiLE

Summary of maximum and mini MUM PCOC concentrationssurface 501 Is

Carver-

PCOCPCPPOT, CARC. PAHTOTAL PAHTC0D/TCDF TE'sARSENICCHROMIUMCOPPERZINCLEADMERCURY

MAXIMUM

16OOO <ug/kg)20£0950 <ug/kg >

2.5446e8 <ug/kg)0.000767 (ug/kg)

53* 35 (tiig/kg)57.5 (mg/ky)

301 (r . iy/ky)337C' <nig/ kq)

23fl . 05 i M q / k g }0,355 <wg/kg )

LOCATION

BJ-L4f€>-L7

NUI-NAPH3550F-03P

1 r* _ i Qt>. L. Z*

B2-L9&^-L3CHURCHPS -LiPS-L 3 4

MINIMUMCQNCCNTRATION

80O <ug/kgJ960 <ug/kg)

2560 (ug/kg)3. 8E-OS (wy/ky)

1 (wy/kg)3 (wg/kg)

2. 5 (r-ig/kg)c1 (iiig/kg)

2. 5 <*cnj/kg)O. 3 ( idy/ky)

LOCATION

MANYM^;JYMANY

2268F-6MANYMANYMANYMANYPACEMANY

IIIII

„

IIIIIIII

HAXIHUH NAKinufl KiNiHLR mim-»- —.-..«„._... 1 II CCNC LOMT: °N CONC .cwTlfl * ,

CETEC-EC PCOCsw/w «w sin goo no**™ ?f° SL82 !60 M! »Y890 £L92 160 ,flvv,16 ? 130C SLS2 ,M MNYf* 1W «*^ !6) 14NV"e/<£ '300 SL£i - 6 ' ' v,,jv-? ; - 5 5900 5.3: .3 ; ' -ftv.r ' j ir.;0 =LS: ;. £ \5 3/CCO ! : i o *JS/^ t IC^O 1BY^-NE u£:-« ;;3*f;

B£? i22-Vf l ' f ?«F . f lCE> lE L ' & > * ?50B5«3i i :S^ £ iE U £ >3 4 , .5^:j ' . c ' f , jC : ;N"-: ' ( t ^ . . .3 a* ;> s *s £^ "-"-, . ' " " ' r:r :C ^v

. . " ' * • } • *•**.'**. * «-.;•;;«- i."^-:;crs£ . 5 ' . ;,., „,,, ;, ''- . :ES : . - . . : . : - : : = ' «V : ... .,, ^. -.- ^'• : : £N IC v;,i, . -,-: > • v ,: B' J s- : ----.:.;" J' : ^-.' ; -o,_ * ' " " " «.;, » -

• • • - "^" " ' n i , ,: " : . . . . . . .„ '3" 3 : : - : : " ' : - - ' •: XE :" -3/ sr:c s.a: :; ;.

COcr.vOCMvO

1A-3

Ur ,BIL KULTI

IIII

I

DETECTED PCQCtPENTflCHLOMPHENOL

UNITS

US/KG

HAK1HUH HAIIHUHCONC LOCATION

HANY

TOTAL PAH

HINIHUH HINIHUHCQNC LOCATION

00l) NANYACENAPHTHENEACENAPKTHYLENEANTHRACENE9EN20(6KI)P£RYLENEFLUORANTHENEfLUORENE2-HETHYLNAPHTHALENENAPHTHALENEPHENANTKfiENEPYRENE

BENZOfAJftNTHRftCENEBENMAJPYRENEBENZOtBUOFLUORANTHENESCHRY5ENEB !BENZO (A ,H }ANTHRAC £NEI NOEMO( 1 , 2 ,3 -CD )PVRENEARSENICCKRGHIUHCOPPERLE«HERCURYZINC

US/KBUS/KBUS/K6U6/K6US/KGUS/KGOS/KgUS/KBUS/KGU6/K8UG/K6US/KB05/KgU6/K6US/KSUS/KBH6/K6MG/K6K6/K6flG/KSH6/K6HG/KG

UO4600

UO160

29000160UO[60160

6WO160

10000220000

3000!60

If 0001 4 . 9

129 . 6 3

MANA

35.2

MNYSL56MANYHANYSL55HANY4ANYHANYHANYSLS8HANYSL56SL58SL56MANYSL56SL58sisa5158

NAt\nNA

SL55

160160160UO160160160160UO160160160160UO!60UO

1i2 . S

NANA

3 0 . 2

KANYHANYHANYHANYHANYHANYHANYNANYNANYHANYHANYHANYSANYHANYHAUVnun THANYMAtJVnKnTHANYHftNY

NAITH

NASLS8

vOCM^r-O

POTENTIALLYCARCINOGEN IC PAH

US/KG

29 1240

220800

SLS8

8L5S

2560 HANY

960 HftNY

A-4

STATISTICAL SWUHly OF ?CDC, FOUND IN feMKKT MKEI TKMU6KJUT THE SITE.

II

II

I

DETECTED PCOCs UNITSHINIHUH

CONC HINIHUHLOCATION mm*CQNC

HAXIHUHLOCATION

BENZENETOLUENETOTAL IYLENESACENAPHTHENEACENflPHTHYLEHEANTHRACENEBENlO<6HI)PEf iYL£NEFLUORANTHENEFLUGRENCNAPHTHALENE2-HEWLNAPHTHALENEPHENANTHRENEPYRENE

BENZG(A)ANTHRACENEBENZOIA1PYRENEBENZOfBJFLUQRANTHENECHRYSENED IBENZO(A ,H )ANTHRACENErNDENP ( l ,2 .3 -Cf l )PYR £NE

ARSENICCHROHIUHCOPPERHESCURYLEADHNC

TOTAL PAH

US/KGUS/KGU6/K6US/KBUS/KGUS/KGU6/KSUS/K6US/KGUS/KGU6/K6U6/KGUS/KGU6/KGUS/KGU6/KSUS/KG'JS/K6U6/KGH6/K6NS/K6

2.52.32,5160160160160160160160160160160160160160UO160160

HANVHANYftANYKANYMANYNAKYHAHYflANY«ANYHANYHANYHANYHANYHANYHANYHANYHANY

HANY

2139

17019000

16016000

1602900015000

670002700032000300001 100

1601400017000;to

160

S909S009$809S309KANYSD09HANYSD09SD093B09SD095009SD09S021HANY£D09SD09MANY

oor-CMVo

MG/K6«6/K6.1S/K6

If

2 . 50 . 10 .5

2

MNY".ANYHANYHANYSDOlHANY

1062

7 . 4 60 . 91603AS

SD0150073 D 1 5S D 1 5SDC7SD09

2560 250 120 sso?

CARCINOGENIC PAN 960 1ANY 17800 SD08

n

IIIIIIIII

DETECTED PCOCs

ETHYL6ENZENETOLUENETOTAL XYLENESACENAPHTHENEACEHAPHTHYLENEANTKRACENEgEKZO(6HI)PERYLENETLUORAilTKENEFLUORENE2-METHYLNAPHTHALENENAPHTHALENEPHENANTHRENEPYRENE

3ENZCH A) ANTHRACENEBENZO(B)FLUORANTHENECHRYSENE!HOENO(],2,3-CD)PYRENEARSENICCHROM1UHCOPPERflERCURYLEADZINC

UNITS

US/KGU6/KGU6/K6US/KGUG/KGU6/K8UG/KGUS/KG(J6/KGUS/KfiU6/K0UG/K6U6/K6U6/K6US/KGU6/KGUS/KGKG/KGMC/k'tno/s.DKG/KGKG/KBUC /I/PRe/KbHG/KG

HtNlKUHCONC

tJOOSOO

36001300^0

1404iOOO

140100000120000170000400000310000100000250002200027000

16011

2 .50 . 10,5

20,7

KIN1MWLOCflTlCN

SD12-002SD12-002SD12-002SD12-002SD12-002SD12-002SD12-002SD12-002SD12-002SH12-001SD 12-002SD12-002SD12-002SD12-0025012-002SD12-002SD12-002UAUVnflniHANVHftNYSU lO-001SO 12-002SD 12-002

HAUHUMCQNC

540029005600

130000160

46000160

100000120000170000400000310000100000250002200027000

160i1

2.50 . 1 2

1222

HAH HUMLOCATION

SH10-001SH10-001SHJO-001SD12-002SD12-002SDI2-002SDI2-002SD12-002SD12-002SD12-0025012-002SD12-0025012-002SD12-0025D12-002SD12-002SD12-002KANVMAUVnHHTKANYS012-002SM10-001SHIO-001

TOTAL PAH US/KB

POTENTIALLYCARCINOGENIC PAH«^-*4tdtW*«4W«4vB * ,v4

(suaseeps)

U6/K6

1450480 S012-002

74 160 SD12-002

1450480 SD12-OC2

74UO SD 12 -002

Oh-CM•c-O

A-6

IIIIIIII

Table A-6

Sugary of PCOC Concentrations in the Groundwater Well (MW03-002 ,Used for Hypothetical Future Scenario.

INA:

PCOC CONCENTRATION (ug/1 )

CMOr-cvi«r-O

POT. CARC. PAHTOTAL PAHBENZENEETHYLBENZENETOLUENETOTAL XYLENESARSENICCHROMIUMCOPPERZINCLEADMERCURY

NANA3637

2 . 525NA5

1 2 . 55600NANA

indicates that the PCOC was not analysed for

A-7

IIII APPENDIX B(Carbon Adsorbtion ACT Results)

Or-CM*r-O

III

IICALGON CARBON CORPORATION

IIIITechnical Service Report No. 1 187-38

Feasibility Testing for the Removal of Naj&halene and TOG from Groimdwater

or-<M

O

Prepared For:Keystone Environmental

Monroeville, PA

DlSTRIBUTIpN^D. A* BiscanG, H. GunnerQonF. M* MendlcinoR. M, Moskal

Author

Date :T. P. Har t i | r6630January _U,__ 1988

KE WORDS;GroundwaterNapthaleneWood PreservativeFS-300ACT

Technical Service Report Mo. 1 187-38T. P. Hartig

January 14, 1988Page 2

The site of a former wood preservative plant in Texarkana, Texas la contaminatedwith napthalene and coal tar compounds* Clean-up procedures have been undertakenby Keystone Evnironmental Resources. This study will determine the applicabilityof activated carbon for decontaminating the groundwater around the plant.SUMMARY AJH) CONCLUSIONSAn ACT waa performed t with 100 ppb breakthrough of napthalene as the objective.* The groundwater sample for the ACT differed from the reported characterization.

1C contained 10 ppb of naptehalene and 20 ppra of TOC t versus a reported 2 ppmnapfthalene and 36 ppm TOC.

* No naphthalene breakthrough had occurred by the time of study termination.* At study termination the simulated performance was 180 days ->n-linet 2 .588

million gallons treated, and a 0.8 lb/1000 gallon usage rate. The loading was0 . 1 1 mg naffchalene/g F-300.

The water used for the ACT differed from the reported characterization. Spikingthe filtered groundwater to achieve the reported 2 ppm concentration of naj&haleneand running another ACT is proposed.DISCUSSIONThe ACT simulated a Model 3 adsorber with 2000 Ibs of FS-300. Flow and surfaceloading rates were 10 gpm and 0.8 gpm/sq . f t . j respectively. The EBCT wa-j 50minutes. See Table 2.The groundwater sample was brown and very hazy. This required a pref iltration stepthrough glass fiber pads. The filtrate was amber and slightly hazy* The samplehad the odor of creosote* No napfchalene odor was detected*The ACT was run for seven days. Pump failure resulted in study termination. Nonapfchalene breakthrough was detected, but five individual compound breakthroughswere detected by TOC. See Figure 1.All ACT effluents were water white and odorless.

inOr-CMv~O

^^^mmIIIIII

II

TABLE 1Keystone EnvironmentalTexarkana, Texas Site

ACT Data

Effluent Sample Simul. Gallons Simul. DaysInfluent »1468

10131618202224263034404448525668727576

1 7 , 1 3 91 1 9 , 9 7 7188 ,536257 ,094325 ,652428,49053 1 ,3286 3 4 . J 6 5702 ,7247 7 1 , 2 8 2839 .840908,399

1 , 045 , 5 1 51 , 1 8 2 , 6 3 21 , 388 ,3081 , 5 2 5 , 4 2 41 , 6 6 2 , 5 4 11 , 7 9 9 , 6 5 81 , 9 3 6 , 7 7 52 ,3 1 3 , 8462 ,450 ,9632 .553 .8002 ,558 ,080

1 . 1 98 .33

13 . 101 7 . 8 522.6029 .7536.9044.0348 .7953 .5558 .3 163.0772.608 2 . 1 196.40

105 .901 1 5 ,4125 .0134 .0161 .0170 .01 7 7 , 318G.O

TOGog/1

201 . 5

12

1 .52 . 53.02 .52 .53-53,53 .56 .56 .56 .5

10.010,013 . 514 .014 .514,518 .518 .018 .0

Napthaleneug/1

10<1<1<1<1<l< j< j<l<1< 1< j<1<;j<1<1<1< j<;j<1< j< j<1<1 6

Or-<Ms—O

QCarbon UsageLoading 0 . 1 1 Rate 0 . 7 7 lbs/1000 gallons

tag naj&halene/g P-300

TABLE 2

Keystone EnvironmentalTexarkana, Texas Site

ACT Simulation Conditons

Vessel: Model 3Carbon: FS-300

Flow Rate: 10 gpraSLR: 0 *80 gptn/sq. ft.

EBCT: 45 Min

oCMx—O

LH

FIGURE ITOG BREAKTHROUGH

IN USA

liftII

ill

•fi

!!itif

>V*f-

ill

n•ht

i {

i

1

24

22

20

I£ n•ti T

i ,t..ui litli. iif uflurl It

1412

10

86

4

Z

i tft II Ifi

t1 1 • ffir

fit-

1 .2 .3 1 .0MILLION GALLONS ' •5f > 1 2 7 Q 8 -2.0 2 .5

IIIII APPENDIX 2-BGEOMETRIC MEAN CONCENTRATIONS

IIIIII

OP-C\J*r-o

I2 0 6 9 T 4 0 4 0 - 0 0 1 - 6 0 0

APPENDIX 2-BSUMMARY OF DATA USED TO ESTIMATE GEOMETRIC MEAN PCOC

CONCENTRATIONS IN CARVER TERRACE SURFACE SOILS, KENNEDY SANDAND GRAVEL SURFACE SOILS, AND SEDIMENTS

Ca rve_r__Te_r_r a.ae.

The following steps were performed to est imate thegeometric mean concentrat ion of PCOCs.

For each PCOC in Carver Terrace surface soils, thelowest measured value was identified and used toreplace any sampling points at which the PCOC was notdetected. The lowest measured values in CarverTerrace surface soils are shown in Table B-l .Once all substitutions wsre completed, total yp.u andpotential ly carcinogenic PAH were summed for eachsampling point .At sampling points where two soil samplos were taken(one from 0 to 6 inches and the second from 6 to 12inches), results of the two samples were averaged forall PCOCs.These data were then used to est imate the geometr icmean concentration of PCOCs in Carver Terrace surfacesoils.When estimating current PCOC concentrations in CarverTerrace surface so i l s/ areas covered by sod wereassumed to have PCOC concentrations equal to thelowest measured value. (The following samplingpoints are covered by sod: B2-L9 ; B2-L8 ; B2 - L7 ;PACE; STATION 10; STATION 9; B4-L 12 ; B6-L6 ; B6 -L7 ;B4-L22 ; B6-L8 ; B2-L6; B2-L5 ; B2-L4 ; B2-L2 ; B2 - L3 ;STATION 7 ; 2 0 2 2 ; 2 0 2 6 ; SL83-001 ; and, S L 9 0 - 0 0 1 . )PCOC concentrat ions for each sampl ing point are shownin Table B-2 . The geometric mean concentrat ion ofeach PCOC is also shown in Table B -2 .

CT—f*-*.

CMvO

2069T 4 0 4 0 - 0 0 1 - 6 0 0B-l

1111• Minimum Measured PiM PCOC

PCPm ACENAPHTHENE• ACENAPTHYLENEB ANTHRACENE

B( A) ANTHRACENE|B(A)PYRENE

B ( B&K ) FLUORANTHENESB(GHI)PERYLEN£

ICHRYSENEDIB (AH) ANTHRACENEFLUORANTHENE

— FLUORENE• I (CD123)PYRENE• 2METHYLNAPHTHALENE

NAPHTHALENEIPHENANTHRENE

PYRENEARSENIC

1 CHROMIUMCOPPER•7 T VI /""ZINC

ILEADMERCURY

Table B-i

•COC Concentrations at Carver Terrace

MINIMUM CONCENTRATION1 200 (ug/kg)

490 (ug/kg)260 (ug/kg)280 (ug/kg)200 (ug/kg)340 (ug/kg)240 (ug/kg)390 (ug/kg)320 (ug/kg)400 (ug/kg)330 (ug/kg)470 (ug/kg)350 (ug/kg)460 (ug/kg I490 (ug/kg)220 (ug/kg)390 (ug/kg)2 .5 (mg/kg)

2 (mg/kg)1 (mg/kg)6 (mg/kg)2 .5 (mg/kg)0 . 16 (mg/kg)

CMS—o

B-2

TABLE 8-2

CONCENTRATION OF PCSCs IN CARVER TERRACE SURFACE SOILS flSSlXlNS TWTCONCENTRATIONS IN SODDED AREAS ARE EQUAL TO THE LOWEST VALUE

r>€S£ VALUES (WE US£D IN THE CURRENT SCENARIO.ORGANIC PCOCS ARE IN US/KG AND INORGANIC ftOCS ARE IN H6/K6.

SAW>L£LOCATION&3-L1283-L1363-114K-H.3K-LflBM.7PACECHURCHSL53-OQ164-L1

E4-L20STATION 9B4-U2B6*t6B6-L7B4-C32B&-L8SL03-001SL03-014&4-USB4-L1STATION B84H.17

81H.4SL87-001B1-U8B1H.1081-12086-L366-148&<12K-U82-LS82M.4B3-L2B2-L3B5H-2

STATION 7B5-L2.185-U381-L21NU-HAPHB5-L2285-119SL36-001&55-001SL56-001S156-003SL8S-001a83-ooiSL34-001SL30-001

"PCP

120012001200120012001200120012001300130012CO12001300120012001200

120012001200teoo16000120014600130012001300120012001200120012001200120012001200120012001200120013001200

13001200

TOTALPAH5530SS5059010552055205S2055205520

44140383555205520552051 055205520

3977070953&8002446450180140188130338301103516070105905S20553055305530552055303500505520138330144S101804310552016299055206260

U7IOO614BO

CARC,PAH1SSOi8804240018501850iaso18501350

157054430185018501850185018501850

15300314518400561090844001033851813550157675

467518501850185018501850185012675018506709091920100940016507775018502610

7060038400

ARSENIC CHftOWl* COPPER2.52,353.32.52,52,52,52.S

23.252.52.5

2.52.532.52,5

2.552.62.52.53.53.52.52.52,52.52.52.32.5

2.5

5II1 1222221810. S2

22347

91254632232a6,52

2

6.525.535I11111081

111224

834923.5I1111101

1

ZINC3384.51056666

260326

3324245523431 14

353334136217 .5&666614336

6

LEAD34.85106.0531 .752.53,52,52,5

21 .3547.35

57.74.2

73.44 1 .622.9527.2539.817 .452.52.52.52.' 533fl, 05

KERCUflY0,220.130.3S50.160,160 , 160, 16

0 . 160. 16

0. 160. 16

0.2350. 160.3050.160 . 160, 160. 160 , 160 . 1 60 . 160 . 1 60, 16

CM^~r-CMr~O

GEOMETRIC«AN 1.35E+03 1.81E*04 MIE+03 2>77E*00 3.94E+00 2.57£*00 2,9S£*Oi 1.3SE+01 1.77E-OJ

B-3

I

I1IIII

When est imating future PCOC concentrat ions in CarverTerrace surface so i l s/ sod is assumed to not have aneffect on PCOC concentrat ions . The geometric meanconcentrat ion of each PCOC, is also shown in TableB-3 . These geometr ic mean concentrat ions of PAHs arethen used to est imate future concentrations and theeffect of degradat ion using half lives reported inthe scientific l iterature (see Appendices 2-C and2-F) .

CMNT-CD

B-4U ~ 1

2 0 6 9 T 4 0 4 0 - 0 0 1 - 6 0 0

P-3CN OF PCOCs IN CnRVER TEPRflCE SURFflCE SOILS fiSSUfllNG THAT

SODDING OF AN SftEAS *£ NO EFFECT ON PCX CONCENT RflT IONS. ONCt OEGSftDfiTIONOF PAHs t*D PCD0/PCDF IS ACCOUNTED FOR, n£5£ yflLUES flBE USED I« T>€ FUTURE SC&WRIO.

ORGANIC PCOCS flR£ IN U6M6 ftND J*RGflWIC PCOCS ORE IN afi/KG,

~SiWULOCATION634.12634.13834.14B24.3624.8ftM.7MCECHJRCHSI 58-001

B4-U84420STflTION 9844.12B64.6864.7644.22864.8SL03-001SL03-014044.15B44.1STflTION 8

644.17614.4

SL87-OOIB1-U8B1-L10&i4jK>864.3S&-L4864.12624.6K-i.5B24.4B24282-13854_2

STflTlOM 7B5-12385-U3B1-L21HHtfPHB5H22B54.19SL36-001SL3-001SL56-001SL56-003SL85-001SL83-001

SL84-001SL30-0016EWETRICHFJW 1

—— ——— --S-H.!- —— «————• ——— .-———

PCP1200120012001200120012001200120012001200120012001200120012001200

120012001200120016000120014600120012001200120012001200120012001200120012001200120012001200120012001200

120017000

. 44£*03SS:ss2S=2

TOTALPAH5520555059010121601316330524345501861335672710

44140983548310

235700112700

45233003779020540

2377070352680024464501801401381303382011025

160701059055202552160456661065293550050370413525005012525013S33014481018042102, 4£*0816239016064606280

U710061480

l.46£*05ssnssssii'

CflRC,PAH13501830

42400432514510403819201052040

44200015705442032800

14475073750

20203502170011520

1530031451840056109084600

10338518125501576754675185053766572149524901525550884925126750799006709091920100940018507775010344002610

7060038400

4.9SEXJ4»?*-,--*'*-•-'*-

-*-*———•».*—

af&NJC2.52.953.353.35171 0 . 1 5a. &s2.5

23.252.52 .5

2.52 .532 .52.5

2,552,62.52 .52.52 .510.45.653.52.54.952 .92.5

2.5

3. 38£*00sssassss

cram*51 11157.53114 ,510. 5

421810.56

u2947

9125n6919.536.5514 .56.56

2

6.13S+003S2S2 3S±3

COPPER6.525.52518 .520.516123210a27

1112i4

834923.5127955.510 .51011026

1

9.77E*00 1.

"*~^"'

ZINC3384.5105

£4253520540.53370260

32326

3324245523421 1 4

3533241362 1 7 . 5348

1072 .593.5338280.51433120

6

0

42£*025t*v^~Tfga

LEA034.85106.0591 .7510 1 .7543.9532.550. 6

21 .9547.95

5 7 . 74 .2

76.44 1 , 6^2.3327.2523.817 ,4553.1577.834.330.9527.3238.05

4. 2££*01•aasfajaas;

MESCURV0.2050 , 160.3S50 . 1 60, 160.340. 16

0 . 160.16

0. \\>0. 13

0,220 , 1 60.230 . 1 60 . 160 . 1 60 . 160 . 160. 160 . 1 60. 160. 16

0 . 1 8 1 3 7 1:SS£ sassiSSs

cvi•r-O

B-5

IIIIIII

II

Kennedy Sand arid Grave l

The following steps were performed to estimate thegeometr ic mean concentrat ion of PCOCs.

1. For each PCOC in Kennedy Sand and Grave l surfacesoi ls, the lowest measured value was identified andused to replace any sampling points at which the PCOCwas not detected. If a PCOC was not detected in anysurface soil samples, the method detect ion 1 imit wasused in place of no detects and J valves .

2. Once all substitutions were completed, total PAH andpotent ial ly carcinogenic PAH were summed for eachsampling point.

3. These data were then used to est imate the geometricmean concentrat ion of PCOCs in Kennedy Sand andGrave l surface soi l s .

4. When est imating current PCOC concentrat ions inKennedy Sand and Grave l surface soils degradat ion ofPAHs was not accounted for . The geometric meanconcentration of each PCOC is also shown in Table B-4

5. When est imat ing future PCOC concentrat ions in KennedySand and Gravel surface soi ls/ degradation of PAHs isassumed to occur. The future geometric meanconcentration of each PCOC, is shown in Table B -4 .The same method was used to calculate Kennedy Sandand Grave l degradat ion as was used for Carver Terrace(see Appendix 2~C ) .

in^~r-CMT-O

B-6

2 0 6 9 T 4 0 4 0 - 0 0 1 - 6 0 0

••IIIIIIIIIII

TABLE B-4

GEOMETRIC MEAN PCOC CONCENTRATIONS IN KENNEDY SAND AND GRAVEL

CONCENTRATION OF PCOCs IN KENNEDY SAND AND GRAVEL SURFACE SOILS ASSUMINGTHAT NON-DETECTS AND J VALUES ARE EQUAL TO THE LOWEST VALUE MEASURED OR

ONE HALF THE METHOD DETECTION LIMIT IF THE PCOC WAS NOT DETECTED ANYWHEREON KENNEDY SAND AND GRAVEL PROPERTY, TWO GEOMETRIC MEANS ARE PRESENTED.ONE NOT ACCOUNTING FOR DEGRAGDATION AND THE OTHER TAKING DEGRADATION OFPAHS INTO ACCOUNT (HALF LIFE OF 1385 DAYS IS ASSUMED) . ORGANIC PCOCS ABE

IN UG/KG AND INORGANIC PCOCS ARE IN MG/KG. ^

GEOMETRIC MEAN WITH NO ACCOUNT FOR DEGRADATION OF PAHv—r-CM

SAMPLELOCATION

SL58-001SL87-001SL55-001SL56-001SL56-003

38888

PCP.OOE+02.OOE+02.OOE+02.QOE+02.OOE+02

3 .9 .i.9.9 .

TOTALPAH

58E+05572+0499E+0557E+0458E+04

CARC.PAH

2.54E+055.63E4-041.17E+055.63E+045 .64E +04

ARSENIC1.49E+011 .49E4-011 .49E+011 .49E+01

CHROMIUM1.1.1 *1 *

20E+0120E+0120E+01aoE+oi

9.9 .9 .9 .

COPPER68E+0068E+0068E+0068E-fOO

C2INC

3.02E-+-013 .52E+013 .45E4-013 . 4 7 E + 0 1

GEOMETRICMEAN W/0 8 .OOE +02 1 .44E+05 8DEGRADATION

82E+04 1 .49E+01 1 .20E+01 9 .68E +OG 3 . 3 6 E + 0 1

GEOMETRIC MEAN ACCOUNTING FOR DEGRADATION OF PAH

SAMPLELOCATION

SL58-001SL87-001SL55-001SL56-001SL56-003

88388

PCP.OOE+02.OOE+02.OOE+02.OOE+02.OOE+02

2.6 .1.6 .6.

TOTAL CARC.PAH

55E+0482E+0342E+0482E+0383E+03

PAH1.81E+044.01E+038.36E+034.01E+034.02E+03

;s=2S3S*=ss=a:=— »=s==Sffl_

ARSENIC1.1.1.1 .

49E+0149E+0149E+0149E+01

CHROMIUM1.20E+011 .20E+011 .20E+011 .20E+01

9999

=s=s~=s— ss==,~._^=s_3!3:_

COPPER.68E+00.68E+00.68E+00.68E+00

ZINC3.02E- * -013 .52E+0 13 .45E +0 13 .47E +0 1

GEOMETRICMEAN WITH S.OOE-f-02 1-03E-I-04 6.29E+03 1 .49E+01 1.20E+01 9.68E+00 3 .36E+01DEGRADATIONONE HALF OF THE METHOD DETECTION LIMIT USED IN PLACE OF NO DETECTSAND J VALUES.

B-7

IIIIIIIIIIIIIII

Sediments

The following steps were performed to est imate thegeometric mean concentrat ion of PCQCs.

1. For each PCOC in sediments, the lowest measured valuewas identified and used to replace any samplingpoints at which the PCOC was not detected. If a PCOCwas not detected in any sediment samples, the methoddetection limit was used in instead.

2. Once all substitutions were completed, total PAH andpotentially carcinogenic PAH were summed foe eachsampling point.

3. These data were then used to estimate the geometricmean concentration of PCOCs in sediments. Thegeometric mean concentrat ion of each PCOC is alsoshown in Table B-5 ,

CVJ«r=O

B-8

2069T 4040-001 -600

-GEOMETRIC mm CONCENTRATION OF PCOCs IN SEDIMENTS

CONCENTRATION Of PCQCS IN SED1NEMT 3*m£S ASSUHIN6 THAT PCOC CONCENTRATIONS IN SAMPLES WHERE MO ttOCS W£R£ DETECTEDflfiE EQUAL ro T}« LOWEST vflLJE MEASURED IN ANY S6D1HEXT SAMPU fiS£ 3HOUN . IF A COX «AS HOT DETECTED IN WYS£DI>€NT SAMPLE THE HETHOD DETECTION LiMT MAS SU&STJTUTE0 FQft YON DETECTS AND J VALUES- ORGANIC PCOCS Afi6 IN U6/K6AM) INORGANIC PCOCS ARE IN MS/KG. KGRAOTIQN is NOT ACCOUNTED POR,PCOC

SDO&-001SD05-003SD06-301

SDGI-OOlSDOI-OOl SBSMl-002S004-001

SD2 1-003SOS2-003$034-003$003-001$003-002SD15-OOISD15-002$007-001SW7-005SfXtS-001SD09-002SD09-001$009-003SD19-OQ!$050-001

00

£€NZEN£"a.ioE^ra. 106*01a.io£*oi2. 106*01a. ioe*oia, ioe*oia. ioe*oi2. 10£*012.106*012. 106*01a. 106*012,106*01a. ioe*oia. ioe*oi2. 106*012. 106*01a, ic£+oi2. 106*01a. ioe*oia. io£*oia. 106*01a. 106*01

TOLLSCT906*oT

3.906*013.906*013.306*01t/t jUfe^V 11 '3j\C *(^ 13.' 306*013.906*013,90£+0i3.906*013,906*013.906+013,906*013.306*013.906*013.906*013.906+013.906*013.906*013.906*013.906*013.906*01

TOTALIVL6N6S"oEtoT1

,70€*02.706*02.706*02.706+02.706+02.706*02,706*02.706*02.706*02.706*02.706*02.706*02.706*02.706*02.706*02.706*02.706*02.70£*02.706*02.706*02

TOTIJL CARCIN,WH PAH ARSENIC CHRWItJN COPPER ?:« LEAD SERCUfiY

.156*05 l, 626*044.306*00 5.2l£ *00 7,46E*00 2.506*01 a. 906*00 1.606-011.006*01 5,21E*00 7.46E+00 i.80E*01 1.506*01 1,606-01, 156+05.15E+05.I5E+05,15E*05.156*05.156*05

.17E+05.256+05,15£*05. I5£*05.156*05

.62E+04 6.006*00 5.216*00 7.466*00 6.806+00 2.306+00 1.606-01.626*04 4.306+00 5.2l£*00 7.466*00 1.306*01 1 .406*01 1.606-01.62£*04 4,306*00 5.216*00 7.46E*00 6.806*00 1.606-0!,626*04 4.306*00 S.21E*00 7.46E*00 9,606*00 3.206*00 1.60£^1.626*04 4.306*00 S,aiE+00 7.46E*00 1.556*01 1.606-Gl.62£+04 4.306*00 5.21E+00 7,466*00 6.806+00 7.206*00 1.S06-51.62E+04 4,306+00 5.21E+00 7.46£*00 1.336+01 1,606^1.62E*04,62£*04,62£*04.62£*044,306*00 5.21E*00 7.46E+00 4.406*01 4.40t*01 1.606-01.156*05 1.6^*04 ».306*00 5.2l£*00 7.46E+00 5.796*01 1 .606-014.806*00 5.216*00 7.46£*00 8.20£*0l I.10E+02 3.00E-01, 17E*OS 1.63+04 4.306+00 U2E*01 7.466*00 1. 366+02 2. 106-Cl7.806+00 6.20E+01 7.466+00 1 . 10£ *02 1.606*02 6.00EK-1,15£*05 1.62£*04 4.306+00 5.21E+00 7.46E*00 6.33C+01 3.S06-014.306+00 2.606+01 7.46tH» 3,10£*oa 5.006*01 7.006-01.31E*05 3.236*04 4,306*00 1.436*01 7,466*00 1.106*02 6.206-014.306+00 3.606+01 7.466*00 3.106*02 2.306+00 1.606-01.706*02 2.53£*05 1,626*04 4.306+00 1.696+01 7.466+00 3.656+02 1.906-014.306*00 7.26£*00 7.466*00 1.1.^+02 6.8aE+00 S.506-014.306+00 9.31E+00 7.466*00 1.206*02 7.33£*00 1.606-01

CVJ

o

3.906*01 9.30E+00

IIIIIIIIII

APPENDIX C(UV/Ozone Oxidation Results)

CMsr-O

D Ot

O O

C' O

o < CD

*-

*TO

rt>tC

ill3

C(t

__•«

u»- 0

u*O r*

>p- O

13

tVt»t

o OQ'

-i1

r*Q

c'fi

a-t, 0

33

r* 't-'ft rr

rft> 3 <-» - .-i "**, Ci U' a. .^. -"

r* r«

O <

-t -t

-t 2

2 2

Q O

G O

O (B

CD

fu11- - i

i ift ft

HI fli -

33

30

*1^ i1

0* Q

» U* 3

-

— r*

it rt

rt O

- —

—

1 O

O O

33 1 <

H el i 3

3 r, i O

O O

O ^

3

3<A

t* -*• —

3 3

(J* x

, < <

O T i

i 0

O O

-I

i -

_-(',

- - -

3 ._

, o

O 3

-»i

Cc O

— -

U> O

O C

' 3 t&

V

-n

(U O

O

- 1

•« -

( 3

"• i

—

3 ft

Qj i '<

',' it

tt -f

% i~> O

0* ft* Q

~ O

O O

(!)

3i3

i

3 3

fl> 3

3 il*

r l

- O

i*

•*» 1

-O —

BO

'Nrt

— rt

O O

O 1

rt -

O '•

O 3

'-'

3 0

> 1 O

3-

- 3

- 3

t T - -t

0> J

fli

ixa

n - -a

c& o

-D

O

a> n

o -

33

OtH

3i.

O'Q

f&3

3 3

C-~

1 CP

O i!&

1 (D

(6

—

(H -

OO

O

33

- ^

O -

r» 3

1 1

T3 •

0"f

l»u

- 3

• •

1 3

<O

O 1

rt rt

CU

—

f> -

O tH

O •

3 •

3 Q

• 3

1 r*

TT>

-^i

([»

t&

O i£i

O 3

ff

3

rtn

^ 3

i&

j

(TI "*,

it/ rtt

3 *f

iit

• .•

-• .-.

.- ,-

,-- /

,-. -'

,--[ . i i.H

t. .

[ u -•

f.n i . (.

[.'( f

*) ti'

-* '-'I' f

•! F' t

^ fl."

-*

-*O

O

«ft

O

-W

OO

C'l

Cfl1 O

O O

Cu

O -^'

O O

Oo o o c o o o c o o o o o o o o o o

*>. '*>

tw ro

r-> -»

— —

— —

.f

1 1

I 1

1 1

- -

-O

D O

1 O O

D O

fu t

u •*

o r>

n o

o o

o H

f" -H

33

33

33

31

t -i

O O

O G

O O

O O

fl»

rtll1llT

l3

r»3

OO

OO

OO

O-

i —

oa"O

i*Oi>c

[to&

»o(5

fl»1

rt(H

r»rt

iOi;

33

->3

33

3O

3O

W N

1? ftf

N *

C" it —

til"(H

(ftl

>3fl

>33

rtO

irt

3 3

3 it

3

i!6 fll 3

1

3Cft

it ftt

CD

(i

O fl<

3 C&

3(H

rt (D

3 Cti •

3 en

' ,*

,-•••

. .

.- .-v

,'

. /*•

--FVJ

<A'' tu

c."

-* C/

* ti

W tt>

6t*

w o

• w

• •

C' O

O

O O

O O

oooooooooo

"0 c _ (G (1 a- a (i* X Oi — o o a. 1 c* o 3 M

DO

O D

Ot (U

Of Q>

a> £t

a (p

> m a* n

3 X

f» O

_ ^

a -

< *

- o

N O

COQ

at Q

enD

a**

** ~*

S X

X

Xto

fu O

OX

X

-^ X

CO t

O (O

ft)

tl t

1 1

O *A O 1 - o r» - O 3 •H m -f > r- •H < r 6 -^

it H

it >

« GO

H r M m

f>* It

!>• H

(i>3 ;

••-

K U

>O

« C * 3

(D

» >

-J •

3J

•* n <

-JL •

O uO

-* ft

T|

> H

c* up » O

u &

« O

u -»

ti i* Q

N >

« H

H >

Ul O C 1 o tV 0 c T; _ 2 J> r- _ Z

\

Oi T) m O 3J _ X 5 5 2^ jj O 01 _ r r

u a* •o

012

720

^Mi

IIIII

! X MONRC6VJLLE

TABLc 3: SUMMARY OF GC601 DATA

871 10 146 source cu F I N A LDesc r i p t i o n T^EATAB i u i TVDate

Datec o l l e c t e d :°ece i vea£x tracteg

Date ana lyzed

III

1 1 / 0 0 / 8 71 1 /09/971 1 /23/8?i 1 / 2 3 / 3 7

ie1 , 1 -Tr ten i oroet nane1 ,3 , £ - r e t r a c n i o roe thane1 , a~Tr i en i o roe thane1-D i en t oroet nanei -O t oo toroe tnene2-0 i en i o-'ooenrene3-D i en f oroe t nane2-D i en i oropropane

1 , 3 - D r eniorooenzere2-Cn . oroetoy I v/ 1 ny i eSromoo p en i orometnaneBromof o*"mCar Don re t racn tor taeen i orooenzeneCh i oroet naneCh l o r o f o rm .D i cromocn i orometnane

i Bromidei en i or i ae- . .

Metnv i ene Ch lor ioe .Tetr ach loroecneneTr i en (orof luoroT.e tn^'ieTr i en loroetnenev i ny i en lor idee t s - 1 ,3-D i c n loroprcpenet r an s - i , ,2 -D i e n t o r o e t n e n et ran s- 1 ,3-D t en ( oropropene

:3 OOv3 00'.I OO5 OO

• -S OO^ 15 O• S OO• 3. 00• . 30 . 0• 2 5 . 0< t 3 0' - 1 0 0''20 0• - 1 0 0•53 0' 35 O• 5 00' . 10 0• 50 0• 35 0• 5 OO• 3 00•.t 00• 10 0• .25 0« 30 0•.5 OO

SO C

Tne aoov/e r e su l t s are reoorteo in ug/-« .A i i OC001 i aent i f i cat i ons are r" rcm re tent i on ci&ta on i y

^^H

IIIIIIIIII1II

APPENDIX 2-CCALCULATION OF CARVER TERRACE HALF LIVES

r-CMs~o

I

II 2 0 6 9 T 4 0 4 0 - 0 0 1 - 6 0 0

APPENDIX 2-CESTIMATION OF AVERAGE PAH AND TCDD/TCDF

CONCENTRATION IN CARVER TERRACESURFACE SOILS FOR THE NEXT 70 YEARS

The future scenario at Car ' er Terrace assumes that PAHsand TCDD/TCDF in the surface soil degrade. Thus exposure ofresidents will decrease with time. The following steps wereperformed to est imate the average concentration of PAHs andTCDD/TCDF in Carver Terrace surface soils for the futureexposure scenar io, i . e . the next 70 years .

1. The geometric mean concentrat ion of PAH in Carve rTerrace surface so i l s/ assuming no sod was in p lace ,presented in Table B-3 of Appendix 2-B was used toest imate the 70 year average concentrat ion .TCDD/TCDF equivalent concentrations were taken fromthe RI report .

2. The upper 95 percentile of half-lives reported in thel iterature for benzo(a)pyrene was used in this riskassessment. This value was equal to 1385 days (seeAppendix 2-F ) . The half-life of benzo(a)pyrene wasassumed to be representative of other PAHs. Ahalf-life of 12 years was used for TCDD/TCDF (EPA1986) .

3. Annual decay of PAHs and TCDD/TCDF was calculatedusing the following formula:

C x eo•kt

Where C is equal to PCOC concentrat ion at the timespecified by the subscr ipt ; t is equal to the timeperiod during which the PCOC is decaying; and, k isequal to the half-l ife of the PCOC.The concentrat ion at the end of each year of the 70year period was calculated.

C\Jr-<M_O

2 0 6 9 T 4 0 4 0 - 0 0 1 - 6 0 0C-l

IIIIIIIII

The average soil concentrat ion for the 70 year per iodwas then derived by summing the concentrat ion at theend of each year and dividing by 70, the tota l numberof years . Initial concentrat ion, concentrat ions atthe end of each of the yea r s/ and the averageconcentrat ion for total PAH and for potent ia l lycarcinogenic PAH and 2 , 3 , 7 , 8 - T C D D toxic equivalentsare shown in Table C- l .

cvjr-OJv"o

2 0 6 9 T 4 0 4 0 - 0 0 1 - 6 0 0

III(%}*$&&«££§ ^!-

•"-:-

CM

I*_ ___—————.-«.«*«*sasi*«3

m3

2m!m

S8

;g;Sm<m !I

M*rt4

**ri^*f*^*4ri4

**4***ri**rif4

>4'4

i4i4

f4'4

<*'4*4

*4i4

**AA

i*i4»4

»4i*t4

f4*{A

f4*4

O

[Si

«^

W , , ,

r T r

rTrTY

YY

YY

YY

Y?Y

7Y

f??Y

^Y?^9

^Y^?

Y????Y

?Y

Y?^Y

Y?Y

YY

YY

Y?Y

Y?Y

YY

?Y

Y?Y

YY

fggggwiljieai^glggiH

i^^ 3

|8*- ^•^jj^rf^iH**V

J^^M^^A

M^--;~-----:-;-:~-'-'-

t-1 J-' • • • • • •

_._.,««„«-—.—.-^

-————————«^*a«i*WW

R»3

C«sifta^H

J«t;jilfi«?3i3

««<5*5asaaaBa(K3

lft33

a(3i3

a33

S2I§ Illlllllp

lppllllp

llll

?

YrTr$YYYY>rYrY?YyyWYW r

*J www^^www^w^^ww^wijjwwwjwMW

^^wywjyjw^ww^jwwwwJjwwwwwjw ^

EH •**• • l^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^i^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

it''''""'"~- *:*"• jj c

* *-

-

.........

r T T

TT

YY

YY

YyY

Y?Y

Y¥Y

Y:

Ht^^^3

«^^3jlS

K^^^I$^)l(^^^ie^i

j^j-«^-*-'«_;-:-*(a*wj^r.'jj»14**i4

^*" t-'-' JJ • •-

- ss==s=ssSE«a«aaKJJ«e«SSS!S*a^«a|RHttSV»5J9

tf51a^i3 UB• £

?, u. ?f5?????55??5?5??*?5*?l?55**555l5*f5?*l?5iFf?555?«s?Yf«*f?????f?§???*??? ^

?J5 ^^^^^^^^IK

p^

gY

TY

TY

TT

T|^f

TTY

Y?Y

YT

TfT

TT

TY

TJf Y

TY

YY

Y«*-****-

——————— ———— ' - ' 'Ijj SSSSSSS!S!iSISI?5^!?^ISS!?S!SS!£S!SI?!SSSSSSS!3"

t£ f£ (v *« isl *>J *f *» (n »» »«. *Z f* -*. rw ~ *. («. *>. fh,f«K. t>! fj f* f^ <» ^ ^.J-.*-'- - -

.. ,_,_.,_r^^, p. r»^. >.K

*""

fBBS"EC

ts i

C-3

IIIIIi:?w^y!s:*j§j;j£c^^&

:rt;;3^^#^^w;}j;'t-'j'S

*j y^£t~ **

- *^***'***""" "" "

lu jl" "°"'""""""*"* •«.ji«a'-

gs!l

I

^-3?

^S

^^'fl^^^^^^^yS

vV

^^^^^S

S^^vO

?^^^^^

«^^^^^^^^3

^^W

^^'^3

?^^^J^'S

j-Jj'O

'J?^v^l

,-.

* ^ *j \J

L- -j«;-*;.ij >; ,0 .*j >j -; H--; ."j ^ -j »j 'j^j.-J \i ••>} -^\ --j ->i ^j *'. \J -*j j«j-^i >>* -v^j •] ^j --j.^1 ^j -*i^J ^» --J ^ *j ->j U <; I *j ^ *'* .>J.»; j^lnj *j<»J,-j^ .0-j -j*\i-"j^j^j -J -J

£ 2! -" ?

v o *5 *-

-^*»*.5

--f O

v-f

iy»

;*^ ,

.»

».

^.

J^

]x

''"

"'"

"^

jA

-l"

'^

»'^

t'

1"

"^

k*J

*T

'«

rt

A"

A''

""

*"

'"

'*

''

.-

.-

..

..

-.

».

» ,

- J .

, .

. . ^

"^ "

at * ~

"

§ S

"" s"IaV

(I'tf^'y'T'S

jj'^X^

S^ia^.1^ —

'S^^J

^^rr^r^^^'^^^^X^V

^^*

-I«-«•*

SiC*!?S!8«SS8S*«?S?l(3»5ai5^]l!^^

— — -"e^ftf«i*'-t'^^rtJ

--'-''-jf*i.***«-viW ——--<»5

--J»i*-i-iv,\

;«J^; —

*» 4 »'«4

/•* .»i *i — —

-^ * «J uj .i V « «'-i

X *~* f^tr- tf*c****-<yn

S ~2

-?P

S?V ? d*

^^ - ?ft

fo

aPSfi^s^S

S-^^-sS

^** 1-^-?*:^

s-IJ' r«

fc'-t"^*i''»»^--->J

— aS»T ,3-i-

:*S<&

.>J.(<»»i-;*

^~

ff fta

-2

<X -3

ci „

' ~K

^->f>td>> »'-!-' -j\i — — — — *-^^>.i» - -«',>,-*-._. — «

--.i*

« «

.fl J> «, 64

Ji«.3

fi'i83

i

e-s

•MW

IIIIIII

APPENDIX 2-DORGANLEPTIC THRESHOLDS FOR TASTE

00OJf—CVJ^_o

I

IIIIII

I 2069T 4 0 4 0 - 0 0 1 - 6 0 0

^•1

IIIIIIAPPENDIX D(Biological Treatment Influent Results)

CMr*-

o

IIIIIIIIIIII

Appendix DIRGANLEPTIC THRESHOLDS FOR TASTE FOR ORGANIC PCOCS

PCOC

BENZENEETHYL BENZENETOLUENEo,m-XYLENE

THRESHOLD(ug/l i ter)20500140250300

REFERENCE

cbc

c

Organoleptic thresholds have not been derived for allPAH. However, a threshold of 20 ug/liter is reportedfor acenapthene and has been used here to representall PAH.Sax, N . I . , ed* 1 9 8 6 . Hazardous Chgmicals InformationAnnual Ho*. 1^. Van Norstrand Reinhold informationServices, New York, N . Y . .Verschueren, K. . 1 9 8 3 . Handbook of EnvironmentalDa_ja on Organic Chemicals/. Sec.g_nd Edition. VanNorstrand Reinhold Company, New York, N . Y . .

o

o

D-l

v'E [Ml IA.t

*iZ ' frSAb'00 ' (if; ' yif:i tu: ' (7H 'fis: ' ti I 'LI y ' trie"; ':-A 'frerS S " I* If: s ' A T>: I ' f ;: £ft ' t:s t t':< ' t-'-T [AO'S^V oe; ot:t;

amvA n %of>

00 ' 066t?OO'ZU00'fr9Cl92 'yfr ' SL' '9E23 'K"Uy '19'as" 6i Ofi '9101 ' yl 00 ' Afrloo ' £si t)o ' y o i* *^ A ' *"» ** j 00 boA

xvw

frA ' 000" Zl Ioo • 9 AO'90'So 'fro 'SO'Alt 'ir: ' ^ i ' I f( ' c Tfr '££9 '9Oo T>:*o;r LA OO ' DOT0 fr " 2 fr

NTW

SA009Sfry r>o IS00yi £1OAu*-; r;o/>; Cl*tfs yfrAA•-,',

«JJ

C I(>IoIz20I!;;T1III

^

-SE>

ttl 'QVl(J D ' Z T 1oe; '8A Al 'b'c 'ti;*»o ' ZZ 'SI 'Ufro"-'frt; 9(i!-* .'.(^ I If;-; tuii;: uiMo y • ;; H i s A : r

MV^Wf)

t bp ' c u-;s frt? ' ;;.;yo 00 'oil 00 ' ol t

wa ' n;tj H^ ' st;i t.'i; ' :»ot;fr ' AO 'Sfr W Iy i ' l/o ' Hl> ' b'O '/:i;' sir (Ji* ' Io 'i A «. ' o

;:/. ' i* i HO ' o ^S'frl US'b'»:>: ' :«:; 1 A " E E 1 'SO-; b'A ' I L«;»; ' o i;; t/ 1 * b'o " vVjir AS ' bHUc <-<.-,! ^ b^. 'jt.:-»

fJM.i.ni tiawo'i III ",.SfrJ

00 ' UUfri.',00 't;b ' L'I:S ttO 'Al 'yo ' 90 'til *£ I "C.. '•ji 'L

1 0 ' 9

t: ; ' s n* s s '^ ' s: i/ frfr ' ~t',\f frO'uOlfi tj " t' A L'

axs

*j l ' ytiJ I v00 "oil IMS" fr^i; y uva M'i; (JiJ f -JU ..»X.I(y;j •; ^ti.-.*^ A.I.U" b' ^IU.C.L.H01 9 **U,Mf |U*82 y •-•'u.q |iub I ;»Sfr' n UV ' ;* ..sK'-'tf 1 1,' b ^*HOT. :*iv:'"l »:AH " v*»i L'AS'SOI n i; L' ' o fci I Kb

1! >:*;;; i;NV:dW I'AiHt

ji'» «

-iv.ua

11 V ! t 'J' ' 11 ( J

U I

.' ''- •: s .

J! *

i- *:'

i> ' '.I. A.I. ' ' >"•'!'*NV 1.^1' '..'

l.:>l.-I.|.|t>M012731

• /_ -.4 v .1 . • j .; - ' + U j

J^IK- .;. • , i.. - i [>n ;

i';. C(id • : •A It:!':' ' uo I V ' UA^K ' 0fr fr I ' 0AAfr ' (IfcCfc'Oi'f;*.; ' o 1C H • ' 0[8'92£' AOOS "0>oo y " o> **oo /;A'-'N- "H7 A«

'-Jo I::nW'jt'6 fr 2 ' ( JASt

1 ' 0

AfrS'Osy t ' o 81 y ' o £££"08 ' 0ITS'0AA " 98'IT219 " £AS ' 26IM&• 1 1^*-'H-K:: A

oo • ;; oo •;: 9OAO "'Jfrl "OL'O'6t'0 'I 8 U *080'b't^ "^ t 'oyz " 02 A 'ooy ooy ' 002"00 '?,Of) ' 2

,y A(>

H

'0(j0'u0000eeo > 00>91 ^

09OO 2^IK*USD ' i) -3 C?' W W

OKO '()>yo ' o y t ' o 280'£)tfiy ' o G'jH " 086 '82' IT£8 ' W2 ' r>;}2 ' E A00 Li' " ''t' !

.tf-AOM ;;o /.^H.LV'J I ;N ! '! k

-'*X [ ' 1 1 ' i ', ' A j i [ i

Otu;i/ OOA I fon i^ n t; EO';o ' o •O'io " o -0£0 ' 0 • G^ ' 2'/'CO ' 1)2 ;.; t ' o t)9(i ' 0 8 ' £AoiJ'o ;; 2 K ' 0 H (j '*>r ye i 6 "91 oy2 ! 'tfl CA

A fr- L el t; :.: i £'i i oy« t yof OCBKL'<' Ai-'f i o:: • ["'j IWV'.-: l

-t! HV.t iu.--ii[^ui'!'• i'.".tl X.!. '^wt-i(.

Ij

LJyyyyfrt' frt' et;£e£

3&'U I ,

EL'X^J,

HVJp.. £^i )otf->pud( 5 ' q • r* )<">'„• U;J'i tit,- ( qt.

1 ) v,'Uv>q t

'. -ti t JU Att

ou.:»_H.\u['p.u:( t: jotr

012732

A- " I , T f ' t i t . f j y j . • , ! • •\ ' H " t i ' l l ' ! ( • IK '

I ' ; , . - , - , . , t r . r . - r i "An 1 f r.v-"iv.-K lie 'tvut f h-.Ti'-Pyren*.-

Dij v » ( h If iM.'ir

i7« • ( k t f 1 t.n •riet j a ( .'ih )aritS ' - ' ( g , h , i )p

TOTAL

>H Her 87; ' Of !; : . oo

0 . ^00(.1 . MKI( i . S f fO3 . 4 1 03 . 0 Hif t .0 .o .0 . 149;!8f ) 1 . 2 5 0ft .mi0 . 2 1 8

9- • 2 . 0 0- 2 . 0 0

HE i i - ' i v : 1 ' ' ' • ; : ( AMY . ! N' '• M I , ' > ' Tf " t t - i h i I i t y . . M I (n t l ' i - M i Ai l ! " > ' - (

' . 'AM i ' L IN f ; [ »ATK

M. . t . **

"(V 3 n'•M- - t .-•.<-; j •• r "UP

I fr-te« ' t . ; ih lfrr levelt, i vo

0 1 2 7 3 3

pH (units)Total P04-HachNH3-N ChemetricsTSSVSSFSSPhenols (4-AAP)TOGBOD(5)-TotalCOD-TotalOil & GreaseTDSTDFSTDVSPCP (uff/L)Total CyanideTotal Det. PAH(ug/L>MetalsPhenolics (EPA 604)Phenolics (EPA 624)Vol. Or*. (EPA 625)Phenols-Chemetrics

KOPPERS COMPAHY, INC.TEXARKANA, TX TRKATABILITT STUDT

WEEKLY DATA SHEETSBIOLOGICAL TREATMENT INFLUENT DATA

SAMPLING DATE16-Oct-87 17-Oet-87 18-Oct-87 19-Oct-87 20-Oct-87 21-Oct-87 22-Oct-

6 . 5<1

2 . 420

5 . 84 . 52 . 412

75

63 . 3<11810

80 . 3 5 838 . 1

311 12<6

188120

68

1 3 8 4 . 2 5

0 0unless

0 1 2 7 3

1 2 1 0KOPPERS COMPANY, INC.

TKXARJCANA, TX TRKATABILIT? STUDYWEEKLY DATA SHEETS

BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT INFLUENT DATASAMPLING DATE

23-Oct-87 24-Oct-87 25-Oct-87 26-Oct-87 27-Oct-07 28-Oct-87 29-Oet-87pH <units)Total PQ4-Hach - 5.7NH3-N Ch«metrics - 4TSSVSSFSSPhenols (4-AAP)TOGBOD<5)-TotalCOD-TotalOil & GreaseTDSTDFSTDVSPCP (ufi/L)Total CyanideTotal 0et. PAH(ug/L)MetalsPhenolics (EPA €04)Phenolics <EPA 624)Vol. Org, <EPA 625)Phenols-ChemetricsAll values are in mg/L unless otherwise noted.* See data in appendix.

6 . 2 55 . 63 . 224022812

6 . 1 5

30 .7

0

9 £ LZ I 0

pH (units)Total PO4-HachNH3-N ChemetricsTSSVSSFSSPhenols (4-AAP)TOOBOD(5)-TotalCOD-TotalOil & GreaseTDSTDFSTDVSPOP <ug/L)Total CyanideTotal Det. PAH(u«/L)MetalsPhenolics <EPA 604)Phenolics (EPA 624)Vol. Org. (EPA 625)Phenols-CheroetricsAll values are in mfi/L unless otherwise noted.* See data in appendix.

KOPPERS COMPANY, INC.TEXARKANA, TX TRKATABILITY STUDY

WEEKLY DATA SHEETSBIOLOGICAL TREATMENT INFLUENT DATA

SAMPLING DATE30-Oct-87 31-Oct-87 01-Nov-S7 02-Nov-87 03-Nov-8T 04-Nov-87 05-Nov-87

6.8 -4 . 6 7 -- 4

— — _ 1C _J.O ~ —14— — — o — —. _

0 . 4 0 1 -2 9 . 7 -1 4 . 3 -

80<6 - -175 -

119 -56 - -

3 1 1 . 3 4 4

L £ L Z I 0

pH <units)Total FO4-HachNH3-N ChemetricsTSSVSSFSSPhenols (4-AAP)TOCBOD(5)-TotalCOD-TotalOil & GreaseTDSTDFSTDVSPCP <ug/L)Total CyanideTotal 0et. PAH(ug/L)MetalsPhenolics (EPA 604)Phenolics (EPA 624)Vol. Qrg. (EPA €25)Phenols-ChemetricsAll values are in mg/L unless otherwise noted.* See data in appendix.

KQPPERS COMPANY, INC.TEXARKANA, TX TKBATABILITY STUDY

WEEKLY DATA SHEETSBIOLOGICAL TREATMENT INFLUENT DATA

SAMPLING DATE06-Nov-87 07-Nov-8? OQ-Nov-87 09-Nov-87 10-Nov-87 li-Nov-87 12-Nov-87

6.7 -5 _4.8 -

17 -- 98

8 £ L Z I 0

pH (units)Total P04-HachNH3-N ChemetricsTSSvssFSSPhenols (4-AAP)TOGBOD<5)-TotalCOD-TotalOil & GreaseTDSTDFSTDVSPOP < us/I.)Total CyanideTotal Det. PAH(ug/L)MetalsPhenolics (EPA €04)Phenolics <EPA 624)Vol. Org. (EPA 625)Phenols-ChemetricsAll values are in mg/L unless otherwise noted.* See data in appendix.

KOPPERS CCMPAWY, INC-TEXARKANA, XX TREATABILITY STUDY

WEEKLY DATA SHEETSBIOLOGICAL TREATMENT INFLUENT DATA

SAMPLING DATEi3-Nov-87 14-Nov-87 15-Nov-87 16-Nov-87 17-Nov-87 18-Nov-87 19-Nov-8?

- 74.7 -4.8 -

45 -21 - . -- - - 24 - -

0 . 1 2 5 -18 . 1 -5 . 7 5 -

40 -7 . 0 5 -- - - 185 -

139 -46 -

7 . 7 7 3

6 £ L 2 I 0

pH (units)NH3-N Ch«aetricsTSSVSSFSSPhenols (4-AAF)TOCBOD(5)-TotalCQD-TotalOil & GreaseTDSTOFSTDVSPOP <u#/L)Total CyanideTotal Det. PAB(ug/L)MetalsPhenol ics <SPA 604)Phenolics (EPA 624 )Vol. Qrg. (EPA 625)Phenol s-CheroetricsAll values are in mg/L unless otherwise noted* See data 3n appendix.

KOPPERS COMPAHY, INC.TEXARKANA, TX TREATAfllLITY STU3DY

WEEKLY DATA SHEETSBIOLOGICAL TREATMENT INFLUENT DATA

SAMPLING PATE2Q-Nov-87 2l-Nov-87 22-Nov-8? 23-Nov-8? 24-Nov-87 25-Nov-87 26-Nov-87

6.9 -- - - 5 — _ _4 . 8

" " ~ ~ 1 0 ~ — * •8

•— — — *7

- 0 . 3 5 4 -_ _ _ 0 1021. o1 5 . 5 -

65 -<6

161 -123 -

38 -

4 5 7 . 5 4 2

0 17 LZ tO

pH < units)Total P04-HachNH3-N CheraetricsTSSvssFSSPhenols (4-AAP)TOCBOD{5)-TotalCOD-TotalOil & GreaseTDSTDFSTDVSPCP (us/L)Total CyanideTotal 0et. PAH(ug/L)MetalsPhenolics (EPA 604)Phenolics <EPA 624)Vol. Org. <EPA 625)Phenol s -Cheme tries

KOPPERS COMPANY, INC.TEXAKKANA, TX TTIEATABILITT STUDY

WEEKLY DATA SHEETSBIOLOGICAL TREATMENT INFLUENT DATA

SAMPLING DATE28-Nov-87 29-Nov-87 30-Nov-87 01-Dec-

— —• *7 —- 4

4 . 825

— — Q _

160 .2 132 1 . 4

1180<6

1581 12

464 1 . 2

< 0 .0 117 .3 15

Q2-0ec-87 Q3-Dec-S71

All values are in m#/L unless otherwise noted.* See data in appendix.

I t7 LZ I KOPPERS COMPANY, INC.TEXARKAJNA, TX TREATABILITY STUDY

WEEKLY DATA SHEETSBIOLOGICAL TREATMENT INFLUENT DATA

SAMPLING DATEQ4~Dec-8? 05-Deo-8? 06-Dec-S7 07-Dec-87 08-Dec-87 20-Dec-87pH <units)Total P04-HacbNH3-N ChemetricsTSSVSSFSS -Phenols (4-AAP)TOCBOD<5)-TotalCOD-TotalOil & GreaseTDSTDFSTDVSPCP <ug/L)Total CyanideTotal Det. FAH(ug/L)MetalsPhenolics (EPA 604)Phenolics (EPA 624)Vol. Qrs. <EPA 625)Phenols-CheaaetricsAll values are in mg/L unless otherwise noted.# See data in appendix.

5 66 . 4O 161

813

0 . 1 2 421 .8C*7 SiD f . d60

<6163115

48

8 .591

Z 1 CK0PPERS COMPANY, INC.

TEXARKAJ4A, TX TREATABILITY STUDYWEEKLY DATA SHEETS

BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT INFLUENT DATASAMPLING DATE

ll-Pec-87 12-Dec-87pH (units)Total PO4-HachNH3-N ChemetricsTSS -VSSFSSPhenols (4-AAP)TOCBOD<5)-TotalCOD-TotalOil & Greas«TDSTDFSTDVSPCP <u«/L)Total CyanideTotal Dot. PAH<«s/L)MetalsPhenolics (EPA 604)Phenolics (EPA 624)Vol. Or«. <EPA 625)Phenols-ChemetrlcsAll values are in mg/L unless othearwise noted.* See data in appendix.

IIWST IDSPECTRIX DC tt —— 0

SAMPLE NUMBER: TEX. INFORGANICS ANALYSIS DATA SHEET (PAGE 1)

LABORATORY NAME; SPECTRIX

KB SAMPLE ID NO. : 871200402MPLE MATRIX ; WATERTA RELEASE AUTHORIZED BY:

CASE NO, : —QC REPORT NO. : —CONTRACT NO. : 12-01-87DATE SAMPLE RECEIVED:

• VOLATILECONCENTRATION: LOW•ATE ANALYZED: ia/os/a?

t CAS # COMPOUNDCOiO CHLQRQMETHANE

I C015 BROMOMETHANEC020 VINYL CHLORIDEC025 CHLORQETHANE

I C030 METHYLENE CHLORIDEC035 ACETONEC040 CARBON DISULFIDE

- C045 1, 1-OICHLOROETHENE• C030 1, 1-DICHLOROETHANE" C055 TRANS-1 . 2-DICHLOROETHENE

C060 CHLOROFORHI C06S i, 2-DICHLOROETHANE

C 1 1 0 2-BUTANONEC 1 1 3 1 , 1 , 1-TRICHLOROETHANE

I C120 CARBON TETRACHLORIDEC125 VINYL ACETATEC130 BROMODICHLQROMETHANE

m C140 1. 2-DICHLQRQPRQPANE• C170 CIS- 1 , 3-DICHLOROPROPENEU)• C 1 SO TR ICHLOROETHENE

C 1 55 D I BROMQCHLORQMETHANEI C160 1 , 1 ,2-TRICHLQROETHANE

C165 BENZENEC145 TRANS-1. 3-DlCHLQROPROPENE<E>

I C175 2-CHLOROETHYLVINYLETHERC190 BROMOFORMC205 4-METHYL-2-PENTANONE

— C210 2-HEXANONE• C220 TETRACHLOROETHENEm C223 1. 1 ,2 , 2-TETRACHLQROETHANE

C230 TOLUENE

I C233 CHLOROBENZENEC240 ETHYLBENZENEC24S STYRENE

M C230 TOTAL XYLENES

:sDATAFILE: SU12004V02DILUTION FACTOR: 1. 00

UG/L10 U10 U10 U10 U

5 . . . . . . . . 4 J10 U5 U5 U5 U5 U5 U5 U

10 U3 U5 U

10 U5 U5 U5 U3 U3 U3 U5 U5 U

10 U5 U

10 U10 U3 U3 U5 U3 U3 U3 U5 U

PO— ——— -sjr-

CM•r-O

U *1 UNDETECTED AT THE LISTED DETECTION LIMITCOMPOUND IS PRESENT, BUT BELOW THE LISTED DETECTION LIMIT

^^H

I

I«=,***

I

I1

I

NST ID : 4 S 1 OJ t t iX DC *t -•

SAMPLE NUMBER: TEX iNF

ORGANICS ANALYSIS DATA SHEET'ABORATORY -NAME: SPECTS IXAS SAMPLE ;0 NO. : 9712004C

MPLE MATR IX : WATERTA RELEASE AUTHORIZED BY

NCENTRATI3N: LOWT£ EXTRACTED . .TE ANALYZED: I S/ 14/87

CASE NO. : —QC REPORT NO. : ——CONTRACT NO. : —-DATE SAMPLE RECEIVED:SEMIVOLATILS3

DATAFILE: 9U12004C02DILUTION FACTOR: . . . .

. . !+/'/*

COMPOUNDDETECTION

LIMIT(MICROGRAMS

AMOUNTFOUND

LITER)fBlIlll••

C3 15C325C330C335C340C345C350C355C360C365C370C375C410C 4 1 5C420C425C430C435C440C44SC450C455C46OC465C470C310C 3 1 3C520C525C330C535C540C545C550C555C360C565C57CC375

PHENOL3 1 S < 2-CHLOROETHYL > ETHER2-CHLOROPHENCLI , 3-DICHLQROBENZENEi , 4-DICHLCROBENZHNEBENZYL ALCOHOL1 , 2-DICHLOROBENZtNE2-METHYLPHENOL& I S < 2-CHLOROI SOPROPYL ) ETHER4-METHYLPHENQLN-NITROSODIPROPYLAMINEHEXACHLOROETHANENITRODENZENEISOPHORONE2-NITROPHENOL2. 4-DIMETHYLPHENQLBENZOIC ACID0 1 S ( 2-CHLQRQETHOX Y ) METHANE2. 4-DICHLQRQPHENOL1 , 2.4-TRICHLOROBENZENENAPHTHALENE4-CHLOROANILINEHEXACHLOROBUTADIENEP-CHLORO-M-CRESOL2-METHYLNAPHTHALENEHEXACHLOROCYCLOPENTADIENE2. 4, 6-TRiCHLORQPHENQL2. 4, 5-TRICHLOROPHENOL2-CHLORQNAPHTHALENE2-NITROANILINEDIMETHYL PHTHALATEACENAP4THYLENE3-NITRQANILINEACENAPHTHENE2. 4-DINITRQPHENOL4-NITROPHENOLDI0ENZQFURAN2. 4-DINITROTOLUENE2. A-DINITROTOLUENE

40 U40 U40 U40 U40 U40 U40 U40 U40 U40 U40 U40 U40 U40 U40 U40 . . . . . . . . . . . 45

200 U40 U40 U40 U40 U40 U40 U40 U40 U40 U40 U

200 U40 U

200 U40 U40 U

200 U40 . . . . . . . . . . . 29 J

200 U200 U

40 U40 U40 U

o

DC » ——— *

SAMPLE NUMBER: T£X INF

MIVOLATILE CRSANIC3 ANALYSIS DATA SHEET, CONTINUED1-iiiB

•

r*FILE;

C530CS85C590C595C6 10C & 1 5C625C630C635C640C&45C650C65SC 7 1 SC720C725C730C735C740C760C763C770C775C780C785C790

9'Ji2C04C02

COMPOUND

DIETHYL PKTHALATJE4-CHLQROPHENYL Pf-ENYL ETHERFLUORENE4-NITRQA.MILINE4, 6-DINITRO-2-.METHYLPHENCLN-NITROSODIPHENYLAMINE4-BROMOPHENYL PH£NYL ETHERHEXACHLOROBENZENEPENTACHLOROPHENOLPHENANTHRENEANTHRACENEDI-N-BUTYL PHTPALATEFLUORANTHENE

PYRENEBUTYL BENZYL PHTHALATE3. 3'-DICHL3ROBENZIDlNEBENZO C A ) ANTHRACENEB I S ( 2-ETHYLHEX YL ) PHTHALATECHRYSENEDI-N-OCTYL PHTHALATEBENZO < B ) FLUQRANTHENEBENZO < K ) FUUORANTHENEBENZO(A)PYRENEINDENOd, 2. 3-COPYRENEDIBENZOCA. HJANTHRACENEBEN20(GHI )PERYLENE

DETECTION AMOUNTLIMIT FOUND

(MICROGRAMS / LITER)

40 U40 U40 U

200 USCO U

40 U40 U40 U

2OO 4-3 i* • • * * t * P . - . , * - . , , * ^ j ^ j40 U40 U40 U40 . . . . . . . . . . . 10 J40 . . . . . . . . . . 9 J40 U80 U40 U40 U40 U40 U40 U40 U40 U40 U40 U40 U

in<^rr-CM

o

UNDETECTED AT THE LISTED DETECTION LIMITCOMPOUND 13 PRESENT, BUT BELOW THE LISTED DETECTION LIMIT

IIIST ID: SPECTRIX DC ft —— 8

SAMPLE NUMBER: TEX. INF.

ORGANICS ANALYSIS DATA SHEET - PAGE 4•SGRATORY NAME; 5PECTR IX HOUSTON CASE NO. ; «

)C REPORT NO : — ANALYST: R8 DATAFILE: SU120Q4VQ2I Q. TENTATIVELY IDENTIFIED COMPOUNDS

I VOLATILE COMPOUND NAMES SCAN** PURITY AMOUNT vO

IIIII

NO NON-HSL COMPOUNDS FOUND > JOX OF NEAft^ST INT. STD.

UG/lfM

O

J = ESTIMATED VALUE - A 1: i RESPONSE FACTOR IS ASSUMED

i

IIJ.A30RATQRY NAME.

03C afiPORT NO. : •

SF5CTRIX DC

SAMPLE: TEX INF

8

ORGAN;c2 ANALYS:S DATA SHEETSPSCTR IX CORPORATION

CS2

PAGE 5CASE NO. :

DATAFILE. 9UJ2004CO;3. TENTATIVELY IDENTIFIES COMPOUNDS

GAS 8

f!"/-«*-•*••M-*1-1

wn-ft-7I _a A* j v d*

|*»7-'-^/>/*• -/> -JI"/-0-J

t tj-n-o/-t>-y-i•

SEMIVOLATtLE COMPOUND NAMES

PYRIDINE, 2. 6-DtMgTHYL-BENZONITRILE, 2-METHYL-CYCLOHEXANEMETH&NOL> . ALPHA. , . ALPHA. , 4-TRETHANGNE, 1 - ( 4— iYDROXYPKENYL ) -SENZOCBJTHIOPHENEPHENOL/ 2, 4, 6-TR1METHYL-BENZENE, i ~£THYL~4~METHQXY-ISOQU INCLINEIH-INDEN-l-ONE. 2, 3-DIHYDRO-QUINOLINE. 2*METHYL-UNKNOWN-DQESN'T MATCH ANY LIBRARY SPECTRAUNKNOWN-DOESN 'T MATCH ANY LIBRARY SPECTRA1 (2H)- ISOQUINOLINQNEUNKNOWN-DOESN 'T MATCH ANY LIBRARY SPECTRAUNKNQWN-DOESN'T MATCH ANY LIBRARY SPECTRA

SCAN**

3596277 19

735766793©21836854983922

1186123912871333

PURITY AMOUNTT*

ue/£7 V 46 CMo ** f)a --*.ftCJ £j|

*7^*1» 41^ X

?*** 22£*3 26*5/ 36i?vC so5^1- 24•*> ^ «^ A/7 7 OO

^^ 613829

^7^ 2103129

IMATED VALUE - A 1:1 RESPONSE FACTOR IS ASSUMED

111111111

BIO

Parameter fug/I)AntimonyArsenicBerylliumCadmiumChromiumCopperLeadMercurvNickelSeleniumSilverThalliumZinc

KOPPERS COMPANY, INCTEXARKANA, TX TOEATABILITY STUDYBIOLOGICAL TREATMENT INFLUENT METALS DATA

Influent<60.0<iO.O<5.00<5.00

<10.0<25.0<5.00<0.200

<40.0<5.00

< 10.0< 10.0461

00<sjr-CM_o

^^^M

IIIIIIIIIIIII

APPENDIX E(Aeration Tank Treatment Results)

o

I

KOPPER5 COMPANY, INC.7EXARKANA, TX TREATABILITY STUDY

STATISTICAL SUMMARYAERATION TANK MIXED LIQUOR DATA

1Parameters (pH (units)Temperature (Deg C)Flowrate (mls/min)TSSVSSFSSDissolved OxygenCaustic Usage (mis)D. O. UptakeMicroscopic Observ.

* OF5BVS

5151455050504950

00

MEAN7 .34

21 .971 . 30

222 .961 9 9 , 0 8

2 3 . 8 89 . 0 8

. 25.0000.0000

STD.32

1 .34. 0 4

562 .7 15 1 5 . 6 8

4 9 . 2 5. 52. 4 1

.0000.0000

95* CLOWER

7 .252 1 .591 . 286 0 . 2 24 9 . 9 4

9 . 6 48 . 9 3. 13

.0000.0000

:iUPPER

7 . 4 322.351 . 3 1

385 .703 4 8 . 2 2

38 . 1 29 . 2 3

. 3 7.0000.0000

GMEAN7 .33

21 .931 .294 1 . 6 73 1 . 16

8 .859 . 0 7

.90

.00

.00

GSTD1 .051 .061 . 0 35 . 1 45 . 7 03 . 4 41 . 0 61 . 2 9

.0000

.0000

HIM6 .20

18 ,001 . 1 85 . 0 04 . 0 0

.008 . 0 0

.00. 0000.0000

MAX7.70

26.001 .40

2940.002660 .00

280 .001 1 . 2 0

1 .50,0000. 0000

90% LTVALUE

7 .7623.68

1 . 3 53 2 8 . 0 62 7 9 . 5 3

4 1 . 9 69 . 7 11 .24

.0000,0000

All values are in mg/L unless otherwise noted.Note: Flowrate indicates influent flow to unit.

0 1 2 7 5

KOPPERS COMPANY, INC.TEXARKANA, TX TREATABILITY STEJ0Y

STATISTICAL SUMMARYAERATION TANK EFFLUENT DATA

ParameterspH (units)Phenols-ChemetricsTotal P04-HachNH3-N ChemetricsTSSVSSFSSPhinols (4-AAP)TX JBO0(5)-TotalBO0(5)-SolubleOOP-TotalCOD-SolubleOil & GreaseT0ST0FST0VSPCP (ug/L)Total CyanideTotal Oet, PAH(ug/L)MetalsPhenolics (EPA 604)

3VS510

5050505050

5b5555555511b00

MEAN7.00

.00003.431 . 00

20 1 .87182 .40

19 ,47.02

14 .8811 .11

3 . 7 84 8 . 6 03 3 . 0 081 .42

177.80121 .80

56.0023 .90

.0 12 .80

.0000. 0000

ST0.27

.0000.66.03

4 9 7 . 8 74 5 9 . 9 4

39.66.00

3.289 .223 .839 .6 15 . 7 0

166.9222.4817 .926 .96

.00

. 001 . 3 0

.0000.0000

95%LOWER

6.92.00003.24

.995 7 . 8 84 9 . 3 8

8 . 0 0.01

12 . 14- . 34- .72

3 6 . 6 72 5 . 9 2

- 1 2 5 . 8 0149.9099.5547.3523.90

.0 11 . 1 8

.0000.0000

CIUPPER

7 .07.00003.621 .00

3 4 5 . 8 63 1 5 . 4 2

3 0 . 9 4.02

17 .6122.55

8.286 0 . 5 34 0 . 0 8

2 8 8 . 6 4205.70144 .0564.6523.90

.0 14 . 4 1

.0000.0000

GMEAN6 .99

.003 .371.00

3 9 . 4 83 1 . 3 8

6 . 9 602• V b*

14 .577 . 192.71

4 7 . 8 03 2 . 5 91 4 . 9 5

176.72120.7855.6323.90

.0 12 .5 1

.00

.00

GST01 . 0 4

.00001 .211 .034 . 9 75 . 2 93 . 5 7. i5

1 .253 .422 .431 . 231 . 206 . 161 . 131 . 151 . 14

.00.00

1 . 73.0000.0000

MIN6 . 1 5

.00002.00.806 . 0 06 . 0 0

.00

.0110 .501 .001 .20

35.0025 .00

6 . 0 0155.00100.0045.0023.90

.0 11 . 2 4

.0000.0000

MAX7 . 4 0

.00005 .301 .00

2400.002240 .00

1 8 0 . 0 0.02

20.8024.90

9 .8860.004 0 . 0 0

380 .00214 .00150.0064.0023.90

.013 . 9 5

.0000

.0000

90% LTVALUE

7 . 3 4.00004.281 .04

297.892 5 6 . 1 5

3 4 . 5 5. 0 2

19 .2033 .88

8.2962.084 0 . 8 7

1 4 7 . 6 7206 .08144.8065 .58

.00.00

5 .0 1.0000.0000

All values are in mg/L unless otherwise noted.

0 1 2 7 5 1

T' -xa r k a n a , TX Trr-,-, t- oh i 1 i ty : ' > t n r lyStat i r.t i 'M I Summary

An rat, ion Tank F'AH Data

AcfriaphtheneFI l it »r«n*- j

F'henanthreneAnthraceneKiuorantbe.nePyreneCenso(a )anthraceneChrysenr-

}f luoranthene

Indenof 123 .,-dTOTAL DETECTABLE"PAH^arba^ole

tt OFOBVS

00(!000'>535Sc i

5r>s5o0

MRAN. (Hi Off. onoo. O O O O. O O O O. O O O O. 0 0 0 0

. 2 5- 14. 25. 2 8. 4 9. 13. 4 6. 604Sr \ *

2 . 8 0. oooo. O O O O

STD. 0 0 0 0. O O O O. 0 0 0 0. O O O O. 0 0 0 0. oooo

. 0 1

. 07. 04. !6

07. ii i. 0 6. 2 3. 25*"> / i. 20

1 . 30. 0 0 0 0. 0 0 0 ( 1

95% CMLOWRH (

. noon. onno. ( 1 0 0 0. oooo. oooo. 0 0 0 0

. IS. 0 5. 16. on. is

F\ L •. l f r >. 18'' Q. . ' .0

. 201 . 18. oooo. o o oo

!Tf 'KK

. O f K K )C H K K f

. O O O O. O O O O. EKH lO. 0 0 ( 1 ( 1

. 36. 2 3. 3S. 4 7. 8 2. 21. 7 4.in. 70

4 . 4 1. 000! ). Of) 00

f ' .MKAN. on. 00. 0 0. 0 0. 00. 0(1. :-: s. 12

r • C~. ^.s. 2 4. 4 0. 12. 41. 55. 4 0

2 . 5 1. no. 0 0

oirrtt. oono. 0 0 0 ( 1. 0 0 0 0. oooo. 0000. oooo1 .051 .901 . 1 71 .93r> nc;*'.. . i-O1 .76i .8 11 .501 . 7 61 . 7 3

. Oi 'K». 0 0 J O

H I N. oooo. ( I U ( I O. 0 0 0 0. Oft 00. oooo. 0 0 0 0

. 2 5. 0 5. 2 1. n. n. 0 5. 1H. 3 1. 16

1 . 2 4. oooo. 000"

MA VI tl\ A

. oooo. oooo. oooo. 0 0 0 0. oooo. 0 ( 1 0 0

. 2 6. 2 2. 2 8. 4 5. 7 2. 20. 6 H. 9 1. 6h

3 . US. 00 (Hi. oooo

'xn . i . iVAI .UF :. < t O ( l M. oont. oono. oooo. oono. 0 0 0 0

. 27, 27. 30£ £. 55

1 . If!; :4. H6. f f < *. H;:

s . (J 1. oooo. O O O O

Note : N^gat. ivo numberNul^ ; -o- indioato- ) for ;>S% Lower CI ind i

* :-ntry L^ 1 ow Dr-tectabLe [ , . - - v f -i -*c a 0 parameterC BDL . ) f 'f respective parameters

0 1 2 7 5 2

AcenaphthyleneAcenaphtheneFluorenePhenanthreneAnthraceneFiuoranthenePyreneBenzo (a}anthraceneChryseneBenzo(a)pyreneBenzo(b)fluorantheneBenzo(k}fluorantheneDibenzCah)anthraceneBenzo(g,h, i )peryleneIndenoC123-cd)pyreneTOTAL DETECTABLE PAHCarbazoieNaphthalene

KOPPEPS COMPANY, INC .Texarkana. TX Treatabil ity Study

Aerat ion Tank PAH DataRings Sol ,<-f

3333444455*.i-r56

2

393019801290

7326H135142

3 . 8

2 . 4 9_

3 1 7 0 0

SAMPLING DATE23- -N o v -87

< 2 . 0 0<2 .00

< 0 . 2 0 0< 0 .500< 0 . 5 0 0< 0 . 2 0 0< 0 . 2 0 00 . 1800 .2070 . 3 9 80 . 7 1 30 . 1590 . 6 9 40 . 9 1 40 . 6 8 23 . 9 5 2< 2 . 00< ? . . 00

30-N o v -< 2 . 0 0< 2 . 0 0

< 0 . 2 0 0< 0 . 5 0 0< 0 . 5 0 0< 0 2000 .2460 . 2 2 50 .2760 . 4 5 30 . 6 4 90. 1650. . 5 7 90 . 7 2 50 . 4 9 13 . 8 0 9<?.. 00• • 2 . 0 0

-87 04 -Dec R< 2 . 0 0< 2 . 0 0

< 0 . 2 0 0< 0 . 500< 0 . 500< 0 . 2 0 0< 0 . 2 0 0

0 . 068<0 . 1500 . 1260 . 2970 . 0 8 4

0 . 2 50. 3680 . 352I . 545- 7. . 00• • 2 . 0 0

7 08 Dec< 2 . 0 0<? . oo

< 0 . 2 0 0< 0 . 5 0 0< 0 . 5 0 0< 0 . 2 0 0< 0 . 2 0 0

0 . 1 7 10 . 27

0 . 3 1 50 . 6 5 40 . 2 0 2

O . f l0 . 662O . S 6 33 . 437• 2 . 00< 2 . 0 0

87 12 Dec< 2 . 0 0< 2 . 0 0

< 0 . 2 0 0< 0 . 5 0 0< 0 . 5 0 0< 0 . 2 0 00 .2620 . 0 5 4

<0 . IS':0 . 1 1 20 . 1 0 70 . 0 5 20. Ifttf0 . 3 0 80 . 1 6 !i . : :4?• 2 . 00< 2 . 0 0

87

0 1 2 7 5 3

pH (units)Temperature (Deg C)Flowrate (rals/min)TSSVSSFSSDissolved OxygenCaustic Usage (mis)0. O. UptakeMicroscopic Observ.All values are in mg/L unless otherwise noted.* Indicates that the test was performed.Note: Flowrate indicates influent flow to unit

KOPPERS CQHPAHY, INC.TKXARKAHA, TX TREATABIUTY STUDY

WEEKLY DATA SHEETSAERATION TANK MIXED LIQUOR DATA

SAMPLING DATE23-Oct-87 24-Oct-87 25-Oct-87 26-Oct-87 27-Qct-87 28-Oct-87 29-Oct-

6 . 7 520

29402660

2801*

6 . 221

22602120

1406 . 80 . 5*

6 . 4 521

14201260

1609 . 1

1*

6 . 921

1 . 2 9940860

80q&0 . 5*

6 . 8 521

1 . 2 9760740

208 D. 0

0*

6 . 921

1 . 2 9

0*

721Cf Jk.

1 . 2 9G60570

9091*

0 1 2 7 5 4

(units)Temperature (0eg C)Flow-rate (mls/min)TSSVSSFSSDissolved OxygenCaustic tfsage (mis)D. 0. UptakeMicroscopic Observ.All values are in mg/L unless otherwise noted.* Indicates that the test was performed.Note: Flowrate indicates Influent flow to unit

KOPPERS COMPANY, IKC.TEXARKANA, TX TREATABILITY STUDY

WEEKLY DATA SHEETSAERATION TANK MIXED LIQUOR DATA

SAMPLING DATE30-Oct-87 31-0ct~87 Ol-Nov-87 02-Nov-87 03-Nov-87 04-Nov-87 05-Nov

7 . 523

. 2 9685513

91

6 . 921

1 . 2 9410350

6080

722

1 . 2 9210187

236 . 9

0

6 . 921

1 . 2 914613016

90

7 . 321

1 . 2 91 10

9614

9 . 40

723295044

690

7 . 223

1 . 2 95246

68 . 9 5

1*

0 1 2 7 5 5

pH (units)Temperature (Deg C)Flowrate (mls/siin)TSSvssFSSDissolved OxygenCaustic tfsage (mis)D. O. UptakeMicroscopic Observ. *All values are in mg/L unless otherwise noted.* Indicates that the test was performed.Note: Flowrate indicates Influent flow tc unit.

KOPPERS COMPANY, INC.TEXARKANA, TX TREATABILITY STtTY

WEEKLY DATA SHEETSAERATION TANK MIXED LIQUOR DATA

SAMPLING DATE06-Nov-87 07~Nov-87 08-Nov-87 09-Nov-87 lO-Nov-87 l l-Nov-87

7 . 321

1 . 2 4756114

9 . 10 . 5

7 . 42 1 . 51 . 2 8

202170

328 . 90 . 5

7 . 422

1 . 2 9917219

91 . 5

7 . 324

.294943

690

7 . 323

L . 2 921\6

59 . 3

0

7 , 418

L . 2 92418o

9 . 50

7 . 419

. 2 912

93

100*

0 1 2 7 5 6

(units)Temperature (Deg C)Flowrate (mis/min)TSSvssFSSDissolved OxygenCaustic Usage (mis)D. 0. UptakeMicroscopic Observ.

KOPPERS COMPANY, INC.TEXAftftAKA, TX TRKATASILITY STUDY

WEEKLY DATA SHEETSAERATION TANK MIXED LIQUOR DATA

13-Nov-8T 14-Nov-877 . 421

. 2914113

9 . 60

7 . 525

1 . 3514110

90

All values are in mg/L unless otherwise noted.* Indicates that the test was performed.Note: Flowrate indicates influent flow to unit

SAMPLING DATE8V 18-Nov-87 17~Nov-87 13-Nov-87 19-Nov

7 . 425

. . 2 8695118

9 . 21

7 . 426

1 .281510

58 . 9

7 . 524

1 . 292924

590

7 . 623

. . 2 99908 . 90

7 . 521

. . 2 9853

8 . 60

1 2 7 5 7

pH (units)Temperature (Deg C)Flowrate (mls/min)TSSvssFSSDissolved OxygenCaustic Usage (inls)D. O. UptakeMicroscopic Observ. * *All values are in mg/L unless otherwise noted.* Indicate* that the test was performed.Note; Flowrate indicates influent flow to unit

(TOPPERS COMPANY, INC. ^TEXARKANA, XX TRKATABILITY STtfi Y

WEEKLY DA'iA SHEETSAERATION TANK MIXED LIQUOR DATA

SAMPLING DATE20-Nov-8T 21-Nov-87 22-Nov-8T 23-NOV-87 24-Nov-8? 25-Nov-87 26-Nov

7 . 522

1 . 2 92811

71 0 . 8

0

7 . 622

1 . 42416

89 . 5

7 . 522

1 . 31912

79 . 3

0

7 . 722

I . 2 92115

6I I .2

0

7 . 7225734239 . 4

0*

22L . 2 9

543321

9 . 20**

7 . 523

1 . 3 440

8 . 70

0 1 2 7 5 8

KOPPERS COMPANY, INC.TEXARKANA, XX TRKATABILITY STUDY

WEEKLY DATA SHEETSAERATION TANK MIXED LIQUOR DATA

SAMPLING DATE27-Nov-87 28-Nov-37 29-Nov-87 3Q-Nov-87 Ol-Dec-87 02-Dec-87 03-DeV

pH (units)Temperature (Deg C)Flowrate (mJ s/min)TSSVSSFSSDissolved OxygenCaustic Usage (mis)D. 0. UptakeMicroscopic Observ.All values are in mg/L unless otherwise noted.* Indicates that the test was performed.Note: Flowrate indicates influent flow to unit

7 . 622

.38453510

8 . $0-*

7 . 622

1 . 32281711

8 . 7 50

-*

7 . 5 522

1 .29301812

90 . 5-*

7 . 622

1 .29963

8 . 40 . 5-~

7 . 622

1 . 27972

8 . 90**

7 . 522

1 . 27844

3 . 70

-*

7 . 622

1 .2211

74

9 , 20-*

0 1 2 7 5 9

KOPPERS COMPANY, INC,TKXARKANA, TX TREATABILITY STUDY

WEEKLY DATA SHEETSAERATION TANK MIXED LIQUOR DATA

SAMPLING DATE04-Dec-87 05-Dec~87 Q6-Dec-87 07-D©c-87 08-Dec-87 G9-Dec-87

pH (units)Temperature (Deg C)Flowrate (mls/min)TSSVSSFSSDissolved OxygenCaustic 0sage (mis)D. 0. UptakeMicroscopic Observ.All values are in mg/L unless otherwise noted.* Indicates that the test was performed.Note: Flowrate indicates influent flow to unit

7 . 622-11

8390-*

7 . 422

1 . 1 8954

9 . 1 50**

7 . 422-11

74

9 . 20 . 5-*

7. 522

. 3875290-*

7 . 422

1 . 3 98629

0 . 5**

7 . 622

1 . 4972

8 . 50-*

7 . 622

1 . 2913S4

8 .850-—

0 1 2 7 6 0

KOPPERS COKPAJIY, INC.TKXARKANA, TX TREATABILITY STUDY

WEEKLY DATA SHEETSAERATION TANK MIXED LIQUOR DATA

SAMPLING DATE

pK (units)Temperature (Deg C)Flowrate (mls/min)TSSVSSFSSDissolved OxygenCaustic Qsage (mis)D. O. UptakeMicroscopic Observ.All values are in mg/L unless otherwise noted.* Indicates that the te> was performed.Note: Flowrate indictees influent flow to uuit

H -Dec-877 . 4

221 .29

7438 . 70

12~Dec-877 .55

221 .22

5418 . 00

0 1 2 7 6 1

KOPPKRS COMPANY, INC.TEXARKANA, TX TREATABILITY STUDY

WEEKLY DATA SHEETSAERATION TANfK EFFLUENT DATA

SAMPLING DATE

pH (units)Phenols-ChemetricsTotal P04-HachNH3-M ChemetriesTSSVSSFSSPhenols (4-AAP)TOGBOD{5)-TotalBOD(b)-SolubleCOD-TotalCOD~SolubleOil & GreaseTOSTDFSTDVSPCP (ug/L)Total CyanideTotal Det. PAH(ug/L)MetalsPhenolics (EPA 604)All values are in mg/L unless otherwise noted.* See data in appendix.

Oct-876 . 8-12010812

24-Oct-876 . 1 5

4 . 324002240

160

25-Oct-876 .24 . 3

2040186C180

2G-Oct-876 . 64 . 3

16001440

160

27-Oct-876 . 64 . 3900880

20

28-Oct.-876 . 7

4-

29-Oct7

4 . 3630560

701 1 . 7

0 1 2 7 6 2

pH (units)Phenols-ChemetricsTotal P04-HachNH3-N ChemetricsTSSvssFSSPhenols (4-AAP)TOOBOD(5)-TotalBOD(5)-SolubleCOD-TotalCOD-SolubleOil & GreaseTDSTDFSTDVSPCP (ug/L)Total CyanideTotal Det. PAH(ug/L)MetalsPhenolIcs (EPA 604)All values are In mg/L unless otherwise noted.* See data in appendix.

(COPPERS COMPANY, INC.TEXARKANA, TX TREATABIUTY STUDY

WEEKLY DATA SHEETSAERATION TANK EFFLUENT DATA

SAMPLING DATE30-Qct-87 3l-Oct-87 OI-Nov-87 02-Nov-87 03-Nov-87 04-Nov-87 05-Nov-

73 . 7<1

420380

40

6 . 73 . 5<1

37033535

7 . 13 . 8<1

19618016

7 . 13 . 5<1

1 1810216

6 . 93 . 2<18256

6

6 . 73< 15448

6

73 . 2<1706010

17 . 1

0 1 2 7 6 3

K0PPERS COMPANY, INC.TEXARKANA* TX TREATASILITY STUDY

WEEKLY DATA SHEETSAERATION TANK EFFLUENT DATA

SAMPLING DATE~pH (units)Phenols-ChemetricsTotal P04-HachNH3-N ChemetricsTSSVSSFSSPhenols (4-AAP)TOGBQD(5)-TotaiBOD(5)-SolubleCOD-TotalCQD-SolubleOil & GreaseT0STDFSTDVSPOP (us/L)Total CyanideTotal Det. PAH(ug/L)MetalsPhenolics (EPA 604)All values are in rag/L unless otherwise noted.* See data in appendix.

6 . 93<1

9 4 . 577

1 7 . 5

v t «(JV-O (

6 . 82 . 1< 1

240204

36

us-Nov-876 . 83 . 3<1

138113

25

09-Nov-876 . 93 . 2<1645311

10-Nov-876 . 93 . 2< 13024

6

11 -Nov- 8 76 . 9 53 . 1< 12116

5

12-Nov73<11915

4

0 1 2 7 6 4

KOP-PERS COMPANY, (NC.TEXARKANA, TX TREATABIUTY STUDY

WEEKLY DATA SHEETSAERATION TANK EFFLUENT DATA

SAMPLING DATE-pH (units)Phenols-ChemetricsTotal P04-HachNH3-N ChemetricsTSSVSSFSSPhenols (4-AAP)TOOBOD(5)-TotalBOD(5)-SolubleCOD-TotalCOD-SolubleOil & GreaseTDSTDFSTDVSPCP (ug/L)Total CyanideTotal Det. PAH(ug/L)MetalsPhenolics (EPA 604)All values are in m.g/L unless otherwise noted.* See data in appendix.

7 . 23 . 2< 114113

~

•«• * fcTi_< v y* t

73< 13224

8-

l i > -WOV-»Y

6 . 93< 1473710

16-Nov-877 . 12 . 9< 11813R\s

17-Nov-877

3. 1< 12321

18~Nov-877 . 34 . 3< 1

660

19-Nov7 . 1 53 . 6<110

73

1 0 . 5

0 1 2 7 6 5

pH (units)Phenols-ChemetricsTotal P04-HachNH3-N CheiaetrlcsTSSvssFSSPhenols (4-AAP)TOGBOD(5)-TotalBOD(5)-SolubIeCOD-TotalCOD-SolubleOil & GreaseTDSTDFSTDVSPCP (ug/L)Total CyanideTotal Det. PAHCug/L)MetalsPhenolics (EPA 604)All values are in mg/L unless otherwise noted.* See data in appendix.

KOPPERS CQMPAtfY, INC.TEXARKANA, TX TEtEATABILETY STUDY

WEEKLY DATA SHEETSAERATION TANK EFFLUENT DATA

SAMPLING DATE20-Nov-87 21-Nov-87 22-Nov-87 23-Nov-87 25-Nov-87 26-Nov-7 . 13 . 2<118106

-~

7 - 4 7 . 2 7 . 43 3 . 2 " 3<l <1 <119 17 1012 10 77 f

7 30 . 0 1 8

1 2 . 78 . 72 . 3

48~ ~ 40~" ~ s RCo

1641 19

45

7 - 4 7 . 2 7 . 2 53 - 2 3 3 .3oi <l <i37 31 2822 18 1915 13 9__— _— _~

~* __ _— _

3 . 9 5 2

0 1 2 7 6 6

KGPPERS COMPANY, INC.TKXARKANA, TX TREATABILITY STETOY

WEEKLY DATA SHEETSAERATION TANK EFFLUENT DATA

SAMPLING DATE27-Nov-87 28-Nov-87 29-Mov-67 30-Nov-87 Gl-Dec-87 02-Dec-87 03~0ec

7 . 12

<X3222ZO

7 .252 . 6< 114

95

(units)Phenols-ChemetricsTotal P04-HachNH3-N ChemetricsTSSVSSFSSPhenols (4-AAP)rocBOD(5)-TotaIBODC5)-Solub leCOD-TotalCOD-SolubleOil & GreaseTDSTOPST0VSPCP (ug/L)Total CyanideTotal Det. PAH(ug/L>MetalsPhenolics (EPA 604}All values are in mg/L unless otherwise noted.* See data in appendix.

7 . 23

21156

7 . 13 . 3

972

0 . 0 1 91515

4 . 2 56030<6

178120

582 3 . 9

<0 .0t3 .809*

*

7 . 43< 11410

4

7 . 23<1

981

73

12il

0 1 2 7 6 7

04-Dec~pH (units)Phenols-ChemetricsTotal P04-HachNH3-N ChemetricstssvssFSSPhenols (4-AAP)TOGBOD(5)-Total800(5}-SolubleCOD-TotalCOD-SolubleOil & GreaseTDSTDFSTDVSPCP (ug/L)Total CyanideTotal Det, PAH(uff/L)MetalsPhenolics (EPA 604)All values.are in mg/L unless otherwise noted.* See data in appendix.

KOPPERS COMPANY, INC.TEXARKAtfA, TX TREATABILITY STUDY

WEEKLY DATA SHEETSAERATION TANK EFFLUENT DATA

SAMPLING 0ATE87 05-Dec-87 06-Dec-87 07-Dec~8? 08-Dec-87 09-Dec-87

7 . 33 . 2<1

972

0 . 0 1 715 .4

6 . 63<11611

5-

6 . 93<113103

7 . 1 54 . 30 . 8

761

1 . 24525

380155100

55

1 . 5 4 5

7 . 1 54 . 6<110

91

0 . 0 1 42 0 . 82 4 . 99 . 8 8

5535<6

214150

64

7 . 1 54 . 6< 111

92________—

74 . 1<1

862

3 . 4 3 7

0 1 2 7 6 8

KOPPERS COMPANY* INC.TEXARKANA, TX TREATABII.ITY STUDY

WEEKLY DATA SHEETSAERATION TANK EFFLUENT DATA

1 1-Dec-87 12-Dec-87 SAMPLING DATE

6 . 94 . 2<1

862

(units)Phenols-ChemetricsTotal P04-HachNH3-N ChemetricsTSSVSSFSSPhenols (4-AAP)TOCBOD(5)-TotalBOD(5)-SolubleC00-TotalCOD-SolubleOil & GreaseTDSTDFSTDVSPCP (ug/L)Total CyanideTotal Det. PAH(ug/L)MetalsPhenolics (EPA 604)

All values are in mg/L unless otherwise noted.* See data in appendix.

75 . 3< 1

660

0 . 0 1 41 5 . 85 . 9 31 . 2 7

3535

9 . 1178120

58

1 . 2 4 2

0 1 2 7 6 9

IIST ID' SPECTRIX DC * —— 8

SAMPLE NUMBER: AERATION TANK EFF.ORGAN1CS ANALYSIS DATA SHEET <PA<JE 1)

LABORATORY «VAME: SPECTRIX

X3 SAMPLE ID NO. : 871200404MPLE MATR IX ; WATERTA RELEASE AUTHORIZED BY:

CASE NO. : —QC REPORT NO. : —CONTRACT NO. : 12-01-87DATE SAMPLE RECEIVED: /1 VOLA TILES

CCNCENTRAT I ON: LOW»TE ANALYZED: 12/08/87

1 C010• C0 15• C020

C025

I C030C035C040

m co45

• C030• C055

C060I C063

C 1 1 0C 1 1 3

I C120C125C130

_ C140• C170• C130

C I33I C160

C 163C 143

I C173C180C203

_ C2101 C220• C223

C23OI C233

C240C243

gi C230

CAS * COMPOUNDCHLORQMETHANEBROMOMETHANEVINYL CHLORIDECHLOROETHANEMETHYLENE CHLORIDEACETONECAR80N DISULFIDE1, i-DlCHLOROETHENE1, i-DICHLOROETHANETRANS-1. 2-DICHLOROETHENECHLOROFORM1. 2-OlChLOROETHANE2-0UTANONE1 , 1 , 1~TRICHLQRO£THANECARBON TETRACHLQfclDEVINYL ACETATEBRQMODICHLQROMETHANE1, 2-DICHLOROPROPANECIS-1 . 3-DICHLQROPROPENE<2)TRICHLOROETHENED I BROMGCHLQROMETHANEI, 1 ,2-TR I CHLOROETHANEBENZENETRANS-1, 3-DICHLOROPROPENE(E)2-CHLORQETHYLVINYLETHER0ROMOFQRM4-METHYL~2~PENTANONE2-HEXANONETETRACHLOROETHENE1 , 1 . 2 , 2-TETRACHLOROETHANETOLUENECHLQROBENZENEETHYLSENZENESTYRENETOTAL XYLENES

DATAFILE; 5U12004V04ADILUTION FACTOR; 1. 00

UG/L10 U10 U10 U10 U

3 . . . . . . . . 101 0 . . . . . . . . 2 2 0

5 U5 U5 US U3 U5 U

10 U5 U5 U

10 U5 U3 U5 U3 U5 U3 U3 U3 U

10 U3 U

10 U10 U3 U3 U5 U5 U3 U5 U3 U

O

C\J

o

UNDETECTED AT THE LISTED DETECTION LIMITCOMPOUND IS PRESENT, BUT BELOW THE LISTED DETECTION LIMIT

IIST ID" 45 10

SPECTRIX DC * — -SAMPLE NUMBER: AERATION TANK EFF

^ s

ORGAMICS ANALYSIS DATA SHEETLABORATORY NAME? SPECTRIX

SAMPLE ID NO. : 371200404£ MATRIX : WATERRELEASE AUTHORIZED BY:I

CONCENTRATION: LOW -^T£ EXTRACTED: . . . **/+/*.}.m»TE ANALYZED: 12/14/37

CASE NO. : -—QC REPORT NO. : ——CONTRACT NO. : ——DATE SAMPLE RECEIVED:

SEMIVQLATILE3DATAFILE: 9U12G04C04DILUTION FACTOR: . . . .1

111

C31SC32SC33OC335C340C345C3SOC355C360C365C370C375C410C415C4SOC425C430C435C440C44SC430C455C460C465C470C S l OC315C520C523C330C535C540C54SC530C535C560C565C370C373

COMPOUND

PHENOL3 IS ( 2-CHLOROETHYL ) ETHER2-CHLQRQPHENQLI . 3-DICHLOROBENZENE1 , 4-DICHLOROBENZENESEN2YL ALCOHOL:, 2-DICHLOR00EN2ENE2-METHYLPHENOL3IS(2-CHLOROISOPROPYL)ETHER4-METHYLPHENOLN-NITROSODIPROPYLAMINEHEXACHLOROETHANENITROBENZENEISOPHORONE2-NITROPHENOL2< 4-DIMETHYLPHENOLBEN20IC ACIDB I S ( 2-CHLOROETHOX Y ) METHANE2* 4-DICHLOROPMENOL1, 2. 4-TRlCHLQROBENZENENAPHTHALENE4-CHLOROANILINEHFXACHLOROBUTADIENEP-CHLQRO-M-CRESOL2-METHYLNAPHTHALENEHEXACHLOROCYCLOPENTADIENE2, 4, A-TRICHUQROPHENOL2, 4, 5-TRICHLaROPHENOL2-CHLORONAPHTHALENE2-NITROANILINEDIMETHYL PHTHALATEACENAPHTHYLENE3-NITROANr.INEACENAPHTHENE2, 4-DINITROPHENOL4-NITRQPHENOLDtBENZOFURAN2i 4-DINITHOTOLUENE2,6-DINITROTQLUENE

DETECTION AMOUNT ^~LIMIT FOUND r-

(MICRQGRAMS / LITER) ^40 U W

40 U ^40 U O40 U40 U40 U40 U40 U40 U40 U40 U40 U40 U40 U40 U40 U

200 U40 U40 U40 U40 U40 U40 U40 U40 U40 U40 U

SCO U40 U

200 U40 U40 U

200 U40 U

200 U200 U

40 U40 U40 U

SPECTRIX DC * ———

SAMPLE NUMBER. AERATION TANK

'SMiVOLATtLS GRGANICS ANALYSIS DATA SHEET, CONTINUED•ATAFILE: 9ui20^4co*iiiI1I

i•

C580C595C390C59SC610C615C625C630C635C640C645CA50C655C715C720C723C73CC73SC740C760C765C770C775C780C795C790

COMPOUND

DIETHYL PHTHALAT?4-CHLOROPHENYL PHENYL ETHERFLUORENE4-NITRQANIL INE4, 6-DINITRQ-2-METHYLPHENOLN-NITROSQDIPHENYLAMINE4-3ROMOPHENYL PHENYL ETHERHEXACHLOPOBENZENEPENTACHLOROPHENOLPHENANTHRENEANTHRACENEDI-N-BUTYL PHTHALATEFLUORANTHENE

PYRENEBUTYL BENZYL PHTHALATE3- 3 ' -D ICHLOROBENZID lNEBENZO ( A ) ANTHRACENE3 I S < 2-ETHYLHEXYL ) PHTHALATECHRYSENEDI-N-OCTYL PHTHALATEBENZO ( B ) FLUORANTHENEBENZO(K) FLUORANTHENEBENZO<A)PYRENEINDENO( 1- 2, 3-COPYRENEDIBENZO(A * H)ANTHRACENEBENZO<GHI)PERYLEN£

DETECTION AMOUNTLIMIT FOUND

(MICROGRAMS / LITER)

40 U40 U40 U oj

200 U .200 U '

40 U ^40 U CVJ40 U T-

200 U O40 U40 U40 U40 U40 U40 USO U40 U40 U40 U40 U40 U40 U40 U40 U40 U40 U

UNDETECTED AT THE LISTED DETECTION LIMITCOMPOUND IS PRESENT, BUT BELOW THE LISTED DETECTION LIMIT

ST ID S I £F SPECTRIX DC * — eiiiCRGANICS ANALYSIS DATA SHEET - PAGE 4

*BORATORY NAME. SPECTRIX HOUSTONm CASE NC. • —OC REPORT MO : — ANALYST SC• ' DATAFILE: SUISC04V04A

SAMPLE NUMBER: AERATION TANK EFF

ANALYST: SG

B. TENTATIVELY IDENTIFIED COMPOUNDSIIr^S ** VOLATILE COMPOUND NAMES SCAN* PURITY AMOUNT

CM

NC NON-HSL COMPOUNDS FOUND > 10% OF NEAREST OINT. STD.

J » ESTIMATED VALUE - A 1: 1 RESPONSE FACTOR IS ASSUMED

i

H

IABQRATORV NA.^ESFPORT NO. . -

SPECTR IX DC * ——

SAMPLE: AERATION TA*K

QRGANIC3 ANALYSIS DATA SHEET * pA5E 5SPECTS IX CORPORATION CASE NO. : -_

ANALYST. CE3 DATAFILE. 9UI2004C04B- TENTATIVELY IDENTIFIED COMPOUNDS

8

3EMIVOLATILE COMPOUNDPURITY AMQUNT

UO/L

l NO NCN-HSL COMPOUNDS FOUND > I OK OF NEAREST INT. STD. CVJT"o

ESTIMATED VA"JE - A 1:1 RESPONSE FACTOR IS ASSUMED

1111111111

•*»4

Parameter (ue/l)AntimonyArsenicBerylliumCadmiumChromiumCopperLeadMercuryNickelSeleniumSilverThalliumZinc

KOPPERS COMPANY, INCTEXARKANA,TX TREATABILITY STUDYAERATION TANK METALS DATA

<60.0<10.0<5.00<5,00

<10.0<25.0<5.00

0,303<40.0<5.00

<10.0<10.0246

inr-r-cvjs~*o

BI

IIIIIAPPENDIX 2~E

HISTORIC USE DATA

CM^~O

2 0 6 9 T 4 0 4 0 - 0 0 1 - 6 0 0

^M

IIIIIIIIIIII

APPENDIX 2-E

HISTORIC USE AREA SURFACE SOIL DATA

Four historic use areas identified for the KoppersTexarkana Site a r e : (1 ) process area, (2) drip track area , (3)treated lumber storage areas , and (4) untreated lumber storageareas . Figure E-l presents the locations of the fourabove-mentioned areas within the site boundaries . It isestimated that the process area covers approximately 4.1 ac re s/the drip track area covers approximately 4.3 acres, the treatedlumber areas cover approximately 9,4 acres, and the untreatedlumber areas cover approximately 44.2 acres .

Table E-l presents a listing of the number of surfacesoils analyzed for individual potential contaminants of concern(PCOCs) per historic use area . Table E-2 lists the number ofsurface soil samples analyzed per acre for each h istor ic usea r ea . This table was developed by dividing the number ofsamples (Table 1) by the approximate size of each historic usearea. Table E-2 indicates that an average of 2.1 surface soilsamples per acre were analyzed within the drip track area , 0.40samples per acre were analyzed within the treated lumberstorage areas, 0.43 samples per acre were analyzed within theuntreated lumber storage areas,

CMT—o

2069T 4040-00 1 -600

8 LLZ 10B 1

NUMBER OP SWRFftCE SOIL SAMPLES ANALVZ6D WITHIN 6901 HISTORIC USE ARRA

- —— -JKK9.ArswnicChromium'CopperL««aMercuryTotal PAHPotentially Carcinogenic PAHP*nt «ch lorophvno 1zinc

Pror«aa_Ar_Q«™

999

79999

—— ———— • ———————— «M—

l>r]p Tirwi__ Area

S55228885

f--** v*, _^sa.itfl£g _ j>o i i_:h Tr**i^,s ij«n**r_ __ Ar«a$

33322«

«3

-SSfflPiLes. *rL«ljC5ed_Vntt*«t«d Unnb____ Ar eag.

181318121225252519

er— !«?y.ia

353535232,348484836

Approximate size of Kacih4. 1 •9.4 44.2 62.0

4Q40 001 600

III8-2

NUMBER OP SURFACE SAMPLES ANALYZED PER ACRE FOK BACH HISTORIC USE AREA

IIIIIII

Process

ArsenicchroaiunCopperLeadMercuryTotal PAHPotentially Carcinogenic PAHPentachlorophenol2tnc

2 . 192. 192. 191 .711 .712. 192 . 192. 192. 19

IIIII

Drip Track-Area1 , 161 . 161 . 160 .470 . 4 71 .361 .861 .861 . 16

Treated Lumber——Smas0.320.320.320.210 .2 10 . 6 40 . 6 40 . 6 40 .32

Untreated Lumber

0 .4 10 .4 10 .4 10.270.27O .S7O . S 7O .S70 .43

r-CMo

E-3

i

IIIIIIIIIUNTREATED APEAS

-: ,,-i-\ '>^*^* --Ccs- - ' _v* ^%F> "-<*****? \^ -g-^'^.1^ •- • *'^Z^jL^r • -.^l^-." \*? \ v ^^ i X^ • i .'• t ';^^-^^X^^^- sf^^^S^y-, ^^JL^——**«JU;

E-4

IIIIIIIAPPENDIX F(Fixed Film Treatment Results)

00

o

III

KOPPERS COMPANY, INC.TEXARKANA, TX TREATABILITY STUDY

STATISTICAL SUMMARYFIXED FILM MIXED LIQUOR DATA

)Parameters CpH (units)Temperature (Deg C)Flowrate (mls/min)TSSVSSFSSDissolved OxygenCaustic Usage (mis)D. 0. UptakeMicroscopic Observ.

* OF)BVS

5050434949494950

00

MEAN7.26

2 1 . 641 .28550 .455 0 0 . 0 4

50 .4 19 . 1 7

.44.0000.0000

STD.34

1 . 17.07972 .328 9 3 . 6 3

84 . 19.4 1

1 .04.0000.0000

9556 £LOWER

7 . 162 1 . 3 01 .26

266 .392 3 8 . 9 7

25 .8 19 . 0 5

. 14.0000.0000

?IUPPER

7 . 3 52 1 . 9 81 .30

834 .6076 1 . 1 1

75 .009 . 2 9

.74. 0000.0000

GMEAN7 . 2 5

2 1 .6 11 . 289 9 . 0 38 4 , 2 113 ,26

9 . 1 6.89.00.00

GSTO1 .051 .051 .067 . 5 07 . 9 35 .591 .041 . 54

.0000.0000

WIN6.25

2 1 .001 .003 . 0 02.001 .008 . 5 0

.00.0000.0000

MAX7.70

25 .001 .453770 .003390 .00

380.0010 .80

7.00. 0000. 0000

90% LTVALUE

7.7023 .061 .38

1 254 .731 143 .361 15 .89

9 . 6 81 .53

.0000

. 0000

All values are in mg/L unless otherwise noted.Note: Flowrate indicates influent flow to unit

0 1 2 7 8 2

KOPPERS COMPANY, INC.TEXARKANA, TX TREATABILITY STUDY

STATISTICAL SUMMARYFIXED FILM EFFLUENT DATA

*Parameters CpH (units)Pheno Z.S -Chemet ricsTotal PO4-HachKH3-N ChemetricsTSSVSSFSSPhenols (4-AAP)TOCBOD(5)-TotalBOD( 5) -SolubleCOD-To talCOD-SolubleOil & GreaseTDSTDFSTDVSPCP (ug/L)Total CyanideTotal Pet. PAH (ug/L)MetalsPheuolics (SPA 604)

f OF>BVS

500

4949494949

585555555511500

MEAN6.99

.00003 . 8 81 .36

5 5 3 . 5 6500 . 88

5 2 , 6 8n ?12 .5312 .632 Q"7. 0 (

4 9 . 6 027 .0092.65

1 8 6 . 4 0125.8060.601 7 . 8 0

.015 0 . 1 7. 0000.0000

STD.31

.0000. 7 9.95

1009 .85921 .74

9 2 . 1 3.00

2.618 . 6 52 23

1 4 . 7 79 . 7 5

190.282 8 . 3 226 .2010.62

.00r><~\. U8 7 . 1 2.0000.0000

95%LOWER

6.90.00003 . 6 51 .08

2 5 8 . 5 4231 .60

2 5 . 7 7.0 1

10.351 . 8 9. 10

31.261 4 . 9 0

- 143.581 5 1 . 2 4

9 3 . 2 747.4117. GO

.01- 5 7 . 9 8

.0000

.0000

CIUPPER

7.08. 00004 . 1 11 .64

8 4 8 . 5 8770. 16

79,59£.

14 .722 3 . 3 7

. 6467.943 9 . 1 0

328.872 2 1 . 5 61 5 8 . 3 373.791 7 . 8 0

.011 5 8 . 3 3

.0000. 0000

GMEAN6,99

.003 .8 11 . 19

9 6 . 0 582 .4012.63

.0212 .23

8 . 6 62 . 2 7

48.122 4 . 8 416 .43

1 8 4 . 6 41 23 .8 159.831 7 . 8 0

.011 7 . 5 3

.00.00

GST01 .05

. 00001 . 2 21 .567 . 8 28 ,096.031 . 2 31 .293 . 2 82 . 1 61 .301 . 6 76 .351 . 1 71 . 221 .20

.00

.004 . 5 1

.0000.0000

MIN6 . 1 5. 00003 .001 .005 .004 . 0 0

.00

.016 .771 .201 .00

40.0010 .00

6.00146.00100 .0046.0017. SO

.014 . 1 1

.0000.0000

MAX7.60

.00005 . 7 04.80

4800.004310 .00

490.00.02

15 .5022 .50

6 . 5 07f 0035 .00

433.00226 .00169 .0072.001 7 . 8 0

.01205 .59

.0000

.0000

90* LTVALUE

7.40.00004 . 9 02 .09

1282 .691 147 .32121 .53

.0216.853 8 . 7 6

5 . 9 867.134 7 . 4 0

168.90224 .57158 .4675 . 17

. 0 0

.001 1 7 .04

.0000

.0000All values are in mg/L unless otherwise noted.

0 1 2 7 8 3

0 •t 3

i -j

o.2 :r~ 2

2C"

> -T

* N f

t- -)

Cl t3

M "

C

N -^

-^

-

> i.

rl *< •<

ii .-»•

-*•^.

i— o

^r s*

N "

^ 3*

2" •

i-t-

-r

I

-t> "<

H-1 |_,

. •ft-

."5

'•

-o ;•:

'jo -_n

-* —

t-j

o CD

•O

CO -T

CO ~

J *-*

CO 10

~J

I*1 E

-1 tO

-71 "-

C O

00W

W '3

0 O5

t J 0

> ™

O S

:ji r:

Oi

^ j;

-.1 X

4* C

O

O r~i

Ji- .

C

J

O

n~f

"^. . •—

3 'J3

.Co 3

0 *j

CDM >

if X

.i <

. >

'i tr

x £

O r1

I IX

I I I I I I I I I

AcenaphthyleneAcenaphtheneFluorenePhenanthreneAnthraceneFluoranthenePyreneBenzo(a)anthraceneChryseneBenzo(a)pyreneBenzo(b)fluorantheneBen2o(k)fluorantheneDibenz(ah)anthraceneBenzo(g,h,i)peryleneIndeno(123-cd)pyreneTOTAL DETECTABLE PAHCarbazoleNaphthalene

KOPPERS COMPANY, INCTexarkana, TX Treatabi 1 ity

Fixed F i lm PAH DataStudy

SAMPLING DATEt inge333334444555566--2

Sol-

39301 9 8 01290

73260135

142

3 , 8--

2 . 4 9----

31700

23 Nov H7< 2 . 0 0< 2 . 0 0

< 0 . 2 0 00 . 9 3 80 . 6 4 2

3 . 2 69 . 8 26 . 3 16 . 9 0

2 1 . 7 03 6 . 3 0

8 . 4 23 1 . 004 6 . 8 03 3 . 5 0

2 0 5 . 5 9< 2 . 0 0< 2 . 0 0

30 Nov< 2 . 0 0< 2 . 0 0

< 0 . 2 0 0< 0 .6 00< 0 . 5 0 0

0 . 5 4 30 . 7 7 20 . 8 7 80 . 8 9 7

2 . 0 43 . 3 4

0 . 7 8 83 . 7 04 . 8 53 . 18

2 0 . 9 9< 2 . 0 0< 2 . 0 0

H7 (M [ I * . , '< 2 . 0 0< 2 . 0 0

<Q, 200' 0 . 6 0 0< 0 . 5 0 0

0 . 2 1 70 . 2 9 00 . 1900 . 2 8 60 . 6 8 3

1 . 3 90 . 4 1 3

1 . 0 01 . 4 31 .287 . 18

< 2 . 0 0< 2 . 0 0

K7 OH [ >nc BY< 2 . 0 0< 2 . 0 0

< 0 . 2 0 ( 1< d . ^ 0 0< 0 . 5 0 0< 0 . 2 0 0

0 . 3 2 60 . 4 1 50 . 5 5 2

1 . 2 32 . 5 6

0 . 7 6 62 . 1 32 . 6 72 . 3 5

1 3 . 0 0< 2 . 0 0<2 . 00

12 Itao< 2 . 0 0< 2 . 0 0

< 0 . 2 0 0< 0 . 5 0 0< 0 . 5 0 0< 0 . 2 0 0

0 . 2 6 20 . 1 500 . 1 8 00 . 4 0 00 . 7 0 50. 1760 . 7 7 60 . 9 4 00 . 5 2 6

4 . 1 2< 2 . 0 0< 2 . 0 0

BY

0 1 2 7 8 5

KOPPERS COMPANY» INC.TEXARKAWA. TX TREATABILITY STUDY

WEEKLY DATA SHEETSFIXED FILM MIXED LIQUOR DATA

SAMPLING DATE23-Gct-87 24-Oct-87 25-Oct~87 2S-Qct-87 27-Oct-87 28-Oct-8? 29-Oct-

pK (units)Temperature (Deg C)Flowrate (mls/mtn)TSSVSSFSSDissolved OxygenCaustic Qsag© (mis)0. O. QptakeMicroscopic Observ.All values are in ms/L unless otherwise noted.* Indicates that the test was performed.Note: Flowrate indicates influent flow to unit.

8 . 621-

34203160

260-1

6 . 2 52 1 . 5-26&02560

1208 . 91

6 . 521

-17801640

1409 . 3

1

6 . 8 521-

12401160

808 . 8

0

6 , 621-

9008001008 . 9

0

6 . 921

1 . 2 9---

8 . 9 51

8 . 621

1 . 2 9290270

2090*

0 1 2 7 8 6

pH (units)Temperature (Deg C)Flowrate (mls/min)TSSVSSFSSDissolved OxygenCaustic Usage (mis)D. 0. UptakeMicroscopic Observ.

KOPPERS COMPANY, INC.TKXARKANA, TX TREATABILITY STUDY

WEEKLY DATA SHEETSFIXED FILM MIXED LIQUOR DATA

SAMPLING DATE30-Oct-87 31-Oct-87 Ol-Nov-87 02-Nov-87 03-Nov-87 04-Nov-87

7 . 421

1 . 2 9170150

2091*

7 . 421

L . 2 97872

69 . 10

All values are in rag/L unless otherwise noted.* Indicates that the test was performed.: Flowrato indicates influent flow to unit

7 . 521

. 2 93830

890

721

L . 2 92016

49 . 6

0

7 . 422

L . 2 92218

49 . 30

7 . 623

1 . 2 22422

29 . 10 . 5

7 . 723

L . 2 948,36109 . 1

0 . 5

1 2 7 8 7

Cunits)Temperature (0eg C)Flowrate (mls/min)TSSvssFSSDissolved OxygenCaustic Usage (mis)0. 0. UptakeMicroscopic O'bserv. *All values are in mg/L unless otherwise noted.* Indicates that the test was performed.Note: Flowrate indicates influent flow to unit

KOPPEKS CQMPAKY, BNC.•TRXARKAMA, TX TREATABltlTY STUDY

WEEKLY DATA SHEETSFIXED FILM MIXED LIQUOR DATA

SAMPLING DATE06-Nov-87 07-Nov-87 Q8-Nov-87 09-Nov-87 10-Nov7 . 621

1 . 2 92620

69 . 3

6 . 9 521

1 . 2937703390

3808 s. t>

7

723

1 . 2 932803040

2408 . 5

2

7 . 122

1 . 2 918401680

1608 . 91

721c. JL

1 . 2916001440

1608 . 8ft

l l-Nov-87 12-Nov-6 . 921

1 . 2912801030

2509 . 41

0 1 2 7 8 8

pH (units)Temperature (Deg C>Flowrate (mis/sain)TSSVSSFSSDissolved OxygenCaustic Usage (nils)0. O. tfptafceMicroscopic Observ.

KOPPERS COMPANY, INC.TEXARKANA, TX TREATABILITY STUDY

WEEKLY DATA SHEETSFIXED FILM MI3CED LIOTOR DATA

SAMPLING DATEl3-Nov-87 14-NO-V-S7 lT-Nov-87 18-tJov-87

7 . 121

1 . 2915001360

1409 . 4

7 . 225

1 . 3610560

509 . 30

All values are in mg/L unless otherwise noted.* Indicates that the test was performed.Mote: Flowrate indicates influent flow to unit

7 . 125

1 . 29430

409 . 1

0#

7 . 125

1 . 3208176

3290

7 . 224

1 . 3£93262

369 . 1

7 .4524

1 .29246224

228 . 70

7 . 22 1 . 51 .29

270230

408 . 90 . 5

0 1 2 7 8 9

K0PPERS COMPANY, INC.TEXARKANA, TX TOEATABJUTY STWDY

WEEKLY DATA SHEETSFIXED FILM MIXED LIQUOR DATA

SAMPLING DATE22-Nov-87 23-Nov-S7 24-Nov-87

pH (units)Temperature (Deg C>Flowrate (»ls/min)TSSvssFSSDissolved OxygenCaustic Usage (mis)0. 0. 0ptakeMicroscopic Observ.All values are in mg/L unless otherwise noted.* Indicates that the test was performed.Note: Flowrate indicates influent flow to unit

26-Nov-d7 . 2

221 . 29

206174

321 0 . 20 . 5-#

7 . 521

1 . 3756510

9 . 80-*

7 . 321

1 . 376641210

0 . 5-*

7 . 721

1 . 29645410

1 0 . 80-*

7 . 6 522

1 . 296052

39 . 6

0-*

7 . 421

1 .29665412

9 . 50 . 5#*

7 . 623

1 . 344236

68 . 7

0-*

1 2 7 9 0

pH (units)Temperature CDeg C)Flowrate (mis/mira)TSSVSSFSSDissolved OxygenCaustic Usage (mis)D. 0. OptafceMicroscopic Observ.

K0PPEKS COMPAQ. INC.TEXARKAMA, TX TRBATABIUTT STUDY

WEEKLY DATA SHEETSFIXED FILM MIXED LIQUOR DATA

SAMPLING DATE27-Nov-87 28-Nov-87 29-No—87 30-Nov-87 Gl-0ec :-Dec-87 Q3-Dec-6|

7 . 521

. 2756560

59 , 2

0

7 . 421

1 . 2 24036

49

0 . 5

All values are In mg/L unless otherwise noted.* Indicates that the test was performed.Note: Flowrate indicates influent flow to unit

7 . 421

326

9 . 2

7 . 621

U361814

48 . 90 . 5

7 . 521

.4575290**

7 . 5211

1915

490

7 . 421

1 . 29981

9 . 7 50 . 5*

0 1 2 7 9 1

pH (units)Temperature (Deg C)Flowrate (mls/min)TSSVSSFSSDissolved OxygenCaustic Usage (mis)0. G. QptakeMicroscopic Observ.All values are in mg/L unless otherwise noted.* Indicates that the test was performed.Note: Flowrate indicates influent flow to unit

KOPPERS COMPANY, INC.TKXARKANA, TX TREATABILITY STUDY

WEEKLY DATA SHEETSFIXED FILM MIXED LIQUOR DATA

SAMPLING DATE04-Dec-87 05-Dec-87 06-Dec-87 07-Dec~87 08~Dec-87 09-Dec-87 10-Dec-

7 . 521

. . 3 22722

59 . 1

0

7 . 321

L . 0 43023

79 . 30 . 5**

7 . 4212420

49 . 3 5

0

7 . 521

. 2 986290*

7 . 4 521

1 . 2 9541

9 . 10**

7 . 521

L . 2 9972

8 . 80

7 . 522

U3865190 . 5

0 1 2 7 9 2

KOPPERS COMPANY* INC.TEXARKANA, TX TREATABILITY STUDY

WEEKLY DATA SHEETSFIXED FILM MIXED LIQUOR DATA

l l-Dec-87 12-Dec-87 SAMPLING DATE

pH (units)Temperature (Deg C)Flowrate (mls/min)TSSVSSFSSDissolved OxygenCaustic Usage (mis)0. 0. UptakeMicroscopic Observ.All values are in mg/lt unless otherwise noted.* Indicates that the test was performed.Note: Flowrate indicates influent flow to unit

7 . 321

L . 2 43219

0 . 5*

7 . 521

. 2276190

0 1 2 7 9 3

KOPPERS COMPANY , IKC.TEXARKAHA, TX TREATABILITY ST0DY

WEEKLY DATA SHEETSFIXED FILM EFFLUENT DATA

6 . 4

860780

80

6 . 1 55 . 7<1

31802980

200

pH (units)Phenols-ChemetricsTotal P04-HachWH3-N ChemetricsTSSVSSFSSPhenols (4-AAF)TOCBO0(5)-TotalBG0C5)-SolubleC00-TotalCOD-SolubleOil & GreaseTPST0FST0VSPCP (uff/L)Total CyanideTotal Bet. PAH(mg/L)MetalsPhenolics (EPA 604)All values are in mg/L unless otherwise noted.* See data in appendix.

SAMPLING DATE23-Oct-87 24-Oct»87 25-Qct-87 26-Oct6 . 2 5

5<1

23202100

220

6 . 5 55 . 3<1

1420134080

•87 27-Oct6 . 44 . 6< 1

10401000

40

28-Gct-87 29-Oct6.4 R .94 . 6 4 . 6

<1430380

506 . 7 7

0 1 2 7 9 4

KQPPEES COMPAKT, INC.TEXARKANA, TX TREATABILITt STUDY

WEEKLY DATA SHEETSFIXED FILM EFFLUENT DATA

SAMPLING DATE30-Oct-87 31-Oct-87 Ol-Nov-87 02-Nov-87

7 . 351

26023030

3 . 32 . 4

463313

pH (units)Phenols-ChemetricsTotal P04-HachNH3-N ChemetricsTSSvssFSSPhenols (4-AAP)TOCBOD(5)-TotalBQD{5)-SolubleCOO-TotalCOD-SolubleOil & GreaseTDSTDFSTDVSPOP (ug/L)Total CyanideTotal Det. PAHCwg/LMetalsPhenolics (EPA 604)All values are in mg/L unless otherwise noted.* See data in appendix.

7 . 33 . 52 . 4

52466

7 . 23 . 24 . 8

22166

1 4 . 2

7 . 234

20164

04-Nov-87 Q5-Nov-8|7 . 2 7 . 63 . 1

436324

3 . 24

815823

1 2 7 9 5

3 . 33 . 2

3 4 . 52 7 . 5

7

pH (units)Phenols-ChensetrlcsTotal P04-HachNH3-N ChemetricsTSSVSSFSSPhenols (4-AAP)TOCBOD(5)-TotalBOI>( 5)-SolubleCOD-TotalCOD-SolubleOil & GreaseTDS -TDFSTDVSPCP (ug/L)Total CyanideTotal Det. PAH(ug/L)Metals - —Phenolics (EPA 604)All values are in mg/L unless otherwise noted.* See data in appendix.

KOPPERS COKPAWT> IKC.TEIARKAMA, TX TREATABELITY STODY

VfEEKLY DATA SHEETSFIXED FILM EFFLUENT DATA

SAMPLING DATE06-Nov-87 07-Nov-87 08-Nov-87 09-Nov-87 10-Nov-87 l l-Nov-87

6 . 83 . 3<1

48004310

490

4<1

31302900

230

6 . 83 . 8< 1

21401940

200

6 . S4 . 1< 1

18401660

180

6 . V4 . 2<1

1070870200

0 1 2 7 9 6

KOPPERS COMPANY > INC.TEXARKANA, TX TREATABtLITY STUDY

WEEKLY DATA SHEETSFIXED FILM EFFLUENT DATA

13-Nov-87 14-Nov-87pH (units)Phenols-ChemetrlcsTotal P04-HachNH3-N ChemetricsTSSvssFSSPhenols (4-AAP)TOCBQD(5)-TotalBOD(5)-SolubleOOD-TotalCGD-SolubleOil & GreaseTDSTDFSTDVSPCP (uff/L)Total CyanideTotal Det. PAH(ug/L)MetalsPhenolics (EPA 604)All values are in aig/L unless otherwise noted.* Sea data in appendix.

SAMPLING DATE

6 . 84 . 4< 1

1020920100

J- K It ^ V \J 1

6 . 84 . 2< 1

800700100

i i> - r< Q v - a j6 . 7

4< 1

580520

60

I&-NOV-BT6 . 8

4< 1

232200

32

17-Nov-876 . 84 . 1<1

296270

26

18-Nov-8774<1

17216012

19-Nov7 . 1~ ^3 . 3< 1

372314

581 3 . 7

0 1 2 7 9 7

Rf>PPERS COMPANY, INC.TEXARKANA, TX TREATABILITY STUDY

WEEKLY DATA SHEETSFIXED FILM EFFLUENT DATA

SAMPLING DATEpH (units)Phenols-ChemetricsTotal PO4-HachNH3-N ChemetricsTSSVSSFSSPhenols (4-AAP)TOCBOD(5)-TotalBOD(5)-SolubleCOD-TotalCOD-SolubleOil & GreaseTDSTDFSTDVSPCP (ug/L)Total CyanideTotal Det. PAH(ug/L)MetalsPhenolics (FPA 6 0 4 )All values a^re in mg/L unless otherwise noted.* See data in appendix.

n **s v y (

74< 1

234198

36

--

£l-«OV-tt i

7 . 151

1251 1015

--

<^-Nov-87 23-Mov-877 . 1 7 . 44.2 3< 1 <168 5558 4710 8

0 . 0 1 81 1 . 6

192 . 5

43< 10<6

226169

57

24-Nov-877 . 1 5

3<1665313-

-—__-_-

25-Nov-877 . 0 5

3<1604812__

--

26-Nov7 . 1

3<14844

4

--

2 0 5 . 5 9

0 1 2 7 9 8

KOPPERS COMPANY, INC.TEXARKANA, .TX TREATABILITY STUDY

WEEKLY 0ATA SHEETSFIXED FILM EFFLUENT DATA

SAMPLING DATE

403 6 . 73 . 3

(units)Phenols-ChemetricsTotal PO4-HachNH3-N ChemetricsTSSVSSFSSPhenols (4-AAP)TOCB00(5)-TotalBQ0(5)-SolubleCOD-TotalCOD-SolubleOil & GreaseT0STDFSTDVSPCP (ug/L)Total CyanideTotal 0et. PAH(ug/L)MetalsPhenolics (EPA 604)All values are in mg/L unless otherwise noted.* See data in appendix.

7 . 23 . 3< 12622

4

«.*/ v-uv-y, au-Kov-o/ Ul-tfec-87 02-0ec-87 Q3-Dec'7 - 1 7 - 2 7 . 2 5 7 . 3 7 . 2

3 3 3 3,3 3<1 <1 < l < i < j31 14 10 9 1224 12 8 7 117 2 2 2 l0.019 -

13 -2 2 . 5

6.5 -75 -35 -<6 - _ *

186 -128 -

581 7 . 8 -

0.01 1 -2 0 . 9 8 8 -— # — _

0 1 2 7 9 9

pH (units)Phenols-ChemetricsTotal P04-HachNH3-N ChemetrlcsTSSVSSFSSPhenols (4-AAP)TOCBODC5)-Tota lBODC5)-SolubleCOD-TotalCOD-SolubleOil & GreaseTDSTDFSTDVSPCP (ug/L)Total CyanideTotal Det. PAH(Kg/L)MetalsPhenolics (EPA 604)

KOPPERS COMPANY, INC.TEXARKANA, TIC TREATABILITV STWE>Y

WEEKLY DATA SHEETSFIXED FILM EFFLUENT DATA

SAMPLING DATE04-0ec-87 05-Dec-87 06-Dec-S7 077 . 4

3< 11311

20 . 0 1 7

1 2 . 31 . 2<14030

433146100

46

7 . 1 7 9

6 . 93 . 2<1

871

3< 110

82

7 . 35 . 3< 1

541

03-0ec-87 09-0ec-877 . 3 7 . 3 54 . 6<1

651

KQ151 5 . 51 3 . 33 . 2

5030

6 .S31951 13

72

12 .999

4 . 3<110

82

10-Dec7 . 2 5

4< 110

9I

0 1 2 8 0 0

KOPPERS COKT/JfT,, IWC.TEXARKANA, TX TREAfABILITY STTOY

WEEKLY" DATA SHEETSFIXED FILM EFFLUENT DATA

1 1 -Dec-87 12-Dec-8774:i651

pH (units)Phenols-ChemetricsTotal P04-HachNH3-N ChemetricsTSSvssFSSPhenols (4-AAP)TOGBOD(5)-TotalBOD(5)-SolubleCOD-TotalCOD-SolubleOil & GreaseTDSTDFSTDVSPCP CUS/L)Total CyanideTotal Oet. PAH(ug/L)Me t QL Is — —Phenolics (EPA 604)

All values are in rng/L unless otherwise noted.* See data in appendix.

7 . 25 . 3< 1

550

0 .0 1 11 3 . 27 . 1 51 . 1 5

4030

1 1 .61891 19

70

4 . 1 1 5

SAMPLING DATE

0 1 2 8 0 1

!I ANAL''3 I 3 CATA SHg£T (PAGE 1>

-ASE *vC3C «?E.»ce" N-CNTi^AC" ^C.DATS SAHPU2 12— Oi =3*III ANALYZE 12/08/3 DILUTION PACTCP: : . CO

1111•1111I•

0IB

r

CO 10CO 13CC200023C030C03SC040C043COSOCOS50060C065CHOCHSC120C 1 2 5C130C 1 4 0C I70C 1 5 0C 1 5 5C160C 1 6 5C 1 4 SC175C 1SOC205C 2 1 0C220C22SC230C235C240C245C250

A3 * CCI^PCUNDCMLCSCNETHANESRC^CMETHAfcE' J f S lV ! • * * Wl / "D" * * ?' A ' •• * U- '** < • Li W " « te d

OWLwRCaTHANErlETHYL£.NE CHLCR !SEACETONECARBON DISULFIDE1 . 1-OICHLOROETHe.ME* , 1 -OICHLORCETHANETRAMS- 1 . 2-DrCHLCRQETHENeCHLOPOKORM1 . 2-DICHLORQETHANE2-3UTANCNE1 . I , 1-TRlCHLOROETHANECARBON TETRACHLORIDEVINYL ACETATEDROMODICHLORQMETHANE1 , 2-DICHLOROPROPANECIS - 1 , 3 -O ICHLCRQPROPENE <Z )TRICHLOROETHENEDIBROMOCHLOROMETHANE1 / 1 * 2^TR ICHLQROETHANEBENZENETRANS-1 , 3-DICHLOROPROPENE(E)2-CHLOR3ETHYLVINYLETHERBROMOFQRM4-METHYL*2-PENTANONE2-HEXANQNETETRACHLQROETHENEi , 1 .2 , 2-TETRACHLQROETHANETOLUENECHLOROBENZENEETHYLBENZENESTYRENETOTAL XYLENES

1010to10

•s.10535353

1055

1055555555

105

1010S555553

UC/LUUUU

. - . . . . 7

. . . . . 5 JUUUUUUUUUUUU(_,UUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU

C\Jc00CMs~*o

• UNDETECTED AT THE LISTED DETECTION LIMIT* COMPOUND IS PRESENT, BUT BELOW THE LISTED DETECTION L IM IT

IIi1i

ANALYSIS DA~A SHEET

SAMPLE :: NO gri lseAC 5LS -1A" v ^TE^«EL£A=£ AUTMCa rZE j 3V

7

CASE NO.OC SS?CPT M

L

f c ANALYZED. I 2 / 1 4 / S 7

DATE SAMPLE RECEIVED . '->/'/* 7

DAr.-iFTLE 9'jl £004C3fD ILUT ION FACTOR. . . T> &

\I11

IIIHI*

C 3 ! 5C325«330C335C34CC345C350'.« «• w vC360C365C370C375C 4 1 0C 4 1 5C420C425C430C435C440C445C450C455C460C465C470C 5 1 0C515C520C525C530C535C540C345C550C555C360C565C570C573

-CCMPCUND

PHENOL3 I S < *-CHLCRO£THV. ) ETHER2-OHLCRCPHENCLI . j -OiCHuORCOEiMZaNE1 > 4-DICHLCRC3ENfaiNE3ENZYL ALCOHOL1 , 2-DICHLCRCBEN2=N£^-^lETHYLPHEMOL3 1 3 < 2-CHLDRO I SCPSOP YL > ETHES4-:1ETHYLPHENCLN-NITPOSODIPROPYLAMIWEHEXACHLOROETHANENITROBENZENEISOPHORONE2-NITROPHENOL2. 4-OIME"HYLPHENQLSENZOIC ACIDD I S C 2-CHLOROETHOXY ) METHANE2. 4-DICHLORCPHENQLi, 2, 4-TRICHLORCOEN2ENENAPHTHALENE4-OHLOROANILINEHEXACHLOROQUTADIENEP-CHLORO-M-CRESOL2-METHYLNAPHTHALENEHEXACHLOROCYCLOPENTADIENE2, 4, 6-TRICHLOROPHENQL2, 4, 3-TRICHLOROPHENOL2-CHLORONAPHTHALENE2-NITROANJLINEDIMETHYL PHTHALATEACENAPHTHYLENED-NITROANILINEACENAPHTHENE2. 4-DINITRQPHENOL4-NITROPHENQLDIGEN20FURAN2, 4-D1NITROTOLUENE2. 6-DINITROTOLUENE

DETECTION AMOUNT ^uIMIT FOUND

4O U CVJ40 U ^40 u o40 U e

40 U40 U40 U40 U40 U40 U40 U40 U40 U40 U40 U40 U

200 U40 U40 U40 U40 U40 U40 U40 U40 U40 U40 U

200 U40 U

200 U40 U40 U

200 U40 U

200 U200 U

40 U40 U40 U

11,f1111

1IHP

•• ft

MrvOLAr

"* Ar I Ls.

C3SO058505^0C595wO-i wC 6 1 SCo30C£25Cc45C6SOCi55C 7 1 5C720C72SC730C7 j5C740C760C76SC770C775C790C795C790

: _ I ORGAN: : s ANALYS IS CATA 3n•" , 1 & C C 4 C C 5

;C^PCL;IVIS

* I^T'-*YU "HTHALAT^^-CHLCROPHE.NVL ?.-i £NYL 2">£?"LUCRENE- 1 -WiTROANlL lNE-*j o — w 4. Ni , . , LJ— e.-i*lt« HYL. HENCLN— M I ""ROSCD IP^EMYLAMI N£- i -3RCttGP u £NYL PH£NYL £THE,^HEXACnLCSCSEMZENE"ENTACHLIRGPHENCLANTHRACENE01-W-3UTYL PHTHAUATE-LUCRANTHSNE

PY° £NE3UTYL BENZYL PHTHALATE3, 3 ' ~D ICHLORGBENZID INE3ENZO \ A ) ANTHRACENE3 IS < 2-ETHYLHEXYL 'PHTHALATECHRYSENEDI-N-OCTYL PHTHALATEDENZO i 3 > FL'JOR ANTHENE3ENZO < K J "UUCRANTHENE3ENZO <A )PYRENEINDENO( 1 . 2. 3^CD)PYRENED I D £ N Z O < A . H)ANTHRACENE3ENZOfGHI )PERYL £NE

S.A^PL-i

£ £T. CONTINUED

"T— i r *T * r *MOM • k. v< i * 'jrl

* ^ * !C$COSA

40 U40 J40 U

200 Ue.00 ;J

4C U^\f *J

4C -J40 U

SCO U40 U40 U40 U40 U40 U40 U30 U40 U40 U40 U40 U40 U40 U40 U40 U40 U40 U

* ; » > *3H^ " I X E D c" M ~- =

AMOUNT.VS . L lTHrt i

OCOCMT-O

UNDETECTED AT THE LISTED DETECTION LIMITCOMPOUND IS PRESENT, BUT BELOW THE LISTED DETECTION L IMIT

t DC 4 -

I 3AMPL3 NUMBE2

;:cs ANALYS IS A SHEET - PAGEJ3CRA . CRY;-: »E?CRT

___ _.o i*1

.AfE === :~^ :x -CUSTOM CASE uc.NiC — ANALYST: 33 DATAFILS. 5U12004V05

3 -SNTATTVELY IDENTIFIED COMPOUNDS

' ,CLAT:L£ : r ^PCUND NAMES SCAN# PURITY AMOUNT - — tr\o00rt t

NCN-HSL COWOUMDS FOUND > 10X OF NEAREST INT. STD. o

II J * ESTIMATED VALUE - A 1.1 RESPONSE FACTOR IS ASSUMED

SAMPLE

«• — * ^ ' * ' * ^ > = *3 »« */*•* i A "H£""~

ANALYST

3- T £ ; ITAT:VEL>1:-S fc =£^:vGL.^T:i. £ :«MPQIJND NA.^ES SCAN** P'jftr1• NC NCN — SL CGMPCUNDS FOUND > 10!; CF NEAREST I NT 3T&.l1m ESTIMATED VALUE - A 1:1 RESPONSE FACTOR IS ASSUMEDIB11

:~Y AMOUNT" ~~*QJ

UG/u°COOJT-o

wwIIIIIIIciiiii

KOPPERS COMPANY, INC.TEXARKANA.TX TREATABILITY STUDYFIXED FILM METALS DATA

Parameter fug/I)AntimonyArsenicBerylliumCadmiumChromiumCopperLeadMercuryNickelSeleniumSilverThalliumZinc

<60.0<10.0<5.GO<S,00

< 10.0<25.0<5.00

1.15<40.0<5.00

<10.0<10.01430

O00CM

O

^^^BIIIIIIIIIIIII

APPENDIX 2-FESTIMATION OF A HALF-LIFE FOR

BENZO(a)PYRENE IN SURFACE SOILS CDO00CM

I

2 0 6 9 T 4 0 4 0 - 0 0 1 - 6 0 0

W"IIIII

APPENDIX 2-PESTIMATION OF A HALF-LIFE FOR BENZO(aJPYRENE

IN SURFACE SOILS

The USEPA has reported a half-l ife of 480 days for benzo-( a )pyrene B ( a ) P in soils ( EPA 1 9 8 6 a ) . Because this value i snot supported by a citat ion from the scientific l i terature , thel i terature was reviewed in order to develop a more reliableestimate of the degradation of B ( a )P in surface soils. (AllPAHs are assumed to degrade at a rate equal to B ( a )P becausethe cancel potency of B ( a ) P is used herein to character ize allcarc inogenic PAHs , )

Table P-l lists the half-l ives found in the l i teraturethat may be of re levance to the condit ions found at CarverTerrace and Kennedy Sand and Grave l . The half-lives rangedfrom 10 days to 1 9 5 7 days, with a mean of 375 days and standarddeviation of 614 days. (The mean was calculated by using 15days as the half life reported by Shi l ina et al . ( 1 9 8 0 ) . }

To be protect ive of the public health, a half-l ife of 1 3 8 5days was se lected. This half- l ife represents a value belowwhich 95$ >J: half-l ives are expected to fall, assuming that thevalues reported in the l iterature are representative of thereal world. Ninety-five percent of all values in a normaldistr ibut ion are expected to fall below the mean plus j . , 6 4 5s tandard dev ia t ions * Thus, the upper 95 t h percent i le ofhalf-l ives was calculated by adding 1 . 6 4 5 standard deviat ions( 6 1 4 days) to t h e mean ( 3 7 5 days ) .

The half-lives reported in the l iterature varied a greatdeal, probably because many site-specific factors can influencethe rate at which B ( a )P degrades. Thus, the value used in thisrisk assessment should not be interpreted as necessari lyrepresentat ive of soils in Texarkana or any other part of theUnited Sta t e s . More detailed analysis of the factorsinfluencing degradation is needed to derive site-specificvalues* Of special note is the apparent relatively rapiddegradation of B ( a )P in -soils that have contained oil and PAHsfor a long time compared to soils to which B ( a ) P has onlyrecently been added. This indicates irhat accl imation of the

OCOCMv-o

2 0 6 9 T 4 0 4 0 - 0 0 1 - 6 0 0

>-J»-*' " ' " • • -

'^ '""•" ->L ' .^ l . - , . . . -• P^^I •!i1

_____________ _ ———————— - ——————————— - —————

TABLE F-l

__ ———————— ————— ————— ——————— ——— 1i• SUMMARY IN THE LITERATURE 1llllll_.—lll

Half-Life (days)1957

530290220

57147

8 5 . 67 6 . 2

10-15( a ) Bos se r t , T . D . a n d R . Bartha . 1 9 8 6 . ^w, .«v,w«. .w

References(a)(b)(b)<b)(c)(d)(d)( 3 )(e)

Struc ture-biodegradability relationship of polycyclic aromatichydrocarbons i n soil. Bull . Env . Contam. To x . , 3 7 : 4 9 0 - 4 9 5 .

( b ) Cooker , M . P . a n d R . C . Sims . 1 9 8 7 .temperature on polycyclic aromaticin an unacclimated agricultural soiMat. , 4 : 6 9 - 8 2 .

( c ) Groenewegen, D. and H. stolp. 1 9 7 6 .of polyaromatic hydrocarbons. Zbl.Or i g . , B 162 : 2 2 5 - 2 3 2 .

1 A \ v L. - - -• - -

The effect ofhydrocarbon persistence1. Haz. Waste Haz .

Microbia l breakdownBakt. Hyg. I. Abt:

o 1^— 1co 1CM I«T"* BO 1

1

I1

( e )

. . . . ...~ , ^. ,^ , .^ i ,L/au* , u . n. snaDad, and I . S .Vosfcrov. 2 9 6 9 . Benzpyrene breakdown by the soilmicrof lora . Byulleten Ekxper imenta l ' noi Biologii iMedits iny . , 6 8 : 7 0 . As cited in Sims and Overcash 1 9 8 3 .Fate of polynuclear aromatic compounds (PNAs ) insoi l-plant systems. Residue Reviews, 88 : 1 -68 .

Shi l ina, A . I . , L . V . Vaneeva a n d A .V . Zhurav leva , 1 9 8 0 .Benzo (a )pyrene pers i setnce in the soil when it isintroduced with soil dust part ic les . M i g r . Zagryas . VeshPoch. Supred . Sredaleh, Tr . Vses , Sove s . , 2nd Bobvnikova,Malakhovs , eds . p p . 100 - 105 C A 9 5 : 1 9 8 7 6 5 .

9 7 7 6 A

i rr icrobio log ica l community in the soil to the presence of PAHsmay be necessary for rapid degradat ion . I£ true, the PAHs inCarver Terrace and Kennedy Sand and Grave l surface soi ls , whichhave contained PAHs for many years , may degrade fas ter than therates assumed in this risk assessment .

i

iii

COCMvO

g

F-3

2 0 6 9 T 4 0 4 0 - 0 0 1 - 6 0 0

IIIII APPENDIX 2-G

ESTIMATION OF INHALATION RISKS OF UTILITY WORKERS FROMVOLATILIZATION OF POTENTIALLY CARCINOGENIC PAH FROM

SUBSURFACE SOILSCM•T-

00CMs--O

II

I

2 0 6 9 T 4 0 4 0 - 0 0 1 - 6 0 0

IIIIII APPENDIX G(Fiuidized Bed Treatment Results)

II

CO

o

I

KOPPERS COMPANY, INC.TEXARKANA, TX TREATABILITY STUDY

STATISTICAL SUMMARYFLUIDIZED BED RECYCLE CHAMBER DATA

ParameterspH (units)Temperature (Deg C)Flowrate (mls/min)TSSvssFSSDissolved OxygenCaustic Usage (mis)Acid Usage (mis)0. O. UptakeMicroscopic Observ,

#OBVS

232320

000

230

180O1

MEAN7 . 2 2

2 1 . 6 71 . 29

. 0000. 0000.00008 . 4 1

.0000. 72

. 0000.0000

95% CISFD LOWER UPPER GMEAN GSTD

.341 .72

.20.0000.0000.0000

. 92.0000

.65.0000.0000

7 .0720.93

1 . 1 9.0000.0000.00008 .0 1

. 0000. 40

.0000.0000

7 .3722.421 . 3 8.0000.0000.00008 . 8 0

. 00001 . 0 4

.0000.0000

7.2121 .601 . 2 7

.00

.00

.008.36

.001 . 0 0

.00

.00

1 .051 .091 . 1 6

.0000.0000,00001.11. 00001 . 4 0

.0000

.0000

6 .8017 .00

92.0000.0000.00007. 10

.0000.00

.0000.0000

MAX8 . 0 0

24 .002 .00.0000.0000.00001 1 . 0 0. 00002 . 0 0

.0000. 0000

90% LTVALUE

7 . P S

.0000

.0000.00003 .5Z

.00001 . 5 3

. 0000

. O C O O

0 1 2 8 1 4

KOPPFRS COMPANY, INC.TEXARKANA, TX TREATABILITY STUDY

STATISTICAL SUMMARYFLUIDIZED BED EFFLUENT DATA

* OFParameters OBVSPH (units)Phenols-ChemetricsTotal PO4-HachNH3-N CheraetricsTSSvssFSSPhenols (4-AAP)TOGBOD(5)-TotalBODC 5) -SolubleCOD-TotalCOD-SolublQOil & GreaseTDSTDFSTDVSPCP (ug/L)Total CyanideTotal Det. PAH { ug/L)MetalsPhenoZics (SPA 604)

2302323222222

565555555511500

MEAN7 . 2 0

. 00003 . 5 21 . 9 44 . 6 83 . 4 11 . 2 7

.007 . 3 53 . 3 11 . 7 2

1 3 . 201 0 .40

7 . 3 21 5 4 . 2 01 2 9 . 4 0

2 4 . 8 01 . 0 0.0 1

. 0000.0000.0000

STD.24

.0000.98

1 . 0 62 . 4 61 . 7 41 . 2 0

.008 . 3 33 . 3 91 .6 16 .6 1

. 8 92 . 9 5

18 . 3 1' . 0 . 9 21 2 . 3 6

. 00

.00.0000.0000.0000

95%LOWER

7 . 0 9.0000

3 . 0 91 . 4 83 . 5 92 . 6 4

. 7 4. 0 0

- 1 .40- . 90- . 284 . 9 99 . 2 93 . 6 6

1 3 1 . 4 71 1 5 . 8 4

9 . 4 61 . 0 0. 0 1

.0000.0000.0000

CIUPPER

7 . 3 0. 0000

3 . 9 42 . 4 05 . 7 74 . 1 81 . 3 1

.001 6 . 0 9

7 . 5 23 . 7 2

2 1 . 4 11 1 . 5 11 0 . 9 8

1 7 6 . 9 31 4 2 . 9 6

4 0 . 1 41 . 0 0.0 1

.0000.0000.0000

GMEAN7 . 1 9

.003 . 3 91 . 683 . 9 72 . 9 61 . 4 7521

1210

61531292111

.0 1

. 1 7

.26

. 36

. 24

. 3 7

.96

.27

.05

.05.00.0 1.00,00. 0 0

GSTD1 . 0 3

.00001 . 3 21 . 7 41 . 8 91 . 7 81 . 4 91 . 0 02 . 2 72 . 5 81 . 9 81 . 4 91 . 0 81 . 3 91 . 1 31 . 0 82 . 0 8

. 00.00

1 . 0000.0000.0000

MIN6 . 8 0

,00002 . 0 01 . 0 01 . 0 01 .00

.00

.002 . 1 91 . 0 01 . 0 0

1 0 .001 0 . 0 0

6 . 0 01 2 5 . 0 01 19 .00

6 . 0 01 . 0 0.0 1

.0000.0000.0000

MAX7 . 7 0

.00005 . 6 03 .60

1 0 .007 . 0 04 . 0 0

.0024 .20

9 . 0 04 . 6 0

2 5 . 0 012 .0012 .60

172 .00148 .00

39 .001 . 0 0. 0 1

. 0000.0000.0000

90% LTVALUE

7 . 5 0.0000

4 . 8 03 . 3 78 . 8 76 . 1 32 . 4 2.0 1

1 4 . 5 27 . 4 73 . 2 1

20 .301 1 . 491 0 . 5 7

1 7 9 . 4 41 4 2 . 9 7

5 3 . 0 9. 0 0.00

1 .0000.0000.0000

All values are in mg/L unless otherwise noted.

0 1 2 8 1 5

t ( * • • ( UNI - i (N'MM i i r i n , U- 1 f i l ( U UL- i iCa lr ! MJ m /f- t > F J T V

F R R

F ' f l H ( r lMPn! . »Wl > ( nq/ i

hvl{"» f n t i f -d iF- I nor f^ntf 'h< *n < * f li hfinf.hr a-' fi-nt-*t- 1 nor <-u it hf- int'f 'yp f?rtra

f'F'n.'o < -•( J an* bir < i t . r?( ,hr v* ; * f '(7)

Hr^n. t-. '. t - i ) pvr ^-niF'-'! (RI u"'') ( b > f i f.trir . - - » ( t ff.-it?ru't) '-I > f ( uor iJr:t.) » t hf?i't.' t ,nf i / Anthr ,• *f i f - n •- • i i | , h , J J por •/i i td '- >n ; it f .' '. T d > P'/1 t l ( f 4 l . Ufc ( t i

f ar bt-sro I1 *"*f i .« i ' ( i t f t . - 1 J f-Ti

but L t h i f i (•at '.^S f;

i .'( X t

u. S< su

J / "? . ( - > /S/ KVO4/B7 t ' .VOB

< i. t'l'^O' > . O.' ' . ( . »0. OSO

I . '/ 1 2 / B 7

00f H

0 1 2 8 1 6

KQPPERS COMPANY, INC.TRXARKANA, TX TREATABILITT STUDY

WEEKLY DATA SHEETSFLUID!ZED BED RECYCLE CHAMBER DATA

SAMPLING DATE20-Nov-87 21~Nov-87 22-Nov-87 23-Nov-87 24-Nov-87 25-Nov-87 26-Nov-

7 . 622

1 . 2 9

8 . 4

7 . 817

1 . 3

11

pH (units)Temperature (Beg C)Flowrate (mls/min)TSSvssFSSDissolved OxygenCaustic Usage (mis)Acid Usage (nils)D. 0. UptakeMicroscopic Observ.All values are in mg/L unless otherwise noted.* Indicates that the test was performed.Note: Flowrate indicates influent flow to unit.

7 . 717

1 . 3

10 .6

7 . 919

1 . 2 8

9 .4

822

1 . 2 9

8 . 9

723

1 . 2 9

8 . 92*

7 . 2 524

1 . 2 4

7 . 11

0 1 2 8 1 7

KOPPERS COKPAJfif, INC.TEX/RKANA, TX TREATABILITT STtTC>Y

WEEKLY DATA SHEETSFLUIDIZED BED RECYCLE CHAMBER DATA

SAMPLING DATE27-Wov-87 28-Nov-87 29-Nov-87 30-Mov-87 Ol-Dec-87 02-Dec-87

7. 322

1 . 3 57 . 0 5

220 . 9 8

pH (units)Temperature (Deg C)Flowrate (mls/nvin)TSSvssFSSDissolved OxygenCaustic Usage (mis)Acid Usage (mis)D. O. ap-takeMicroscopic Observ,All values are in mg/L unless otherwise noted.* Indicates that the test was performed.Mote: Flowrate indicates influent flow to unit.

7 . 1 522

1 . 2 97

222

6 .9523

1 . 36 . 8

221 . 1 4

221 . 1 8

8 . 22*

8 . 3 51

_

8 . 51*

7 . 91

_

7 . 80*

8. 151*

8 . 31*

01 28 1

pH (units)Temperature (Peg C)Flowrate (mls/min)TSSVSSFSSDissolved OxygenCaustic Usage (mis)Acid Usage (mis)0. 0. UptakeMicroscopic Observ.

6 . 922

8 . 2 5t*

KOPPERS C0HPAPTT. INC.TEXARKANA, TX TREATABILITY STITOY

WEEKLY DATA SHEETSFLUIDIZED BED RECYCLE CHAMBER DATA

SAMPLING DATE05-Dec-87 06-Dec-87 07-Dec-87 08-Dec-87 09-Dec-87

6 . 922

1 . 2 9

8 .05

All values are in mg/L unless otherwise noted.* Indicates that the test was performed.Note: Flowrate indicates influent flow to unit.

6 . 9 522

7 . 222

1 . 2 97 . 1

221 . 3 2

7 . 223

1 . 3 57 . 1

23

8 . 1I*

8 .250*

8 . 10*

7 . 20*

7 . 70

_

0 1 2 8 1 9

pH (units)Temperature (Deg C)Flowrate (mls/min)TSSVSSFSSDissolved OxygenCaustic Usage (mis)Acid Usage (mis)D. O. UptakeMicroscopic Observ.

KOPPERS COMPANY, IMG.TEXARKANA, XX TREATABILITY STUDY

WEEKLY DATA SHEETSFLUIDIZED BED RECYCLE CHAMBER DATA

SAMPLING DATEU-Dec-87 12-Dec-87

7 . 1 522

0 . 9 2

7 . 90 . 5*

7 , 22 1 . 51 . 32

7 . 80 . 5*

All values are in mg/L unless otherwise noted.* Indicates that the test was performed.Note: Flowrate indicates influent flow to unit

0 1 2 8 2 0

ROPPERS COMPANY, IMC.TEXARKANA, TX TREATABILITY STUDY

WEEKLY DATA SHEETSFLUIDIZED BED EFFLUENT DATA

SAMPLING DATEiO-Nov-87 Xl-Nov-87 12-Nov-87 13-Nov-87 14-Nov-87 16-Nov-f

2 4 . 2

pH (units)Phenols-Chemetr *csTotal PQ4-HachNH3-N ChemetricsTSSVSSFSSPhenols (4-AAP)TOG3OD(5)-TotalBOD{5)-SolubleCOD-TotalCOD-SolubleOil & GraasoTDSTDFSTDVSPCP (ug/L)Total CyanideTotal Det. PAH(ug/L)MetalsPhenolics (EPA 604)All values are in rag/L unless otherwise noted* See data in appendix.

0 1 2 8 2 1

17-Nov-87 .lS-Nov-87(units)

Phenols-ChemetricsTotal PO4-HachNH3-K CheraetricsTSSvssFSSPhenols (4-AAF)TOOBOD(5)-TotalBOD(5)-SolubleCOD-TotaiCOD-SolubleOil & GreaseTDSTDFSTDVSPCP (ug/L)TotalTotal Det, PAH(ug/L)MetalsPhenolics (EPA 604)

KOPPERS COMPANY, INC.TEXARKANA, TT TREATABELITY STUDY

WEEKLY DATA SHEETSFLUIDIZED BED EFFLUENT DATA

SAMPLING DATE•Nov-87 20-Nov-87

7 . 422-Nov-87 23-Nov-i

7 . 4

All values are in mg/L unless otherwise noted* See data in appendix.

0 1 2 8 2 2

7 . 6

0

7 . 7 7 . 1pH (units)Phenols-ChemetricsTotal P04-HaeUNH3-N ChemetricsTSSVSSFSSPhenols (4-AAP)TOCBQD(5)-TotalBOD(5)-SolubleCOD-TotalCOD-SolubleOil & GreaseTDSTDF3TDVSPCP (ug/L)Total CyanideTotal Det. PAH(ug/L)MetalsPhenollcs (EPA 604 )All values are in mg/L unless otherwise noted.* See data in appendix.

KOPPERS COMPANY, INC.TEXARKANA, TX TREATASILITY STUDY

WEEKLY DATA SHEETSFLUIDIZED BED EFFLUENT DATA

SAMPLING DATE24-Nov-87 25-Nov-87 26-Nov-87 27-Nov-87 28-Nov-87 29-Nov-87 30~Nov-(

7 . 2 5 7 . 1 6 . 8 5 7 . 12 . 73 . 2

642

2 . 73 . 2

651

2 . 72 . 4

431

43 . 6

761

4 . 32 . 4_—

3 . 83 . 2

6&.Tt

2

6 . 94 . 31 . 6

963

<0 .0054 . 5 8

91

2512<6

172148

24<1

<0 .0 10**

0 1 2 8 2 3

KOPPERS COMPANY, INC.TEXARKANA, TX TREATABIHTY STUDY

WEEKLY DATA SHEETSFLUID!ZED BED EFFLUENT DATA

SAMPLING DATEGt-Dec-87 G2-Dec-87 Q3-Dec-87 Q4-Dec-87 Q5-Dec-87 Q6-Dec-87 07-Dec-

7 . 22 . 8

1 . 2 510

73

73 . 3<1

220

pK (units)Phenols-ChemetricsTotal PO4-HachNH3-N ChemetricsTSSVSSFSSPhenols (4-AAP)TOGBOD(5)-TotalBOD{5)-SolubleCOD-TotalCOD-SolubleOil & GreaseTDSTDFSTDVSPCP (ug/L)Total CyanideTotal Det. PAH(ug/L)MetalsPhenollcs (EPA 604)All values are in mg/L unless otherwise noted.* See data in appendix.

6 . 82 . 8

30422

0 . 0 0 55 . 3 2

<6150127

23

0

6. 7 . 45 . 6<1110

0 1 2 8 2 4

pH (units)Phenol s-ChemetricsTotal P04-HachNH3-N ChemetricsTSSVSSFSSPhenols (4-AAP)TOGBOD(5)-TotalBOD( 5) -SolubleCOD -TotalCOD-SolubleOil & GreaseTDSTDFSTDVSPCP (ug/L)Total CyanideTotal Det. PAH ( ug/L)MetalsPhenol ics (EPA 604)

KOPPERS COKPANY, TNC.TEXARKANA, TX TREATABILITY STUDY

WEEKLY DATA SHEETSFLUID!ZED REP EFFLUENT DATA

SAMPLING DATEQ8-D©c-87 09~Dec-87 10-De c -87 l l-Dec-87 12-Dec-87

7 . 3 54 . 3<1

220

< 0 . 0 0 53 . 3 13 . 8 5

4 . 6

<6166127

39

0

7 . 45< 1

220

7 . 34 . 5<11I0

7 . 24 . 3< 1

862

7 . 25<1330

0 .0054 . 4 7

1 . 7

1 2 . 6158126

32

0

All values are in mgr/L unless otherwise noted,* See data in appendix .

IST ID

B^BORATORY NAME; SPECTRIXLAB SAMPLE ID N O . : S71200403

MPLE MATR IX : WATER t \TA RELEASE AUTHORIZED BY: M

DC ft -— SSAMPLE NUMBER: FLUID12ED BED EFF,

ORGANICS ANALYSIS DATA SHEET <PAGE 1)CASE NO. : —QC REPORT NO. : —CONTRACT N O . . 12-01-37DATE SAMPLE RECEIVED:

03VOLATILES

NCENTRATI3N: LOWANALYZED: 12/06/87 DATAFILE: 5U12004V03

DILUTION FACTOR: 1. 00

llII

I

CAS # COMPOUND UC/LC010C 0 1 5C020C025C030C035C04OC045C050C055C060C065C i lOC 1 1 5C120C125C130C140C170C 13OC133C160C165C145C 173C 1QOC205C210C220C225C230C233C240C243C250

CHLOROMETHANEBROMQMETHANEVINYL CHLORIDECHLOROETHANEMETHYLENE CHLORIDEACETONECARBON DISULFIDEl. 1-DICHLQRQETHENE1. 1-DICHLOROETHANETRANS-1 , 2-DICHLOROETHENECHLOROFORM1- 2-D I CHLOROETHANE2-BUTANQNE1, 1, 1-TRICHLOROETHANECARBON TETRACHLORIDEVINYL ACETATEQROMODICHLOROMETHANEi , 2-DICHLOROPROPANECIS- l i3-DlCHLQRQPROPENE(Z)TRICHLCROETHENEDIBROMOCHLOROMETHANE1 , 1 , 2-TRICHLOROETHANEBENZENETRANS-1, 3-DlCHLQRQPRQPENE(E)2-CHLORQETHYLV I NYLETHERBROMQFORM4-METHYL-2-PENTANONE2-WEXANONETETR»XCHLOROETHENE1 , 1 . 2 * 2-TETRACHLOROETHAN£TOLUENECHLOROBENZENEETHYLBENZENESTYRENETOTAL XYLENES

10 U10 U10 U10 U

5 . . . . . . . . S10 U

3 U5 U5 U3 U5 U5 U

10 U3 U5 U

10 U3 U3 U3 U3 U3 U3 U3 U5 U

10 U3 U

10 U10 U3 U3 U3 U3 U3 U3 U3 U

«*-— w

CMCOCVJV"o

l« UNDETECTED AT THE LISTED DETECTION LIMITLJ » COMPOUND IS PRESENT, BUT BELOW THE LISTED DETECTION LIMIT

••IINST ID:

DC # ——SAMPLE NUMBER; FLUIDIZED BED £~F

LABORATORY NAME«AS SAMPLE ID NOAMPLE MATR IX :ATA RELEASE AUTHORIZED

CRGANICS ANALYSIS DATA SHEETSP2CTRIX

3712C04C3

ICONCENTRATION : LOW /

IATE EXTRACTED: . . /V*ATE ANALYZED: 1 2/ 14/97

CASE NO. : ——OC REPORT NO. —-CONTRACT NO : ~—DATE SAMPLE RECEIVED.

SEMIVOLATILE3DATAFILE; 9U12004C03DILUTION FACTOR: . . . .

'*/'/*.?.

1r•ii••a••

C3 15C325C330C335C340C345C350C355C36QC36SC370C375C410C4 15C420C425C430C435C440C445C45OC455C4AOC463C470C310C3 i3C520C523C330C535CS40C343C5SOC555CS60C5A3C370C373

COMPOUND

PHENOL3 I S < 2-CHLCROETHYL ) ETHER2-CHLOROPHENQLi , 3-D ICHLOROBENZENEI . 4-DICHLOROBENZENE3ENZYL ALCOHOL1 ,2-DlCHLQRQBENZENE2-METHYLPHENOL3IS (2-CHLOROISQP 3OPYL)ETHER4-METHYLPHENOLN-NITROSODIPROPYLAMINEHEXArHLDROETHANENITROBENZENEISQPHORONE2-NITROPHENOL2» 4*DIMETHYLPHENOLBEN20IC ACIDB IS (2-CHLOROETHQXY) METHANE2. 4-DICHLOROPHENQL\. 2, 4-TRICHLQROBENZENENAPHTHALENE4-CHLORQANILINEHEXACHLOROSUTADIENEP-CHLORO-M-CRESOL2-METHYLNAPHTHALENEHEXACHLOROCYCLOPENTADIENE2- 4, A-TRICHLOROPHENQL2. 4, 5-TRrCHLQROPHENOL2-CHLORONAPHTHALENE2-NITROANILINEDIMETHYL PHTHALATEACENAPHTHYLENE3-NITROANILINEACENAPHTHENE2« 4-DINITROPHENOL4-NITROPHENOLDIBENZOFURAN2. 4-DINITROTOLUENE2. 6-DINITROTOLUENE

DETECTION AMOUNT ^L IMIT FOUND ,-.,

<M ICROGRAMS / L ITER) tM

20 U CM20 U ^>-20 U 020 U20 U20 U20 U20 U20 U20 U20 U20 U20 U20 U20 U20 U

100 U20 U20 U20 U2O U20 U20 U20 U20 U20 U20 U

100 U20 U

100 U20 U20 U

100 U20 U

100 U100 U

20 U20 U20 U

^^^H

I

ISEMIVGLATILE QRCANICS ANALYSIS DATA SHEET, CONTINUED

JDATAFILE: 9U120Q4C03

SPECTRIX DC # »—— 8 "

SAMPLE NUMBER; FLUIDIZED BED

•

111111I1i

C580C535C590C595C 6 1 0C& iSC625C630C&35C&40C645C650C655C 7 1 5C720C725C730C735C740C760C765C770C775C780C785C790

COMPOUND

DIETHYL PHTHALATE4-CHLOROPHENYL PHENYL ETHERPLUORENE4-NITROANILINE4, 6-DINITRO-2-METHYLPHENOLN-NITROSODIPHENYLAMINE4-BROMOPH£NYL PHENYL ETHERHEXACHLOROBENZENEPENTACHLOROPHENOLPHENANTHRENEANTHRACENEDI-N-BUTYL PHTHALATEFLUOR ANTHENE

PYRENEBUTYL BENZYL PHTHALATE3. 3'-DICHLOROBENZIDINEBENZO ( A ) ANTHRACENEB I S ( 2-ETHYLHEXYL ) PHTHALATECHRYSENEDI-N-OCTYL PHTHALATEBENZO < B > FLUOR ANTHENEBENZO < K ) TLUORANTHENEBENZO<A)PYRENEJNDENOd, 2. 3-CD)PYRENED!BENZQ<A , H)ANTHRACENEBENZO<GHI )PERYLENE

DETECTION AMOUNTLIMIT FOUND

(MICROGRAMS / LITER)

20 U20 U20 U

100 U100 U20 u20 U20 U

100 U20 U20 U20 U20 U20 U20 U40 U20 U20 U20 U20 U20 U20 U20 U20 U20 U20 U

00CM00CM^_o

UNDETECTED AT THE LISTED DETECTION LIMITCOMPOUND IS PRESENT, BUT BELOW THE LISTED DETECTION LIMIT

IIIST ID: 31EF

MORATORY NAME:QC REPORT NO. : -IIIl

SPECTRIX DC ft —— a

SAMPLE NUMBER: FLUIDIZED BED EFF.

OROANICS ANALYSIS DATA SHEET - PAGE 4SPECTRIX HOUSTON CASE NO. : —

ANALYST: RCJ DATAFILE: SU12004V03B. TENTATIVELY IDENTIFIED COMPOUNDS

S * VOLATILE COMPOUND NAMES SCAN* PURITY AMOUNT

NO NON-HSL COMPOUNDS FOUND > 10X OF NEAREST INT. STD.

llii

* ESTIMATED VALUE - A 1:1 RESPONSE FACTOR IS ASSUMED

CM""00

O

SPECTRIX DC # ——

I SAMPLE: FLUIDIZE& B&O

ORGANICS ANALYSIS DATA SHEET - PAGE 5ABORATORY NAME: SPECTRIX CORPORATION

me REPORT NO. : —— ANALYST. CEB

B. TENTATIVELY IDENTIFIED COMPOUNDS

CASE NO. : »»-DATAFIL£: 9U12004C03

1rfCAS # SEMIVQLAT1LE COMPOUND NAMES PURITY AMOUNT

IIlI

UG/

NO NQN-HSL COMPOUNDS POUND > 10X OF NEAREST INT. STD.o

ESTIMATED VALUE - A 1:1 RESPONSE FACTOR IS ASSUMED

II

m^m

IIIIII

KOPPERS COMPANY, INC.TEXARKANA,TX TREATABILFIY STUDYFLUIBIZED BED METALS DATA

AntimonyArsenicBerylliumCadmiumChromiumCopperLeadMercuryNickelSeleniumSilverThalliumZinc

Bed

<6Q.O<10.0<5.00

9.10<10.0<25.0<5.00< 0.200

<40.0<5.00

<10.0<10.0125

00CM•<r~O

f^mIIIIIII

APPENDIX 2-GESTIMATION OF INHALATION RISKS OF UTILITY WORKERS FROM

VOLATILIZATION OF POTENTIALLY CARCINOGENIC PAH FROMSUBSURFACE SOILS

Risks associated with air concentrations of potential lycarcinogenic PAH are derived in this appendix. The airconcentrations are based upon the maximum measuredconcentration of detected carcinogenic PAH in Carver Terracesubsurface soils. The calculated air concentrations onlyconsider volatil ization and do not account for dispersion.Utlit ifcy worker exposures were estimated based on theassumptions detailed in Table 2-4.

Computation, of Potentially Carcinogenic PAH .ConcentrationsIn Air Above ^oil and Risks ^As.so_ci_ated _with .Those. A compoundin soil may be partitioned between the soil water , soil air andthe soil constituents. The three main transport processes fora compound in soil to enter the atmosphere are :

• compound in soil to compound in solution• compound in solution to compound in vapor phase in

soil air• compound in vapor phase in soil air to compound in

atmosphere (Lyman et a l . 1 9 8 2 ) .

A compound may adhere strongly to dry soil, reducing itsvolati l ization rate/ but when soil is wetted the strongeraffinity of the water displaces the compound allowingvolati l ization to occur at a faster rate . However, if theconcentration of a compound in soil becomes high enough so thatits chemical activity approaches that of a pure compound, thepresence or absence of water will not affect its volat i l izat ion(Lyman et al. 1 9 8 2 ) . A pure compound can volat i l ize directlyinto a vapor . This calculation assumes that no pure compoundex i s t s .

CMK\00CM*"-O

G-l

2 0 6 9 T 4 0 4 0 - 0 0 1 - 6 0 0

i The partit ioning of the compound between soil and water isdetermined by the part it ion coeffic ient/ Koc and fract ion 06organic carbon/ f , as shown by the fol lowing equat ion

W \*r

(Mills et al . 1 9 8 5 ) :

iiiiiiii

(l) c o_n c e n t rat i_o n__ i.n _s Q i 1concentrat ion in soil water

K foc oc

The partitioning of the compound between soil water and soilair is determined by Henry's Constant, K.., as shown by theHfol lowing equation (Mills e t a l . 1 9 8 5 ) :

(2) concentration in soil airconcentration in soil water

4 1 . 6 K(atm~m /mole) ,at 20°C

The concentrat ion of a compound in soil air can thus becalculated for a given concentration of the compound in soil bycombining equations 1 and 2.

(3) c o_nc_e n_t r.aJb i_o n _.in_ sol 1.., a i.rconcentration in soil K foc oc

Table G-l shows the concentrat ion in the soi l aircalculated from the maximum concentrat ions of detectedpotentially carcinogenic PAHs in Carver Terrace subsurfacesoi ls . The concentrations of potentially carcinogenic PAH inthe soil air surrounding the soil containing the PAH are verylow (Table G- l ) . Summing the concentrat ion of each individualPAH results in a total potentially carcinogenic PAHconcentration of 1 . 3 9 x. 10~ b (mg/m ). The concentration ofpotentially carcinogenic PAH in the atmoshpere above the soilcannot exceed this concentrat ion . Assuming that a util ityworker breathes 16 cubic meters of soil air per day, that he orshe is on site for 10 days per year and one year per lifetime,

COOJ•r-O

2 0 6 9 T 4 0 4 0 - 0 0 1 - 6 0 0

IIi

that the util ity worker weighs 70 ki lograms, and that allpotential ly carcinogenic PAH are as potent as benzo (a )pyrene ,

_Qhis or her excess lifetime cancer risk is 1 .43 x 10True risks will likely be orders of magnitude lower

because true air concentrat ions will be orders of magnitudelower. Some of the mechanisms that have not been accounted forin this analysis and that would result in lower atmospher icconcentrations are listed below.

1. The soil containing the PAHs may be dry par t of thetime, causing a decrease in the rate ofvolat i l izat ion. If there is no soil water , the PAHscannot dissolve and then volat i l ize into the a i r .

2. A cycling rate of the air above the soil will dilutethe atmospheric concentrat ion because fresh a i r , airnot containing PAHs from the site, will continual lybe introduced into the area above the s i te .

COCMv-O

2 0 6 9 T 4 0 4 0 - 0 0 1 - 6 0 0 G-3

Table G-1

CALCULATION Of POTENTIALLY CARCINOGENIC PAH IN AIR DUE TO VOLATILIZATION

Shown are the conentratioos of PCQCs in soft vapor. Concentrations were cot cut a ted only torpotentially carcinogenic PAH detected in Carver Terrace subsurface soils. The air

concentrations are based on the maximum concentrations detected.

MAXIMUM SOILCONCENTRATION 1C FG

PCOC <ppb> °° (£?S==a==Sa=SB=SIXXa£=XXaSS=S

8enzo(a)anthraceneBenzoC a >pyrene0enzo(a)f tuorantheneChrysen*

saa=3*a»=a==»«iE*9.506*024.70E*028.30E*02t. 006*05

B39XaSC«»»S3

2,00£*055.50E*04S.50E+032.00E*05

A:R AIR(C X41 .6 CONCENTRATION CONCENTRATIONCa) (ppb) Cmg/m )Cb>

SBBBEEaEESBSE:

4.166-052.94E-05S.62e-044.37E-05

:Bsasa==a=aisa:aas2.00E-05t .70E-07«.50E-052.20E-05

=aa=3==a=aaa3

I.WE -071 .70E-09B.5GE-073.50E-07

Total Potentially Care. PAH t.J9E-06Clt.& (a> taken from: Mabey, W.» , J .K. Smith, R .T . Podotl, H . L . Johnson, T. M i l l , T.U. Chow,J. Gates, !.u. Pfiptridge, H. Juber, and D. Vandenberg. 1982. Aquatic F&te ProcessData for Organic Priority Pollutants. 6PA Rept. No. 44/4-3T-OU.

Cb) Conversion factors were taken from: Verschueren, K. 1983. Handbook of EnvirorxnencatData on Organic Chemicals (second edition). Van Horstrand Refrtfiolcf Co-, Mew Iforfc,

0 1 2 8 3 5

IIIIIIIIII

vOf^\COCM*—o

APPENDIX 4-A

TREATABILITY STUDY REPORT

I

2069T 4 0 4 0 - 0 0 1 - 6 0 0

IIIIIIIIIIIIIII

SOIL WASHING RESULTSADDENDUMTREATABILI1Y STUDY REPORT

KOPPERS COMPANY, INC.

Prepared for:KOPPERS COMPANY, INC

PREVIOUSLY OPERATED PROPERTYTEXARKANA, TEXAS

Prepared by:KEYSTONE ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES, INC.440 COLLEGE PARK DRIVE

MONROEVILLE, PENNSYLVANIA 15146

PROJECT 157673-08

MARCH 1988

••••

ITABLE OF CONTENTSiiiiiiiiiiii

PageLIST OF TABLES1.02.0

3.02.1 Ex Situ Soil Treatment (Soil Washing) ................................................................2-1PROCEDURES .................................................................................................................J-l3.1 Soil Sampling.................3.2 Laboratory Procedures.

4.0 RESULTS

.3-1.3-2.4-1

4.1 Phase I and Phase II ..«.........M.............«..........«........................«.....................«....4-14.2 Phase IIL,........................,.....,.........,...,.........,..,..,.........................«,....,.....,.,.....445.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS............................................................,.,.................5-1REFERENCES

00roCOCM«r-O

a

I11111111111111

LIST OF TABLES

4-1 Soil Washing Phase II Results -Screening Run .............. ........................................................t/

4-2 Soil Washing Phase III Results -Soil Sample T-TX-8 ........................................................4-3 Soil Washing Phase III Results -Soil Sample T-TX-9 ........................................................4-4 Soil Washing Phase III Results -Soil Sample T-TX40...........................................................4-5 Soil Washing Phase III Results -Soil Sample T-TX-li... ........................................................4-6 Soil Washing Phase III Results -Soil Sample T-TX-12...........................................................

Page

.............................. 4-la

4-lb

4-1r

............................. 4-1 d

.............................. 4-2a

4-^b o

IIIIIIII

1.0 INTRODUCTION

The following report presents the results from the treatability evaluation for soilwashing for samples collected at the Koppers Company, Inc. Previously OperatedProperties in Texarkana, Texas, This report is an addendum to the"TREATABILITY STUDY REPORT1, issued in February, 1988.

Included in this report is a background section describing the basics of soil washing,followed by the procedures and the results from the laboratory testing performed.Keystone's standard operating procedures for soil washing were followed throughoutthe testing. o

^rooCVJ«r-O

IIII

I

IIIIII

2-0 BACKGROUND

2.1 Ex Situ Soil Washing

Ex situ soil washing refers to the excavation of contaminated soils and the subsequentmechanical washing of the soils in a slurry type reactor. The soil contaminants aretransferred into the liquid phase. The soil reduced in contaminants is placed backen-site with the washwater containing the contaminants treated.

Ex situ soil washing involves the removal of contaminants from the soil substrate,using a mechanical washing technique. It is a physical separation procedure forcontaminant removal from soil that involves the washing of the soil into a liquidmedium. The process is carried out in equipment that is designed for contactingexcavated soils with the liquid. Removal of contaminants from the soil matrixinvolves both physical displacement of loosely held contaminants and desorption ofthe contaminants that are more tightly bound to the soil particles.

The separation of contaminants from soil particles depends on the relative wetabiliryof the particle surfaces. The surface free energy of a particle is lowered by theaddition of surface active agents, i. e. surfactants. This creates a hydrophobic surfaceon the soil particles and therefore separates the soil from the contaminant particles.The surfactant/water solution is then physically separated from the washing solution.The cleaned soil particles are dewatered and returned to the site.

The soil washing evaluation results can be used for more than one purpose. Soilwashing can be used at the site for ex situ washing , following excavation of thecontaminated soil, or the surfactants can be applied to in situ treatment of thecontaminated soils.

COCMv™O

2 - 1

IIIIIIIIII

3.0 PROCEDURES

3.1 Soil-Sampling

Both shallow and deep samples were collected for use in the treatability work.Shallow samples were collected with the use of a shovel. Deep soil samples (7-8 fee*)were collected with the use of a backhoe. A 55 gallon drum and 5 gallon pails wereused for sample collection and transport.

A local contractor was hired to dig the deep sample with a backhoe. The deepsample was obtain at the 7-8 feet level, within the saturated soil zone.

Shallow soil samples were collected by Keystone field services personnel. A cleanedshovel was used. These samples was placed in 5 gallon pails for transport. Theshallow samples were used in the ex situ (soil washing) treatability work. Deepsamples were used for the in situ (bioreclamation) treatability work.

Upon arrival at the research center in Monroeville, the sample codes were specifiedfor each of the sample containers. The codes and corresponding descriptions arelisted below.

CM^rcoCM^—O

Sample DescriptionDeep sample adjacentto church (55 gallon drum)Surface soil near DW-01(5 gallon pail)Surface soil under creosotecontaminated area (5 gallon pail)Surface soil from creosotecontaminated area (5 gallon pail)Surface soil, from heavy naphthalenecontamination area (5 gallon pail)

Sample CodeT-TX-8

T-TX-9

T-TX40

T-TX-11

T-TX-12

3 - 1

3.2 Laboratory Procedures

The procedure for determining the applicability of soil washing treatment wasconducted in 3 phases.

Phase I involved the washing of several soil samples with different surfactants andvisually evaluating the soils and wash solutions. Following each wash, the soil wasemersed in methylene chloride solution. The addition of creosote compoundsdarken the methylene chloride solution in relation to the concentration. From thisobservation the choice of surfactants is narrowed down.

Phase II work involved washing the soil with the best visually observed surfactant orcombination of surfactants. Generally, oil & grease (freon extractables) andmethylene chloride extractables analysis were performed on these samples.

These two methods of analysis have been chosen because they indicate gross removalof contaminants. Oil & grease analysis was performed because it is an EPA acceptedmethod. Methylene chloride analysis was performed due to its greater affinity forcreosote compounds making it a better choice.

Phase III work involved the evaluation of the results obtained in Phase II andchoosing the best surfactant(s). A final washing is then conducted and the sample issubmitted for more extensive chemical analysis.

A total of five soils were washed to determine the most effective surfactant orcombination of surfactants for each different soil type collected. A two wash cyclewas selected for soils from this site. A greater number of wash cycles can beperformed on a particular soil depending on the cleanup criteria.

The soil samples were screened with a 74 inch mesh prior to soil washing to removelarge pieces of foreign matter, i.e. pieces of wood, large cinders,and rocks.

The following procedure was followed for all five runs:

1. Ail raw samples are premixed.

00CM

O

1 - 2

IIIII1IIIIIII

2. Impeller speed is set at 900 rpm.

3. 1000 grams of hot tap water within the temperature range of 45-50^C isadded to the soil wash unit.

4. pH of .solution adjusted to 10 with 20% (by weight) NaOHL

5. Surfactant added.

6. 500 gm raw soil in the soil wash unit.

1, Air is applied at a very low flow rate.

8. Soil is washed for 15 minutes while maintaining pH=10.

9. Wash procedure is repeated using 50% of initial surfactant dosage. Water isadded, the pH adjusted and surfactant added and washed another 15 minutes.

10. In the final step, the washed soil is rinsed one or more times with warm water,the impeller speed maintained at 900 rpm and the air flow rate set on high.

00CM

O

3 - 3

I40 RESULTS

iiiii

4.1 Phase! and Phase II

Two separate screening runs were performed on each of the soils, using differentsurfactant combinations that were visually chosen in Phase I (described above). Twosurfactant combinations (#1 and #2) were evaluated based on Phase I results. Oil &grease (freon extractables) and methylene chloride extractables analysis were used toevaluate surfactants from the screening run and are presented in Table 4-1. The %removals are also included. These results were used in choosing the surfactantcombination for the final Phase I! runs.

4.2 PhascJII

The screening run for T-TX-8 indicated better removals using the surfactantcombination #2, which was chosen for the final run. As evidenced by the results inTable 4-2, for the final run, both methylene chloride extractables and oil & greaseshowed similar reductions as in the screening run. The results indicate goodremovals for other compounds. Pentachlorophenol (PCP) was reduced 87%.Toluene was reduced 97% and xylene 99%. PAH removal showed very good resultswith a total PAH removal of 85%.

inrCOC\JT**o

For soil T-TX-9, surfactant combination #2 showed better removals and was chosenfor the final run. Soil washing results from the final run for soil T-TX-9 arepresented in Table 4-3. Results from the final run show good overall removals. Oil<& grease and methylene chloride extractables were reduced 97 and 9irrespectively.Both toluene and xylene were reduced >99.9%. Total PAH compounds werereduced 60%.

The results from the final treatment run for soil T-TX-10 can be found in Table 4-4.Surfactant #1 was chosen for the final treatment run. The results showed greaterthan 90% removals for both oil & grease and methylene chloride extractabtes. PCPwas reduced 86%. Petroleum hydrocarbons, benzene, and xylene were all reduced>99.9%. PAH concentration were relatively low in the soil and thus a total PAHreduction of 35% was achieved.

4 - 1

TABLE 4-1KOPPERS COMPANY, INC.

TEXARKANA, TX TREATABIMTY SSOIL WASHING PHASE I I RESULTS

SCREENING RUN

Sample OilT-TX-8 RAWT-TX-8 #1T-TX-8 #2T-TX-9 RAWT-TX-9 #1T-TX-9 #2T-TX-10 RAWT-TX-10 #1T-TX-IO #2T-TX- I 1 RAWT-TX- 1 I 9lT-TX- l l $2T-TX-12 RAWT-TX- 12 # 1T-TX-12 #2

Wet Weigh tGrease Me

738660520

16200820967

2040240253

1 8 8 0 01 6 5 01 3 9 0

342001 5 7 03320

Chl ExtJ 4 8 0I'll393

4 2 7 0 076108 1 2 0

12700833653

5 2 7 0 09 7 4 08 1 2 0

6550050008700

Oil &Dry Weight ,

Grease8 9 18 1 8624

1 6 9 8 1981

1 1 4 62 3 2 1

2983 1 4

207052 1 0 21 7 6 2

4 3 4 5 619904 2 4 0

Me Chl Ext1 7 7 0

8584 5 3

4 4 7 5 99 1039 6 2 1

1 4 4 4 81035B I O

580401 2 4 0 81 0 2 9 283227

6337mn

% RemovalsOil & Grease Me Chl Ext

83094938786909 19590

52748079939479829287

Note; Me Chl Ext indicates Methy l ene Ch lor i d e ExtractabiesAll values in units of mg/L

0 1 2 8 4 6

TABI>E 4-2KOPPERS COMPANY, INC.

TRXARKANA, TX TREATABI I . I7Y STUDYSOIL WASHING PHASE I I I RESULTS

SOIL SAMP1.F T-TX-8(Surfactant Combinat ion #21

tH*cr

SampleParameter (mg/Kg)Oil & GreaseMethy Iene Chlor i de ExtPentachlorophenolPetroleum HydrocarbonsBenzeneTolueneXylene

PAH Compounds ( ing/Kg >NaphthaleneAcenaphthyleneAcenaphtheneFluorenePhenanthreneAnthraceneKluoranthenePyreneBenzo(a)anthraceneChryseneBenzofa}pyreneBenzof b(fluorantheneBenzof k > floorantheneD i b e n z o ( a , h I anthraceneBenzo (g rh , i )pery l eneI nd eno f 1 » 2 r3-od )pyreneTotal PAHMA - Not Appl icable

t OfRings

2333334444555566

AqueousSo lub i 1 i t y

at . 25 C, ug/L3 1 , 7 0 0

3 , 9 3 01 ,9801 , 290

73260! 351 4

23 . 8

2 . 4 9

Wet[ni tial

7 3 814803 3 . 5

300< 0 .040

\ . 5 3 09 . 9 5 0

Weigh tFinal

4 7 3733

4 . 6 01 30

0.032O . O 4 O0 . 0 9 7

Fni tial89 1

177040. I

359<0.048

1 . 8 4 81 2 . 0 1 7

Dry Weight-Final %

552855

5 . 3 71 5 2

0.0380 . 0 4 60. 1 13

Reffltov38528758MA9799

3 4 13 8 . 8

2002 6 648 1t 162 16188

4 7 . 15 0 . 22 3 . 03 8 . 41 4 . 81 1 .823. 11 2 . 51968

211 1 . !4 5 . 82 0 . 46 0 . 51 5 . 54 1 . 12 9 . 41 6 . 216. u3 . 7 56 . 9 52 . 6 37 . 3 25 . 4 34 . 1 1

308

4 1 24 6 . 9

24220058114026!227

5 6 . 96 0 . 62 7 . 84 6 . 41 7 . 91 4 . 327 .91 5 . 12376

2 4 . 51 3 . 05 3 . 423. 87 0 . 618. 14 8 . 03 4 . 31 8 . 91 9 . 3

4 . 48 . 13. J8 . 56 . 34 . 8359

94727888888?8285676884838340776885

0 1 2 8 4 7

TABLE 4-3KOPPKttS COMPANY, INC.

TKXARKANA, TX TREATABIL1TY STUDYSOU, WASHING PHASE III RESULTS

SOIL SAMPLE T-TX-9(Surfactant Combinat ion #2*

SampleParameter (rug/Kg fcOiI & GreaseMethylene Chloride ExtPentachloropheno1Petrot euro HydrocarbonsBenzeneTolueneXylene

PAH Compounds Cmg/Kg *Naphtha leneAcenapht hyi eneAoenaphtheneFJiuorenePhenamthreneAnthraceneFI uoranthenePyreneBenzor a (anthraceneChrysene0enzo( b* f luorantherceBenzo( k ) f luorantheneDi benzo(a , h JantBen 20 ( g r h , i ) pery leneIndenof 1 , 2 f 3-cd >Totai PAHNA - Not Appl i cab le

# OfRings

23333344445555e>

AqueousSolubi 1 ir.y

at 25 C, ug/L3 1 , 7 0 0

3 ,930I ,290

731351 4

23 . 8

2 . 4 S *

< 1< 158

4£9

61221397 1 110590

2 1867

227,1 52 ,1 4 5 ,

2065,

101550020000oo0060007000000007

1 8 . 2 0< 1 . 0 030.00

4 . 9 71 9 . 506 . 13

92. 107 5 . 4 06 0 . 4 078. 102 B . 7 065 .702 4 . 6 090.207 0 . 7 051 . 1O

7 1 5 . 8 0

1 4 8 1 t450630 . 2 7 8

22904\ * • -vw . li t £,0 . 0 3 30. 139

< 1 .00< t .0561 .03

4 . 3 620 .48

6 . 3 2128 . 15146 .0 17 4 6 . 8 51 1 0 . 2 995 . 17

228.9971 . H

238 .45I S9 .661 5 2 . 3 1

2 17 ) .29

4934 1 0 4

0 . 0 3 71 4 5

G .03O< 0 . 0 2 4<0 .036

2 2 . 0 0< J . 2 1:i6 . 32

6 . 0 223 .6 1

7 . 4 21 1 1 . 5091 .2873 . 129 4 . 5 53 4 . 7 57 9 . 5 42 9 . 7 8

109 .208 5 . 5 96 1 . 86

8 6 7 . 8 0

NANA4ONANANA1 337901 463655854465960

0 1 2 8 4 8

TABLE 4-4KOPPERS COMPANY, INC.

TRXARKANA, TX TRRATABffLITY STUDYSOIL WASHING PHASE I I ! RESULTS

SOU. SAMPLE T-TX-10(Surfactant Combination »2>

SampleParameterOil & GreaseMet hylene Chlor ide BxtPentachloropfaenolPetroleum HydrocarbonsBenzeneTolueneXy lene

Wet WeightIni tial

22001 1500I .440

83O0 . 0 2 70.0580. 125

Final1 13920

0. 186< 1 0 0

<0 .02O0.020

<O .O30

Initial2469

1 29071 .6 16

9320 .0300.0650 . 1 4 0

0ry WeightFinal

1 381 121

0 . 2 2 7< 1 2 2

< 0 . 0 2 40.024

< 0 . 0 3 7

X Remo949186

> 9 9 . 9>99 .9

62"> 9 9 . 9

PAH Compounds (nag/Kg *NaphthaleneAcenaphthyleneAcenaphtheneFluorenePhenanthreneAnthraceneFluoranthenePyreneBenzo(a)anthraceneChryseneBenzo(a fpyreneBenzol bJ fIuorantheneBenzo(k } t tuorantheneDibenzo(a,h^anthraceneBenzo(g fh ti^peryleneInrfeno(1 * 2 > 3-cd }pyreneTotal PAH

* OfRings

2333334444555566

AqueousSolubi J ity

at 25 C, ug/L31 ,700

-3 ,9301 ,980I ,290

732601351 4

23 . 8_-

2 .49--

3 . 8 1I NT

4 8 . 4I NT

1 .69O .S20

6 . 5 81 2 . 75 . 0 07 . 5 07 . 3 92 2 . 84 . 7 12 5 . 414. 11 6 . 7

1 7 7 . 4

2 . 8 0< 1 .00< 1 . 00

«0 .2002 .34

0 . 6 5 01 5 . 813. 17 . 3 48 . 2 65 . 8 21 5 . 64 . 4 41 1 .57 . 7 28. OS*

1 O 5 . 6 6

4_ . _54_ _ _

2I7

146

8 . 4 28 .292 5 . 65 . 2 928 .5

1 5 . 8 21 8 , 7 4

199

3 . 4 E< 1 . 22< 1 . 2 2

< 0 . 2 4 42 .85

0 . 7 9 21 9 . 21 6 . 08 . 9 4

10 .067 .091 9 . 05 . 4 11 4 . 09 . 4 09 .85

129

2098---N&NAMAMANANA1526NA5E4 14 735

Note; IMT indicates interference encountered during an&lysiQi 1

The results for soil T-TX-11 are in Table 4-5. Surfactant combination #2 was chosenfrom the screening run to be used in the final run. Oil &, grease and methylenechloride extractables were /educed 94 and 89%, respectively. PCP was reduced 82%and petroleum hydrocarbons 93%. Benzene was reduced 60% and both toluene andxylene were reduced >99.9%. Total PAH compounds were reduced 42%.

Surfactant combination #i was chosen from the screening run for soil T-TX-12, tobe used in the final treatment run. Results from the final treatment run for soil T-TX-12 can be found in Table 4-6. Results indicate that oil & grease,pentachlorophenol, petroleum hydrocarbons and xylene were all reduced >99.9%.Methylene chloride extractables were reduced 99.9%. Reduction of PAHcompounds showed excellent results with 99% reduction of total PAH compounds.

4 - 2

TABLK 4-5

CO

SampleParameter fnag/Kg)Oil & GreaseMethylene Chlor ide ExtPentachIorophenolPetroleum HydrocarbonsBenzeneTolueneXyiene

PAH Compounds (mg/Kg)Naphthalene•AcenaphthyleneAcenaphthenePhenanthreneAnthraceneFluoranthenePyreneBenzo( a )> anthraceneChryseneBenzo ( a > pyreneBenzo{ b> f 1 uorantheneBenzo(k f f luoranthenePi benzol! a, h i anthraceneBenzo ( g, h t i ) peryleneIndeno ( 1 , 2 f 3-eeiTotal PAHMA - Not App l i cab l e

KOPPERS COMfANY, INC.TKXARKANA, TX TRRATABII.ITY STUDY

SOIL WASHING PHASE I IE RESULTSSOIL SAMPLE T -TX- l l

{ Surfactant Comhi nat ion #2 )

_ _-

# OfRings

2333334444555SvJ66

---

AqueousSolubi li ty

at 25 C, ug/L3170O

393019801 2 9 073

2601 3 5

142

3 . 8

'S 4 <tb . *T Z7

WetIni t ia j

183005450030 .70

4 7 3 00 . 0 6 90 .2020 . 4 1 6

18 .0< 1 . 0 02 6 . 47 .3

2 8 . 910

2863251962 4 3

6 7 . 5169

6 5 . 9I T •7 11 12

85. 11 8 1 2

WeightFinal

92052504 .80

3000 . 0 2 5

< 0.020< 0 . 0 3 0

34. 1< I .00< 1 .000.985

3 O . 67 , 35

209198

90 .3105

30. i70 .02 7 . 64 6 . 344. 14 3 . 3

939

Initial202886042 13 4 . 0 4

52400 . 0 7 70.224O . 4 6 1

20.0< 1 . 1 1

29 .08.093 2 . 01 1 . 1

3 1 7360217269

7 4 . 8187

73. 1190124

9 4 . 32009

Dry WeightFinal X Remov1 14765465 . 9 9

3740 . 0 3 1

<0 .025< 0 . 0 3 7

42 .5< 1 . 2 5< t .251 .233 8 . 29 . 22612471 131 3 1

3 7 . 58 7 . 33 4 . 45 7 . 755 .05 4 . 0I 170

H t89829360

>99 .9> 9 9 . 9

NANA9685NA1 7183148515O53*i '**-* *)

70564 't*t v*420 1 2 8 5 1

TABLK 4-6KOP-PKRS COMPANY, INC.

TKXARKANA, TX TRKATABILITY STUDYSOU- WASHING PHASE III RESULTS

SOJ [ , SAMPLE T-TX- I2(Surfactant Combinat ion # 1 }

toCT

SampleParameter (mg/Kg)Oi I & GreaseMethylene Chloride ExtPentachlorophenojPetroleum HydrocarbonsBenzeneTolueneXyiene

PAH Compounds (ing/Kg >NaphthaleneAoenaphthyleneAcenaphtheneFluorenePhenanthreneAnthraceneFluoranthenePyreneBenzo(a >anthraceneChryseneBenzo(a }pyreneBen20(b)f iuorantheneBenzofk * fluoranthene0ibenzo(a ,h)anthraceneBen zo f g » h , i JperyleneI n d e n o ( 1 ,2 ,3- c d >pyreneTotal PAH

# OfRings

233333444455556

AqueousSo lub i 1 i ty

at 25 C,

Wet WeightInit ialion ooo1 1 2 0 0 0

0 . 0 9 44300

<0 . 2QO< 0 . 2 0 0

5 . 2 6

Final< 50 .0

1 7 3< 0 . 0 1 0

< 100<0 .020< 0 . 0 2 0< 0 . 0 3 0

In i t ia l1355701 5 0 3 3 60 . 1 2 7

5772<0 .268< G . 2 6 8

7 . 0 6 0

Dry WeightFinal< 6 3 . 0

2 1 8< 0 . 0 1 3

< 1 26<0 .025< 0 . 0 2 5< 0 . 0 3 8

% Reno> 9 9 . 9

9 9 . 9> 9 9 . 9> 99 .9

NANA

> 9 9 . 9

1 ,700-

3 , 9 3 01 ,980I ,290

732601 3 514

23 . 8_-

2 . 4 9--

197001 120

3 1 7244

13306 9 . 7

5 1 2230163165230

7 0 . 83 1 .56 3 . 45 2 , 24 5 . 4

2 4 3 4 4

1894 . 9 88 . 8 08 . 6 2

5 7 . 4 02 .8 !1 8 . 81 0 . 54 . 7 44 . 8 3

0 . 7 1 72 . 2 31 .013 . 5 62 . 6 61 .81

322

264431503

426328

17859 3 . 6

687309219221309

9 5 . 04 2 . 385. I70. 16 0 . 9

32677

2386 . 2 71 1 . I1 0 , 97 2 . 33 . 5 42 3 . 71 3 . 25 . 9 76 .08

0 , 9 0 32 . 8 11 .274 . 4 83 . 3 52 . 2 8

406

9999 .6

S797969697969797

9 9 . 7979795959699

NA - Not App l i c a b l e 0 1 2 8 5 2

IIIIIIII

5.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

The laboratory treatability results presented show that ex situ soil washing is effectivein reducing soil contaminant concentrations measured.

Based on a two wash cycle, soil washing of five different soils achieved the followingreductions in soil contaminant concentrations with results reported on a dry weightbasis: (i) oil & grease was reduced from an initial range of 900 - 136,000 mg/Kg to140 - 1,150 mg/Kg, (ii) methylene chloride extractables, from an initial concentrationrange of 1,770 -150,336 mg/Kg to 218 - 6,546, (iii) pentaehlorophenol, from an initialconcentration range of 0.127 - 40.1 to <0.013 - 5.99 mg/Kg, (iv) petroleumhydrocarbons, from an initial concentration range of 359 - 5,772 mg/Kg to < 122 - 374mg/Kg, (v) benzene, from an initial concentration range of 0.030 - 1.848 mg/Kg to< 0.025 - 0,046 mg/Kg, (vi) toluene, from an initial concentration range of 0.033 -1.848 to < 0.024 - 0.046 mg/Kg, (vii) xylene, from an initial concentration range of0.139 • 12.017 to <0.037 - 0.113 mg/Kg, and (viii) total PAH's, from an initialconcentration range of 199 - 32,677 mg/Kg to 129 - 1 , 170 mg/Kg.

The variations in the treated soil concentrations among the different soils tested ismainly attributable to the different physical/chemical interactions between a specificchemical and a specific soil type. These interactions account for the fact thatchemical compounds such as pentaehlorophenol measured between <0.013 to 5.99mg/Kg in treated soil while individual PAH's measured between < 0.244 - 1 1 1 mg/Kg;total PAH's in the treated soil ranged between 129 - 1,170 mg/Kg. The level ofPAH's in the treated soil is due to the fact that the particular soil type tested is suchthat PAH's are tightly bound to the treated soil and will not solubilize into solution.Pentaehlorophenol on the other hand, is not as tightly bound to the soil as PAH's are.

The absorptive capacity of a soil for PAH's has been investigated and shown to behighly correlated with the organic carbon content of the soil. The ability of the soilto tightly bind hydrophobic contaminants can hinder the complete removal of thesecompounds. The relationship between organic matter in soils and the organic carboncontent of the soil can be estimated. Likewise, an estimation of the amount of thesecompounds that will not readily be released from the soil matrix, can be determined.It is recommended that prior to further treatment, the organic carbon content and

in0000r-O

5 - 1

MMI

IIIIIIIIIIIIII

clay content of the soil should be investigated and an estimation of the absorbedcarbon be determined.

The fact that PAH's are so tightly bound to the treated soil infers that incineration,some type of solvent washing, or thermal desorption may be needed if furtherreductions in soil PAH's are needed. In lieu of incineration, it may also be possibleto support higher levels through a risk based approach which draws upon the factthat PAH,s are very tightly bound to the soil. It is also possible that lower soil PAHconcentrations could be achieved with more wash cycles.

mODCM«c-O

5 - 2

IIIIIIIIIII

1.REEEREKCES

Fu J. K. "Aromatic Compound Solubility and SorptionSolvent/Water Muctures/PhD DtertaSon,

oo

o

IIIIIIIIIIIIII

vDinCDCM

OAPPENDIX 6-A

COSTING TABLES ASSOCIATED WITH THE UNSATURATEDSOIL RESPONSE MEDIA UNIT ALTERNATIVES

3069T 4 0 4 0 - 0 0 1 - 6 0 0

IIIIIIII

APPENDIX 6-A

UNSATURATED SOIL, ALTERNATIVE COSTING TABLES

This appendix presents pert inent informat ion associatedwith the detai led eva luat ion of the unsaturated soila l ternat ives (Sect ion 6 . 0 ) . for the purposes of the detai ledcost est imate for Alternat ives SL-1/ SL-2, SL-3, and SL-4, i thas been assumed that the areas to be sampled and/or possiblyremediated are those that had been previously sodded aa shownon Figure 1, This assumption was used solely for costest imat ing purposes . Actual areas to be sampled and/orremediated will be determined in the Record of Dec i s i on .

Included in this appendix are the present worth tables forthe basel ine cost evaluat ion; the capital and present worthcosts for the low cost evaluat ion; and the capital and presentworth costs for the high cost evaluat ion. Also included inthis appendix is a l ist ing of the major basel ine unit costs andtheir correspond ing source s .

r-inGO

O

2 0 6 9 T 4 0 4 0 - 0 0 1 - 6 0 0

•<:~>Ay\ •••$..-„.? ** 4 ' ">* - M' f V ;r ' 1 i -an, / j1

^R?4JiK3J ^iS'V^

IIII

II

ALTERNATIVE SL - 1 : PRESENT WORTH ANALYSIS

COST PER YEAR PER $1000

10 11 12CAPITAL COST0£M COSTSTOTAL ANNUAL COSTANNUAL DlSCOUh^ RATE310%

NET PRESENT WORTH

CAPITAL COSTOSH COSTSTOTAL ANNUAL COSTANNUAL DISCOUNT RATE310X

NET PftESeWT WORTH

CAPITAL COSTO&H COSTSTOTAL ANNUAL COSTANNUAL DISCOUNT RATE310X

NET PRESET WORTH

27.0U .O U.O

27 .0 14 .0 V.. 01 0.909 0.826

2?.0 1 2 .7 1 1 .6

13 K 15

U.O U.O 14.014 .0 14 .0 U .O0.29 0.263 0.239

4 . 1 3 .7 3 .3

26 27 28

U.O U.O U.O14.0 14 .0 14 .0

0.084 0.076 0.069

1 -2 1 . 1 i . o

14 ,0 U .OU.O 14 .0

0.751 0.683

10.5 9.6

16 17

14 .0 U .OU.O U .O

0.218 0 . 198

3. 1 2 .8

29 30

14 .0 U .OU.O 14 .0

0.063 0.057

0.9 0.8

14 .0 U .O U.O U.O 14,0 14.0 14 .0 14 .014.0 14.0 U.O U.O 14.0 14 .0 14 .0 14.0

0.621 0.564 0 .5 13 0.467 0.424 0.386 0.35 0.319

8.7 7.9 7.2 6.5 5.9 5.4 4,9 4,5

18 19 20 21 21 23 24 25

U.O U.O U.O U.O U.O 14 .0 U.O U.OU.O 14 ,0 U.O U.O U.O U.O U.O U.O0. 18 0. 164 0.149 0 . 135 0. 123 0 . 1 1 2 0 . 10 1 0.09Z

2 - 5 2 .3 2 . 1 1 ,9 1 ,7 1 .6 1 .4 1 .3

TOTALNET PRESENT

WORTH(THOUSAND J 'S )

159.0

Oin00CMs—o

(PU-SL 1 )

I

IIIIIIIIIIIII

COST COMPONENT

AlTEfiNATIVE SL - 1 ; LOW CAPITAL COSTS

MO AGTION/KONITOfilMG

QUANTITY UHIT UNIT COST TOTAL. COST COMMENTSSENSITIVITY TOTAL

FACTOR COST

CARVER TERRACE SOILS: NO CAPITAL EXPENDITURES

SULK SOLIDS TO 86 TREATED UITK GROUND WATER:

LOAD BULK SOLIDS 160 CY 4100 (16,000 FOUR 40-CY ROLL'OFFSCONTAINING SOIL CUTTINGSFROH THE 8!

ON-S ITE HAULING 160 CY (3 (480 HAULED TO THE GRAVEL P ITS10 31 TREATED BY GROUNDUATER

HEALTH « SAFETY 1 WEEK 44,000 44,000 INCLUDES A K4S OFF ICERDURING REMEDIATION; HWJ,RESPIRATOR, CLOTHING

DIRECT CAPITAL COST

ENGINEERING & DESIGN ( 1 1X)

CON AGENCY (20X)

S3ass3a = 332===s»s»=Bsssssss33a3sassssasS33B«asissssBBffassa««s»s3aBBSK3issaaasBE3saM23:tssa»sss*aBss3S3:

TOTAL CAPITAL COST

0.95 (15,200

O1.0 4480 ^>

000.95 43,800 ^

^~O

(19,480

42 , 143

43,&96

ssatt3£3a===o=a3=s=S3a==s

(25,519************

APPROXIMATE TOTAL CAPITAL COST 426,000

(LOU-SL1 )

II ALTERATIVE SL- 1 : LOU PRESENT UORTK ANALYSIS

COST PER YSAR PER J1000

1 1 12CAPITAL COSTOftH COSTSTOTAL ANNUAL COSTANNUAL DISCOUNT BAT ESI 01

NET PPESENT M5CTH

CAPITAL COSTO&M COSTSTOTAL ANNUAL COSTANNUAL DISCOUNT RATE310*

NET PRESENT WORTH

CAPITAL COST08H COSTSTOTAL ANNUAL COSTANNUAL DISCOUNT RAT631CX

NET PRESENT WORTH

26.014,0

26.0 U.O1 0.909

26.0 1 2 .7

13 U

U.O U.OU.O U.O0.29 0.263

4 . 1 3 .7

26 27

U.O U.OU.O U.O

0,084 0.076

1 .2 1 . 1

1«'..0U.O

0.826

1 1 .6

IS

U.OU.O

0.239

3 .3

28

U.OU.O

0.069

1 .0

U.OU.O

0,751

10.5

16

U.OU.O

0.218

3 , 1

29

U.OU.O

0.063

0.9

U.OU.O

0.633

9.6

tr

U.OU.O

0.198

2.S

30

U.OU.O

0.057

0.8

U.O U.O U.O U.O U.O U.OU.O U.O U.O U.O U.O U.O

0.621 0.564 0.513 0.467 0.424 0.3S6

«.7 7.9 7.2 6.5 5.9 5.4

IS 19 20 21 21 23

U.O U.O 14 .0 U.O U.O 14 .0U.O U.O U.O U.O 14.0 H.O0 . 18 0 . 1W 0 . 149 0 . 135 0,123 0 . 1 1 2

2.5 2,3 2. 1 1 .9 1 .7 1 .6

TOTALNET PRESENT

WORTH(THOUSAND $'S)

158.0

U.O 14.0U.O U.O0.35 0.319

4.9 4.5

24 25

U.O 14 .014.0 U.O

0.101 0.092

1 .4 1 .3

COCM^-o

(LPWSL1)

IIII CCS!

CARVER TEMACC SOILS:

ALTERNATIVE S L - 1 : HIGH GAPITAt COSTS

HO ACTION/HONITOftlNG

OUAHTITY UNIT UNIT COST TOTAL COST CCW4EHTS

WO CAPITAL EXPENDITURES

SENSIT IV ITYFACTOR

IIIIIIIIII

SULK SOLIDS TC BE TREATED UJTK GROUND WATER:

LOAO SULK SOLIDS 160 CY

OH-S ITE HAULING

HEALTH 4 SAFETY

160 CY

1 WEEK

t100 $16,000 FOUR 40-CY ROLL-Off8CONTAINING SOIL CUTTINGSFROM THE R|

$3 $4dO HAULED TO THE GRAVEL PITSTO 8£ TREATED BY GROUNDWATER

14,100 £6,000 INCLUDES A H&S OFF ICERDURING REMEDIATION; HI1U,RESPIRATOR, CLOTHING

DIRECT CAPITAL COST

ENGINEERING ft DES IGN ( IDE)

CONTINGENCY (20%)

aSaaaiSIiSSBSSSSaaHaBsassas-:;

TOTAL CAPITAL COST

TOTALCOST

1.1 4^,600

1 .0

1 . 1

OJ

o

(22,460

APPROXIMATE tOTAL CAPITAL COST

429,449* * * * * * * * * * * *

429,000

(H I -SL 1 )

^^^ •1IIIIIIIIIIIII

ALTERNATIVE SL- l : HIGH PRESENT WORTH ANALYSIS

COST PER YEAR PER StOOO

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 12

CAPITAL COSTO&H COSTSTOTAL ANNUAL COSTANNUAL DISCOUNT RAT£«310%

NET PRESENT WORTH

CAPITAL COSTG4H COSTSTOTAL ANNUAL COSTANNUAL DISCOUNT RAT631C%

NET PRESENT WORTH

CAPITAL COSTO&H COSTSTOTAL ANNUAL COSTANNUAL DISCOUNT RATE310%

NET PRESENT WORTH

29.0

29.01

29.0

13

14.0U.O0.29

4 . 1

26

14.014 .0

0.084

1 .2

14,0U.O

0.909

12.7

14

14.014 .0

0.263

3 .7

27

U.O14.0

0.076

1 . 1

U.O14.0

0.826

1 1 .6

15

U.O14.0

0.239

3.3

28

14 .0U .O

0.069

1 .0

U.O14,0

0.751

10.5

,6

U.O14 .0

0.218

3 . 1

29

14 .014,0

0.063

0.9

14 .0 14 .0 14 .0U.O U.O 14.0

0.633 0.621 0.5<M

9.6 8.7 7,9

17 18 19

U.O 14 .0 14 .014.0 14 .0 U.O

0. 198 0 . 18 0.164

2.8 2 .5 2 .3

30

U.O14.0

0.057

0.8

14.0 14 .0 1 4 . 0 14 .014.0 14 .0 14.0 14.0

0.513 0.467 0,424 0.586

7.2 6.5 5 .9 5 .4

20 21 21 23

U.O 14 ,0 14 .0 14 .014 .0 14 ,0 14 .0 U.O

0. 149 0 . 135 0. 123 0 . 1 1 2

2 , 1 1 ,9 1 .7 1 .6

TOTALNET PRESENT

WORTH(THOUSAND $ 'S )

16 1 .0

U .O 1 4 . 014.0 14.00.35 0.319

4.9 4 .5

24 25

14.0 14.014 .0 1 4 .0

0. 101 0.092

1 .4 1 .3

(HPUSL1 )

00C\J<r-O

I

ALTERNATIVE SL -2 : PRESENT WORTH ANALYSIS

COST PER YEAR PER * 1000

10 1 1

CAPITAL COSTO&M COSTSTOTAL ANNUAL COSTANNUAL DISCOUNT RAT€aiO%

N6T PRESENT WORTH

CAPITAL COSTOSH COSTSTOTAL ANNUAL COSTANNUAL DISCOUNT RATE31QX

NET PRESENT WORTH

CAPITAL COSTO&H COSTSTOTAL ANNUAL COSTANNUAL DISCOUNT ftATE3lO%

NET PRESENT UOftTH

759.0

759.01

759.0

13

5 .25 .2

0.29

1 . 5

26

5 .25 .2

0.084

0.4

5 .25,2

0.909

4 ,7

14

5 .25 .2

0,263

1 .4

27

5 .25 .2

0.076

0.4

5 .25.2

0.326

4,3

15

5 .25 .2

0.239

1 ,2

28

5 .25 .2

0.069

0.4

5.25.2

0.751

3.9

16

5 .25 .2

0.218

1 . 1

29

5 .25 .2

0.063

0.3

5 .2 5 .25 .2 5 .2

0.683 0.621

3.6 3 .2

17 18

5 . 2 5 . 25 .2 5 .2

0 . 198 0 . 1 8

1 .0 0.9

30

5 .25.2

0.057

0.3

5 .2 5 ,2 5 .2 5 .2 5 .2 5 .25 .2 5 .2 5 .2 5 .2 5 .2 5 .2

0.5M 5.513 0.467 0.424 0,366 0.35

2.9 2.7 2,4 2.2 2.0 1 ,8

19 20 21 21 23 24

5 .2 5 .2 5 .2 5 .2 5 .2 5 .25 .2 5 .2 5 .2 5 .2 5 .2 5 .2

0. 164 0. 149 0 . 135 0. 123 0 . 1 1 2 0 . 10 1

0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.5

TOTALNET PRESENT

WORTH(THOUSAND $ ' s )

808.0

5 .25 .2

0.319

1 .7

25

5 .25.2

0.092

0 .5

00CVJV"o

(PW-SL2)

I

IIII

TABLE 6-3: ALTERNATIVE SL-2: LOU CAPITAL COSTS

CAPPlNG/MONtTORINO/INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS

COST COMPONENT

SITE PREPARATIONIN IT IAL MONITORING

SAMPLINGANALYSIS

CAPPING:PREVIOUSLY SODDED AREAS:

eXCAVATION- < 12 " )OM'SITE HAULIHGTOPSOIl-dO")TOPSOIL-SPREADINGSOO- (2" )

NgWLY SCODED AREAS:TOPSOIL-dO" )TOPSOIL-SPREAOINGSOO (2")

ESTABLISHHEHT OF SORXSOO BARR IER :PERJOOIC INSPECTIONSFERT I L I Z INGMOWINGWATER

BULK SOLIDS TO BE TREATED BY GROUND WATER:LOAD BULK SOLIDS 160 CY

SENSITIVITY3UAHTITY UMIT UNIT COST TOTAL COST COMMENTS FACTOR

4 .40

22176

ACRES

DAYSSAMPLES

$1 ,450

$400*315

46,380

$8,800 8 SAMPLES/DAY COLLECTED$55,440 8 SAMPLES/LOT ANALYZED

0.95

0.950.95

TOTALCOST

$6,061

$8,360$52,668

7900790055005500

19800

450450

1300

4222222

CYCYCYCYSY

CYCYSY

INSPECTLOTSLOTSLOTS

$15 .00$3

$7.50$2.00$3.55

$7.50$2.00$3.55

$1,200$180$720

$90

FOR PAHS AND ARSENIC

$1 18 ,500 178,000 SF; 20% BULKING$23,700 HAUL TO PITS, TREAT VIA GW$41 ,250 178,000 SF; 20% SULKING$1 1 ,000$70,290 INCLUDES MATERIAL AND LABOR

$3,375 12,000 SF; 20% BULKING$900

$4,615 INCLUDES MATERIAL AMD LABOR

$4,800 $400 LABOR + TRAVEL/INSPECT$3,960 $30/HONTH/LOT

$15,840 $120/MONTH/LOT$1,980 $15/HOHTH/LOT

ON-S 1TE HAULING

HEALTH & SAFETY

160 CY

4fi WEEKS

$100

$3

$16,000

$480

$4,000 $192,000

FOUR 40-CY ROLL -OFFSCONTAIN ING SOIL CUTTINGSFROM THE ft!HAULED TO THE GRAVEL P ITS ,tO BE TREATED BY GROUNDWATERH&S OFFICER DURING IN IT IALMONITORING AND EXCAVATION<2 WEEKS/LOT); HNu,RESPIRATOR, CLOTHING

0.95 $1 12 ,5751.0 $23,700 ^

0.95 $39,188 MD0.95 $10,450 CO0.95 $66,776

0.95 $3,2060.95 $8550.95 $4,384

1 .00.950.950.95

$4,800$3,762

$15,048$1 ,881

0.95 $ 15 ,200

( .0 $480

0.95 $182,400

DIRECT CAPITAL COST $551 ,794

o

ENGINEER ING & DES IGN

CONTINGENCY (20%)

$60,697

$ 1 10 ,359

TOTAL CAPITAL COST $722,849* * * * * * * * * * *

APPROXIMATE TOTAL CAPITAL COST $723,000

<LOW-SL2)

ALTERNATIVE SL-2: LOW PRESENT UOSTH ANALYSIS

IIIIIIIII

I

COST PER YEAR PER $1000

2 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 1 1 12

CAPITAL COSTO&M COSTSTOTAL ANNUAL iOSTANNUAL DISCOUST RATES! OX

NET PRESENT UORTH

CAPITAL COSTO&H COSTSTOTAL ANNUAL COSTANNUAL DISCOUNT RATE31CX

NET PRESENT UORTH

CAPITAL COSTO&M COSTSTOTAL ANNUAL COSTANNUAL DISCOUNT RATE31GJS

NET PRESENT WORTH

723.0

723.01

723.0

13

5 .25 .2

0.29

1 .5

26

5.25 .2

0.084

0.4

5.25.2

0.909

4 . 7

14

5 .25 .2

0.263

1 .4

27

5.25 .2

0.076

0.4

S .25.2

0.826

4 .3

15

5 ,25 .2

0.239

1 .2

28

5.25 . 2

0.069

0.4

5 .25.2

O.fSI

3.9

16

5.25 .2

0 .2 18

1 . 1

29

5.25.2

0.063

0.3

5 .2 5 .25.2 5.2

0.683 0.621

3.6 3.2

17 18

5 .2 5 .25 .2 5 .2

0. 198 0. 18

1.0 0.9

30

5.25 .2

0.057

0.3

5 .2 5 .2 5 .2 5 .2 5 .25.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2

0.564 0 .5 13 0.467 0.424 0.386

2.9 2.7 2.4 2.2 2,0

19 20 21 21 23

5 .2 5 .2 5 .2 5 .2 5 .25 .2 5 .2 5 .2 5 .2 5 .2

0. 164 0. 149 0 . 135 0.123 0 . 1 1 2

0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.6

TOTALNET PRESENT

UORTH(THOUSAND t 'S)

772.0

5.2 5 .25.2 5 .2

0.35 0.319

1 .8 1 .7

24 25

5 .2 5 .25 .2 5 .2

0. 101 0.092

0,5 0.5

00CM^"o

(LPUSL2)

^••HII ALTERATIVE SI-2; HIGH CAPITAL COSTS

CAPPIMG/KONITORING/INSTITUTIOKAL CONTROLSSENSIT IV ITY TOTAL

COST COMPONENT QUANTITY UNIT

SITE PREPARATION 4 .40 ACRESIN IT IAL HONITWING

SAMPLING 22 DAYSANALYSIS 176 SAMPLES

CAPPING:PREVIOUSLY SODDED AREAS:

EXCAVATION- < 12 n > 7900 CYON-SITE »OUJLIHG 7900 CY

TOPSOU < 10") S500 CY

TOPSO I L • SPREAD I NG 5500 CYSOO-(2 H ) 19800 SY

NEULY SODOED AREAS:TGPSOH- ( 10 " ) 450 CY

TOPSOIL-SPREADING 450 CYSOD <2") HM SY

ESTABLISHMENT OF SOILNSOD BARRIER:PER IODIC INSPECTIONS 4 INSPECTFERTILIZING 32 LOTSMOWING 22 LOTSWATER 22 LOTS

BULK SOLIDS TO BE TREATED BY GROUND WATER:LOAD 8ULK SOLIDS 160 CY

ON-SITE HAULING 160 CY

HEALTH & SAFETY 48 WEEKS

DIRECT CAPITAL COST

ENGINEERING & DESIGN ( 1 1X)

CONTINGENCY (20%)

TOTAL CAPITAL COST

UNIT COST

$1 ,450

$4004315

$15.00$3

$7.50

$2.0043.55

47.50

$2.0043.55

41,2004130$720$90

$100

$3

$4,000

TOTAL COST

*,3SO

$8,800$55,440

$118,500$23,700

$41 ,250

41 1 ,000470,290

$3,37*;

4900$4,615

44,80043,960

$15,84041,980

416,000

4480

4192,000

COMMENTS

8 SAMPLES/DAY COLLECTED8 SAMPLES/LOT ANALYZED*#t PAHs AND ARSENIC

1' OVER 178,000 SF; 20%SULKING HAULED TO THEGRAVEL PITS, TO BE TREATEDBY GROUND MATES10" OVER 178,000 SF; 20XBULKING

INCLUDES MATERIAL AND LABOR

10" OVER 12,000 SF; 20XBULKING

INCLUDES MATERIAL AND LABOR

4400 LABOR * TRAVEL/INSPECT430/HONTH/LOT4120/MONTH/LOT415/MGNTK/LQT

FOUR 40-CY ROLL-OFFSCONTAINING SOIL CUTTINGSFROM THE RIHAULED TO THE GRAVEL PITS ,TO BE TREATED BY GROUNDWATERH&S OFFICER DURING INITIALHCNITOSIHG AND EXCAVATION(2 WEEKS/LOT); HNu,RESPIRATOR, CLOTHING

.

FACTOR COST

1 . 1 $7,018

1.1 49,6801.1 460,984

1 . 1 4130,3501 .0 $23,700

i.l $45,375

1 . 1 $ 12 , 1001 . 1 $77,319

1 . 1 $3,713

1.1 $9901 . 1 $5,077

1 .0 44,8001.1 $4,3561 . 1 $ 17 ,4241 . 1 $2,178

1 .1 $17,600

1.0 $480

1 . 1 $211,200

4634,3*3

$69,778

4126,869

^830,989

r-vfj\u00CM*-O

APPROXIMATE TOTAL CAPITAL COST 4831,000

(H 1 -SL2 )

IIIIIIII

CAPITAL COST0*H COSTSTOTAL ANNUAL COSTANNUAL DISCOUNT 8ATE310X

NET PRESENT WORTH

CAPITAL COSTOftM COSTSTOTAL ANNUAL COSTANNUAL DISCOUNT RATEalHX

NET PRESENT WORT*

ALTERNATIVE SL-2; HIGH PRESENT WORTH ANALYSIS

COST PER YEAR PER $1000

1 a 10 11 12831 .0

5.2 5 .2 5 .2 5 .2 5 .2 5 .2 5 .2 5 .2 5 ,2 5 .2 5 .2 5 ,2831 .0 5 .2 5 .2 5 .2 5 .2 5 .2 5 .2 5 .2 5 .2 5 .2 5 .2 5 .2 5 .2

1 0.909 0.826 0,751 0,683 0.621 0.564 0.513 0.467 0.424 0.3S6 0.35 0.319

831 .0 4,7 4.3 3.9 3.6 3.2 2.9 2.7 2.4 2.2 2.0 1 .6 1 .7

13

5.2

t4

5.2

15

5.2

16

5.2

17

5.2

18

5.2

19 20 21 21 23 24 25

5.2 5.2 5,2 5.2 5.2 *.? * 1

COvO00CM

5.2 5 .2 5 ,2 5 .2 5 .2 5 ,2 5 .2 5 .2 5 .2 5 .2 5 .2 5 .2 5 .20.29 0.263 0.239 0.218 0. 198 0 . 1 8 0. 164 0. 149 0. 135 0. 123 0 . 1 12 0. 101 0.092

1 . 5 1 .4 K 2 t- 1 1 .0 0.9 0.9 0.8 0.? 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.5

O

CAPITAL COSTO&H COSTSTOTAL ANNUAL COSTANNUAL DISCOUNT RATES 10(1

N£T PRESENT WORTH

26 2? 28 29 30

5 .2 5 .2 5 .2 5 .2 5 .25 .2 5 .2 5 .2 5 .2 5 .2

0,084 0.676 0.069 0.063 0.057

0.4 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.3

TOTALNET PRESENT

WORTH(THOUSAND S ' S )

$30.0

(HPWS1.2)

HV^

IIIIIII

I

ALTERATIVE SL '3: PRESENT WORTH ANALYSIS: 10 YEAS TREATMENT

COST PER YEAR PER $1000

0 1 8 1 1 12

CAPITAL COSTOSH COSTSTOTAL AHMUM COSTANNUAL DISCOUNT RATE310*

1494.072,0 72.0 72,0 72.0 72.0 72.0 72.0 72.0 72.0 72.0 5.2 5.2

1494.0 72.0 72.0 72.0 72-0 72.0 72.0 72.0 72.0 72.0 72,0 5.2 5.21 0.909 0.826 0.751 0.633 0.621 0.564 0.513 0.467 0.424 0,386 0.35 0.3W

MET PttttHT WORTH 1494.0 65.4 59.5 54.1 49.2 44 .7 40.6 36.9 33.6 30,5 27.8 1.8 1.7

CAPITAL COSTOSH COSTSTOTAL ANNUAL COSTANNUAL DISCOUNT RATESIO*

HIT PRESENT WORTH

CAPITAL COSTOSH COSTSTOTAL ANMUAL, COSTANNUAL 0ISCO/M7

13 14 15 16 18 19 20 21 21 23 24 25

5.2 5,2 5.2 5.2 5,2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.25.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2

0.29 0.263 0,239 0.218 0 . 198 0 , 1 8 0.164 0 . 1 4 9 0 . 1 35 0 . 123 0 , 1 1 2 0 . 10 1 0.092

1 .5 1.4 1.2 1 .1 1 .0 0.9 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.5

26 27 2fl 29 30

5.2 5 .2 5 .2 5 .2 5 .25 .2 5 .2 5 .2 5 .2 5 .2

0.084 0.076 0.06$ 0.0&3 0.057

TOTALNET PRESENT

UDRtH(THOUSAND t 'S)

SO00CM^_O

NET PRESENT WORTH 0.4 0.4 0.4 0,3 0.3 1953,4

(PW-SL3)

IIIIIIII

COST CCtt»>ONENT

ALTERNATIVE SL-3: LOW CAPITAL COSTS

I N -S ITU glODEGSADATION

QUANTITY UNIT UNIT COST TOTAL COST CCW4ENTSSENSIT IVITY

FACTORTOTAL

COST

SITE PREPARATIONINITIAL MONITORING

SAMPLINGANALYSIS

INSTALL SPRINKLER SYSTEMI N -S ITU

4.40 ACRES

22 DAYS176 SAMPLES

22 LOTS7000 GY

BULK SOLIDS TO fig TREATgDLOAD

ON-S ITE HAULING

HEALTH & SAFETY

$400$315

(2,000$135

W I T H GROUND WATER:160 CY $100

160 CY S3

16 WEEKS $4,000

$6,380

$3,800$55,WO

$44,000$945,000

$16,000

$480

$64,000

8 SAMPLES COUECTEO/OAY8 SAMPLES/LOT ANALYZEDFOR PAHS AND ARSENIC1MGL. BOX AND METER190,000 SF TREATED TOA DEPTH OF 1 FT; NOBULK1 HO

FOUR 40-CY ROLL-OFFSCONTAINING SOIL CUTTINGSFROM THE RI HAULED TO THEGRAVEL P ITS TO BE TREATED9Y GROUND WATERH&S OFFICER DURINGMONITORING & REMEDIATION;HHU, RgSPlRATOft

0.95 $6,061

0.950.95

0.950.95

$52,663

$41,800$897,750

0.95

1 .0

$15 ,200

$480

0.95 $60,800

Or-coCvjT*O

DIRECT CAPITAL COST $1,083,1',9

ENGINEERING t DESIGN ( 1 1% ) $119,143

CONTINGfiNCY <20Si) $216,624

a3-aa- = sss==sa==s=S:;s==s=====-=== ==s=a==^asa»=cS3^3SS=a3i±a======3=3aS3=s3aa33sas=3s;i3===ea!ss==sa=^sa=s33s*se:i3ssHa2=a=ss

TOTAL CAPITAL COST $1,418,886**** * * * * * * *

APPROXIMATE TOTAL CAPITAL COST $1 ,419,000

aB===2=s2B3a3a=a=S3= = asa5i3Sasaoa=33^=S!:3BBa-3s3B=====aa=a33==asai:s3aas3aa=-3=3aa3==ss±=353:i=n=s==:i==S3ii=sa=sS==as=a======(LOU-SL3)

ALTERNATIVE SL-3 : LOW PRESENT WORTH ANAUSIS: 10 YEAR TREATHEMT

II CAPITAL COST

OAH COSTSTOTAL ANNUAL ^DSTANNUAL DISCObM* RATE310%

NET PRESENT WORTH

COST PER VEAR PER 41000

4 5 6 7 3 10 11

14 19 .0 65.4 59.5 54 . 1 49.2 44.7 40.6 36.9 33.6 30,5 27. &

12

14 19 .0

H19.01

72.072.0

0.909

72.072.0

0.826

72.072.0

0.751

72.072.0

0.683

72.0 72.072.0 72.0

0.621 0.564

72.072.0

0.513

72.072.0

0.467

72.072.0

0.424

72.072.0

0.386

5.?5 .2

0.35

5.25 .2

0.319

1 .8 1 .7

CAPITAL COSTO&H COSTSTOTAL ANNUAL COSTANNUAL

MET PRES£«T WORTH

13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 21 24

5.25 .2

0.29

5.25.2

0.263

5.25 .2

0.239

5.25 .2

0.218

5.25.2

0.198

5.25 .2

0.18

5.25 .2

0.164

5.25.2

0.149

3.25 . 2

0.135

5.25 .2

O.i 23

5.2 5.25 .2 5 .2

0.112 0.101

5.25 .2

0.092

1 . 5 1 . 4

ooCVJv-O

1 .2 1 . 1 1 . 0 0 .9 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0 .6 0 .5 0 .5

CAPITAL COSTO&M COSTSTOTAL ANNUAL COSTANNUAL DISCOUN^ RATE310%

NET PRE&ENT WORTH

26

0.4

27 28 29 30

5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.25 .2 5 .2 5 .2 5 .2 5 .2

0.084 0.076 0.069 0.063 0.057

0.4 0.4 0.3 0.3

TOTALNET PRESENT

WORTH(THOUSAND i'

1878.4

(LPVSL3)

ALTERNATIVE SL-3 : HIGH CAPITAL COSTS

COST COMPONENT

I N -S ITU BIODEGRADATiO«

QUANTITY UNIT UNIT COST TOTAL COST COMMENTSSENSIT IV ITY

FACTORTOTALCOST

SITE PREPARATIGJMI N I T IAL MONITORING

SAMPLINGANALYSIS

INSTALL SPRINKLER SYSTEMI N -S ITU BIORECLAMATION

BULK SOLIDS TO 3E TREATEDLOAD

ON-S ITE HAULING

HEALTH & SAFETY

4.40 ACRES $1 ,450

22 DAYS $400176 SAMPLES $315

22 LOTS $2,0007000 CY $135

WITH GROUND WATER:160 CY $100

160 CY

16 WEEKS

$3

$4,000

$o,380

$8,800$55,440

$44,000$945,000

$16,000

$480

$64,000

8 SAMPLES COLLECTED/SAY8 SAMPLES/LOT ANALYZEDfOR PAHS AND ARSENICINCL. BOX AND METER190,000 SF TREATED TOA DEPTH OF 1 FT; NOBULKING

FOUR 40-CY ROLL-OFFSCONTAINING SOIL CUTTINGSFROM THE RI HAULED TO THEGRAVEL P ITS TO BE TREATEDBY GROUND WATERH&S OFFICER DURINGMONITORING & REMEDIATION;HNU, RESPIRATOR

1 . 1 $7,018

1.1 $9,6801.1 $60,984

1 . 1 $48,4001 . 1 $1 ,039,500

1 . 1 $17,600

1.0 $420

1 . 1 $70,400

COCMf*o

DIRECT CAPITAL COST $1 ,254,062

ENGINEER ING & DES IGN ( 1 1%)

CONTINGENCY <205i)

$137,947

$250,812

TOTAL CAPITAL COST $1 ,642,821* * * * * * * * * * *

APPROXIMATE TOTAL CAPITAL COST $1 ,643,000

(H I - SL3 )

1IIICAPITAL CCSTO&M COStSTOTAL ANNUAL COSTANNUAL DISCCONT RATE310X

NET PRESENT WORTH

II

CAPITAL COSTOSH COSTSTOTAL ANNUAL COSTANNUAL DISCOUNT RATE310X

NET PRESENT WORTH

II

CAPITAL COSTO&H COSTSTOTAL ANNUAL COST

ALTERNATIVE SL-3 : HIGH PRESENT WORTH ANALYSIS: 10 YEAR TREATMENT

COST PER YEAR PER $1000

4 5 6 7 8 10 11 12

72.0 72.0 72.0 72.0 72.0 72.0 72.0 72.0 72.0 72,0 5.2 5,21643.0 72.0 72.0 72.0 72.0 72.0 72.0 72.0 72.0 72,0 72,0 5.2 b .2

1 0.909 0.826 0.751 0.683 0.621 0.564 0.513 0.46? 0.424 0.386 0.35 0 .3 19

30,5 27.8 1 .8 1 .71643.6 65.4 59,5 54 . 1 49.2 44,7 40.6 36.9 33.6

13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 21 23

5.25 .2

0.29

5 .25 .2

0.263

5 .25 .2

0.239

5.25.2

0-?1f i '

5.25 .2

ft tOft

5 .25 ,2

5 .25 .2

5 .25 .2

5 .25 .2

5 .25 ,2

5 . 25 .2

5 .2S .2

5 .25 .2

00CM^—

0. 164 0 . 149 0 . 135 O. i23 0 . 1 12 0 . 10 1 0.0921 .5

26

1 .4

27

1 .2

28

1 . 1

29

1 .0 0.9 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.6

30

5 -2 5 .2 5 .2 5 .2 5 .25 .2 5 .2 5 .2 5 .2 5 .2

ANNUAL DISCOUNT RATE310% 0.084 0.076 0.069 0 063 0 057

NET PRESENT WORTH 0.< > 0.4 0.4 0,3 0.3

(HPWSL3)

0.5 0.5

TOTALNET PRESENT

WORTH(THOUSAND J's )

2102.4

ALTERNATIVE SL-4 (A ) : PRESENT WORTH ANALYSIS

CAPITAL COSTO&H COSTSTOTAL ANNUAL COSTANNUAL DISCOUNT RATE310X

NET PRgSEMT WORTH

202 1 .0

COST PER YEAR PER $1000

4 5 6 7 8 10

5.2 5 .2 5 .2 3 .2 5 .2 5 .2 5 .25 .2 5 .2 5 .2 5 .2 5 .2 5 .2 5 .2

1 1 12

5 2 5 2 5 2 5 25 2 5 2 5 2 5 * 2

1 0.909 0.826 0.751 0.683 0.621 0.564 0 .5 13 O.W 0.424 0.386 0.35 0 .3 19

2021 .0 4 .7 4,3 3 .9 3 .6 3 .2 2 .9 2 .7 2 .4 2 .2 2 .0 1 .8 1 .7

CAPITAL COSTOfiH COSTSTOTAL ANNUAL COSTANNUAL DISCOUNT RATE31034

NET PRESENT WORTH

14 15 16 17 19 20 21 21 23 24 25

5 ,2 5 .2 5 .2 S .2 5 .2 5 .2 5 .2 5 .2 5 .2 5 .2 5 .2 5 .2 5 .25 .2 5 .2 5 .2 5 .2 5 .2 5 .2 5 .2 5 .2 5 .2 5 .2 5 .2 5 .2 5 .2

0.29 0.263 0.239 0 .2 18 0. 198 0 . 18 0 . 164 0 . 149 0. 135 0 . 123 0 . 1 1 2 0 . 10 1 0.092

1 . 5 1 .4 1 -2 1 . 1 1 .0 0 ,9 0 .9 0 .8 0 .7 0.6 0 .6 0 .5 0 .5

coCMV-o

CAPITAL COSTOSH COSTSTOTAL ANNUAL COSTANNUAL DISCOUNT

NET PRESENT WORTH

26 27 28 29 30

5 .2 5 .2 5 .2 5 .2 5 .25 .2 5 .2 5 .2 5 .2 5 .2

0.084 0.076 0.069 0.063 0.057

0.4 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.3

TOTALSET PRESENT

WORTH(THOUSAND t ' s )

2070.0

(PW-SL4A)

IIIIIIIII

COST COMPONENT

SITE PREPARATIONIN IT IAL MONITORING

SAMPLINGANALYSIS

SL-4(A): LOW CAPITA' COSTS

EXCAVATION/SOU WASHING

QUANTITY UNIT UNIT COST TOTAL COST COMMENTS

4.4 ACRES $1 ,450 $6,380

SENSIT IV ITYFACTOR

TOTALCOST

22 DAYS176 SAMPLES

SOILS FROM TH£ CARVER TERRACE SUBDIVIS ION:EXCAVATION 8400 CY

ON-S ITE KAULING 8400 CY

SULK SOLIDS FROM THE KENNEDY SAND AMD GRAVEL PROPERTY:LOAD 160 CYON-S ITE HAULING 160 CY

$400 58,800 8 SAMPLES COLLECTED/DAY$315 455,440 8 SAMPLES/LOT ANALYZED

$15 $126,000 1 FT DEPTH OVER 190,000SF; 205t BULKING

$3 $25,200

$100 416,000 FOUR 40-CY ROLL-OFFS$3 $4£0

SOIL WASHING TREATMENT SYSTEM;TREATMENT SYSTEM H06/DEKOBTfilEATMEhT EQUIP. RENTAL

(TREATED AT A RATE OF 2.5 TONSPER HOUR 3 10 HOURS P£R DAY)

CHEMICALSUT IL IT I ESUV/OZQNEOPERATION & SUPERVISIONAIR MONITORINGBACKF ILL ING OF TREATED SOILS

RESTORATION:

1 LP SUM $14,000 $14,00012 MONTHS $58,000 *696,000 INCLUDES REACTORS,

1 LP bJH $18,0001 LP SUM $1 1 ,0001 LP SUM $6,7501 LP SUM $165,000

12 MONTHS $3,0008560 CY $3.00

TANKS, MIXERS,HOPPERS

$18,000$1 1 ,000$6,750

$165,000436,000$25,680 CARVER TERRACE SOILS

AND BULK SOLIDS;PLACED U ITH IN THEKS&G PROPERTY

0.95 $6,061

0.95 $8,3600.95 $52,668

0.95 41 19,700

0.95 $23,940

0.95 $15,2001.0 $480

1 .0 $1 < . ,OOQ0.95 4661,200

0.95 417, 1000,95 $10,4500,95 $6,4130.95 $156,7500.95 $34,2000.95 424,396

CLEAN BACKFILt.-(10") 7000 CY *5,00

SPREADING 7000 CY $2.00SCO <2") 2 1 100 SY $3.55

HEALTH & SAFETY 52 WEEKS $4,000

DIRECT CAPITAL COST

ENGINEERING & DESIGN ( 1 1X)

CONTINGENCY (20%)

TOTAL CAPITAL COST

$35,000 ONLY FOR CARVER TERRACEAREA

$14,000$74,905 ONLY FOR CARVER TERRACE

AREA4208,000 H&S DURING INIT IAL

MONITORING ANDEXCAVATION/TREATMENT

.__——________

0.95 $33,250

0.95 $13,3000.95 $71 , 160

0.95 $197,600

$1,466,227

$161 ,285

$293,245

$1,920,753* * * * * * * * * * *

r-oo

O

APPROXIMATE TOTAL CAPITAL COST 4 1 ,92 1 ,000

(LOU-SL4A)

IALTERNATIVE SL -4CA ) : LOU NET PRESENT WORTH ANALYSIS

COST PER YEAR PER $1000

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0 1 1 1 2

CAPITAL COST08H COSTSTOTAL ANNUAL COSTANNUAL DISCOUNT ftATEfllOX

MET PRESENT WORTH

CAPITAL COSTO&M COSTSTOTAL ANNUAL COSTANNUAL DISCOUNT RATES1051

N£T PRESENT WORTH

CAPITAL COSTOJH COS TSTOTAL ANNUAL COSTANNUAL DISCOUNT RATE310X

NET PRESENT WORTH

1921.0

192 1 .01

1921 .0

13

5 .25 .2

0.29

1 . 5

26

5 .25.2

0.084

0.4

5 . 25 .2

0.909

4 .7

U

5 . 25 . 2

n.263

1 . 4

27

5 .25-2

0.076

0.4

5.25 .2

0.826

4.3

15

5 . 25 .2

0.239

1 .2

28

5 . ?5.2

0.069

0.4

5 . 25 .2

0,751

3 .9

16

5 . 25 .2

0.218

1 . 1

29

S .25 .2

0.063

0.3

5 .2 5 .25 .2 5 .2

0.683 G.621

3,6 3.2

17 18

5 .2 5 .25 ,2 5 .2

0 . 198 0 . 1 8

1 .0 0 .9

30

5 .25.2

0.057

0.3

S .2 5 .2 5 .2 5 .2 5 .25 .2 5 .2 5 .2 5 .2 5 .2

0.564 0.513 0.467 0.424 0.386

2 .9 2 .7 2 .4 2 .2 2 .0

19 20 21 21 23

5 .2 5 .2 5 .2 5 .2 5 .25 .2 5 .2 5 .2 5 .2 5 .2

0. 164 0. 149 0 . 135 0.123 0 . 1 12

0.9 0.8 0 .7 0.6 0 .6

TOTALNET PRESENT

WORTH(THOUSAND J 'S >

1970.0

5 .2 5 .2S .2 5 .2

0.35 0.319

1 .8 1 .7

24 25

5 .2 5 .25 .2 5 .2

0.101 0.092

0.5 0.5

00CM^—o

( IPUSL4A)

IIIIIIIII

ALTERNATIVE SL"4(A) ; H IGH CAPITAL COSTS

EXCAVATION/SOIL WASHING

COST COMPONENT QUANTITY

SITE PREPARATION 4.4INITIAL MONITORING

SAMPLING 22ANALYSIS 176

SOILS FROM THE CARVEk ib 'RRACE SUBDIVIS IONEXCAVATION 8400

ON-SITE HAULING 8400

UNIT UNIT COST

ACRES $1 ,450

DAYS $400SAMPLES $315

.CY $15

CY $3

TOTAL COST

$6,380

$8,800$55,440

$126,000

$25,200

COMMENTS

8 SAMPLES COLLECTED/DAY8 SAMPLES/LOT ANALYZED

1 FT DEPTH OVER 190,000SF; 20% BULKING

SENSIT IVITY TOTALFACTOR COST

1 .1 $7,018

1 . 1 $9,6801.1 $60,984

1.1 $138,600

1.1 $27,720 I*—r—SULK SOLIDS FROM THE KENNEDY SAND AND GRAVEL PROPERTY:LOAD 160ON-S ITE HAULING 160

SOIL WASHING TREATMENT SYSTEM:TREATMENT SYSTEM MOB/DEMOB 1TREATMENT EQUIP, RENTAL 12

(TREATED AT A RATE OF 2.i TONSPER HOUR 3 10 HOURS PER DAY)

CHEMICALS 1UT I L I T I ES 1UV/OZOftE 1OPERATION & SUPERVISION 1AIR MONITORING 12BACKFILL ING OF TREATED SOILS 8560

SITE RESTORATION:CLEAH BACKFILL- ( 10" ) 7000

SPREADING 7000SCO <2") 2 1 100

HEALTH & SAfETY 52

DIRECT CAPITAL COST

ENGINEERING & DESIGN (11%)

CONTINGENCY (20%)•sac^is-sc;— ?t^3^— sittSstfff^S!33is;ss3i;TSs— i"— sssaaecs

TOTAL CAPITAL COST

APPROXIMATE TOTALU I . Cl /. A \

CY $100CY $3

LP SUM $14,000MONTHS $58,000

LP SUM $18,000LP SUM $ 1 1 ,000LP SUM $6,750LP SUM $165,000MONTHS $3,000CY $3.00

CY $5.00

CY $2.00SY $3.55

WEEKS $4,000

isnssKSsssassssssesssss

CAPITAL COST3SB33=SS=SSEJsaS:S=eS==

$16,000i480

414,000$696,000

$18,000$1 1 ,000$6,750

$165,000$36,000$25,680

$35,000

$14,000$74,905

$208,000

i^ass&jstjsssssc

=*=*»« = «=:

FOUR 40-CY ROLL-OFfS

INCLUDES REACTORS,TANKS, MIXERS,HOPPFP1;tlvr r £Kd

CARVER TERRACH SOILSAND BULK SOLIDS;PLACED HI THIN THEKS&G PROPERTY

ONLY FOR CARVER TERRACEAREA

ONLY FOR CARVER TERRACEAC PAnutff

H&S DURING IN IT IALMONITORING ANDEXCAVATION/TREATMENT

2B=a=eciiiatca==a==aasaKaaHaai

=Sa=3SB4*IS35S;3 = :=SSBH!lassa3(

CO1.1 $17,600 _1.0 4430 ^_

o1 .0 $U,0001 . 1 $765,600

1.1 $19,8001 . 1 $ 12 , 1001 . 1 $7,4251 . 1 $ 18 1 ,5001 . 1 $39,6001.1 $28,248

1 . 1 $38,500

1.1 $15,4001.1 $82,396

1 . 1 $228,800

$1,695,451

$186,500

$339,090BsSsa3seaBBaa==2=aHaa

$2,221 ,040* * * * * * * * * * *£2 ,221 ,000

;s=DS3O*ltBaH333S=SSe=

ALTERNATIVE SL-4<A> : HIGH PRESENT WORTH ANAlYSl

IIIII

COST PER YEAR PER S1000

4 5 6 7 8 10 11 12

CAPITAL COSTO&H COSTSTOTAL ANNUAL COSTANNUAL DISCOUNT RATEaiOt

NET PRESENT WORTH

CAPITAL COSTO&M COSTSTOTAL AWHUAL COSTANNUAL DISCOUNT ftATEfllCX

MET PRgSENT WORTH

CAPITAL COSTO&H COSTSTOTAL ANNUAL COSTANNUAL DISCOUNT RATE31QX

NET PRESENT WORTH

2221 . C

222 1 .01

2221 .0

13

5 . 25 .2

0.29

1 . 5

26

5 .25 . 2

0.084

0.4

5 .25 .2

0.909

4.7

14

5.25 .2

0.263

1 .4

27

5 . 25.2

0.076

0.4

5.25 .2

0.826

4.3

15

5 .25 .2

0.239

1 .2

28

5 ,25 .2

0.069

0.4

5 .25 .2

0.751

3.9

16

5 .25 . 2

0 ,2 18

1 . 1

29

5 .25 .2

0.063

0.3

5 .25 .2

0.683

3.6

17

5.25 .2

0. 198

1 . 0

30

5 .25 ,2

0.057

0.3

5 .2 5 .2 5 .2 5 .2 5 .2 5 .25 .2 5 .2 5 .2 5 .2 5 .2 5 .2

0.621 0.564 0 .5 13 0.467 0.424 0.386

3.2 2 .9 2 .7 2 .4 2 .2 2 .0

18 19 20 21 21 23

5 .2 5 .2 5 .2 5 .2 5 .2 5 .25 .2 5 .2 5 .2 5 .2 5 .2 5 .2

O . i 8 0 . 164 0 . 149 0 . 1 35 0 . 123 0 . 1 1 2

0.9 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.6

TOTALNET PRESENT

WORTH(THOUSAND * '$ )

2270.0

5 .2 5 .25 .2 5 .2

0.35 0 .3 19

1 .8 1 .7

24 25

5 .2 5 .25 .2 5 .2

0 . 10 1 0.092

0 .5 0 .5

03r-COOJ•e—O

(HPUSL4A)

• V .0

IIII1

ALTERNATIVE SL -4 (B ) : PRESENT WORTH ANALYSIS

COST PER YEAR PER 410CO

2 3 4 5 6 ?

3959.0

, 'V "A

10 11 12

CAPITAL COST< * " COSTS 5 -2 5 .2 5 .2 5 .2 5 .2 5 ,2 5 .2 5 .2 5 .2 5 .Z 52 52TOTAL ANNUAL COST 3959.0 5 . 2 5 . ? 5 . 2 5 . 2 5 . 2 5 . 2 5 . 2 5 2 5 2 5 2 5 * 2 5 * 2ANNUAL DISCOUNT RATE310* 1 0.909 0.826 0.751 0.683 0.621 0.564 0.513 0.467 0 424 0 386 0 35 0 si9

NfcT WJESENT WORTH 3959.0 3.9 3.6 3.2 2.9 2.7 2.4 2.2 2.0 1 . 8 1 .7

CAPITAL COSr

O&M COSTSTOTAL ANKUAL COSTANNUAL DISCOUNT RAT6a)10X

MET WORTH

13 15 16 18 19 20 21 21 23 24 25

5.25.2

5.25 .2

5.25 .2

5.25 .2

5.25 .2

5.25 .2

5.25 .2

5.25.2

5.5 ,

.2.2

5.2 5.2 5.2 5.25 .2 5 .2 5 .2 5 .2

GOCM<—

0.29 0.263 0.239 0,218 0 . 198 0 . 1 8 0. 164 0 . 149 0 . 1 35 0 . 123 0 . 1 12 0 . 10 1 0.092

1 . 5 1 .4 ; -2 1 - 1 1 .0 0 .9 0 .9 0 .8 0 .7 0.6 0 .6 0 .5 0.5

o

CAPITAL COSTOSH COS1STOTAL ANNUAi. COSTANNUAL DISCOUNT RATE310X

NET PRESENT WORTH

26 27 28 29 30

5 .2 5 .2 5 .2 5 .2 5 .25 .2 5 .2 5 .2 5 .2 5 .2

0.084 0.076 0.069 0.063 0.057

0.4 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.3

TOTALNET PRESENT

WORTH(THOUSAND $ ' s )

4008.0

(PW-SL48)

3 ALTERATIVE SL -4 <8 ) : LOW CAPITAL COSTS

EXCAVATION/ON-SITE INCINERATION/BACKFILL ASH• SENSITIVITY TOTAL

1i1

COST COMPONENT

SITE PREPARATIONIN IT IAL MONITORING

SAMPLINGANALYSIS

SOUS FROM THI CARVER TERRACEEXCAVATION

ON-srE HAULING

QUANTITY UNIT

4.4 ACRES

22 DAYS176 SAMPLES

SUBDIVISION:8400 CY

8400 CY

UNIT COST

$1,450

$400$315

$15

$3.00

TOTAL COST

$6,380

$8,800$55,440

$126,000

$25,200

COMMENTS

8 SAMPLES COLLECTED/DAY8 SAMPLES/LOT ANALYZEDFOR PAHS AND ARSENIC

1 FT DEPTH OVER 190,000SF; 20% BULKING; EXCAVATE1/2 OF A LOT AT A TIME

FACTOR COST

0.95 $6,061

0.95 $8,3600.95 $52,668

0.95 $1 19,700

0.95 $23,940

O00cc

SULK SOLIDS FROM TH£ KENNEDY SAHD AND GRAVEL PROPERTY: ^

|

I

I•flff

11••

1

LOADON-SITE HAULING

ON-S ITE INCINERATOR SYSTEM:MOB/DEMOBTEST BURNINCINERATIONElECTR & INSTRUHAIR MONITORINGASH TESTING (DELISTING)ASH SPREADING

SITE RESTORATION:CLEAN SACKFILL- < 10" >

SPREAD I WGSOO <2«)

HEALTH £ SAFETY

DIRECT CAPITAL COST

160 CY160 CY

1 LP SUM1 LP SUM

8560 CY1 LP SUM6 MONTHS1 LP SUM

4280 CY

7000 CY

7000 CY21 100 SY

28 WEEKS

4100$3.00

$100,000$80,000

$250495,000$3,000

4100,000$3.50

$5.00

$2.00$3.55

$4,000

$16,000$480

$100,000$80,000

$2 , 140,000495,000118,000

$100,000$14,980

$35,000

$14,000$74,905

$1 12 ,000

FOUR 40-CY ROLL-OFFS

50 CY PER DAY

ASSUME 50% VOLUME LOSS;PLACED WITHIN KS&GPROPERTY

ONLY FOR CARVER TERRACEAREA

ONLY FOR CARVER TERRACEAREA

INCLUDES A H&S OFFICERDURING REMEDIATION

1 ENGINEER ING & DES IGN (1U)

Bm

CONTINGENCY (20X)

TOTAL CAPITAL COST

.».„».»»««»**,.».*

0.95 $ 15 ,2001.0 $480

1 .0 $100,0001 .0 $80,000

0.95 $2,033,0000.95 $90,2500.95 417 , 1001 .0 $100,000

0.95 $ 14 ,231

0.95 $33,250

0,95 $13,3000.95 $71 , 160

0.95 $106,400

42,885,100

$317,361

$577,020

$3,779,481************

•*-O

APPROXIMATE TOTAL CAPITAL COST S3,779,000

( ( .OU-SL4B)

IIIIII

ALTERNATIVE SL '4 (8 > : LOW PRESENT WORTH ANALYSIS

COST PER YEAR PER StOOO

II

CAPITAL COSTQ&H COSTSTOTAL ANNUAL COSTANNUAL DISCOUNT RATESIOX

NET PRESENT WORTH

CAPITAL COSTO&M COSTSTOTAL ANNUAL COSTANNUAL DISCOUNT ftATEi)10%

NET PRESENT WORTH

CAPITAL COSTOSH COSTSTOTAL ANNUAL COSTANNUAL DISCOUNT ftarcainv

--J-----Z . . . . . .3 . . . . . .L.. 5 6 7 8 • to 113779.0 " " " " " " " " • • • " " - ' - " - - - • • - • - • • • • - • - . . . . - . . . - . . . . .

3^.0 1:1 1:1 I'l l'l \'i I-2 s-2 *•* *•* ^ 5.2t «.« o.826 ,.„, o.^ 0,-, ,5M 0 5

5;32

fl » ^ o » »3779'° " 4 '3 3 '9 »•* 3, 2., ,7 2, 2.2 2.0 ,_8

-. .- 1 3 . . . . . . '4 . '5 16 " '8 " ^ 2> « 23 24

l ' l l ' l l ' l ' • ' 5 '2 5 '2 5 '2 5 '2 5 '2 5.2 52 52«.» o,, o.23: ,j;.2

1£ D|;; 0.^ 0.^ 0 « o_» o - o »1 > 5 ' '4 ' • ' '- 1 '- ° ° ' » « • » «>•• 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.5

26 27 28 29 30. . . . . . . . . . . . . . TOTALNET PRESENT

5 -2 5 . 2 5 . 2 5 . 2 52 WRTH

5.2 5 .2 5 .2 5 .2 5 .2 (THOUSAND S ' S )

12. . . . . . . .

5 .25 .2

0.319

1 . 7

25

5 .25 . 2

0.092

0.5

MET PRESENT WORTH 0-4 0.4 0 .4 0 .3

0000CMv-O

0.3 3828.0

I (LPWSL4B)

I ALTERNATIVE SL -4 (B > : H IGH CAPITAL COSTS

EXCAVATION/ON-SITE INCINERATION/BACKFILL ASH

IIII

COST COMPONENT

S ITE PREPARATIONIN IT IAL MONITORING

SAMPLINGANALYSIS

SOILS FROM THE CARVER TERRACEEXCAVATICft

ON-S ITE RULING

BULK SOLIDS FROM THb KENNEDYLOADON-S ITE HAULING

ON-S ITE IMCI» i e *ATOR SYSTEM:MOB/DEMOSTEST BURNINCINERATEELECTR & IKSTRUHAIR MONITORINGASH TESTIao (DEL IST ING )ASH SPREADING

S ITE RESTORATIONCLEAN BACKFRL-dO"; .

SPREADINGSOD (2")

HEALTH & SAFETY

* < * . , . * » - - * * - - • - . . * f c , » , , » • * * • „ .

DIRECT CAPITAL COST

ENGINEERING & DESIGN < 1U)

CONTINGENCY <20%)

iManBsBaaaMaaawMsataasaaBsaBs.

TOTAL CAPITA). COST

QUANTITY UNIT UNIT COST

4.4 ACRES $1 ,450

22 DAYS $400176 SAMPLES $315

: SUBDIVIS ION:8400 CY $15

8400 CY 53.00

SAND AND GRAVEL PROPERTY:160 CY tioo160 CY $3.00

1 LP SUH $100,0001 LP SUH $SO,000

8560 CY $2501 LP SUM $95,0006 MONTHS $3,0001 LP SUH $100,000

4280 CY $3 .50

?000 CY $5.00

7000 CY $2.0021 100 SY $3.55

38 WEEKS $4,000

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . " • " • " " • • • * • • -- - - • . - . . . . „ . , . .

s&aa-iSBsatiBafesaaassLaaasBSzi-s.

TOTAL COST

$6,380

$8,800$55,440

$126,000

$25,200

$16 ,000$480

$100,000$80,000

$2, 140,000$95,000$18,000

$100,000$14,980

$35,000

$14 ,000$74,905

$ 1 12 ,000

• • • • * • • • • • • - •

ssssaesaasBas

COMMENTS

8 SAMPLES COLLECTED/DAY8 SAMPLES/LOT ANALY2EOFOR PAHs AND ARSENIC

1 FT DEPTH OVER 190,000SF; 20% BULKING; EXCAVATE1/2 OF A LOT AT A TIME

FOUR 40-CY ROLL-OFFS

50 CY PEP, DAY

ASSUME 50% VOLUME LOSS;PLACED WITH IN KS&GPROPERTY

ONLY FOR CARVER TERRACEAREA

ONLY FOR CARVER TERRACEABFA1IVLH

INCLUDES A HSS OFF ICERDURING REMEDIATION- • ' • • - . . . . . . „ . . . , , , . . , . . , .

-""-... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

tBsaaBaasasai!=ji*acaa*Bsaa«[.a;

SENS IT IV ITY TOTALFACTOR COST

- . - . - . . . . , . , . _ _ .

' . 1 $7,018

1 .1 $9,6801.1 $60,984

1 . 1 $138,600

1 . 1 $27,720

1 . 1 $17,6001-0 $480

1-0 $100,000f .O $80,0001 . 1 52 ,354,0001 . 1 $10£ , 500' . 1 $'i9,800* -0 $100,000- . 1 $16,478

- . 1 $.':8,5oo1 . 1 S 15 ,4001 . 1 ^2,396

1 . 1 $123,200

$3,296,356. . . * . . . . . . . , . . . .„ . . ,$362,599

$659,271

aes&aeaaassasa&saesas

54,318,226* * * * * * * * * * * *

CMCOCOCM

o

APPROXIMATE TOTAL CAPITAL COST$4 ,3 18 ,000

<H I - SL4B )

IIIIIIII

ALTERNATIVE SL -4 (8 > : H.'SH PRESENT WORTH ANALYSIS

COST PER YEAR PER $1000

CAPITAL COSTOSM COSTSTOTAL ANNUAL COSTANNUAL DISCOUNT RATE310%

«ET PftESEN' WORTH

CAPITAL COSTO&M COSTSTOTAL ANNUAL COSTANNUAL DISCOUNT RATEaiO%

<> 1 2

4318 .05-2 S .2

4318 .0 5 .2 5 .21 0 .909 0.826

4318 .0 4 .7 4 .3

13 14 15

5 -2 5 .2 5 .25 .2 5 .2 5 .2

0.29 0.263 0.239

3. . . . . . .

5 .25 .2

0.751

3.9

16

5 .25 .2

0.218

4. . . . . . . .

5 .25 .2

0.683

3.6

17

5 .25 .2

0. 198

5. . . . . . .

5.25 .2

0.621

3 .2

18

5.25 . 2

0. 18 i

6

5.25.2

0.564

2.9

19

5 .25 .2

0. 164

7

5 .25 .2

0.5 13

2 .7

20

5 .25 .2

0. 149

5.25 .2

0.467

2.4

21

5.25 .2

0. 135

9

5 .25 .2

0.424

2.2

21

5 .25 .2

0.123

10

5 .25 .2

0.386

2.0

23

5 .25 .2

0 . 1 1 2

11 12

5.2 5 .25 .2 5 .2

0.35 0.319

1 .8 1 .7

24 25

5 .2 5 .25 .2 5 .2

0. 10 1 0.092

POX0000

oM£T PRESENT UOftTH

III

1 . 5

26

1 .4

27 28

1 . 1

29

' •0 0 .9 0 .9 0 .8 0 .7 0-6 0.6 0.5 0.5

30CAPITAL COSTO&M COSTSTOTAL AHHUAL COST 5-2 5 .2 5 .2 5 .2 5 .2

5-2 5 .2 5 .2 5 .2 5 .2ANNUAL DISCOUNT RADIOS 0,084 0.076 0.069 0.063 0.057

NET PRESENT WORTH 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.3

TOTALMET PRESENT

WORTH(THOUSAND t ' s )

4367.0

<HPWSL4S)

••••IIIIIIIIIIIII

ALTERNATIVE SL-4<82): PRESENT WORTH ANALYSIS

COST PER YEAR PgR $1000

10 11 12

CAPITAL COSTOSH COSTSTOTAL ANNUAL £OSTANNUAL DISCOUNT RATEat10%

NET PRESENT WOf<TH

CAPITAL COSTOSH COSTSTOTAL ANNUAL COSTANNUAL DISCOUNT RATE310X

MET PRESENT WOftTH

CAPITAL COSTOfiH COSTSTOTAL ANNUAL COSTANNJAL 01SCOUNT RATE310*

NET PRESENT WORTH

5599.0

5599.01

5599.0

13

5 .25 .2

0.29

1 .5

26

5.25 ?J * C

0.034

0.4

5.25 .2

0.909

4.7

14

5 .25 .2

0,263

1 .4

27

5.25.2

0.076

0.4

5.25.2

0.326

4,3

15

5 . 25 .2

0.239

1 . 2

28

5.25.2

0.069

0.4

5.25.2

0.751

3.9

16

5.25 .2

0.218

1 . 1

29

5.25.2

0.063

0.3

5.25.2

0.683

3.6

17

5 .25 .2

0. 198

1 . 0

30

5.25.2

0.057

0.3

5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.25.2 5 .2 S .2 5 .2 5 .2 5 ,2

0.621 0.564 0.513 0.467 0.424 0.386

3.2 2.9 2.7 2.4 2.2 2.0

18 19 20 21 21 23

S .2 5 .2 5 .2 5 .2 5 .2 5 .25 ,2 5 .2 5 .2 5 .2 5 .2 5 .2

0. 18 0. 164 0. 149 0 . 135 0 . 123 0 . 1 1 2

0.9 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.6

TOTALNET PRESENT

WORTH(THOUSAND t'S)

5648.0

5.2 5.25 ,2 5 .2

0.35 0.319

1 .8 1 .7

24 25

5 .2 5 .25.2 5 .2

0. 101 0-092

0.5 0.5

CCCOCvjo

(PW-SL482)

II ALTERNATIVE SL-4(62) : LOW CAPITAL COSTS

I

IIIIIIIII

COST COMPONENT

SITE PREPARATIONIN IT IAL MONITORING

SAMPLINGANALYSIS

EAtRVAl

QUANTITY

4.4

22176

ION/OH-!

UHIT

SITE INCINERA

UNIT COST

ACRES $1 ,450

DAYS $400SAMPLES $315

SOILS FROM THE CARVER TERRACE SUBDIVISION:EXCAVATION

OH-SITE HAULING

BULK SOLIDS FRC* THE KENNEDYLOADON-S ITE HAULING

ON-SITg INCINERATOR SYSTEM:H08/DEM06TEST BURNINCINERATION6LECTR & INSTRUHAIR MONITORINGASH TESTING < f >ELISTING)ASK DISPOSAL:

LOADING ASHTRANSPORTATION

8400

8400

SANO AND160160

11

3560161

428099000

CY

CY

GRAVELCYCY

IP SUMLP SUMCYLP SUMMONTHSLP SUM

CYLH

$15

$3.00

PROPERTY:$100

$3.00

$100,000$80,000

$250$95,000$3,000

$100,000

$3.50$4.00

r iOH/OFF-SITE DISPOSAL OF ASMSENSITIVITY TOTALTOTAL COST COUNTS fACm ™

$6,380

$8,800 8 SAMPLES COLLECTED/DAY*S5,440 8 SAMPLES/LOT ANALYZED

FOR PAHS AND ARSENIC

$126,000 I FT OVER 190,000 SF;20X SULKING; EXCAV 1/2 OFA LOT AT A T IHE- 1 UEEK

$25,200

$16,000 FOUR 40-CY ROLL-OFFS4480

4100,000480,000

$2,140,000 50 CY PER DAY$95,000$18,000

$100,000

$14,980 ASSUME 50% VOLUME LOSS;$396,000 300 MILES ONE-WAY;

tl fv I'm -*.. _ _ . . _ . . __ .

0.95 $6,061

0-95 $S,36C0.95 $52.Mfi

0.95

0.95

0.951 .0

1 -0

$119,700

$23,940

$15,2004480

4100,000

LOCC00CKJT—o

1 .0 $80,0000.95 $2,033,0000.950.951 .0

0,950.95

490,250417 , 100

4100,000

$14,231$376,200

DISPOSAL

SITE RESTORATION:GLEAM 8ACKFILL- ( 10" )

SPREADINGSOO (2n >

HEALTH & SAFETY

4280 CY

7000 CY

7000 GY21100 SY

28 WEEKS

$200 $856,000

45.00 $35,000

$2.00$3.55

$14,000$74,905

44,000 $ 1 12 ,000

LOADSDISPOSED AT AN OFF -S ITE

ONLY FOR CARVER TERRACEAREA

ONLY FOR CARVER TERRACEAREAINCLUDES A H&S OFF ICERDURING REMEDIATION

DIRECT CAPITAL COST

ENGINEERING & DESIGN (US)

CONTINGENCY (20X)aE==s==i:s=na=:=s==saB=sssa===

TOTAL CAPITAL COST

0.95 $813,200

0.95 $33,250

0.95 $13,3000-95 $71 , 1/o

0.95 $106,400

44,074,500

$448,195

$814,900sssaasaasana

$5,337,595

(LOWSL4B2)

APPROXIMATE TOTAL CAPITAL COST$5,338,000

IIIIIIIIII

ALTERNATIVE 3 1 -4 (82 ) : LOW PRESENT WORTH ANALYSIS

COST PER YEAR PER $1000

4 5CAPITAL COSTOSM COSTSTOTAL ANNUAL COSTANNUAL DISCOUNT RATE310X

NET PRESENT WORTH

CAPITAL COSTO&M COSTSTOTAL ANNUAL COSTANNUAL DISCOUNT RAIES10X

NET PRESENT WORTH

CAPITAL COSTOXK COSTSfOTAL ANNUAL COSTANNUAL DISCOUNT ftATFftlfttt

———— • • " . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . .„ . . . _ . . . : . . a * to 11 ,25338.0 " * " " " " " * • • • • - • • • - • • • • - - • - - - . . . . . , . - . . „ . . . . . . . . .

» » • • » M !:! 11 11 5

!1 " 5-2 5-2 » *•* *.*1 •••" °-826 ••* ••« °- ••« «» .£ ,.i! 0.3. o!3S

2

03M»-•• «•' « » ... « a, 2, ,.4 ,2 2, ,8 1?

- . . . . !S . . . - . .M . . . . . 1 5 '6 1/ '8 " ^ 21 2. 23 24 25

" " » " " sM M !i ;i 11 » » -0.29 0.263 C.239 0 .2 18 0. 198 0 18 fl i« A i/"f A

S '2 S '2 5 '2" • 198 0 . 18 0.164 0 , 149 0 . 1 35 0. 123 0 . 1 1 2 0 . 10 1 0.0921J ! ' * f '2 ^ 1 ' ° °'9 ^ «'• »•? 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.5

26 27 28 29 30• • • • • • • • • - • . - . - . - . . . . . . . . . „ . . . . / ?OT*L

NET PRESENT5 . 2 5 ? < : 3 c - t P , WORTH' * * • * 5.2 5.2 5.25.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5 2 (THOUSAND $' s )n no/ « A-T* « ^ , _ . • • - - • • • • • . . . . . , .

vOCOCOCMs—o

NET PRESENT WORTH 0-4 0.4 0.3 0.3 5387.0

(LPUSL4B2)

IIIIIIIII

ALTERNATIVE SL -4 (B2 > : H IGH CAPITAL COSTS

EXCAVATION/ON-SITE INCINERATION/OFF-SITE DISPOSAL OF ASH

I

I

1 COST COMPONENT QUANTITY UNIT

SITE PREPARATION 4.4 AcREsIN ITIAL MONITORINGSAMPLING -,-> n.vt;c.£ DAYSAMALYSIS 176 SAMPLES

SOUS FROM THE CARVER TERRACE SUBDIVISION:EXCAVATIOS 8400 CY

ON-S ITE KAULING 8400 CY

UNIT COST

$1 ,450

$400$315

$ 15

$3.00

TOTAL COST COMMENTS

46,380

$8,800$55,440

$126,000

$25,200

8 SAMPLES COLLECTED/DAY8 SAMPLES/LOT ANALYZEDFOR PAHs AND ARSENIC

1 PT OVER 190,000 SF;20% BULKING; EXCAV 1/2 OFA LOT AT A T IHE - 1 WEEK

SENSIT IV ITY TOTALFACTOR COST

1 - 1 $7,018

1-1 $9,6801.1 $60,984

1 . 1 $138,600

1-1 $27,720BULK SOLIDS FROM THE KENNEDY SAND AND GRAVEL PROPERTY-

LOAD it* rvloU CYON-S ITE HAULING 160 CY

OH-S ITE INCINERATOR SYSTEM:MOB/DEMOS ! ,p .._,1 i-r oUnTEST BURN , Lp INCINERATION 8560 cyELECTR & IWSTRUM t Lp SUHA IRMON IT o e i NG 6 MONTHSASH TESTING (DEL IST ING) 1 LP SUMASH DISPOSAL:

LOADING ASH 4280 CYTRANSPORTATION 9$000 LM

DISPOSAL 4280 CY

SITE RESTORATION:CLEAN BACKFILL -OO" ) 7000 CY

SPREADING 7000 CY500 ««) 21100 SY

HEALTH & SAFETY 28 WEEKS

- - - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ , . . _DIRECT CAPITAL COST

ENGINEERING & DESIGN ( 1 1%)

CONTINGENCY (20%)^""SSBBSBBSEsassscBssBssssssssssKiiM-s

TOTAL CAPITAL COST

APPROXIMATE TOTAL CAPITAL

$100$3,00

$100,000sso.ooo

$250$95,000$3,000

$100,000

$3.50$4.00

$200

$5.00

$2.00$3.55

$4,000

. . . . . . . . . . .

ssssestassaa

COST

$16,000$480

$100,000$80,000

$2, 140,000$95,000$18,000

$100,000

$14,980$396,000

$856,000

$35,000

$14,000$74,905

$ 1 12 ,000

• • • * * - • * • ' * . . *

c&usEa^a^ctfsa

FOUR 40-CY ROLL-OFFS

50 CY PER DAY

ASSUME 50% VOLUME LOSS;300 MILES ONE-WAY;13 CY/20 TON TRUCK=330LOADSDISPOSED AT AN OFF -S ITE

ONLY FOR CARVER TERRACEAREA

ONLY FOR CARVER TERRACEAREAINCLUDES A H&S OFF ICERDURING REMEDIATION- • - • - - • . . . . . . - . . . . . . . . . . .

' . . . . . . . . . . . » . . , , . . t

saHB*ssa5is!3saaaa!asa=a=s=ss=

1 - 1 $17,6001.0 $480

1 .0 $100,0001 .0 $80,0001 . 1 $2,354,0001 . 1 $104,5001 - 1 $19,8001 -0 $100,000

1 - 1 $16,4781 . 1 $435,600

1 . 1 $941,600

1 . 1 $38,500

1 . 1 $ 15 ,4001.1 $82,396

1- 1 $123,200

$4,673,556

*S14,091

$934,7113att5BBaa=aa=a=ai,-sSaa

$6,122,358*** * * * * * * * *

*1 * 1* A* »

r-0000CMr-O

(H I -SL462)

^^H

IALTERNATIVE S L -4 ( B2 > : H IGH PRESENT WORTH ANALYSIS

I

1IIIIII

0 1

COST PER YEAR PER $1000

4 5 6 7 10 11 12

CAPITAL COSTO&H COSTSTOTAL AMNUAL COST

6122.05 .2 5 .2 5 .2 5 ,2 5 .2 5 .2 S .2 5 .2 5 .2 5 .2 5 .3 5 .2

6122.0 5 .2 5 .2 5 .2 5 ,2 5 .2 5 .2 5 .2 5 .2 5 ,2 5 .2 5 .2 5 ,2ANNUAL OISCCtAT RATE310% 1 0.909 0.&26 0.751 Q.6S3 0.621 0.564 0.513 0,467 0.424 0.386 0.35 0 .3 19

NET PRESEMT UORTH 6122.0 4.7 4.3 3.9 3.6 3.2 2.y 2.7 2.4 2,2 2.0 1.8 1.7

CAPITAL COSTO&M COSTSTOTAL ANNUAL COSTANNUAL DISCOUNT RATE310%

NET PRESENT UORTH

CAPITAL COST0$M COSTSTOTAL AMNUAL COSTANNUAL DISCOUNT RATE3105C

NET PRESENT WORTH

13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 21 23 24 25

5 .2 5 .2 5 .2 5 .2 5 .2 5 .2 5 .2 5 .2 5 .2 5 .2 5 .2 5 .2 5 .25 .2 5 .2 5 .2 5 .2 5 .2 5 .2 5 .2 5 .2 5 .2 5 .2 5 .2 5 .2 5 .2

0.29 0.263 0.239 0.218 0, 198 0 . 18 0. 164 O .U9 0 . 135 0 . 123 0 . 1 12 0 . 10 1 0.092

1 .5 1 ,4 1 .2 1 . 1 1 .0 0 .9 0 .9 0 .8 0 ,7 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.5

26 27 28 29 30

5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.25.2 5.2 S.2 5.2 5.2

0.084 0.076 0.069 0.063 0.057

0.4 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.3

TOTALNET PRESENT

UORTH(THOUSAND $'s)

6171 .0

o

(HPUSL4B2)

IIIIIIIIII

ALTERNATIVE SL -4 (C ) : PRESENT WORTH ANALYSIS

COST PER YEAR PgR S1000

4 5 6CAPITAL COSTOSH COSTSTOTAL AJJNUAL COSTANNUAL DISCOUNT RATEfllOfc

NET PRESENT WORTH

CAPITAL COSTCSH COSTSTOTAL ANNUAL COSTANNUAL DISCOUNT RATEaiO%

rfET PRESENT WORTH

CAPITAL COSTcm COSTSTOTAL ANNUAL COSTANNUAL DISCOUNT RATE310%

NET PRESENT WORTH

- " - - - - • - - " - - - - - - . - - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ ° y 10 11 1221806.0 ' " " " " " " " " " • " " " ' - • - " • - • - * - * • . . . . . . . . .„21806.0 5^2 s,z 5.1 I ' l I ' l I ' l \' l 5 '2 S '2 5 '2 5 '2 5.2

' 0,09 0.826 0,51 0.683 0.621 0,64 0.5, OJ67 .£ 0* £ pjj j21806.0 4.7 4.3 30 -5 x , ,3-6 3 .2 2.9 2.7 2.4 2 .2 2 .0 , _3 , ?

. . .J3 . . . . . . 1 4 . . . . . 1 5 '6 17 18 » 20 21 21 23 24 25

" » » « 11 ii " r,z 5-2 - » » »«.» 0.2,3 0.23, ..,„ 0,,6 ,i8 ,„ ,,w „_» Q » o » o » ^

KS '•* ''2 M 1'° "•' «•» «•« «•/ o., o., o.s o.

26 27 26 29 30- - . - - . . - . . . . . . . TOTAL

NET PRESENT5 - 2 5 . 2 5 . 2 5 . 2 52 U°R™5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5 P (THOUSAND $ ' s >

0.084 0.076 0.069 0.063 0.057 - - - - - - -

0.4 0.4 0.4 0.3 0 3U '5 21855.0

(PW-SL4C)

00COC\Jv-O

I

^^n

IALTERNATIVE SL'4<C): LOW CAPITAL COSTS

I eXCAVATION\OFP-SITE INCINERATION

IIIII

COST COMPONENT

SITE PREPARATIONIN IT IAL MONITOR ING

SAMPLINGANALYSIS

QUANTITY

4.4

22176

UNIT

ACRES

DAYSSAMPLES

UNIT COST

$1,45»

(400$315

TOTAL COST

$6,380

$3,800$55,440

COMMENTS

3 SAMPLES COLLECTED/DAY8 SAMPLES/LOT ANALYZED

SENSITIVITYFACTOR

0.95

0.950.95

TOTALCOST

$6,061

$3,360$52,665

SOILS FROM THE CARVER TERRACE SUBDIVISION:EXCAVATE

TRANSPORTATION

INCINERATE

8400 CY

194100 LM

8400 CY

$15 $126,000

$4 $776,400

$1,700 $14,280,000

FOS PAHS AND ARSENIC

1 FT DEPTH OVER 190,000 SF;20% BULKING; 35 CY/WEEKEXCAVATED; PLACED IN 20-GALLON CONTAINERS300 MI ONE-WAY; 13CY/20TON TRUCK

BULK SOLIDS *RGM THE KENNEDY SAND AND GRAVEL PROPERTY;LOADING BULK SOLIDS 160 CY $100 $16,000TRANSPORTATION 1200 LH $4 $4,800INCINERATE 160 CY $1 ,700 4272,000

0.95 $ 1 19 ,700 o03

0,95 $737,580 (\j

0.95 $13,566,000 _

0.95 $15,2001.0 $4.800

0-95 $258,400

II

SITE RESTORATION:BACKFILL O0")

SPREADINGSCO <2">

HEALTH & SAFETY

DIRECT CAPITAL COST

TOflO CY $5.00 $35,000 ONLY FOR CARVER TERRACEAREA

7000 CY $2.00 $14,00021100 SY $3.55 $74,905 ONLY POR CARVER TERRACE

AREA

244 WEEKS $4,000 $976,000 H&S OFFICER DURINGMONITORING & EXCAVATION;HNu AND RESPIRATORS

0.95 $33,250

0.95 $ 13 ,3000.95 $71 , 160

0.95 $927,200

$15 ,813 ,679

ENGINEERING & DESIGN (11%)

CONTINGENCY <20X)

$1 ,739,505

$3,162,736

TOTAL CAPITAL COST

APPROXIMATE TOTAL CAPITAL COST

$30,715,919* * * * * * * * * * * * *

$20,716,000

ssasssajasssss&BassasSasasaasasrMssssssajBseBtieessa*(LOW-SL4C)

••M

IIIIIIIII

ALTERNATIVE SL'4(C); LOW PRESENT WORTH ANALYSIS

COST PgR YEAR PER $1000

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0 11 12

CAPITAL COSTO&M COSTSTOTAL ANNUAL COSTANNUAL DISCOLUT RAT6a)10%

Hfcl PRESENT WORTH

CAPITAL COSTO&H COSTSTOTAL ANNUAL C3S7ANNUAL DISCOS RATE310%

NET PRgSm WORTH

CAPITAL COST0£M COSTSTOTAL ANNUAL COSTANNUAL DISCOUNT RATE310X

MET PRESENT WORTH

20716.0

20716 .01

20716.0

13

5,25,2

0.29

1 . 5

26

5 .25 ?j • «.

0.084

0.4

5.25.2

0.90$

4 .7

14

5.25.2

0.263

1 .4

27

5 .25,2

0.076

0.4

5 .25 . 2

0.826

4.3

15

5.25.2

0.239

1 .2

28

5 .25.2

0.069

0.4

S.25.2

0.751

3 .9

16

5.25.2

0.218

1 ,1

29

5 . 25 .2

0,063

0.3

5,25 .2

0.683

3.6

17

5.25.2

0.198

1 .0

30

5 .25 .2

0.057

0.3

5 .2 5 .2 5 .2 5 .2 5 .2 5 .2 5 .25 .2 5 .2 5 .2 5 ,2 5 .2 5 .2 5 .2

0,621 0.564 0,513 0,467 0.424 0.386 0.35

3,2 2.9 2.7 2.4 2.2 2.0 1 .8

13 19 20 21 21 23 24

5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5,2 5,2 5.25.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2

0.18 0.164 0.149 0.135 0.123 0. 1 12 0.101

0.9 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.5

TOTALNET PRESENT

WORM(TKOUSANO * 'S)

20765.0

5 ,25,2

0.319

1 . 7

25

5.25.2

0.092

0.5

GOCMr—O

(LPUSL4C)

IIIIIIIIII

COST COI**OHEMT

ALTERNATIVE SL -4 (C ) : H IGH CAPITAL COSTS

EXCAVATIONXOFF-SITE INCINERATION

QUANTITY UNIT UNIT COST TOTAL COST COMMENTS

SITE PREPARATIONIN IT IAL MONr

SAMPUN4ANALYSIS

4.4 ACRES

22 DAYS176 SAMPLES

SOILS (-'ROM THE CARVER TERRACE SUBDIVISION:EXCAVATE 8400 CY

194100 Lh

8400 CY

$1,450

$400$315

$15

$6,380

$8,800 8 SAMPLES COLLECTED/DAYSS5,440 8 SAHPLES/LOT ANALYZED

FOR PAHS AND ARSENIC

SENSITIVITYFACTOR

1 . 1

1 . 11 . 1

INCINERATE

$126,000 1 FT DEPTH OVER 190,000 SF;20£ SULKING; 35 CY/UEEKEXCAVATED; PLACED IN 20-GALLON CONTAINERS

$4 $776,400 300 HI ONE-WAY; 13CY/20TON TRUCK

$1 ,700 $ 14 ,280,000

BULK SOLIDS FUCK THE KENNEDY SAND AND GRAVEL PROPERTY:LOADING BXK SOLIDS 160 CY $100 $16,000TRANSPORTATION 1200 LH $4 $4,800INCINERATE 160 CY $1,700 $272,000

SITE R6STORATl£i<:BACKFILL CIO" )

SPREADINGSOD (2")

7000 CY

7000 CY21100 SY

$5.00 $35,000 ONLY FOR CARVER TERRACEAREA

$2.00 $14,000$3.55 $74,905 ONLY FOR CARVER TERRACE

AREA

TOTALCOST

$7,018

$9,680$60,984

1 . 1 $138,600

1.1 $854,040

1 . 1 $15,708,000

1 . 11 .01 . 1

$17,600$4,800

$Z99,200

1.1 $38,500

1 . 1 $ 15 ,4001.1 $82,396

CM

CO

Vo

"EALTH & SAFETY

DIRECT CAPITAL COST

244 WEEKS W.OOO $976,000 HAS OFFICER DURINGMONITORING £ EXCAVATION;HNU AND RESPIRATORS

1 . 1 $1,073,600

$18,309,818

ENGINEERING & DESIGN < <

CONTINGENCY (20X)

$2,014,080

$3,661,964

TOTAL CAPITAL COST

APPROXIMATE TOTAL CAPITAL COST

$23,985,861* * * * * * * * * * * * *

$23,986,000

«BasssaH3S3saeBaas«ssss;s=sssssSBss=:::ssssBsa3a:S3S5»asso=3ss=Ka£s::=;3c(H I -SL4C)

fIIIII

ALTERNATIVE SL -4 (C ) : H IGH PRESENT WORTH ANALYSIS

COST PER YEAR PER $1000

CAPITAL COSTO&M COSTSTOTAL ANNUAL ?3S?ANNUAL 5ISCOUH- RATE31

0 1 2 3 4 523986.0

S -2 5 .2 5 ,2 5 .2 5 .223986.0 5 .2 5 .2 5 .2 5 .2 5 . 2

10% 1 0.909 0.826 0.751 0.683 0.621

6 7 s•""*"-"""-"

$ .2 5 .2 5 .25-2 5.2 5.2

0.564 0 .5 13 0.467

9 10 11• • - • - - . . . - » . . . , . , . „ . . . .

5-2 5 .2 5 .25.2 S .2 5 .2

0.424 0.386 0,35

12. . . . . . .

5 . 25 . 2

0 .3 19NET UNTH 23986.0 4.7 4.3 3.9 3.6 3.2 2 .9 2 .7 2>4 1 .8 1 .7

I

CAPITAL COST0£« COSTSTOTAL ANNUAL COSTANNUAL DISCOUH^ RAT£310%

HET PRESENT WORTH

13 14

5 .2 5 . 25 .2 5 .2

0.29 0.263

15

5 .25 . 2

0.239

16

5 . 25 . 2

0 .2 18

17 18 19

5-2 5 .2 5 .25-2 5 .2 5 .2

0,98 0 . 18 0,64 0

20 21 21

5 .2 5 .2 5 .25 .2 5 .2 5 .2

' • 149 0,35 0,23 (j

23 24

5 .2 5 .25 .2 5 .2

1 , 12 0 . 10 1

25

5 .25 .2

0.092

&COCM•(—O

0.8 0.7 ° -6 0.6 0.5 0,5

26

III

CAPITAL COST° *HCOSTS

TOTAL AHNUAL COST

27 ?8 29

5 2*5 .2 5 .2 5 .2 5 .25.2 5 .2 53 s 2 , .

AHNUAL DISCOUNT RATES10X 0.084 0.076 0.069 0 0 6 3 0 0 5 7

NET PRES£MT WORTH 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.3

(HPWS14C)

TOTALMET PRESENT

WORTH(THOUSAND $ ' s )

24035.0

IIIII1

CAPITAL COST0«M COSTSTOTAL ANNUAL COSTANNUAL DISCOUM- RATE310%

NET PfiEStNT WORTH

CAPITAL COSTOSH COSTSTOTAL ANNUAL CCSTANNUAL DISCOUNT RATE310%

NET PRE^KT WORTH

CAPITAL CO'jTOSH COSTSTOTAL ANNUAL COST

3854.0

ALTERNATIVE SL -4 (D ) : PRESENT WORTH ANALYSIS

COST PER YEAR PER *1000

» » " » »s2. o.,, o.M3 ..«, 0 .S1J 0 .

10

ANNUAL DISCOUNT CU£3lO% C.034 0.076 0.069 0.063 0.057

NET UORTH 0-4 0.4 0.3 0.3

1 .424 0.3S6

2 .2 2 .0

12

5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.25.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2

0.29 0.263 0.239 0.218 0.198 0.18 0.164 0.149

1 .5 1 .4 1 .2 1 . 1 1 .0 0 .9 0 .9 0 .8

26 27 28 29 30

5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.25 .2 5 .2 5 .2 5 .2 S .2

5.2 5.2 5.2 S.25.2 5.2 5.2 5.2

0.135 0.123 0.112 0,101

0.7 0.6 0.6 0.5

TOTALNET PRESENT

WORTH(THOUSAND $'s)

£3

5.25.2

0.092

0 .5

cr-00CM•r—O

3903.0

(PW-SL4D)

iiIi

iiili

ALTERNATIVE SL-4(0): LOW CAPITAL COSTS

EXCAVATIOH/OPF-SITE LANDFILLttWITlVITY TOTAL

COST CCW^ONENT QUANTITY

SITE PREPAfiArrONI N I T IAL HONIT38JNG

SAMPLINGANALYSIS

SOILS FROM TMS CARVER TERRACEEXCAVA'ION

TRANSPORT

DISPOSE

BULK SOLIDS F60H THE KENNEDYLOAD SULK SOLIDSTRANSPORTDISPOSAL

SITE RESTORATIONCLEAN SACKFUL (10")

SPREADINGSOO <2">

HEALTH & SAFETY

OfRECT CAPITAL COST

4,4

22176

UNIT

ACRES

DAYSSAMPLES

UNIT COST

$1,450

UOO$315

TOtAL COST

$6,380

$8,800$55,440

COMMENTS

8 SAMPLES COLLICTED/OAY8 SAMPLES/LOT ANALYZEDFOR PAHS AND ARSENIC

FACTOR COST

0,95 $6,061

0,95 $8,3600.95 $52,668

SUBDIVIS ION:8400

194100

8400

SAND AND160

1200160

7000

700021 100

28

CY

LH

CY

$15

14.00

$200

$126,000

1776,400

$1,680,000

1 FT OVER 190,000 Sf;20% BULKING; EXCAV 1/2 OFA LOT AT A T I HE - 1 WEEK300 HUES ONE-WAY,

13 CYS PEfi 20 TON TRUCK3 647 TRUCK LOADS

0.95 $119,700

0,95 $737,580

0.95 $1 ,596,000

LT\O00CM

S

GRAVEL PROPERTY:CYLHCY

CY

CYSY

WEEKS

$100$4.00$200

$5.00

$2.00$3.55

4000

$16,000$4,800

$32, COO

$35,000

$14,000$74,905

$1 12 ,000

FOUR 40-CY EOLL-OFFS

ONLY FOR CARVER TERRACEAREA

ONLY FOR CARVER TERRACEAREA

H&!> OFFICER DURINGMONITORING fc EXCAVATION;K'Nu, RESPIRATORS

0.95 $15,2001 .0 $4,800

0.95 $30,400

0.95 $33,250

0.95 $13,3000.95 $71 , 160

0.95 $106,400

$2,794,879

ENGINEERING & DESIGN (1U)

CONTINGENCY (20%)

$307,437

$558,976

TOTAL CAPITAL COST

APPROXIMATE TOTAL CAPITAL COST

$3,661,291* * * * * * * * * * * *

$3,661,000

( LOU-SL4D)

IIIIIIIII

ALTERNATIVE SL- i (O) : LOW PRESENT WOftTH ANALYSIS

COST PER YEAR PER $1000

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 1 1 12

CAPITAL COST 3661.0OSH COSTS 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2TOTAL ANNUAL COST 3661.0 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2ANNUAL DISCOUNT RATE310X 1 0.909 0.626 0.751 0.683 0,621 0.564 0.513 0.467 0.424 0.386 0.35 0,319

NET f»8€££UT 3661.0 4.7 4.3 3.9 3.6 3.2 2.9 2.7

13 U 15 16 17 IS 19 20

2.4

21

2.2 2.0

21 23

i .a

24

1 . 7

25

CAPITAL COSTO&H COSTSTOTAL ANNUAL COSTANNUAL 01SCCUI7 RAT £310%

5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5,2 5.2 5.2 5,2 5.2 5,29.2 5 .2 5 .2 5 .2 5 .2 5 .2 5 .2 5 .2 5 .2 5 .2 5 .2 5 .2 5 .2

0,29 0.263 0.239 0.218 0.193 0.16 0.164 0.149 0. 135 0.123 O.H2 fi.tdl 0.092

NET WORTH 1 .5 1 .4 1 .2 1 . 1 1 .0 0.9 0.9 0,8 0.7

26 27 29 30

0.6 0.6 0.5 0.5

TOTAL

CAPITAL COSTOJH COSTS 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2TOTAL ANNUAL COST 5.2 5,2 5.2 5.2 5.2ANNUAL DISCO*' RATgaiOX 0.034 0.076 0.069 0.063 0.057

NET WORTH 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.3

WORTH(THOUSAND t 'S j

3710.0

CDCM«•=O

^^^IIIIIIII

ALTERNATIVE SL-4 <0 ) : HIGH CAPITAL COSTS

EXCAVATION/OFF-SITE LANOflU

COST COMPONENT QUANTITY UNIT UNIT COST

S ITE PREPARATION 4.4 ACRES 4 1 ,450INITIAL HON1TOS1NG

SAMPLING 22 DAYS 4400ANALYSI S 1 76 SAMPLES 4315

SOILS FROM TK£ CARVER TCCAACE SU80IVISI0N:EXCAVATION 6400 CY 115

TRAJiSPOPT 194100 LH 44.00

DISPOSAL 8400 CY 4200

BULK SOLIDS FROM THE KEttXEDY SAND AND GRAVEL PROPERTY:LOAD BULK SOLIDS 160 CY 4100TRANSPORT 1200 LH 44.00DISPOSAL 160 CY 4200

SITE RESTORATION:CLEAN BACKFILL O0»> 7000 CY 45.00

SPREADING 7000 CY 42.00SOD (2") 21 100 SY 43.55

HEALTH & SAFETY 2& WEEKS 4000

DIRECT CAPITAL COST

ENGINEERING & DESIGN ( 1 1X )

CONTINGENCY (20%)

SSSSS«eeBS«sas««a«^a«s s Ha«a«Ba,«a!,a«a«

TOTAL CAPITAL COST

SENSITIVITYTOTAL COST COMMENTS FACTOR

46,380 1.1

48,800 6 SAMPLES COUECTEO/DAY 1.1455,440 « SAMPLES/LOT ANALYZED 1.1

FOR PAHS AND ARSENIC

4126,000 1 FT OVER 190,000 SF; 1.120X BULKING; EXCAV 1/2 OFA LOT AT A TIHE- 1 WEEK

4?76,400 300 HUES OHg-WAY, 1.113 CYS PER 20 TON TRUCK» 647 TRUCK LOADS

41,680,000 1.1

416,000 FOUR 40-CY ROLL-QFFS 1.144,800 1.0

432,000 1.1

$35,000 ONLY FOR CARVER TERRACE 1.1APiA

414,000 1 . 1474,905 ONLY FOR CARVER TERRACE 1.1

AREA

4112 ,000 HIS OFFICER DURING 1 . 1MONITORING & EXCAVATION;HNu, RESPIRATORS

: ao a ame aaaasaa s sa *a»«aa33oa a a asssa ac a sa a ssssss a aa a fie a

TOTALCOST

47,018

49,680460,984

4138,600 ^0s'

4854,040 00<M

41,848,000 -.CJ

417,60044,800

435,200

438,500

415,400482,396

4123,200

43,235,418

4355,896

4647,084

:aass33=S3aaa

44,238,397* * * * * * * * * * * *

APPROXIMATE IOTAL CAPITAL COST 44,238,000

(HI-SL4D)^

IIIIIIII

ALTERNATIVE SL'4(D>: HIGH PRESENT WORTH ANALYSIS

COST PER YEAR PER $10001 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12

CAPITAL COSTOSH COSTSTOTAL ANNUAL COSTANNUAL DISCOUNT RATE31CX

NET PRESENT WOftTH

CAPITAL COSTQ&H COSTSTOTAL ANNUAL COSTANNUAL DISCOJN^ RATEfllOX

NET PBESfNT WORTH

CAPITAL COSTOiH COSTSTOTAL ANNUAL COSTANNUAL DISCOUNT ftATE31G5S

NET PRESENT WORTH

4238.0

4236.01

4238.0

13

5.25.2

0.29

1 .5

26

5.25 2<f • b

0.084

0.4

5.25 .2

0.909

4.7

14

5 .25.2

0.26.,

1 ,4

27

5.25 .2

0.076

0.4

5 ,25 .2

0.826

4.3

15

5 .25.2

0.239

1 ,2

28

5.25 .2

0.069

0.4

5.25 .2

0.751

3.9

16

5 .25.2

0.2 18

1 . 1

29

5.25.2

0.063

0.3

5.2 5 .25 .2 5 .2

0.683 0.621

3.6 3.2

17 18

5 .2 5 .2S.2 5.2

0.198 0 . 18

1 .0 0.9

30

5.25.2

0.057

0.3

5 .2 5 .2 5 .2 5 .2 5 .25 .2 5 .2 5 .2 5 .2 5 .2

0.564 0.513 0,467 0.424 0.386

2.9 2.7 2,4 2,2 2.0

19 20 21 21 23

S .2 5 .2 5 .2 5 .2 5 ,25.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2

0.164 0 , 149 0. 135 0. 123 0 . 1 12

0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0,6

TOTALU£T PDfQFUTrib i rtvcobNi

WORTH(THOUSAND t 's)

4287.0

5 .2 5 .25 .2 5 .2

0.35 0.319

1 .8 1 .7

24 25

5 .2 5 .25 .2 5 .2

0. 101 0 ,092

0.5 0.5

ccoCO<M*—o

CHPHSL4D)

IIIIIIIIIIIII

CAPITAL COSTOfiH COSTSTOTAL ANNUAL COSTANNUAL DISCOUNT RATE310S

NET PRESENT WORTH

CAPITAL COSTO&H COSTSTOTAL ANNUAL COSTANNUAL DISCOUNT RAT£310%

NET PRESENT WORTH

CAPITAL COSTOSH COSTSTOTAL ANNUAL COSTANNUAL DISCOUNT RATE310%

NET PRESENT WORTH

(PU-SL4E)

ALTERNATIVE SL-4(E > : PRESENT WORTH ANALYSIS

COST PER YEAR PER tlOGQ

2 3 * 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 1 12

o 7.t 1:1 % l-i 2 j;i - -1 O.W O.B26 0.75, 0.683 8.«, O.S64 O.SH D.«7

615 .0 6., 6.3 5.7 5.2 «., * . , , . ,

16 20

J-5

2,

7,6 7.6.424 0.386

3.2 2.9

21 23

7 67.6 7-67.6 7.6 7.6 7.6 7 . 6 7 . 6 7 . 6 7 6 7 60.20 0.263 0.23, 0.2 ,8 0 . 198 0.. . 0.164 «.,» 0 . 135 0 . 123 O. l i *7 (,

«.'«

1 . 1 1 .0 0.9 0.8

7.60.092

0.7

COCM*t~o

26 27 28 29

7.6 7.6 7.6 7.6 7.67.6 7.6 7.6 7.6 7.6

0.084 0.076 0.069 0.063 0.057

0.6 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.4

TOTALNET PRESENT

WORTH(THOUSAND * ' s >

686,6

aiiiiii

ALTERNATIVE SL -4 (E ) : LOU CAPITAL COSTS

EXCAVATION/PASSIVE SOIL WASHING

I

I

COST COW>ONENT QUANTITY UNIT UNIT COST

SITE PREPARATION 1 LP SUM $2,000IN IT IAL MONITORING:

SAMPLING 22 DAYS $400ANALYSIS 176 SAMPLES $315

SOILS FROM THE CARVER TERRACE SUBDIVIS ION:EXCAVATE 8400 CY $15

ON-S ITE HAULING 8400 CY $3

SULK SOLIDS FROM THE KENNEDY SAND AND GRAVEL PROPERTY:LOAD BULK SOLIDS 160 CY $100ON-SITE HAULING 160 CY $3.00

S ITE RESTORATION:CLEAN BACKF ILL (10") 7000 CY $5-00

SPREADING 7000 CY $2-00SOD (2") 21 100 SY $3.55

HEALTH & SAFETY 28 WEEKS $4,000

DIRECT CAPITAL COST

ENGINEERING & DESIGN ( 1 1% )

CONTINGENCY (20X)

SBssssssasassjsassassssssssBsssssBBSgsSHsssssa-BMBBSssssssssssa

TOTAL CAPITAL COST

TOTAL COST COMMENTS

$2,000

$8,800 8 SAMPLES COLLECTED/DAY$55,440 8 SAMPLES/LOT ANALYZED

FOR PAHs AND ARSENIC

$126,000 1 FT OVER 190,000 SF;20% BULKING; EXCAVATE 1/2A LOT AT A T IME- 1 WEEK

$25,200 HAULED TO THE GRAVELP ITS ; TO BE TREATED WITHGROUND WATER

$16,000 FOUR 40-CY ROLL-OFFS$480 HAULED TO THE GRAVEL PITS

TO BE TREATED U1THGROUND WATER

$35,000 ONLY FOR CARVER TERRACEAREA

$14,000$74,905 ONLY FOR CARVER TERRACE

AREA

$112,000 H&S OFFICER DURINGMONITORING & EXCAVATION;HNU, RESPIRATOR

sa=eaHBSB=-=B=aasass3B:!SS:i*BSSSssnssts.s=5B

SENS IT IV ITY TOTALFACTOR COST

0.95 $1,900

0.95 $8,3600.95 $52,668

0.95 $1 19,700OF

0.95 $23,940

0.95 $15 ,2001.0 $480

0.95 $33,250

0.95 $13,3000.95 $71 , 160

0.95 $106,400

$446,358

$49,099

$89,272

i3aaaaa=j3ii=33H!=Bsae=3s

$584,729* * * * * * * * * * *

O

oCM«r—O

APPROXIMATE TOTAL CAPITAL COST $585,000

(LOW-SL4E)

ALTERNATIVE SL -4 < £ > : LOW PRESENT WORTH AMALYS1S

COST PER YEAR PE6 41000

CAPITAL COST0£H COSTSTOTAL ANNUAL COSTANNUAL DISCOUNT RATESlOX

NET PRESENT WORTH

CAPITAL COSTO&M COSTSTOTAL ANNUAL COSTANNUAL DISCOUNT RATE310X

NET PRESENT WORTH

CAPITAL COSTO&M COSTSTOTAL ANNUAL COSTANNUAL DISCOUNT RAT£310%

NET PRESENT WORTH

0

585.0

585 .01

585.0

,3

7.67.6

0.29

2.2

26

7.67.6

0.084

0.6

1

7.67.6

0.909

6.9

u

7.67.6

0.263

2 .0

27

7.67.6

0.076

0.6

2

7.67.6

0.826

6.3

15

7.67.6

0.239

1 .8

28

7.67.6

0.069

0 .5

3

7.67.6

0.751

5.7

16

7.67.6

0.218

1 .7

29

7.67.6

0.063

0.5

4

7.67.6

0.683

5.2

17

7.67.6

0. 198

1 .5

30

7.67.6

0.057

0.4

5 6 7 8 9 1 0

7.6 7.6 7,6 7.6 7.6 7.67.6 7.6 7.6 7.6 7.6 7.6

0.621 0.5M 0 .5 13 0.467 0.424 0.386

4.7 4.3 3.9 3.5 3.2 2.9

18 19 20 21 21 23

7.6 7.6 7,6 7.6 7.6 7.67.6 7.6 7,6 7.6 7.6 7.6

0. 18 0 . 164 0. 149 0. 135 0. 123 0 . 1 1 2

1 .4 1 .2 1 . 1 1 .0 0,9 0.9

TOTALNET PRESENT

WORTH{THOUSAND * ' S )

656.6

11 12

7.6 7.67.6 7.6

0,35 0.319

2.7 2.4

24 25

7.6 7.67.6 7.6

0. 10 1 0.092

0.8 0.7

eg?—o

(LPWSL4E)

IIIII

COST COMPONENT

ALTERNATIVE SL-4(E) ; If IGH CAPITAL COST3

EXCAVATION/PASSIVE SOIL WASHING

QUANTITY UNIT UNIT COST TOTAL COST COKKgNTSSENSITIVITY TOTAL

FACTOC COS?

SITE PREPARATION 1 LP SUH (2,000IN IT IAL MONITORING;

SAMPLING 22 DAYS $400ANALYSIS 176 SAMPLES $315

SOILS FROM THE CARVER TERRACE SUBDIVISION:EXCAVATE 8400 CY $15

OH-SITE HAULING MOO CY $3

SULK SOLIDS FROM THE KENNED? SAND AMD GRAVEL PROPERTY:LOAD BULK SOLIDS 160 CY $100GN-S1TE HAULING 160 CY $3.00

SITE R6STORAUOH:CLEAN BACKFILL (10"> 7000 CY $5.00

SPREADING 7000 CY $2.00SOD (2") 21100 SY $3.55

HEALTH & SAFETY 28 WEEKS $4,000

DIRECT CAPITAL COST

ENGINEERING & DESIGN ( 1 1X)

CONTINGENCY (20%)

TOTAL CAPITAL COS*

$2,000$6,800 3 SAMPLES COLLECTED/DAY

$s$,440 8 SAMPLCS/LOT ANALYZEDFOR PAK* AND ARSENIC

$126,000 1 Ft OVER 190,000 SF;20* SULKING; EXCAVATE 1/2 OFA LOT AT A TIHI-1 WEEK

125,200 HAULED TO THE GRAVELPITS; TO 8E TREATED WITHdftCUMD WATER

$16,000 FOUR 40-CY ROLL-OFFS$480 HAULED TO THE GRAVEL PITS

TO SE TREATED WITHGROUND WATER

135,000 ONLY FOR CARViR TERRACEAREA

$14,000$74,905 ONLY fOU CARVER TERRACE

AREA

$1 12 ,000 HiS OFFICER DURINGMONITORING & EXCAVATION;HNU, RISPIRATGR

1.1 $2,200

1.1 19,6401.1 160,944

1.1 $133,600

1.1 $27,720

1 . 1 $17,6001,0 $430

T.I $33,500

1.1 $15,4001.1 $32,396

1.1 $123,200

$516,760

$56,344

$103,352

$676,955* * * * * * * * * * *

CVJoaCM

O

APPROXIMATE TOTAL CAPITAL COST $677,000

(H I -SUE)

ALTERNATIVE S l-4(E) : HIGH PRESENT UOfitH ANALYSIS

COST PER YEAft P£ft 41000

CAPITAL COSTOiH COSTSTOTAL ANNUAL COSTANNUAL DISCO** HATES10X

NET PKESCKT WOftTK

CAPITAL COSTOftM COSTSTOTAL ANNUAL COSTANNUAL OlSCCUft* ftAU310X

NET Pfi£S€«T tfttTH

CAPITAL COST0£H COSTStfiTIL AlltltlAL COSTIU ' » «ft*lU«^ ***** •

ANNUAL DISCOUNT RATESlCX

MET PR£S£HT WORTH

0

677.0

677.01

677.0

13

7.67.6

0.29

2.2

26

7.67.6

O.C*4

0.6

1

7.67.6

0.909

6.9

14

7.67.6

0.263

2.0

27

7.67 ,6.0

0.076

0.6

2

7.67.6

0.526

6.3

15

7.67.6

0.239

i.a

23

7.67.6

0.069

0.5

3

7.67.6

0.751

5.7

16

7.67.6

0.21f t

1 . 7

29

7.67.6

0.063

0.5

4

7.67.6

0.633

5.2

17

7.67.6

0. 198

1 . 5

30

7.67 AI ,O

0.057

0.4

5 6 7 8 9 1 0 1 1

7.6 7.6 7.6 7.6 7.6 7.6 7.67.6 7.6 7.6 7.6 7.6 7.6 7.6

0.621 0.564 0.513 0.467 0.426 0.3d6 0.35

4.7 4.3 3.9 3.5 3.2 2.9 2.7

18 19 20 21 21 23 24

7.6 7.6 7,6 7.6 7.6 7.6 7.67.6 7.6 7.6 7.6 7.6 7.6 7.6

0. 18 0.164 0. 149 0 . 135 0.123 0 . 1 1 2 0 . 10 1

1.4 1 .2 1 . 1 1 .0 0.9 0.9 0.8

TOTALNET PBES£MT

WORTH(THOUSAHO i '3)

748.6

12

7.67.6

0.319

2.4

25

7.67.6

0.092

0.7

coCMr-o

<HPVS14£)

SOURCE INFORMATION FOR MAJOR CCST ITEMS

SITE

SAMPLING

ANALYS IS

HEALTH & SAFE* '

PERIODIC INSPECTION

*ENCE HAIHTENAtiCE

LOAD SULK SOL::SEXCAVATIONOH - S I T E HAUL ItC

TQPSOIL

SPREADING

SCO

MOWING

WATER

SPRINKLES SYS'EM

I N - S I TU 8JORECLAMATIQH

MECHANICAL SCI. WASHINGTREATMENT UNIT

0N-S 1TE INCINERATIONMGS/DEH06TEST BURNI MCI HERAT! ONAIS KONlTQft lVGASK TEST I KG

OFF -S ITE TRANSPORTATION

OFF-S ITE DISPOSAL

OFF-S ITE INCINERATION

(SL-SCURC)

t1,i5G/ACR£; MEANS, 021 108.0500,

WOO/DAY; ASSUMES 440/HOUR LABOR * EXPENSES

1315/SAMPLE, MUS 196S PRICE GUIDE

t4GOO/WEEK; ASSUMES LABOR COST OF tSO.OO/HGtlR;WOO RCUK& TRIP; (ZOO/WEEK FOfi RESPIRATOR;i 1SO/W£EK FOR A HNU, AND APPROX tdSO/WEEK EXPEUSIS

i1,200/:HSP€CTIOH; ASSUMES $SO/HR LABOR *$800 ROUND TR IP TRAVEL EXPENSE

MEANS, 015 304.0010,

t lOO/CY; MEAHS, 020 7 17 . 1 1 20 ,

t lS/CY; HSANS, 022 254.0050,1988 * HEALTMASAFETY

J3/CY; MEANS, 022 266.1150, 1988 * HEALTHASAfETY

47.50/CY; VENDOR GUGTg

$2/CY; VENDOR SUITE

; VENDOR QUOTE

; t30/HONlH/LOT-VEWDOB QUOTE; USED 6 MONTHS

t/20/LOT; $120/HONTH/LOT-VEHDm QUOTE; USED 6 MONTHS

190/LGT; t15/HONTH/LOT -VENDOR QUOTE; USED 6 MONTHS

S2.000AOT; VENDOR OUOTE; INCLUDES BOX AND METES

H35/CY; KEYSTONE ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES (ICER) ESTIMATE

ALL ASSOCIATED COSTS ARE KER ESTIMATES

$100,000; COST FROM gRT PREVIOUS REPORTS480,000; COST FROM ERT PftgVlOUS REPORTS4250/CY; COST FROM EPA PftgVIOUS REPORTt3,Onn/HONTH; COST FROM EftT PREVIOUS REPORTSt lOO.OOO; COST FROM ERT PREVIOUS REPORTS

i'./LOADED MILE; COST FROM ERT PREVIOUS REPORTS

$200/CY; MEANS 020 717.6021 , 19S8

$1,700/CY; VENDOR QUOTE

^^^IIIIIIIIIIIII

OoCM*r-O

APPENDIX 6-B

COSTING TABLES ASSOCIATED WITH THE GROUND WATERRESPONSE MEDIA UNIT ALTERNATIVES

I2069T 4 0 4 0 - 0 0 1 - 6 0 0

IIIII

APPENDIX 6-B

GROUND WATER ALTERNATIVE COSTING TABLE

This appendix presents the costing table used for thedetai led evaluation of the ground water alternatives (Sect ion6 . 0 ? . Included are the tables for the baseline present worthevaluat ion; the capital and present work tables for the lowcost evaluation; and the capital and present worth costs forthe high cost evaluat ion. Also included in this appendix is al ist ing of the major baseline unit costs and theircorrespond ing sources .

OOCM^r—O

2069T 4 0 4 0 - 0 0 1 - 6 0 0

IIIII

ALTERNATIVE G W - 1 : PRESENT WORTH ANALYSIS

I

COST PER YEAR PER $1000

CAPITAL COSTC&H COSTSTOTAL ANNUAL COSTANNUAL DISCOUNT RAT£310%

NET PRESENT WOftTK

CAPITAL COSTOSM COSTSTOTAL ANNUAL COSTANNUAL DISCOUNT RATE310%

45,0

45 .01

45.0

13

9.09.0

0.29

9.09 .0

0.909

8.2

U

9.09.0

0.263

9.09.0

0.826

7.4

15

9.09.0

0.239

9.09.0

0.751

6.8

16

9.09.0

0.21 f t

9 .09.0

0.683

6.1

17

9.09.0

CklOfl

9.09.0

0.621

S .6

18

9.09.0

n 10

9.09,0

0.564

5.1

19

9.09.0

n \LI

9.09 .0

0.513

4.6

20

9.09.0

A tlf.

9.09.0

0.467

4 .2

21

9.09.0

9.09.0

0.424

3.8

21

9.09.0

9.0 9.09.0 9.0

0.3B6 0.35

3.5 3.2

23 24

9.0 9.09.0 9.0

l £

9.09.0

0.319

2,9

25

9.09.0

r-OONCM<r-O

NET PRESENT WORTH 2.6 2.4 2.2 2.0 i .a 1 .6 1 .3 1 .2 1 . 1 1 .0

.092

0.8

III

CAPITAL COSTO&M COSTSTOTAL ANNUAL COST

29 30

9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.09.0 9.0 9,0 9.0 9.0

ANNUAL DISCOUNT RATE310X 0.084 0.076 0.069 0.063 0,057

NET PRESENT WORTH

(PW

0.8 0.7 0.6 0.6 0,5

TOTALHIT PRESENT

WORTH(THCUSAHO J ' s )

129.8

I

•^HIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII

ALTERNATIVE CW-2A: PRCSEHT WORTH ANALYSIS

COST PER TEA* PER $1000

1 10 I t 12

CAPITAL COS'OAH COSTSTCTAL AHNUA. :CST

ISCXl- RATE81CX

1248.031 1 .0 3M.O 3H.O 31 1 .0 JM.O 3 1 1 .0 3 1 1 . 0 3 1 1 . 0 3 1 1 . 0 3 1 1 . 0 J ' 1 . 0 3 1 1 . 0

1248 .0 3 1 1 . 0 3 1 1 . 0 3 1 1 . 0 3 1 1 .0 3 1 1 .0 3 1 1 .0 3 1 1 .0 31 1 .0 31 1 .0 31 1 .0 Jt l .O 31 1 .01 0.909 0.826 0.751 0.663 0.621 0.564 0 .5 13 0.467 0.424 0.386 3.35 0.319

WET PtE««T WORTH 1243.0 282.7 256.9 233.6 2 12 .4 193.1 175.4 159.5 145.2 131 ,9 120.0 108.9 99.2

CAPITAL COSTOAK COSTSTOTAL ANNUAL CCSTAWUAL OISCOU«r 8ATE310X

MET P«ESEWT WORTH

CAP ITAL COST018 COSTSTOTAL ANNUAL :OST

OtSCOXA* CATES10X

MET PRESENT WOfiTH

(PV-GU2A)

13 14 1$ 16 17 18 19 20 21 21 23 24

311 .0 3 1 1 . 0 3 1 1 . 0 3 1 1 . 0 3 1 1 .0 3H .O 3 1 1 .0 3 1 1 . 0 3 1 1 . 0 3 1 1 . 0 31KO 3 1 1 . 0 3 1 1 . 03 1 1 .0 3 1 1 . 0 3 1 1 . 0 3 1 1 . 0 3 1 1 . 0 3 1 1 .0 3 1 1 .0 3 1 1 . 0 3 1 1 .0 3 1 1 .0 3 1 1 . 0 JM.O 3 1 1 .00.29 0.263 0.239 0.21ft 0.198 0. 18 0.164 0.149 0.13$ 0.123 0. 1 12 3. 101 0.092

90.2 S 1 .8 74 .3 67.8 61 .6 56.0 5 1 . 0 46.3 42.0 38.3 34.8 3 1 . 4 28.6

27 29 30

3 1 1 . 1 3 1 1 . 0 3 1 1 . 0 3 1 1 .0 3 1 1 . 03 1 1 .0 3U .O 3H .O 3 1 1 . 0 3 1 1 . 00,084 0.076 0.069 0.063 0.057

26. t 23.6 2 1 . S 19.6 17.7

TOTAtHET Mi Sty T

WttTK

4179 ,5

COo<>OJr-O

•••IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII

ALTERATIVE G W - 2 C A J : »OW CAPITAL COSTS

ACTIVATED CAX80NSENSITIVITY

COST CO»K*ENT QUAD

S ITE MC'tUTIOHWELL «PUACtMI»TSUSUt'AC£ 3CAIN SYSTEM :

CtAIWS : »$TALLPUMPSsi«p IDS' ALLPIPINC

ft£C*AtG£ 'CEttCHtllG ( IN-SITUSNALLC% "«£NCK IHSTALIKJECTIC* PUMPSPIP INGELECT A :«STfiUMt s jECTic * TANKCHEMICAL *IED SYSTEM

HAVCLING 0* EXCAVATED SOILSEXCAVATEOS-SITE «A*JL|NG

GSCUSOWATE* r» £ATH£NT KANTSOIL ' ILLJ* j£ \f£ v t ii /•3W^TG* • ™Vi

"o*^*^?™1

OIL/VATE& S£PCA»B AOSOSe UNIT(HIT UWfi F ILLPiPt»e/Pwe»sELECTft 2 mSTfiUMAHCIl EOUI9HTOTHEft Pftoc TANKS

HEALTH t SA'E*Y

DIRECT CAPITAL COST

MTY

19

210020201

SOIL1500

21111

FCCN20002000

UNIT

LP SUMWILLS

L?PUMPSSUMPSLP SUM

HUSHING)ifPUMPSLP SUMLP SUMLP SUMLP SUM

U»tT COST TOTAL COST CCMMfHTS FACT08

15,00015,000

KSO13,00013,00013,000

:12S

13,500135,000120,000110,00015,000

15,000145,000

1105,000160,000160,00013,000

BASED UPON A 10,000137,500 GAL/DAY INJECTION AATE

17,000135,000120,000110,00015,000

0.950.95

0.950.950.950.95

0.950.950.950.95

f .O1 .0

TOTALCOST

14,750142, 75$

199,750157,000$57,00017,600

135,62516.650

$33,250119,000110,00015,000

TRENCH EXCAVATION:CYCY

• PfttLlMINAftY4000

1

t11

50001111

2«

CYLP SUM

LP SURLP SUMLP SUMi§SLP SUMLP SUMLP SUHLP SUM

*CKS

11513.00

EAftTHUGOC:116

15,000

135,000116,000140,000

11 .00147,000165,000161,000US, 000

u,ooo

130,00016,000 KAuiEO OH SITE TO THE

GRAVEL PITS; TREATED VIA&2CUNO MATES

164,00015,000

135,000116,000140,00015,000

147,000135,000161,000U5.000

196,000 H&S OfflCEft DURING EXCAV;HNu AND RESPIRATORS

0.950.95

0.950.95

1 .01 .01.0a. 95

0.950.950.950.9S

0,95

126,50015,700

160,800$4,750

135,000$16,600140,000

$4,750$44,650$80,750$76,950142,750

$91,200

$910,175

ENGINEERING t DESIGN du>CONTINGENCY (20X)

TOTAL CAPITAL COST

APPROXIMATE TOTAL CAPITAL COST

$ 100 , 1 1 9

1 182,035

$1,192,329

$ 1 , 192 ,000

C

CM

O

IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII

ALTERATIVE GW 2A: LOW PRESENT WORTH ANALYSIS

COST PER YEAR PER $1000

1 t> 5 10 1 1 12

CAPITAL COSTOAH COSTSTOTAL ANNUAL ccstANNUAL 01SCOLA* RATES10*

1 1 92 .03H.O 31 1 .0 3tKO 3 1 1 .0 3 1 1 .0 31 t .O 3 1 1 .0 3 1 1 .0 3 1 1 .0 3 1 1 .0 3 1 1 .0 3 1 1 .0

1192.0 3 1 1 .0 3 1 1 .0 31 1 .0 3 1 1 . 0 3 1 1 .0 3 1 1 .0 3 1 1 .0 3 1 1 .0 3 1 1 .0 3 1 1 .0 3 1 1 .0 3 1 1 .01 0.909 0.826 0 .751 0.683 0.621 0.564 0 .5 13 0.46? 0.424 0.366 0.35 0 .3 19

NET PR€S£NT WORTH 1 192 .0 2S2.7 256.9 233.6 2 12 .4 193. 1 175 .4 159 .5 145.2 13 1 .9 120 .0 108.9 99.2

CAPITAL COSTOtH COSTSTOTAL ANNUAL COSTANNUAL OlSCOUh* RATE31QX

NET PRESENT WORTH

CAPITAL COST04H COSTSTOTAL ANNUAL COSTANNUAL 01SCCUD* RATE310X

H6T PRESENT WORTH

(LPWGW2A)

13 14 15 16 18 19 20 21 21 25

3 1 1 .0 3 1 1 . 0 3 1 1 .0 3 1 1 . 0 3 1 1 .0 3 1 1 . 0 3 1 1 . 0 3 1 1 .0 3 1 1 . 0 3 1 1 . 0 3 1 1 . 0 3 1 1 . 0 3 1 1 . 03 1 1 .0 3 1 1 . 0 3 1 1 . 0 3 1 1 . 0 3 1 1 . 0 3 1 1 . 0 3 1 1 . 0 3 1 1 . 0 3 1 1 . 0 3 1 1 . 0 3 1 1 . 0 3 1 1 . 0 3 1 1 . 0

0,29 0,263 0.239 0 .2 18 0 . 1 98 0 . 18 0.164 O.H9 0. 135 0 . 123 0 . 1 1 2 0 . 10 1 0.092

90.2 81-f i 74.3 67.8 61 .6 56.0 5 1 .0 46.3 42.0 38.3 34.8 31 .4 28.6

26 27 29 30

3 1 1 .0 3 1 1 .0 31 1 .0 3 1 1 .0 3 1 1 .03 1 1 . 0 3 1 1 . 0 3 1 1 . 0 3 1 1 . 0 3 1 1 . 00.084 C.076 0.069 0.063 0 .057

26. 1 23.6 2 1 . 5 19.6 17 .7

TOTALNET PRESENT

UORTK(THOUSAND t ' s )

4123 .5

OT-^CVJr-O

m

ALTERNATIVE GW-2(A> : H IGH CAPITAL COSTS

ACTIVATED CARSON

COST COMPONENT QUANTITY

S ITg PREPARAT IONWgLl REPLACEMENTSUBSURFACE SRA1N SYSTEM:

DRA INS INSTALLPUMPSSUMP INS'ALLP I P I N G

RECHARGE TRENCHING < IN-S ITUSHALLOW TRENCH IJJS^ALI NJECT ION PUHPSP IP INGELECT 4 INSTRUMI NJECT ION TANKCHEMICAL FEED SYSTEM

19

2 10020201

sou150C

21111

SENSITIVITY TOTALUN IT UNIT COST TOTAL COST COMMENTS FACTOR COST

LP SUMUELLS

LFPUMPSSUMPSLP SUM

FLUSHING):LFPUMPSLP SUMLP SUMLP SUMLP SUM

$5,000$5,000

$50$3,000$3,000$8,000

K25$3,500

$35,000$20,000$ 10 ,000$5,000

$5,000$45,000

$105,000$60,000$60,000

$8,000

BASED UPON A 10,000$37,500 GAL/DAY INJECTION SATE

$7,000$35,000$20,000$10 ,000$5,000

1 . 1 $5,5001.1 $49,500

1 . 1 f '5,5001 . 1 $66,0001 . 1 $66,0001.1 $8,800

1 . 1 $41,2501 . 1 $7,7001 . 1 $33,5001.1 $22,0001 . 0 S i O . O O O1 .0 $5,000

^_T~O^CM•r-O

HANDLING OF gXCAVATED SOILS FROM TRENCH cXCAVATJON:EXCAVATE 2000 CY $15ON-S lT g HAULING 2000 CY $5.00

GROUNDWATER TREATMENT PLANT • PREL IM INARY EARTHWORK::SOIL F I L LSURVEYING

TREATMENT SYSTEM ;OfflCE/LASOIL/WATER S£PCARB AOSORP UN ITIV IT CARS FILLPIPING/PUMPSELFCTR & INSTRUMANCIL EQUIPHTOTHER PROC TANKS

HEALTH & SAFETY

DIRECT CAPITAL COST

ENG INEER ING & DES IGN ( 1 1% )

CONT INGENCY C20X)

TOTAL CAPITAL COST

24 UEEKS $4,000

$30,000$6,000 HAULED ON S ITE TO THE

GRAVEL P ITS ; TREATED VIAGROUND WATER

40001

111

50001111

CYLP SUM

LP SUMLP SUMLP SUML8SLP SUMLP SUMLP SUMIP SUM

$16$5,000

$35,000$16,000$40,000

$1$47,000$S5,000S81.000$45,000

$64,000$5,000

$35,000$16,000$40,00045,000

$47,000$85,000$81,000$45,000

$96,000 H&S OFFICER DURING EXCAV;HMu AND RESPIRATORS

1 . 1 $33,0001 . 1 $6,600

1 . 1 $?0,4001 . 1 $5,500

1 .01 . 01 . 01 . 11 . 11 . 11 . 11 . 1

$35,000$16,000543,000$5,500

$5 1 , 700$93,500$89, 100$49,500

1 . 1 $1 :5 .600

$ 1 ,037 , 150

$ 1 U , 0 8 7

$207,430

$1,358,667

APPROXIMATE TOTAL CAPITAL COST ,3W,300

( H I - G W 2 A )

^VB^V

IIIII

II

II

CAPITAL COSTQ&M COSTSTOTAL ANNUAL COSTANNUAL DISCOUNT RATE3lO%

NET PRESgNT WORTH

CAP ITAL COSTO&M COSTSTOTAL ANNUAL COSTANNUAL DISCOUNT RATE310%

NET PRESENT WORTH

CAP ITAL COSTO&M COSTSTOTAL ANNUAL COSTANNUAL D ISCOUNT RATE310%

NET PRESENT WORTH

13

ALTERNATIVE G W - 2 A : H IGH PRESENT WCHTH ANALYSIS

COT P£ft YEA* PER $1000

1 2 3 4 5 6 / 8 10 11 12

3 1 1 . 0 3 1 1 . 0 3 1 1 . 0 3 1 1 . 0 3 1 1 . 0 3 1 1 . 0 3 1 1 . 0 3 1 1 . 0 3 1 1 . 0 3 1 1 . 0 3 1 1 . 0 3 1 1 . 01359.0 3 1 1 .0 3 1 1 .0 3 1 1 .0 31 1 .0 31 1 .0 3 1 1 .0 3 1 1 .0 31 1 .0 3 1 1 .0 3 1 1 .0 3 1 1 .0 3 1 1 .0

1 0.909 0.826 0.751 0.683 0.621 0.564 0 .5 13 0.467 0.424 0.386 0.35 0.319

1359.0 282.7 256.9 233.6 2 12 .4 193. 1 175 .4 159 .5 145 .2 1 3 1 . 9 120 .0 108 .9 99.2

14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 21 23 24 25

90.2 8 1 .8 74.3 67.8 6 1 .6 S6.0 51 .0 46.3 42.0 38.3 34.3 31 .4 28.6

26

3 1 1 . 03 1 1 . 00.064

27 28

3 1 1 . 0 3 1 1 . 0 3 1 1 . 03 1 1 . 0 3 1 1 . 0 3 1 1 . 00.076 0.069 0.063

30

3 1 1 , 03 1 1 . 00.057

26.1 23.6 21 .5 19.6 17.7

TOTALMET PRESENT

WORTH(THOUSAND * 'S )

4290.5

OJ

3 1 1 . 03 1 1 . 00.29

3 1 1 , 03 1 1 . 00.263

3 1 1 . 03 1 1 . 00.239

3 1 1 . 03 1 1 . 00.218

3 1 1 . 0 3 1 1 . 0 3 1 1 . 03 1 1 . 0 3 1 1 . 0 3 1 1 . 00.198 0. 18 0.164

3 1 1 . 03 1 1 . 00. 149

3 1 1 . 03 1 1 . 00.135

3 1 1 . 03 1 1 . 00 . 123

3 1 1 . 03 1 1 . 00. 1 12

3 1 1 . 03 1 1 . 00. 101

3 1 1 . 03 1 1 . 00.092

CVIsr-O

(HPWGW2A)

IIIIIII

ALTERNATIVE GW-28: PRESENT WORTH ANALYSIS

COST PER YEAR PER t lQQO

1 10 11 12

1 3 1 1 . 0324.0 324 .0 324.0 324 .0 324.0 324 .0 324.0 324 .0 324 .0 324.0 324 0 324 0

1 3 1 1 .0 324.0 324.0 324.0 324.0 324.0 324.0 324.0 324.0 324.0 324 .0 324 .0 324^01 0.909 0.826 0 .75 1 0.683 0.621 0.564 0 .5 13 0.467 0.424 0.386 0.35 0 .3 19

MET PRESET WORTH 131 1 .0 294.5 267.6 243.3 221.3 201 .2 182.7 166.2 15 1 .3 137.4 1 2 5 . 1 1 1 3 .4 103.4

CAP ITAL COSTO&H COSTSTOTAL ANNUAL COSTANNUAL GISCOLi * * " RATE310%

13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 21 23 24 25

III

CAPITAL COSTO&M COSTSTOTAL ANNUAL COSTANNUAL DISCOUNT *ATES10%

NET PRESENT WORTH

324.0 324 .0 324.0 324 .0 324.0 324.0 324.0 324.0 324.0 324.0 324.0 324.0 324.0324.0 324 .0 324.0 324.0 324.0 324.0 324.0 324.0 324.0 324.0 324 -0 324.0 324.0

0.29 0.263 0.239 0 .2 18 0 . 196 0 . 18 0. 164 0, 149 0. 135 0 . 123 0 . 1 1 2 0 . 10 1 0.092

94.0 85 .2 77.4 70.6 64.2 58.3 53 . 1 48.3 43.7 39.9 36.3 32 .7 29.6

26 27 28 30

CAPITAL COSTO&M COSTSTOTAL ANNUAL CCSTANNUAL D ISCOUN- SATES10%

NET PRESET WORTH

324.0 324.0 324.0 324.0 324.0324.0 324 .0 324.0 324.0 324.00.084 0.076 0.069 0.063 0 .057

27.2 24 .6 22.4 20 .4 18 .5

TOTALMET PRESENT

WORTH(THOUSAND $ ' S )

4365.0

ONCVJ^~o

(PW-GW2B)

1IIIi0

1252.0

AlTCBMATlVf GW 21: LOW PRESENT UOtTN AftAlTftlf

COST HI TiAK H* II000

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 12

CAPITAL COSTOJ5« COSTS 324.0 324.0 324.0 324.0 324.0 324.0 324.0 324.0 324.0 324.0 324.0 324.0TOTAL ANNUAL COST 1252.0 324.0 324.0 326.0 324.0 324.0 32*.0 324.0 324.0 324.0 324.0 324.0 324,0AWIHJAL OUCOWT UTUtOX f 0.909 0.526 0.751 0.483 0.621 0.*M 0.513 0.467 0.424 0.386 O.M 0.3t»

NET PRES£«t WOftTH 1252.0 294.$ 267.6 243.3 221.3 201,2 itt.7 1*4.2 151 .3 137.4 125.1 1 IJ.4 103.4

13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 21 23 24 25

CAPITAL COSTOftK COSTS 324.0 324.0 324.0 324.0 324.0 324.0 324.0 324. C 324.0 324.0 324.0 324.0 324.0TOTAL ANNUAL COST 324.0 324.0 324.0 324.0 324.0 324.0 324.0 324.0 324.0 324.0 324.0 324.0 324.0AhMUAL DISCOUNT RATea'OX 0.29 0.263 0.239 0.218 0. 198 O. l f t 0 . 164 0 . 149 0. 135 0. 123 0 . 1 1 2 0 . 101 0.092

NET PftE$£*T WORTH 94.0 85.2 77.4 70.6 64.2 58.3 53. 1 4S.3 43.7 39.9 36.3 32 .7 29.8IIII1I

26 27 28 29 30. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

CAPITAL COSTG&U EOSTS 324.0 324.0 324.0 324.0 324.0TOTAL AHMUAL COST 324.0 324.0 324.0 324.0 524.0

DISCOUNT RAT6S10S 0.084 0.076 0.069 0.063 0.057

MET PRESET WORTH 27.2 24.6 22.4 20.4 13.S

lOTAi

<TROU$AHO t's)

4306.0

I

8B i tt w u II 888888888

W4V

S S M —

u >

it ^

B B •*

» 0

* -«

B 3^

« ^"

* IP

»

: 5 B B JJ

B

OV

tf> s - II * 1 » M B B B • » * 1 B B B J 1 « B n B » I ( 1 ( 1 ! H » M ' • i i i i

t* * S M* |i

-j B o

m-•B

E 5

»•!*_•

—f~

M —

KB

e m

£» B

A

m»•

B m

»•o

• as

——

B f

t X

r* * ^

**>•

ar-

B -*

*•M

M§B

Q

O

2 *

mN

<v>

to

" 5

sB B

".m a

—5

*»•

^*M « B B a B B B I 8 B tt S 1 1 s i B * B n 2 • B * i * 2 S w : 1 3 4 5 a I •

* w* *

* — *

* "

2 **

**: C

c C •*

** 5* *

o

£: * : s

s

5 5 f J** v 8M -# r -4 Cft 5

s -

s *

s sS

gfff

lf |II

wS

cB**

nv tf>

£ ft

JB

^ ^* ^

•*• ^ in

V ***

^- TT

* -« *

s, -^

*• *••

—* A

ft -4

Aft

jfi 0

4

** V

ft

W f~

itt

T~

ft ft

€)

••H

rtj

f?

r O

) M

I te* ••

£) F~

MB

«1

•*"**

TV

^*

**»

33

it *•

&**>

•» *

» j*

M,

«•

-*

cm--*

-t )C

«»

t* m

S»

-HI

m f

H-I

t -*-»*.»

m

» •-

r»

* a

f>

x y

« V

a *

- "

s 8

Sj?

mV

BB

Bt

c S

S ?

"^*

<*•^

. »•- •*-*

4BB

•S

" aci

aTl

1Hj*

fi 2

a S c

«*«•P

"" "*

1 '««^**?

*9«

3

9| y

«8

£

£

S-*>

«»*

A>«

M<*

|»

-«

]*•

rO

*»

O- *-* — *-

" •*

M

-»

wQ

*^*W

B0

>U«

W»

£ M

l —

§S

£SS

S8

S 8

-«

B-.T

O O

O* C

" 9

O

C

O 8

> »•

o W

i

(*>S

$

>OO

a£t'

*-£h

« **

r IT

5

8 !§§§§!§

II

IIS

"* S.

fi

^* ?

^ >-

c **

X5*

-* i»

^t^

*^ **•

^ D

M A

Ban

f

S B

MM

-. ^

fa

* 5

§ < "

* S I »-

•> •>«>•»•>

__

**

o<»

S4

I 4

4^

*A •

» •

^fc

^^ ^

d*^3

»d»a

>«>B

3

1 S

93

*ff i? *?

iff i^

** '^

f* ii^

*•5

E *"

*ST **

" FK

**

Kg

^4 "

^ ^^

*4 ^

? €

* ^3

* *^

ft* *"8

i P*

ir tf

5f ir

K fr

C

v*o

o o

o o

•> o

e c> &

o o

oo

«_m^-

S *

<•<»££:;

li S III ^

5 M

l* * »

•*k

^ jT

\ f f) (|t

£-g . » .*

MB> fjp, n

Mi

Ib

^ B A

* # q

1*

rf

m ^^

t \ *

••^

• fc

if *

8>

*Jt

•

. .

«8Bf

t Bta. b_

* "J

^J

w

«r* **

• • fw

^

v^k

H

JBBJ

BfM

^

•»

^S --- SJ ^

m * «

"t? I

J?

5 ™ aA

«k^•i If?

^*^

x "*

!< K fl

•*•"

-8«" -^

•**

B^B

> C

9 •?"

^P> tQ

€

» ^P

*^

^^

r* ** *•

s:s§

Scg

cc

s ss

§§§§

§8

§§§g II

fc I r

o A

w*

w*

§§§§§§ iii§ §§

_§ ^ & n » -» o § >-

C— *Ja s s

MK

OO

O

00

00

O

O8

»<»3

33

3 S

SS

dt

Cpdt

s225i

?S

$55 I

£r

.§ §

§ 2 § 5

§ §

§ g $

$

§ m ~ •^F—

f S »** 8

61 > • i,

-. S

m-

5«

*•o

-**

AD

A

s ^

fo

= i /r r» a

s-

5S i §2 -• r-

012

915

*. c

2?^ S ¥

i £

SS

— w

a> *t

i M

I m

! S

5i -

« S

| HI

•»• ^

• R

°

• It

*»«• v

*•N

—:

fi6 1

^*1

— *D

--o>

ft3 i M 1 ! i i ' .

O m n •4 „ ••* r I

•

= ?

JD ••

™ • • -• « *•

§ §§§

§§§1

«•ff

^ j?

IP i* **

5 s 5

S S 5:

- f

M» »•

_ **» . §i

f u « M g 0 s r- •» «> •< M K f*l < -« i

S3

p- L mX

w r*

C :5 - V .

"* t M

m »•

-«o * a

M -* Mt M - -, -

C *~ *~

SS

P & &«•

— 6

»* o

3§§§

S S

Ssss

S g*5

55 ;

H ^f

s^S

^*— m

& — « B —

» i» «

go

C 5 «»*«*

• * in

ci-*

>-M

i»**

f*i

* «

,1 1

WU

" V

» H - ' •*

fc •.

* *

* f f

*•»

s r j

r; x

8 »L

C^

^* 9

)K

J^

f^

•**

- s

" " I

". «

Mt

C §•"8

--

- S S

8

-» -

»2-§

»fi2

- «»

B

3t

K fi

f^S- |

g52 U

|

W* M

M

C M

M

t«t*

S X!

" R

S S

*^ S

F*

W«*

»M

£&£<

%

P ••

U» -^ -^

fk o

O A

ut

tMu

^ wt

u c> O

O

O O

w o

m c

~* B i > S o

«n f%

§ I f — - i § u o ^ 14» r- C O nt C X! o

e

— —

•* — o

o

O C

1 ~^

8 S

8 S

9O

OW

u*

§88

8 8

a •*• « » M O — -« -»

8 <

1291

6

1^^^™IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII

ALTERNATIVE GW 28: HIGH PKCSEUT MOUTH ANALYSIS

COST PE8 YEAR PEft 41000

1 9 11 12

CAPITAL COSTOW COSTSTOTAL ANNUAL CC5TAHMUAL OISCOUW MTEfi'Ot

U26.o324.0 524.0 324.0 324.0 324.0 324.0 324.0 324 .0 324.0 324.0 324.0 324.0

1428 .0 324.0 324.0 324.0 324.0 324.0 324.0 324,0 324.0 324.0 324.0 324.0 324.01 0.909 0.626 0.7S1 0.683 0.621 0.564 0.513 0.467 0.424 0.336 0.35 0.3t9

MET PCESE*- UOCTH U2S.O 294.S 267.6 243.3 221.3 201.2 '82.7 166.2 151 .3 137.4 125.1 1 13.4 103.4

15 16 17 21 21 23 24

CAPITAL COST3fiM COSTS 324.0 124.0 324.0 324.0 324.0 324.0 324.0 324.0 324.0 324.0 324.0 324.0 324.0TOTAL ANNUAL CCS* 324.0 324.0 324.0 324.0 324.0 324.0 324.0 324.0 324.0 324 .0 324.0 324 .0 324.0AtttUAl DISCOUNT 4ATEA10X 0.29 0.263 0.239 0.216 3.196 0.16 0.164 0.149 0.135 0.123 0. 1 12 0.101 0.092

MET PRESET* **TH 94.0 65.2 77.4 70.6 64.2 56.3 53.1 46.3 43.7 39.9 36-3 32.7 29.8

26 27 26 29 30 TOTAL. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sgt PfiiSENT

CAPITAL COST WORTHO&M COSTS 324.0 324.0 324.0 324.0 124.0 UHCUSANQ S'S)TOTAL AWWAL CCS* 324.0 324.0 324.0 324.0 324.0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .ANNUAL DISCOUNT UTEfllOX 0.064 0,076 0.069 0.063 0.057

MET wOftTH 27,2 24.6 22-4 20.4 !8.5 4462.0

O

IIIIIIIIIIIIII

HEALTH £ SAFETY

WELL MONITORING

£XCAVAT10«

OH -SI T6 HAULINGSOIL F ILLSURVEYINGSUBSURFACE DRAIN SYSTEM

DRAINSPUMPSSUMPPIP ING

RECHARGE TRENCHINGTRENCH I NSTALLAT IONINJECTION PUMPSP IP INGELECT £ INSTRUMINJECTION TANKCHEMICAL FE£0 SYSTEM

OIL/WATER SEPARATOR

SOURCE INFORMATION fOft HAJOfc COST ITEMS

$4000/U£EK; ASSUMES LABOR COST Of tbO.GO/HOUR;$800 ROUHO TRIP; *2CC/dgEK FOR RESPIRATOR;5ISO/WEEK FOR A HNU; AND APPROX $S5G/WggK EXPENSES

*1QOO/WELL; LABOR AMD 1966 NUS ANALYTICAL COSTS

J15/CY; MEANS, 022 254.0050, 1988 * HEALTH&SAFgTY

43/CY; MEANS, 022 266. 1 150, 1988 + HEALTH&SAF€TY

iWCY; KEYSTOHE ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES («R) ESTIMATE

KER ESTIMATE

*SO/LF; COST PROM ERT PREVIOUS REPORTS$5,GOO/PUMP; COST fROH ERT PREVIOUS REPORTS$3,000/SUMP; COST FROM ERT PREVIOUS REPORTSt8,GOO; COST FROM ERT PREVIOUS REPORTS

KER ESTIMATEKER ESTIMATEKER ESTIMATEKER ESTIMATE«R ESTIMATEK6R ESTIMATE

K6R ESTIMATEK£R ESTIMATE

AIL ASSOCIATED COSTS ARE K£R ESTIMATES

fLUIOIZEO CARBOH BED REACTOR ALL ASSOCIATED COSTS ARg KER ESTIMATES

(GW-SOJRC)

COt—&CMT—O