EP 1110-1-19

30 June 2001

US Army Corps

of Engineers

A GUIDE TO PREPARING AND REVIEWING

REMEDIAL ACTION REPORTS OF

COST AND PERFORMANCE

ENGINEER PAMPHLET
CEMP-R EP 1110-1-19

30 June 2001

CEMP-R

Engineer Pamphlet

1110-1-19

Department of the Army

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Washington, DC 20314-1000

EP 1110-1-19

30 June 2001

A GUIDE TO PREPARING AND REVIEWING

REMEDIAL ACTION REPORTS

OF COST AND PERFORMANCE

Distribution Restriction Statement

Approved for public release;

distribution is unlimited.
CEMP-R EP 1110-1-19

30 June 2001

FOREWARD

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), through its staff and contractors, provides quality,

responsive engineering and construction services to the Army and the Nation. USACE missions include civil

works, military construction, environmental restoration and support to other agencies. The civil works

program encompasses flood control, navigation, shore erosion, and recreation facilities. The military

construction program supports the Army, most of the Air Force, and certain other Department of Defense

(DoD) agencies. USACE performs environmental restoration work for the Army, DoD, Environmental

Protection Agency, Department of Energy, and several other agencies. USACE also provides design and

construction management services for non-DoD Federal agencies, state and local governments, and foreign

governments.

A majority of the planning, engineering, design and surveying and mapping services for these

programs is acquired by contract with private architect-engineer (A-E) firms. USACE is one of the largest

Federal procurers of A-E services. This pamphlet describes the USACE policies and procedures for preparing

and reviewing remedial action reports of cost and performance.

FOR THE COMMANDER:

ROBERT CREAR

Colonel, Corps of Engineers

Chief of Staff

 

This pamphlet supersedes EP 1110-1-19, dated 15 November 1996.
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

CEMP-R Washington, D. C. 20314-1000

Engineer Pamphlet

No. EP 1110-1-19 30 June 2001

Engineering and Design

A GUIDE TO PREPARING AND REVIEWING

REMEDIAL ACTION REPORTS OF

COST AND PERFORMANCE

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Paragraph Page

i

Acronyms iv

Chapter 1 Introduction

Purpose................................................................................. 1-1 1-1

Applicability ........................................................................ 1-2 1-2

Scope.................................................................................... 1-3 1-2

References............................................................................ 1-4 1-2

Organization......................................................................... 1-5 1-3

Chapter 2 Background

Superfund Process................................................................ 2-1 2-1

Remedial Action Process ..................................................... 2-2 2-5

Remedial Action Completion .............................................. 2-3 2-6

Chapter 3 Reporting Criteria

Preparation........................................................................... 3-1 3-1

Timing.................................................................................. 3-2 3-1

Distribution .......................................................................... 3-3 3-1

Approval .............................................................................. 3-4 3-1

Review ................................................................................. 3-5 3-2

Chapter 4 Report Components

General................................................................................. 4-1 4-1

Introduction.......................................................................... 4-2 4-3

Operable Unit Background .................................................. 4-3 4-5

Construction Activities ........................................................ 4-4 4-6

Chronology of Events .......................................................... 4-5 4-7

Performance Standards and Construction Quality Control.. 4-6 4-8

Final Inspections and Certifications..................................... 4-7 4-10

Operation & Maintenance Activities ................................... 4-8 4-11

Summary of Project Costs ................................................... 4-9 4-11

Observations and Lessons Learned...................................... 4-10 4-12

Operable Unit Contact Information ..................................... 4-11 4-13

References............................................................................ 4-12 4-14
EP 1110-1-19

30 Jun 01

TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)

Paragraph Page

ii

Chapter 5 Documenting Technology Performance

General................................................................................. 5-1 5-1

Recommended Performance Reporting ............................... 5-2 5-1

Factors that Affect Cost and Performance ........................... 5-3 5-2

Chapter 6 Documenting Project Costs

General ............................................................................... 6-1 6-1

Definitions.......................................................................... 6-2 6-1

Cost Element Structure....................................................... 6-3 6-2

Capital Cost Elements ........................................................ 6-4 6-2

O&M Cost Elements .......................................................... 6-5 6-7

Periodic Cost Elements ...................................................... 6-6 6-11

Project Cost Appendix ....................................................... 6-7 6-12

Appendix A Glossary of Superfund Terms.........................................................................A-1

Appendix B Example Remedial Action Report – Ex Situ Soil Remediation ..................... B-1

Appendix C Example Remedial Action Report – In Situ Soil and Groundwater

Remediation.................................................................................................... C-1

Appendix D Cost Reporting Templates ..............................................................................D-1
EP 1110-1-19

30 Jun 01

LIST OF EXHIBITS

Page

iii

Exhibit 2-1 The Superfund Pipeline ...................................................................................2-2

Exhibit 2-2 Example Pipeline Scenarios ............................................................................2-4

Exhibit 2-3 Remedial Action Completion Process.............................................................2-7

Exhibit 3-1 Remedial Action Report Checklist ..................................................................3-3

Exhibit 4-1 Example Abstract ............................................................................................4-2

Exhibit 4-2 Example Introduction ......................................................................................4-4

Exhibit 4-3 Example Operable Unit Background...............................................................4-5

Exhibit 4-4 Example Construction Activities.....................................................................4-6

Exhibit 4-5 Example Chronology of Events.......................................................................4-7

Exhibit 4-6 Example Performance Standards and Construction Quality Control ..............4-9

Exhibit 4-7 Example Final Inspections and Certifications ...............................................4-10

Exhibit 4-8 Example Operations & Maintenance Activities ............................................4-11

Exhibit 4-9 Example Summary of Project Costs..............................................................4-12

Exhibit 4-10 Example Observations and Lessons Learned ................................................4-12

Exhibit 4-11 Example Operable Unit Contact Information................................................4-13

Exhibit 5-1 Recommended Performance Reporting...........................................................5-1

Exhibit 5-2 Example Remedial Technologies ....................................................................5-3

Exhibit 5-3 Suggested Parameters to Report that Affect Cost and Performance................5-4

Exhibit 5-4 Example Matrix Characteristics ......................................................................5-6

Exhibit 5-5 Example Operating Parameters .......................................................................5-7

Exhibit 6-1 Relationship of Capital and O&M Costs to Pipeline Phases ...........................6-2

Exhibit 6-2 RA Capital and Operating Cost Elements .......................................................6-3

Exhibit 6-3 Post-RA O&M Cost Elements.........................................................................6-8

Exhibit 6-4 RA or Post-RA O&M Periodic Cost Elements..............................................6-11

Exhibit 6-5 Example Cost Breakdown .............................................................................6-14

Exhibit 6-6 Example Technology-Specific Unit Cost Calculation...................................6-16

Exhibit 6-7 Example HCAS Data Report and WBS Cost Breakdown.............................6-17
EP 1110-1-19

30 Jun 01

ACRONYMS

iv

ARARs Applicable or Appropriate and Relevant Requirements

CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

CX Center of Expertise

DoD Department of Defense

DQO Data Quality Objective

EE/CA Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

ESD Explanation of Significant Differences

FF Federal Facility

FFA Federal Facility Agreement

FS Feasibility Study*

HCAS Historical Cost Analysis System

HQ Headquarters

HRS Hazard Ranking System

HTRW Hazardous, Toxic, and Radioactive Waste

LTRA Long-Term Response Action*

NCP National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan

NPL National Priorities List

O&F Operational and Functional*

O&M Operation and Maintenance*

OU Operable Unit*

PA Preliminary Assessment

PRP Potentially Responsible Party*

PRP LR Potentially Responsible Party Long-Term Response*

QA Quality Assurance

QAPP Quality Assurance Project Plan

QC Quality Control

RA Remedial Action*

RD Remedial Design*

RI Remedial Investigation*

ROD Record of Decision*

RPM Remedial Project Manager

SARA Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act

SI Site Inspection

USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

WBS Work Breakdown Structure

* Definition provided in Appendix A
EP 1110-1-19

30 Jun 01

1-1

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

1-1. Purpose.

a. This pamphlet defines the procedures for formally documenting and reporting

cost and performance information from U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) environmental

restoration1

 projects and provides guidance to

the project team for scoping the types of data to

collect and how they are presented. Customers

must have complete, accurate, and timely

information for proper operation and

maintenance, as a baseline for system

modifications and optimization, and to

document information that may be used in

conjunction with a long-term response action or

recurring review. This information will also

address information to plan and tailor their site

completion and individual operable units (OUs)

for site closeout.

b. This pamphlet, or guide,

provides a current reference for preparing and

reviewing remedial action (RA) reports at the

completion of remedial action at a waste site

operable unit. The goals of this guide include

improving the consistency and completeness of

RA reports while ensuring that key

observations and lessons learned during remedy

implementation, including cost and

performance data, are adequately documented.

Specifically, this guide is intended to ensure

that sufficiently detailed RA cost data is

furnished for input into the Historical Cost

Analysis System (HCAS) which requires the

use of the Hazardous, Toxic, and Radioactive

Waste (HTRW) RA work breakdown structure (WBS).

 

1

 As used by this guide, “environmental restoration” refers to the Superfund programs operated under the authority of the

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980 and the Superfund Amendments and

Reauthorization Act (SARA) of 1986. In many cases there is not a straightforward relationship between the U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency (EPA) Superfund and Department of Defense (DoD) terms. Users of this document should recognize that in

most cases, these requirements may not be consistent with other programs. The environmental project team should discuss, plan,

and tailor their site documentation efforts to facilitate the environmental requirements at their site.

Site Closeout Process*

Remedial Action

Completion

(per Operable

Unit)

Construction

Completion**

(for entire Site)

Remedial Action

Report

Preliminary

Close Out Report

Site

Completion

Final

Close Out Report

Site Deletion

from NPL

* This example incorporates the Superfund process.

 ** Occurs when construction is complete at final OU that

requires construction. Therefore, construction completion for

the site may occur prior to RA completion at the final OU.
EP 1110-1-19

30 Jun 01

1-2

c. This guide is intended to assist in the preparation, review, or use of RA reports for

environmental restoration projects by cost engineers, environmental engineers, resident

construction managers, project managers, remedial project managers (RPMs), program

managers, and other related technical disciplines.

1-2. Applicability. This pamphlet applies to all USACE commands having investigation,

design, and remedial action responsibility for environmental restoration projects within the

military, civil works, or support for others programs.

1-3. Scope. This pamphlet is a companion document to A Guide for Preparing and

Reviewing Remedial Action Reports developed jointly by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

(USACE) and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). The primary difference

between these two documents is the cost reporting format. Both documents incorporate selected

guidance from the Guide to Documenting and Managing Cost and Performance Information for

Remediation Projects (EPA 542-B-98-007, October 1998). This guide does not address

construction completion, site completion, or site deletion from the National Priorities List (NPL).

For information on these issues refer to Close Out Procedures for National Priorities List Sites

(EPA 540-R-98-016, January 2000). Although much of this guide is written from the

perspective of a Superfund site listed on the NPL, the presented concepts could also be applied to

non-NPL sites or other cleanup programs.

1-4. References. The following documents provide additional information related to the

subject of this pamphlet.

a. ER 5-1-11. Program and Project Management.

b. ER 415-345-38. Transfer and Warranties.

c. ER 1110-3-1301. Hazardous, Toxic, and Radioactive Waste (HTRW) Cost

Engineering.

d. CEGS 01070. Cost and Performance Report.

e. CEGS 01440. Contractor Quality Control.

f. CEGS 01450. Chemical Data Quality Control.

g. Standard Industrial Classification Manual. 1987.

h. 40 CFR Part 300. National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency

Plan (NCP). (http://www.epa.gov/docs/epacfr40/chapt-I.info/subch-J.htm)

i. EPA 540-F-93-048. Presumptive Remedies: Site Characterization and

Technology Selection for CERCLA Site with Volatile Organic Compounds in Soils. U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency. September 1993.
EP 1110-1-19

30 Jun 01

1-3

j. EPA/542/B-94/013. Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix and Reference

Guide, Second Edition. Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable. October 1994.

k. EPA/540/G-89/004. Guidance for Conducting Remedial Investigations and

Feasibility Studies under CERCLA. Interim Final. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

October 1988.

l. OSWER 9335.0-27FS. A Guide to Selecting Superfund Remedial Actions. U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency. April 1990.

m. EPA 540/F-96/018. The Role of Cost in the Superfund Remedy Selection

Process. Quick Reference Fact Sheet. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. September 1996.

(http://www.epa.gov/superfund/resources/cost_dir/index.htm)

n. EPA 540-R-97-013. Rules of Thumb for Superfund

Remedy Selection. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. August 1997.

(http://www.epa.gov/superfund/resources/rules/index.htm)

o. EPA 542-B-98-007. Guide to Documenting and Managing Cost and Performance

Information for Remediation Projects. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. October 1998.

(http://www.frtr.gov/cost/)

p. EPA/540/R-98/031. A Guide to Preparing Superfund Proposed Plans, Records of

Decision, and Other Remedy Selection Decision Documents. U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency. July 1999. (http://www.epa.gov/superfund/resources/remedy/rods/index.htm)

q. EPA 540-R-98-016. Close Out Procedures for National

Priorities List Sites. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. January 2000.

(http://www.epa.gov/superfund/resources/closeout/index.htm)

r. EPA 540-R-00-002. A Guide to Developing and Documenting Cost Estimates

During the Feasibility Study. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. July 2000.

(http://www.epa.gov/superfund/resources/remedy/costest.htm)

1-5. Organization. This guide is intended to provide the user with the basic information

necessary to complete or review the RA report for a given OU at a site. Throughout the guide,

exhibits help illustrate the concepts discussed, while highlight boxes are used to provide

information that is important to note, but not necessarily central to the discussion at hand. The

objectives of each chapter and appendix are listed below.

a. Chapter 1: Introduce the guide, including its purpose, scope, and use.

b. Chapter 2: Provide background information on RAs, including the Superfund

process, RA process, and RA completion.
EP 1110-1-19

30 Jun 01

1-4

c. Chapter 3: Provide RA reporting criteria, including who should prepare the RA

report, timing of submittals, distribution, approval criteria, and a checklist of RA report

components.

d. Chapter 4: Describe the components of the recommended RA report format and

describe the information that should be included in each component.

e. Chapter 5: Provide information on how to document technology performance in

the RA report.

f. Chapter 6: Provide information on how to document project costs in the RA

report.

g. Appendix A: Provide a glossary of environmental restoration terms used in the

guide.

h. Appendix B: Present an example RA report for the case of ex situ soil

remediation using incineration.

i. Appendix C: Present an example RA report for a combination of in situ soil and

groundwater remediation using soil vapor extraction and air sparging.

j. Appendix D: Provide example templates for reporting costs for HCAS data entry.
EP 1110-1-19

30 Jun 01

2-1

CHAPTER 2

BACKGROUND

2-1. Superfund Process.

a. General

(1) Section 105 of CERCLA, as

amended by SARA, requires the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to

maintain the NPL, which is a record of

uncontrolled hazardous waste sites that have

released or that pose a threat to release

hazardous substances into the environment.

Pursuant to the National Oil and Hazardous

Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP),

Title 40 Code of Federal Regulations Part 300

(40 CFR 300), sites on the NPL are eligible to

receive CERCLA trust fund (Superfund)

financing for RAs. Funding can only be

provided for RAs at sites that are listed as final

on the NPL.

(2) Prior to a site being listed on the

NPL, a preliminary assessment/site inspection

(PA/SI) is typically completed to collect the

data necessary to develop a score for the site

using the hazard ranking system (HRS). The

HRS score ultimately determines the site’s

eligibility for inclusion on the NPL.

(3) Sites on the NPL are addressed by the Superfund process through a combination

of removal and remedial authority. Removal actions are short-term responses, usually to address

immediate threats.1

 Remedial actions achieve long-term permanent responses to risk. The

Superfund pipeline (Exhibit 2-1) illustrates the major phases and decision points of the

Superfund remedial response process. The various phases of this process are briefly described in

the following paragraphs.

 

1 Removal authority cleanup actions achieve prompt risk reduction through activities categorized as emergency (response

required within hours/days), time-critical (response required within 6 months), or non-time-critical (more than 6 months is

available before action must be taken). Non-time-critical removal alternatives are analyzed in an engineering evaluation/cost

analysis (EE/CA), which is considered the equivalent of a remedial investigation/feasibility study. An action memorandum is the

primary decision document, which is considered the equivalent of a record of decision.

Lead Agencies

At or prior to the time a site is placed on the

NPL, a determination of the lead agency is made.

The lead agency, represented by a remedial

project manager (RPM), has the primary

responsibility for coordinating response action.

EPA, a State environmental agency, or another

Federal agency can serve as the lead agency.

However, EPA retains final remedy selection

authority for all “Fund-financed” actions, and for

all Federal facility (FF)-led actions at NPL sites.*

Generally, the lead agency RPM is responsible

for overseeing all technical, enforcement, and

financial aspects of a remedial response.

* The following terms are typically used to

designate which government entity serves as the lead

agency in the Superfund remedial response process:

“EPA-lead,” “State-lead,” and “Federal facility-lead.”

In addition, the following terms refer to the source of

remediation/cleanup monies: “Fund-financed” (i.e.,

remediation or cleanup money from the Superfund trust

fund) and “potentially responsible party (PRP)-lead”

(i.e., remediation or cleanup money derived from

enforcement action taken by lead agency).
EP 1110-1-19

30 Jun 01

2-2

Exhibit 2-1

The Superfund Pipeline

b. Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study

(1) The remedial investigation/feasibility study (RI/FS) process is initiated at the time

of a site’s listing on the NPL. The RI/FS gathers the information necessary to select a remedy

that will meet the statutory and regulatory requirements of the Superfund cleanup program.

(2) The objective of the RI is to collect the data necessary to assess the current and

future potential risks to human health and the environment, and to support the development,

evaluation and selection of appropriate response alternatives. The RI may be performed in

several stages so that the investigation is refined as it progresses. The RI includes field

investigations, treatability studies, a baseline risk assessment, and the initial identification of

applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements (ARARs) (i.e., all State and Federal laws

outside Superfund regulations that warrant consideration).

(3) The FS begins by formulating viable alternatives. This requires that contaminants

of concern, potential exposure pathways, remediation objectives/cleanup goals, general response

actions, subject volumes or areas of media, and potentially applicable technologies be identified.
EP 1110-1-19

30 Jun 01

2-3

An FS may address a specific site problem, OU, or an entire site.2 Following the preliminary

screening of alternatives, a reasonable number of possible alternatives undergo a detailed

analysis using the nine evaluation criteria listed in the NCP.

c. Remedy Selection

(1) The preferred alternative remedy

for a site or OU is discussed in detail and

presented for public comment in the proposed

plan. The proposed plan briefly summarizes

the alternatives that were studied in detail

during the RI/FS, and highlights the key factors

that lead to the selection of the preferred

alternative.

(2) Following the public comment

period associated with the proposed plan, the

ROD documents the selected remedy.3

 The

ROD introduces the significant facts, presents

an analysis of these facts, states the sitespecific policy determinations, and explains

how the nine evaluation criteria were

considered in the remedy selection process.

The remedy selection process must be carried

out in accordance with CERCLA and, to the

extent practicable, with the NCP.

(3) The ROD provides the

framework for the transition into the next phase

of the remedial process. Recommended

content and format for the ROD can be found in A Guide to Preparing Superfund Proposed

Plans, Records of Decision, and Other Remedy Selection Decision Documents (EPA 540-R-98-

031, July 1999). The ROD describes the remedy’s technical parameters, specifying the methods

selected to protect human health and the environment, including the treatment, engineering,

institutional control components, and remedial action objectives/cleanup goals. The ROD also

provides a consolidated summary of the site or OU and the chosen remedy, including the

rationale behind the selection.

 

2 The RI/FS can be performed for the site as a whole, or for a particular portion of the site. The NCP defines an OU as a

“discrete action that comprises an incremental step toward comprehensively addressing site problems. This discrete portion of a

remedial response manages migration, or eliminates or mitigates a release, threat of a release, or pathway of exposure” (NCP

§300.5). Hence, an OU can be a certain geographic portion of a site or a specific environmental medium at the site (e.g.,

groundwater or soil). The OU may also consist of a comprehensive but temporary remedy (e.g., a temporary cap over a site) that

provides interim protection of human health and the environment before final remediation. The cleanup of a site can be divided

into a number of OUs, depending on the complexity of the problems associated with the site.

3 For pre-SARA sites, the selected remedy may be detailed in other reports (e.g., a consent decree or an administrative order).

Potentially Responsible Parties

Under CERCLA §104, a person or an entity

potentially responsible for a release of hazardous

substances, pollutants, or contaminants into the

environment (i.e., a potentially responsible party

(PRP)) may be allowed to conduct certain

response actions in accordance with CERCLA

§122, if a lead agency determines that the PRP, or

the PRP’s contractor, is qualified and capable.

For a PRP-lead response action, either EPA or the

state agency oversees the PRP’s work and

develops the ROD.* PRPs may participate in the

remedy selection process by submitting

comments on the proposed plan during the formal

public comment period, held prior to the final

remedy selection. However, PRPs generally

should not be permitted to write or amend a

ROD.

* For detailed information regarding PRP oversight,

refer to Guidance on Oversight of Potentially

Responsible Party Remedial Investigations and

Feasibility Studies, Volumes 1 and 2 (EPA 540-G91010a and b, July 1991).
EP 1110-1-19

30 Jun 01

2-4

d. Remedial Design. Plans, specifications, and other documents necessary to

construct or implement the remedy are developed during remedial design (RD), an engineering

phase that precedes the RA. The specifications are based upon the detailed descriptions of the

selected remedy and the remediation/cleanup criteria provided in the ROD.

e. Remedial Action. The RA is the implementation of the selected remedy from the

ROD and the RD. RA activities must conform to the remedy set forth in the ROD and other

post-ROD decision documents (e.g., ROD amendments, explanation of significant differences).

The remedial action includes the completion of an operational and functional (O&F) period

(Paragraph 2-2.a), if necessary, followed by any long-term response action (LTRA) for

groundwater or surface water remedies (Paragraph 2-2.a), prior to long term operation and

maintenance (O&M) of the remedy.

Exhibit 2-2

Example Pipeline Scenarios

RA

RA

<10 yrs. O&M

Final

RA Report

Treatment and/or Off-Site Disposal

Containment

Final

RA Report

RA

O&M

Final RA Report

(Cleanup Goals Achieved)

Groundwater and Surface Water Restoration

Interim

RA Report

O&F

<1 yr.

O&F

<1 yr.

LTRA (Fund)

PRP LR (PRP)

O&M (FF)

(No O&M Required)
EP 1110-1-19

30 Jun 01

2-5

f. Operation and Maintenance. Operation and maintenance (O&M) are the activities

required to maintain the effectiveness or the integrity of a remedy. O&M is dependent on the

implemented remedy. O&M may not be necessary, may only be required for a defined

timeframe, or may be required to be performed indefinitely.4

 For remedies that require active

on-site treatment, remedial system evaluation or optimization is an important component of

O&M.5

 Except for Fund-financed groundwater or surface water restoration actions covered

under NCP §300.435(f)(4), O&M measures are initiated after the remedy has achieved the

remediation objectives and cleanup goals listed in the ROD, and is operational and functional

(Paragraph 2-2.a). O&M starts when the RA is complete and the State or the PRP(s) assume

responsibility for all activities necessary to operate and/or maintain the long-term effectiveness

or integrity of the actions selected in the ROD. In the case of Fund-financed measures to restore

groundwater or surface waters, that extend beyond the ten-year long-term RA period (Paragraph

2-2.b), O&M is required to continue the operation of such measures until the cleanup goals are

achieved.

2-2. Remedial Action Process. Besides the RA and O&M phases, the RA process typically

includes the operation and functional period, long-term response, cleanup goals achieved

milestone, and five-year reviews. Exhibit 2-2 provides three different pipeline scenarios to help

illustrate when these periods occur in relation to preparation of the RA report. The following

paragraphs provide a brief description of each phase or milestone.

a. Operational and Functional

(1) Operational and functional (O&F) activities are conducted after the RA has been

constructed to ensure that it is operating as designed and functioning properly. The O&F period

is part of the RA and occurs during the last year of the RA. The NCP provides for a maximum

timeframe of one year for performing O&F activities, though EPA may extend the one-year

period, as appropriate. O&F determinations are made for containment (all media), groundwater

restoration and surface water restoration remedies.6

 Monitored natural attenuation remedies do

not go through an O&F determination.

(2) A remedy becomes O&F either one year after O&F start, or when the remedy has

been determined, concurrently by EPA and the State agency, to be functioning properly and

performing as designed, whichever occurs first (40 CFR 300.435). O&F is considered to be

complete on the date that the designated Regional official approves, in writing, the interim RA

report (for sites with groundwater or surface water restoration remedies) or final RA report. This

 

4 Examples of remedies where O&M may have an indefinite period of performance are sites where waste is contained on-site

and the integrity of the cap must be maintained or sites where institutional controls must be maintained.

5

 Additional information on remedial system evaluation or optimization is available on the web at

http://www.frtr.gov/optimization/.

6 Formal O&F determinations are made primarily for Fund-financed projects because the O&F milestone governs when O&M

or Long-Term RA (LTRA) begins under State authority. Federal facilities-lead projects go through determinations known as

“operating properly and successfully.”
EP 1110-1-19

30 Jun 01

2-6

report should not be approved until the determination has been made through an inspection that

the remedy is, in fact, O&F (Paragraph 2-3).

b. Long-Term Response.

(1) Long-term response action (LTRA) and PRP long-term response (LR) are subactions of O&M used to track and assure continued Federal funding for the operation of

groundwater or surface water restoration remedies.7 LTRA is defined as the Fund-financed

operation of groundwater and surface water restoration measures, including monitored natural

attenuation, for up to the first ten years of operation. LTRA is complete after ten years, after a

technical impracticability determination is made, or after cleanup goals are achieved and

documented in a final RA report, whichever occurs first. LTRA transitions to traditional O&M

if cleanup goals are not achieved, or if continued monitoring is required, after ten years have

elapsed.

(2) In the past, the term LTRA has been used to describe PRP-lead groundwater and

surface water restoration measures, including monitored natural attenuation. However, PRP-lead

groundwater and surface water restoration measures, including monitored natural attenuation, are

covered by a separate action, PRP LR. Because PRP LR is a specific type of O&M, the ten-year

timeframe does not apply. PRP LR is complete after a technical impracticability determination

is made, or cleanup goals are achieved and documented in a final RA report, whichever occurs

first.

c. Cleanup Goals Achieved. Usually preceded by the interim RA report, this

milestone signifies when cleanup goals are achieved for groundwater and surface water

restoration, including monitored natural attenuation. “Cleanup goals achieved” is officially

accomplished once the final RA report is approved in writing.

d. Five-Year Reviews. If there are any hazardous substances, pollutants, or

contaminants remaining at the site above levels that do not allow for unlimited use and

unrestricted exposure, EPA is required to conduct a review of the RA at least once every five

years to assure that human health and the environment are being protected. CERCLA §121(c)

and NCP §300.430(f)(5)(iii)(C) provide the legal bases for conducting five-year reviews.

Generally, five-year reviews may be discontinued when no hazardous substances, pollutants, or

contaminants remain at the site above levels that allow for unlimited use and unrestricted

exposure.

2-3. Remedial Action Completion. The RA for an OU is complete after the remedy is

determined to be O&F (if applicable), the remediation objectives and/or cleanup goals stated in

 7 LTRA and PRP LR apply to groundwater and surface water restoration measures only, including monitored natural

attenuation. These terms do not apply to groundwater and surface water restoration measures conducted under other leads;

groundwater or surface water containment measures; groundwater or surface water measures initiated for the primary purpose of

providing a safe drinking water supply; or groundwater monitoring. Federal facilities-lead sites do not use LTRA or PRP LR.

Instead, groundwater and surface water restoration measures go from RA directly to O&M at these sites.
EP 1110-1-19

30 Jun 01

2-7

the ROD are achieved, and the designated Regional official has approved the interim or final RA

report. Exhibit 2-3 illustrates the remedial action completion process.

Exhibit 2-3

Remedial Action Completion Process

Construct

Remedial Action

Pre-Final/Final

Inspection

Operational and

Functional Period

(if applicable)

Interim

Remedial Action

Report

FF - Lead Inspection

Have remediation

objectives and/or cleanup

goals been achieved?

No

Cleanup Goals

Achieved

Final

Remedial Action

Report

Yes

Fund - Lead Inspection

PRP - Lead Inspection

a. Inspection Requirements.

(1) General. With any RA, regardless of lead or contracting party, the standard

practice is to conduct contract pre-final and final inspections prior to RA completion. These
EP 1110-1-19

30 Jun 01

2-8

inspections are conducted to determine whether the construction is complete in accordance with

the contract design and specifications. The inspections are generally held between the

contracting party and the construction contractor, although others can be invited. If all the items

observed during the contract pre-final inspection are corrected or are considered insignificant,

the contract pre-final inspection may automatically serve as the contract final inspection.

Otherwise, a contract final inspection will be conducted later by the contracting party to

determine if these items have been corrected and completed in accordance with the RD plans and

specifications. In addition to the pre-final and final inspections, other inspections may be

required prior to completion of the RA. These include Fund-lead, PRP-lead, and Federal facility

(FF)-lead inspections as described below.

(2) Fund – Lead. The NCP requires an additional set of inspections at Fund-financed

sites that will undergo LTRA and/or O&M. During this set of inspections, EPA and the State

concurrently determine the end of the O&F period. After an O&F determination is made, the

remedy enters LTRA or O&M. If convenient, these inspections may be conducted concurrently

with the contract pre-final or final inspection.

(3) PRP – Lead. For PRP-lead sites, the Revised Model CERCLA RD/RA Consent

Decree (Federal Register, Vol. 60, No. 145, pp. 38817-38837, July 28, 1995) requires a precertification inspection upon completion of the RA. This inspection, which involves the PRP(s),

EPA, and the State, is intended to determine if the RA is fully complete and if the remediation

objectives/cleanup goals are attained. After the pre-certification inspection, the PRPs are also

required to submit a written report, for EPA approval, stating that the RA is complete in full

compliance with the requirements of the Consent Decree. If it contains the proper information,

this report can serve as the RA report for the OU. For groundwater and surface water restoration

remedies, where an interim RA report is appropriate, EPA may require the preparation of a

separate (interim) RA report for groundwater or surface water, since it is not normally required

in the Consent Decree.

(4) FF – Lead. Federal facility agreements (FFAs) generally require an additional set

of inspections to determine that all aspects of the remedy have been implemented in accordance

with applicable enforcement documents and the ROD. Participants include the EPA, Federal

facility, oversight contractor, and the State. These inspections may be conducted concurrently

with either of the pre-final or final inspections described above.

b. Remedial Action Reporting. When the RA for an operable unit is complete, the

RA report is prepared. There are two basic types of RA reports, interim and final. An interim

RA report is completed only for RAs that include groundwater or surface water restoration

remedies, including monitored natural attenuation. Interim reports are used because of the

extended duration between the completion of the treatment system construction (or the ROD

signature, in the case of monitored natural attenuation) and the achievement of the cleanup goals.

A final RA report is complete when the remediation objectives/cleanup goals are achieved.

More detailed information on preparation, timing, distribution, approval, and review of RA

reports is provided in Chapter 3.
EP 1110-1-19

30 Jun 01

3-1

CHAPTER 3

REPORTING CRITERIA

3-1. Preparation. The party most familiar with the RD, the construction efforts, and the

associated project costs, should prepare the RA report. This familiarity will provide the best

opportunity to discuss the successes, difficulties, and lessons learned during the project. The

EPA RPM and contractor for the RA (e.g., PRP, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, State or EPA

contractor) are typically the parties most familiar with the RA. While the EPA RPM can and

sometimes does prepare the RA report, the contractor is usually tasked with that effort.

3-2. Timing. For most OUs, the RA report should be prepared and submitted to the EPA

region (Region) or appropriate regulatory authority for approval within 90 days after the contract

final inspection of the completed construction.1 At OUs where LTRA is being performed, an

interim RA report should be prepared once the remedy is constructed (within 90 days after the

final inspection). The interim RA report must then be amended and finalized once the RA

cleanup goals specified in the ROD are achieved. An interim RA report is required because of

the extended period of time that may elapse between the completion of construction and

achievement of cleanup goals. Where actual costs are not known at the time of report

preparation (e.g., pending claims, change orders), estimated costs may be used (Chapter 6).

3-3. Distribution.

a. Once the Region or appropriate regulatory authority has approved the RA report,

either interim or final, depending on the remedy, the original report is retained in the Regional

site file, and an approved copy should be returned to the report preparer. Upon completion of the

RA report, the Region or appropriate regulatory authority is required to notify the appropriate

Natural Resource Trustees listed in the Regional Contingency Plans regarding the completion of

the RA. The Region or appropriate regulatory authority will provide a copy of the approved RA

report to the Trustees within one week of the report’s approval.

b. For projects in which the USACE is involved, a copy of the RA report shall be

furnished to HQ USACE and the USACE HTRW Center of Expertise (CX). Mailing addresses

are provided in Appendix D.

3-4. Approval.

a. For a given site or OU, the RA is considered to be complete once the designated

EPA Regional official has approved the interim or final RA report in writing. An interim RA

report is completed only for RAs that include groundwater or surface water restoration remedies

(including monitored natural attenuation). Interim reports are used because of the extended

period of time that typically transpires between the completion of the treatment system

construction (or the ROD signature, in the case of monitored natural attenuation) and the

 1 For PRP-lead sites, the RA report is due within 90 days after the official determination has been made that the remediation

objectives/cleanup goals have been achieved.
EP 1110-1-19

30 Jun 01

3-2

achievement of the cleanup goals. A final RA report is complete once the remediation

objectives/cleanup goals are achieved.

b. Criteria required for EPA approval of an interim RA report include:

(1) The remedy to reduce contaminant concentrations and achieve the cleanup goals,

including groundwater or surface water restoration, with active treatment or natural attenuation,

is installed;

(2) For active treatment, the construction of the treatment system is complete and the

system is operating as intended (i.e., the remedy is determined to be O&F at Fund-financed

sites);

(3) For monitored natural attenuation, any necessary RA components, such as

monitoring wells, are constructed;

(4) If the OU addresses media other than groundwater, construction activities are

complete and RA objectives specified in the ROD are achieved for these components;

(5) A final inspection is conducted;

(6) Institutional controls, if applicable, are in place; and

(7) The interim RA report includes the information described in Chapter 4 of this

guide.

c. Criteria required for the approval of a final RA report include:

(1) All construction activities are complete, including site restoration and

demobilization;

(2) All RA objectives specified in the ROD, including those for groundwater and

surface water (if applicable), are achieved;

(3) A final inspection is conducted;

(4) Institutional or engineering controls, such as containment (if applicable), are in

place (i.e., the remedy is determined to be O&F at a Fund-financed site); and

(5) The final RA report includes the information described in Chapter 4 of this guide.

d. When an interim RA report has already been prepared, the interim RA report may

simply be amended to create the final RA report. The amendment would add information on

activities that occurred after the interim RA report was completed, including a final actual cost

breakdown.

3-5. Review. Prior to submittal of the RA report, it should be reviewed to ensure that it

contains the necessary information. Exhibit 3-1 provides a checklist that summarizes the
EP 1110-1-19

30 Jun 01

3-3

recommended content of the RA report. Each component listed in the checklist is further

described in Chapter 4, including examples.

Exhibit 3-1

Remedial Action Report Checklist

SECTION COMPONENT

I. Introduction ♦ Include a brief description of the location, size, environmental setting,

and operational history of the site.

♦ Describe the operations and waste management practices that

contributed to contamination of the site.

♦ Describe the regulatory and enforcement history of the site.

♦ Describe the major findings and results of site investigation activities.

♦ Describe prior removal and remedial activities at the site.

♦ Describe the OUs designated at the site and introduce the OU for which

the RA report applies.

II. Operable Unit Background ♦ Summarize requirements specified in the ROD for the OU. Include

information on the remediation objectives/cleanup goals, institutional

controls, monitoring requirements, operation and maintenance

requirements, and other parameters applicable to the design,

construction, operation, and performance of the RA.

♦ Provide additional information regarding the basis for determining the

remediation objectives/cleanup goals for the OU, including information

on planned future land use.

♦ Summarize the remedial design, including any significant regulatory or

technical considerations or events occurring during the design.

♦ Identify and briefly discuss any ROD amendments, explanation of

significant differences, or technical impracticability waivers.

III. Construction Activities ♦ Provide a step-by-step description of the major activities undertaken to

construct and implement the RA (e.g., mobilization and site preparatory

work; construction of the treatment system; associated site work, such as

fencing and surface water collection and control; system operation and

monitoring; and sampling activities).

♦ If a treatment technology was used, refer to Appendix A for site

conditions, matrix characteristics and/or operating parameters of the

system.
EP 1110-1-19

30 Jun 01

3-4

Exhibit 3-1, cont.

Remedial Action Report Checklist

SECTION COMPONENT

IV. Chronology of Events ♦ Provide a tabular summary that lists the major events for the OU, and

associated dates of those events, starting with the ROD signature.

♦ Include significant milestones and dates, such as, remedial design

submittal and approval; ROD amendments; mobilization and

construction of the remedy; significant operational events such as

treatment system/application start-up, monitoring and sampling events,

system modifications, operational down time, variances or noncompliance situations, and final shut-down or cessation of operations;

final sampling and confirmation-of-performance results; required

inspections; demobilization; and completion or startup of post-RA

operation & maintenance activities.

♦ If an operational and functional (O&F) period applies, indicate the start

and end dates of the O&F period.

♦ If preparing an interim RA report, indicate when cleanup goals are

projected to be achieved for the ground or surface water restoration.

V. Performance Standards and

Construction Quality

Control

♦ Describe the overall performance of the technology in terms of

comparison to remediation objectives/cleanup goals.

♦ For treatment remedies, identify the quantity of material treated, the

strategy used for collecting and analyzing samples, and the overall

results from the sampling and analysis effort.

♦ Provide an explanation of the approved construction quality assurance

and construction quality control requirements or cite the appropriate

reference for this material. Explain any substantial problems or

deviations.

♦ Provide an assessment of the performance data quality, including the

overall quality of the analytical data, with a brief discussion of quality

assurance and quality control (QA/QC) procedures followed, use of a

quality assurance project plan (QAPP), comparison of analytical data

with data quality objectives (DQOs).

♦ For PRP-funded projects, discuss the government’s oversight activities

and results with regard to analytical data quality.

VI. Final Inspection and

Certifications

♦ Report the results of the various RA construction inspections, and

identify noted deficiencies.

♦ Briefly describe adherence to health and safety requirements. Explain

any substantial problems or deviations.

♦ If implemented, summarize details of institutional controls (e.g., type,

who will maintain, who will enforce).

♦ For PRP-lead, describe results of precertification inspection.

♦ If applicable, certify that the remedy is operational and functional, along

with the date this was achieved.
EP 1110-1-19

30 Jun 01

3-5

Exhibit 3-1, cont.

Remedial Action Report Checklist

SECTION COMPONENT

VII. Operation & Maintenance

Activities

♦ Describe the general activities for post-construction operation and

maintenance, such as monitoring, site maintenance, and closure

activities.

♦ Identify potential problems or concerns with such activities.

♦ Note results of any optimization efforts during O&M.

♦ If preparing an interim RA report, describe the future groundwater or

surface water restoration activities to meet cleanup goals.

VIII. Summary of Project Costs ♦ Present the total costs incurred for the remedial action. Identify costs as

capital, O&M, or periodic costs, either RA or post-RA, as applicable

(e.g., RA capital costs, RA operating costs, post-RA O&M costs).

♦ The reporting of project costs is required for government-financed

projects and should be provided whenever possible for PRP-lead

projects. If the project is PRP-lead, a summary of government oversight

costs for the RD and RA should be included.

♦ Indicate the year(s) in which costs were incurred.

♦ If actual costs are not available, use estimated costs.

♦ Escalate costs estimated in the ROD to the same dollar basis year and

compare the total project costs, actual or estimated, to the ROD estimate.

If outside the range of –30 to +50 percent, explain the differences.

Provide the index or rate used for the escalation.

IX. Observations and Lessons

Learned

♦ Provide site-specific observations and lessons learned from the project,

highlighting successes and problems encountered and how resolved.

X. Operable Unit Contact

Information

♦ Provide contact information (names, addresses, phone numbers, and

contract/reference data) for the major design and remediation contractors

and subcontractors, oversight contractors, and the respective remedial

project manager (RPM) and project managers for the government and

the PRPs, as applicable.

XI. References ♦ Provide a list of references used to develop the RA report (e.g., ROD,

RD documents, RA correspondence, as-built drawings).

Appendix A. Cost and

Performance

Factors

♦ List values and measurement procedures for factors affecting cost and

performance of treatment technologies used in the remedy, including site

conditions, matrix characteristics, and operating parameters.

Appendix B. Project Costs ♦ Provide a breakdown of the actual RA capital, operating, and/or periodic

costs.

♦ Provide a breakdown of the future projected O&M and/or periodic costs.
EP 1110-1-19

30 Jun 01

4-1

CHAPTER 4

REPORT COMPONENTS

4-1. General.

a. This chapter describes the components of the recommended format for the RA

report and details the information that should be included in each component. The components

are divided into the following:

(1) Abstract

(2) Section 1: Introduction

(3) Section 2: Operable Unit Background

(4) Section 3: Construction Activities

(5) Section 4: Chronology of Events

(6) Section 5: Performance Standards and Construction Quality Control

(7) Section 6: Final Inspection and Certifications

(8) Section 7: Operation & Maintenance Activities

(9) Section 8: Summary of Project Costs

(10) Section 9: Observations and Lessons Learned

(11) Section 10: Operable Unit Contact Information

(12) Section 11: References

(13) Appendix A: Cost and Performance Factors

(14) Appendix B: Project Costs

b. The RA report should be straightforward and easily understood, using consistent

CERCLA terminology where applicable. The report length should generally not exceed twenty

pages, excluding appendices, relying on brief descriptions for each report component. Tables

and figures that support the report may be inserted within the text, at the end of each section, or

collectively at the end of the report. An example RA report abstract is shown in Exhibit 4-1.

Examples for other report components are provided in the following chapter sections that

describe each component.
EP 1110-1-19

30 Jun 01

4-2

Exhibit 4-1

Example Abstract

Site Name and Operable Unit: U Creosote Superfund Site, Operable Unit 2

Location: Live Oak, Florida

Regulatory Oversight: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region IV

Florida Department of Environmental Regulation

Contractor Oversight: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville District

Remedial Action Contractor: Cleanup, Inc., Cleantown, FL

Waste Source: Sludge and soil contaminated with lumber treatment chemicals (including

creosote and small amounts of pentachlorophenol)

Contaminants: Polycylic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) designated as total carcinogenic

indicator chemicals (TCIC), including benzo(a)anthracene, benzo(a)pyrene,

benzo(b)fluoranthene, chrysene, dibenzo(a,h)anthracene, indeno(1,2,3-

c,d)pyrene

Pentachlorophenol (PCP)

Technology: Land Treatment:

♦ Contaminated soil with TCIC contractions <5,000 mg/kg was excavated

and placed in 4- to 12-inch-thick lifts and inoculated with PAH-degrading

microorganisms.

♦ Composite samples were collected from subplots each quarter, until TCIC

concentrations were detected at less than 100 mg/kg.

♦ Upon confirmation that cleanup goals had been met, the site was backfilled

with clean soil and revegetated.

♦ Groundwater at the site is to be monitored for five years.

Cleanup Type: Full-Scale

Purpose/Significance

of Application:

Land treatment designed to reduce TCIC concentrations to 100 mg/kg within

two years of initial placement and inoculation.

Type/Quantity of

Media Treated:

8,100 cubic yards of contaminated soil were land treated

Period of Operation: Land treatment: 1/19/97 to 7/24/98

Groundwater monitoring: Ongoing

Regulatory Requirements/

Cleanup Goals:

Soils >100 mg/kg, but <5,000 mg/kg TCICs to be land treated to 100 mg/kg.

Remediation objectives to be met within two years or progress shown toward

meeting objectives. If this could not be shown, alternative measures would be

considered.

Five years of groundwater monitoring to be implemented upon completion of

construction.

Results: Sampling conducted in June 1998 indicated that TCIC concentrations were

<100 mg/kg, ranging from 23 to 92 mg/kg in the eight subplots.

Cleanup goals were attained within 18 months of land treatment startup.
EP 1110-1-19

30 Jun 01

4-3

Exhibit 4-1, cont.

Example Abstract

Costs: Total actual cost = $435,523 with RA capital costs of $303,026 and RA

operating costs of $132,497.

Total estimated remaining O&M cost = $21,000 for five years of

groundwater monitoring.

The technology-specific unit cost of land treatment was calculated at

$33.73 per cubic yard.

Description: From 1948 to 1986, the ABC company operated the U Creosote site as a

lumber treatment facility. Lumber treatment processes included the

pressure-treatment of lumber products. Small rail cars were used to move

lumber to two treatment cylinders. A mixture of either creosote and water

or PCP and petroleum was used to treat the lumber. The treated lumber

was dried on racks over bare soil and stored in an area north of the

treatment cylinders.

The results of a remedial investigation/feasibility study (RI/FS) conducted

at the site between 1992 and 1996 confirmed that soils and sediments in the

lagoon and drainage ditch were contaminated with polycyclic aromatic

hydrocarbons (PAH). During the RI/FS, EPA and the PRPs agreed to

address the site as two operable units (OUs). OU 1 includes the lagoon and

former plant facility, which has been addressed separately. The record of

decision for OU 2 was signed on March 8, 1996.

During land treatment, the soil for each of three lifts was placed 4 to 12

inches thick in the land treatment area and inoculated with PAH-degrading

microorganisms. An inoculum was sprayed on the soil and the land

treatment area was cultivated once every two weeks. An irrigation system

was used to maintain a 10-percent soil moisture content. The concentration

of microorganisms in the soils was found to be adequate to support

biological activity, and no inoculum was applied for the second or third lift.

Additionally, the total number of lifts applied to each subplot varied

because several of the half-acre areas exceeded the TCIC concentrations of

100 mg/kg. Subsequently, no additional soil was placed in those subplots

until the analytical results indicated less than 100 mg/kg.

On October 17, 1998, the PRPs provided a written report that the remedial

action has been fully performed and the performance standards of the

consent decree have been attained. As specified in the ROD, the PRPs will

continue semiannual monitoring of groundwater through 2002 to confirm

that groundwater will not be adversely impacted by the land treatment

activities.

4-2. Introduction.

a. The introduction should include a brief description of the location, size,

environmental setting, and history of the site. The site history should describe the operations and

waste management practices that contributed to the contamination of the site, and the regulatory

and enforcement activities that have occurred. The introduction should also discuss the major
EP 1110-1-19

30 Jun 01

4-4

findings and results of SI and RI activities. Any prior removal and remedial activities that have

occurred at the site should be described. Any other OUs that have been designated at the site

should be discussed and the OU addressed by the RA report should be introduced. An example

introduction is provided in Exhibit 4-2.

b. Because the introduction provides background information on the entire site, most

of it could also be used as the introduction of the RA report for other OUs at the site. The

information for the introduction can be taken from reports prior to the RD or RA, such as the

RI/FS or ROD.

Exhibit 4-2

Example Introduction (Section 1)

The U Creosote Superfund Site is located approximately two miles from the City of Live Oak, Suwanee County,

Florida, at the intersection of Sawmill Road and Goldkist Road. Homes, businesses, light industry, a trailer park,

a private airport, and a county storage yard are located within one-half mile of the site. Approximately 450

people live in the trailer park. Sinkholes and public and private wells lie within two miles of the site.

From 1948 to 1986, the ABC company operated the U Creosote site as a lumber treatment facility. Lumber

treatment processes included the pressure-treatment of lumber products, mainly with creosote and occasionally

with pentachlorophenol (PCP). Small rail cars were used to move lumber to two treatment cylinders. A mixture

of either creosote and water or PCP and petroleum was used to treat the lumber. The treated lumber was dried

on racks over bare soil and stored in an area north of the treatment cylinders.

Wastewater from the treatment cylinders was discharged to an oil-water separator. The creosote recovered from

the oil-water separator was sent to a storage tank for reuse. If the creosote was determined to be off

specification, it was sent to a spent creosote storage tank and properly disposed of at an off-site location at a

later date. Wastewater from the oil-water separator discharged through a culvert and a drainage ditch to an

unlined three-acre lagoon located in the southwest corner of the site.

In 1989, a former owner of the facility notified Region 4 of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

that hazardous materials may have been handled at the site. In response, the Florida Department of

Environmental Regulation (FDER) conducted sampling at the site in July 1990. The results showed that soil and

sludge in the area of the treatment cylinders were contaminated with a number of organic compounds and that

the treatment cylinders contained small amounts of solidified creosote and PCP. In addition, creosote was found

in the lagoon and the storage tanks. No contamination was detected in the aquifer underlying the site. EPA

proposed in December 1990 that the site be placed on the National Priorities List (NPL). The listing of the site

became final in September 1991.

The potentially responsible parties (PRP) conducted a remedial investigation and a feasibility study (RI/FS) at

the site between 1992 and 1996 under the terms of a Federal administrative order on consent (AOC). Testing

during that time confirmed that soils and sediments in the lagoon and drainage ditch were contaminated with

polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH). During the RI/FS, EPA and the PRPs agreed to address the site as two

operable units (OU), OU1 and OU2.

OU1 included the lagoon and the former plant facility. Cleanup activities were completed in March 1996, under

a Record of Decision (ROD) signed on July 25, 1995. The lagoon was drained, contaminated sludge and

sediment was excavated, and wastewater was treated and discharged to a publicly owned wastewater treatment

facility. Highly contaminated sludge and soil were solidified on site.

A ROD for OU2 was signed March 8, 1996, which is the subject of this report.
EP 1110-1-19

30 Jun 01

4-5

4-3. Operable Unit Background. This section should summarize the requirements specified

in the ROD for the subject OU. It should include information on the cleanup goals, institutional

controls, monitoring requirements, O&M requirements, and other parameters applicable to the

design, construction, operation, and performance of the RA. Additional information regarding

the basis for establishing the cleanup goals/remediation objectives, including planned future land

use, should be provided. A summary of the RD, including any significant regulatory or technical

considerations or events occurring during the preparation of the RD, should also be included in

this section. Any ROD amendments, explanation of significant differences, or technical

impracticability waivers should also be identified and briefly discussed. An example

background section is provided in Exhibit 4-3.

Exhibit 4-3

Example Operable Unit Background (Section 2)

The remedy described in the ROD for OU2 included:

♦ On-site biodegradation of remaining, less-severely contaminated soils in a land treatment area

constructed with a liner, internal drainage, and spray irrigation system;

♦ Activities necessary to the proper functioning of the land treatment process;

♦ After treatment, covering the land treatment area with clean fill and re-vegetating; and

♦ Five years of groundwater monitoring to verify that it remains uncontaminated.

The remediation objectives in the ROD were: Within two years from initial seeding, the land treatment

process must reduce the concentration of TCIC to 100 mg/kg throughout the volume of the material treated.

The goals were based upon a risk assessment that focused on attaining at least a 1 x 10-6 risk for ingestion of

contaminated soil by a child. The risk assessment assumed a future industrial land use scenario, with no

institutional controls. Remediation objectives were described by the total concentration of six carcinogenic

indicator constituents of creosote -- benzo(a)anthracene, benzo(a)pyrene, benzo(b)fluoranthene, chrysene,

dibenzo(a, h)anthracene, and indeno(1,2,3-c,d)pyrene – referred to as total carcinogenic indicator chemicals

(TCIC). EPA selected the six of the approximately two hundred compounds that make up creosote because of

their concentrations in sludge and soil at the site and their carcinogenic nature. The concentrations of TCIC

in the soil to be treated ranged from 100 to 208 mg/kg.

The September 15, 1996, ROD amendment included:

♦ Soils contaminated at levels exceeding 100 mg/kg, but less than 5,000 mg/kg TCICs, were to be

biodegraded in the on-site land treatment area.

♦ Soils found contaminated at levels exceeding 5,000 mg/kg TCICs were to be removed, stabilized, and

disposed of at an EPA-approved hazardous waste disposal facility along with the solidified, OU 1 waste

(7,500 yd3

).

♦ If the land treatment process did not attain the remediation objectives for the TCIC within two years, but

quarterly monitoring showed substantial progress toward meeting the remediation objectives, EPA

would consider extending the treatment period. However, if substantial progress could not be identified,

EPA would consider alternative means of addressing the contaminated soils, such as capping, removal,

incineration, solidification, or vitrification.

♦ Groundwater monitoring would begin upon completion of construction of the land treatment area.

Based on the original ROD and the ROD amendment, the remedial design was prepared for construction of

the remedy. The design was completed in five months and approved by EPA September 15, 1996, for

implementation of the remedial action.
EP 1110-1-19

30 Jun 01

4-6

4-4. Construction Activities. This section should provide a step-by-step description of the

activities undertaken to construct and implement the RA (e.g., mobilization and site preparatory

work; construction of the treatment system; associated site work, such as fencing and surface

water collection and control; system operation and monitoring; and sampling activities). If a

treatment technology was used, reference should be made to the appropriate appendix that

reports factors affecting cost and performance of the system (e.g., site conditions, matrix

characteristics, and operating parameters). An example construction activities section is

provided in Exhibit 4-4.

Exhibit 4-4

Example Construction Activities (Section 3)

Site Preparation

Site preparation activities included clearing, grubbing, and grading the land where the land treatment area

was to be constructed; building a drainage swale around the land treatment area; preparing a temporary,

central soil stockpile area consisting of several lined cells; and installing a perimeter fence with signs

warning against exposure to hazardous material. Approximately four acres were cleared. An estimated 200

cubic yards of contaminated soil found to contain less than 5,000 mg/kg TCICs were excavated during the

site preparation activities and stored in the central stockpile area along with previously excavated,

contaminated soil.

Off-Site Disposal of the Solidified, Operable Unit 1 Waste

To dispose of the 7,500 cubic yards of solidified OU 1 waste, a suitable receiving facility in Emelle,

Alabama, operated by Chemical Waste Management, Inc. (CWM), was identified. The waste was shipped

off-site to the facility in Emelle on December 1, 1996.

Construction of the Land Treatment System

A clay layer ranging from one to three feet in thickness was installed throughout the four-acre land treatment

area. The clay was taken from a borrow pit located elsewhere on the site. The borrow pit was shaped and

used as a 750,000-gallon retention pond for collecting water and leachate from the land treatment area.

Compacted clay berms were placed around the land treatment area and around the soil stockpile area. Swales

were installed outside the treatment area to intercept and redirect run-on.

The land treatment area was prepared with a one percent slope to the northwest corner, where the subsurface

drainage system drained under the berm into a gravel-lined swale that led to the retention pond. The

drainage system consisted of 12-inch-wide, flat, perforated pipe laterals, spaced every 50 feet in an east-towest direction. The pipes connected to a south-to-north drainage trench containing cylindrical, perforated

piping sloping to a sump in the northwest corner of the land treatment area. The entire subsurface drainage

system was covered with a minimum of six inches of clean, sorted sand. Finally, a portable irrigation

system, delivering water at 0.5 inches per hour to an area 70 feet in diameter, was installed at the retention

pond, which recirculated the collected water and sprayed the water over the land treatment area.

System Operation

Land treatment was performed in three lifts, with a total of 8,100 yd3

 of soil treated: 3,300 yd3 (Lift 1); 3,000

yd3

 (Lift 2); and 1,800 yd3 (Lift 3). For site management and sampling purposes, the land treatment area was

divided into eight half-acre, rectangular subplots. A composite sample was collected from each subplot each

quarter, until the concentration of TCICs in the soil in the subplot was less than 100 mg/kg. An additional lift

of soil from the stockpile area then was placed in the subplot. The process was repeated until all of the

stockpiled soil had been placed in the land treatment area.
EP 1110-1-19

30 Jun 01

4-7

Exhibit 4-4, cont.

Example Construction Activities (Section 3)

In general, the soil for each lift was placed 4 to 12 inches thick in the land treatment area and inoculated with

PAH-degrading microorganisms. The inoculum, sprayed on the soil, was developed by growing seed

cultures in mobile, on-site reactor tanks equipped with aeration and mixing equipment. The land treatment

area was cultivated once every two weeks. An irrigation system was used to maintain a 10-percent soil

moisture content. The concentration of microorganisms in the soils at the land treatment area was found to

be adequate to support biological activity, and no inoculum was applied for the second or third lift.

Additionally, the total number of lifts applied to each subplot varied because several of the half-acre areas

exceeded the TCIC concentrations of 100 mg/kg. Subsequently, no additional soil was placed in those

subplots until the analytical results indicated less than 100 mg/kg.

Appendix A reports matrix characteristics and operating parameters of the land treatment system.

Approximately 50 cubic yards of construction debris were removed from the soil and buried on the site.

After validation of the final sampling results and determination that the remediation objectives had been met,

the site was backfilled with clean soil and seeded on September 1, 1998.

4-5. Chronology of Events. This section should provide a tabular summary that lists the

major events for the OU, and associated dates of those events, starting with the ROD signature.

The table should include significant milestones and dates, including: RD submittal and approval;

ROD amendments; mobilization and construction of the remedy; treatment system/application

start-up; monitoring and sampling events; system modifications; operational down time;

variances or non-compliance situations; date of final shut-down or cessation of operations; final

sampling and confirmation-of-performance results; required inspections; demobilization; and RA

completion or startup of post-RA O&M activities. If an O&F period applies, indicate the start

and end dates. For interim RA reports, indicate when cleanup goals are estimated to be

achieved. An example chronology is provided in Exhibit 4-5.

Exhibit 4-5

Example Chronology of Events (Section 4)

Date Event

March 8, 1996 ROD for OU2 signed.

August 3, 1996 Remedial Design (RD) submitted.

September 15, 1996 RD approved; ROD amendment signed.

September 29, 1996 RA contract awarded.

October 3, 1996 Construction of the land treatment area began, including excavation of contaminated

soil..

December 1, 1996 Solidified waste from OU1 transported and disposed of off-site.

December 12, 1996 PRPs, EPA, and the State conduct pre-final inspection of the land treatment area.

January 12, 1997 PRPs, EPA, and the State conduct final inspection of the land treatment area.

January 19, 1997 Operation of land treatment area begun; first lift of soil applied to treatment subplots;

sampling of soil in treatment plots begun.
EP 1110-1-19

30 Jun 01

4-8

Exhibit 4-5, cont.

Example Chronology of Events (Section 4)

Date Event

January 20, 1997 Semiannual groundwater monitoring initiated .

June 12, 1997 Preliminary Close Out Report for site signed for site construction completion.

September 15, 1997 Second lift of soil applied to treatment subplots.

March 14, 1998 Third lift of soil applied to treatment subplots.

June 28, 1998 Final sampling of soil in treatment subplots and in other designated site areas

conducted.

July 24, 1998 Final soil sampling results validated; remediation objectives achieved.

September 1, 1998 Land treatment area demobilized and re-vegetated.

September 22, 1998 PRPs, EPA, and the State conduct pre-certification inspection of the completed

remedial action.

Ongoing Semiannual groundwater monitoring. Expected to continue through 2002.

4-6. Performance Standards and Construction Quality Control.

a. This section should describe the overall performance of the remedial technology

in terms of a comparison to cleanup goals/remediation objectives. For treatment remedies, this

section should identify the quantity of material treated, the strategy used for collecting and

analyzing samples, and the overall results from the sampling and analysis effort. An explanation

of the approved construction quality assurance (QA) and quality control (QC) requirements, or

citations for the appropriate references, should be provided. An explanation of any substantial

problems or deviations should be included.1 An assessment of the performance data quality and

of the overall analytical data quality should be provided, including a brief discussion of the

QA/QC procedures followed, the quality assurance project plan (QAPP) used, and the data

quality objectives (DQOs) to which the analytical data were compared. For PRP-lead projects, a

discussion should be provided of EPA’s oversight activities and results with regard to analytical

data quality. An example section is provided in Exhibit 4-6.

b. Specific topics to consider for this section include sample frequency and protocol,

concentrations of untreated vs. treated contaminants, comparison with cleanup goals, methods of

analysis, and treatment residues. More detailed information on documenting technology

performance is provided in Chapter 5 of this guide (Paragraph 5-1).

 

1

 Note that changes to the remedy selected in the ROD that occurred during the RD/RA process must be described in an

Explanation of Significant Differences (ESD) or a ROD Amendment pursuant to NCP §§300.435(c)(2) and 300.825(a) that is

provided separately from the RA report.
EP 1110-1-19

30 Jun 01

4-9

Exhibit 4-6

Example Performance Standards and Construction Quality Control

(Section 5)

Performance Standards

The quantity of soil treated by landfarming was 8,100 yd3. Initial concentrations of PAHs in untreated, stockpiled

soil ranged from 100 to 208 mg/kg. Upon completion of land treatment, the concentration of TCICs in soil ranged

from 23 to 92 mg/kg.

All soil and sludge samples collected during operation of the land treatment area were analyzed for PAHs. EPA

Method 8270 was used to measure the concentrations of PAHs in all samples. Composite samples were collected

quarterly from eight subplots in the land treatment area over an 18-month operating period. Once the cleanup goal

had been achieved in a subplot, that subplot was not monitored further until an additional lift of soil was applied

to the subplot.

Quality Assurance and Quality Control

The QA/QC program used throughout the operation of the land treatment area was outlined in the RD/RA work

plan and quality assurance project plan (QAPP) approved by EPA. The program enabled EPA to determine that

all analytical results reported were accurate and adequate to ensure satisfactory execution of the remedial action,

in a manner consistent with the requirements of the ROD.

The RA contractor conducted sampling and analysis activities on the soils each quarter. EPA took split samples

during three sampling events, including the final sampling event on June 28, 1998. EPA periodically conducted

oversight of the PRP contractor’s field sampling procedures. While deviations from the approved protocols were

identified, none was sufficiently significant to cause rejection of the data. Matrix spike, duplicate, and blank

samples were analyzed by the laboratory, and the resulting data provided to EPA. On the basis of the split sample

data, the confirmatory sampling data were acceptable to EPA. The Florida Department of Environmental

Regulation (FDER) also reviewed the data and found the data to be acceptable.

The QA/QC program is also being used for the semiannual sampling of groundwater.

Performance Results Compared with Remediation Objectives

Remediation Objectives Performance Results

Reduce concentration of TCICs to 100 mg/kg.

Sampling conducted in June 1998 indicated that the concentration

of TCICs was less than 100 mg/kg and ranged from 23 to 92 mg/kg

in the eight subplots.

Attain desired remediation objectives within two years after

startup of the land treatment operation.

Cleanup levels were attained within 18 months after startup of the

land treatment operation.

Identify, remove, stabilize, and dispose (off-site) of excavated

OU 2 soils with TCIC levels greater than 5,000 mg/kg.

Sampling detected no soils with contamination above this specified

level.
EP 1110-1-19

30 Jun 01

4-10

4-7. Final Inspections and Certifications. This section should report the results of the

various RA contract inspections, and should identify any noted deficiencies. Adherence to

health and safety requirements while implementing the RA should be described briefly. Any

substantial problems or deviations should be explained. This section should summarize details

of the institutional controls, if implemented, (e.g., the type of institutional control, who will

maintain the control, and who will enforce the control). For PRP-lead projects, a description of

the pre-certification inspection results should be included. If applicable, the date that the remedy

was determined to be O&F should also be included. An example section is provided in

Exhibit 4-7.

Exhibit 4-7

Example Final Inspections and Certifications (Section 6)

Inspections

The pre-final inspection of the land treatment area construction was held on-site December 12, 1996, in the

presence of EPA, PRP, and FDER representatives. The FDER representative noted the need to fence the lagoon

for the protection of the public, and a fence was constructed around the lagoon area.

The final inspection was conducted January 12, 1997. EPA, the PRPs, FDER, the Florida Department of Health

and Rehabilitative Services (FDHRS), the Suwanee County Coordinator, and the Mayor of Live Oak were

present.

Representatives verified by review of the manifests that the 7,500 cubic yards of solidified OU1 waste had been

properly transported and disposed off-site at the CWM landfill in Emelle, Alabama. No punch-list items were

identified, and land treatment of the stockpiled contaminated soil was authorized to begin immediately.

Observations, inspections, and testing during operation of the land treatment process found no significant

operational problems affecting the performance of the remedial action. A business east of the site reported

experiencing nuisance smells after the contaminated soils in the land treatment area were tilled. In response, an

effort was made to till when the wind direction was away from the businesses to the east of the site. No further

comments about odors were received during the land treatment operation.

Health and Safety

No health and safety problems were encountered during construction or operation. Modified Level D personal

protective equipment (PPE) was required for all site personnel who came into direct contact with the

contaminated soil. The equipment included coveralls, safety boots, nitrile gloves, and particulate masks.

Certification of Completion

A pre-certification inspection of the completed remedial action was conducted on September 22, 1998, by

representatives of the PRPs, EPA and the FDER. On October 17, 1998, the PRPs provided a written report that

the remedial action has been fully performed and the performance standards of the consent decree have been

attained.
EP 1110-1-19

30 Jun 01

4-11

4-8. Operation & Maintenance Activities. This section should describe the general

activities included as post-construction O&M, such as monitoring, site maintenance, and closure

activities. This can include both short-term (RA operating) and long-term (post-RA) O&M.

Information regarding any LTRAs and PRP LRs should also be included in this section. Any

potential problems or concerns with these activities should be identified here. The results of any

optimization efforts during O&M should be noted. If an interim RA report is being completed,

the future groundwater or surface water restoration activities should be described. An example

O&M activities section is provided in Exhibit 4-8.

Exhibit 4-8

Example Operations & Maintenance Activities (Section 7)

The land treatment area was grass-seeded in September 1998. The vegetative cover will be reseeded in Spring

1999 as necessary.

The semiannual groundwater monitoring program began in January 1997. No TCICs have been detected as of the

July 1998, sampling; however, naphthalene has been detected persistently at low levels in groundwater

monitoring well No. 7. The levels of naphthalene are below any action level. As specified in the ROD, the PRPs

will continue semi-annual monitoring of groundwater through 2002 to confirm that groundwater will not be

adversely impacted by the land treatment activities.

4-9. Summary of Project Costs.

a. This section should present the total costs incurred for the remedial action. These

costs can be designated as capital, O&M, or periodic costs, as described in Chapter 6. Further,

these costs can be designated as RA or post-RA costs (e.g., RA capital costs, RA operating costs,

post-RA O&M costs).

b. The reporting of project costs is required for government-financed projects and

should be provided whenever possible for PRP-lead projects. If the project is PRP-lead, a

summary of government oversight costs for the RD and RA should be included.

c. The year(s) in which costs were incurred should be indicated. If actual costs are

not available, estimated costs should be provided (e.g., when pending claims may impact final

cost).

d. Total project costs at the time of RA completion, actual or estimated, should be

compared to the costs estimated in the ROD for the selected remedy, adjusted to the same dollar

basis year. Adjustment can be made using an escalation factor, for which the index or rate used

should be noted (e.g., Engineering News Record building cost index). If the total project costs

lie outside a range of –30 to +50 percent of the ROD estimate, explanation for these differences

should be included. An example summary of project costs is provided in Exhibit 4-9.

e. In addition to reporting total costs, a cost breakdown, identifying cost elements,

should be provided in an appendix to the RA report. More detailed information on documenting

project costs is provide in Chapter 6 of this guide.
EP 1110-1-19

30 Jun 01

4-12

Exhibit 4-9

Example Summary of Project Costs (Section 8)

The table below provides a summary of the total project costs and a comparison of the actual costs with the ROD

estimate. Appendix B provides additional project cost breakdown.

1 ROD Cost was adjusted from 1996 $$ to 1998 $$ using average 1996 and 1998 ENR building cost index factors. 2 Groundwater monitoring was not included in original ROD. Assumed length of monitoring = 5 years 3 Difference between project cost and ROD estimate is largely attributable to 18 months of actual treatment instead of 24 months

planned in the ROD.

4-10. Observations and Lessons Learned. This section should discuss site- or OU-specific

observations and lessons learned, highlighting successes, problems and their resolutions. The

discussion of the problems and their resolutions will be included in the useful technical

information that will be extracted by the government and compiled for use in future remedy

selections. The information presented should be technical in nature and specific to the site.

Observations or lessons learned relating to both cost and performance of the remedial action are

important to note. An example section is provided in Exhibit 4-10.

Exhibit 4-10

Example Observations and Lessons Learned (Section 9)

♦ The project cost 22% less than the adjusted ROD estimate, largely due to reduced labor and materials costs

associated with achieving remediation objectives in 18 instead of 24 months. Use of an on-site laboratory

also contributed to savings.

♦ The land treatment application was found to be more effective at remediating soils on the site when the soils

were tilled once every two weeks, rather than once every four weeks, as was originally planned.

♦ Application of fertilizers to the soils at the site proved to be unnecessary because of the naturally high

concentrations of inorganic nitrogen and phosphorous in the soil.

Cost Summary

Cost Item ROD Estimate

(1996 $$)

ROD Estimate

(1998 $$)1 Actual Cost

(1998 $$)

RA Capital Cost $266,000 $282,000 $303,026

RA Operating Cost 258,000 273,000 132,497

Total Cost 524,000 555,000 435,523

Projected Future O & M Cost2 21,000

Difference between total project cost

and total ROD cost estimate3 -$119,000 or -22%
EP 1110-1-19

30 Jun 01

4-13

Exhibit 4-10, cont.

Example Observations and Lessons Learned (Section 9)

♦ The relatively mild year-round temperatures at the site provided a beneficial growing environment for the

inoculum of PAH-degrading microorganisms. Consequently, relatively high numbers of microorganisms

remained in the soil, thus reducing the need for repeated soil inoculations.

♦ Soils at the site were difficult to till after heavy rains. Natural drying of the soil took an average of two weeks

before tractors could be operated on the land treatment area.

♦ Nuisance odors were reported on days when soils were tilled. Therefore, measures were taken to till on days

when the wind direction was away from neighboring properties.

4-11. Operable Unit Contact Information. This section should provide contact information

(names, addresses, phone numbers, and contract reference data) for the major design and

remediation contractors and subcontractors, oversight contractors, and the respective project

managers for the government and the PRPs, as applicable. If available, O&M contact

information should be included, such as the prime O&M contractor, subcontractors, and

oversight contractors. Contract numbers for the RA and O&M should also be listed, if available.

If all available information has already been provided as part of the abstract, this section may be

excluded from the RA report. Example information blocks are shown in Exhibit 4-11.

Exhibit 4-11

Example Operable Unit Contact Information (Section 10)

Remedial Action Contractor:

Primary Contact Name and Title:

Company Name:

Address:

Phone Number:

RA Oversight Contractor:

Company

Name: Contract Number:

Address:

Phone

Number:

Work Assignment

Number:

Analytical Laboratory:

For the PRPs:

Company Name:

Address:

Phone Number:
EP 1110-1-19

30 Jun 01

4-14

Exhibit 4-11, cont.

Example Operable Unit Contact Information (Section 10)

For the government:

Contract Number:

Company Name:

Address:

Phone Number:

Project Management:

For the PRPs:

Name:

Company Name:

Address:

Phone Number:

For the government:

Name:

U.S. EPA Region:

Address:

Phone Number:

4-12. References. All references used in preparing the RA report, as well as key documents

relating to the RA, should be listed in the references section of the RA report. Examples of

documents to reference include the ROD, ROD amendment, remedial design documents, key

correspondence/deliverables during the RA, and as-built drawings.
EP 1110-1-19

30 Jun 01

5-1

CHAPTER 5

DOCUMENTING TECHNOLOGY PERFORMANCE

5-1. General. This chapter provides additional information on documenting technology

performance in the RA report, expanding on concepts presented in the previous chapter

(Paragraph 4-6). Technology performance should be documented in Section 5 and Appendix A

of the RA report.

5-2. Recommended Performance Reporting.

a. The performance of a technology is often characterized only in terms of the

percentage of contaminants removed or the concentration of contaminants remediated.

However, that information alone will not adequately assess all aspects of a technology’s

performance. For example, this one-dimensional measure of performance will not document any

of the problems that might have arisen during the technology’s application, or how such

problems were resolved. The information listed in Exhibit 5-1 should be included in the RA

report so that the effectiveness and the appropriateness of the remedy can be quantified and

compared with other alternatives when making future remedy selections at other sites with

similar characteristics.

b. Exhibit 5-1 provides a guide to ensure that all important information related to the

performance of the technology will be documented in the RA report. The level of detail and data

available for each performance topic will vary by technology type and the specific application.

Exhibit 5-1

Recommended Performance Reporting

Performance Topic Type of Information

Types of samples collected ♦ Types of media sampled

♦ Types of constituents analyzed

♦ Use of surrogates (e.g., soil gas as a surrogate for soil borings)

Sample frequency and protocol ♦ Where samples were collected

♦ How samples were collected

♦ When samples were collected

♦ Who collected samples

Quantity of material treated ♦ Quantity of material treated during application

♦ For in situ technologies, area and depth of contaminated material treated

Concentrations of untreated

and treated contaminants

(range and median values)

♦ Measurement of initial conditions (even if not required to demonstrate

compliance with cleanup/remediation criteria)

♦ Measurement of concentrations of contaminants during or after treatment

(note whether data exists for both treated and untreated contaminants or

whether operating data exists that corresponds with performance data)

♦ Assessment of percent removal achieved (note procedure used to derive

percent removal)

♦ Correlation of performance data with other variables
EP 1110-1-19

30 Jun 01

5-2

Exhibit 5-1, cont.

Recommended Performance Reporting

Performance Topic Type of Information

Cleanup goals and/or

remediation objectives

♦ Cleanup goals and/or remediation objectives and source(s)

♦ Criteria for ceasing operation

Comparison with cleanup

goals/remediation objectives

♦ Assessment of whether the technology achieved the cleanup

goals/remediation objectives

♦ Assessment of whether the technology achieved reductions in

concentrations of contaminants beyond the established cleanup

goals/remediation objectives

Method of analysis ♦ Methods of analysis used (including field screening and/or analyses,

portable instruments, mobile laboratory, off-site laboratory, laboratory

procedures, analytical methods, explanation of any nonstandard methods)

♦ Exceptions to standard methodologies

Quality assurance and quality

control (QA/QC)*

♦ Person responsible for QA/QC

♦ Type of QA/QC measures performed

♦ Level of procedures

♦ Exceptions to QA/QC protocol or data quality objectives

Other residues ♦ Types of residues generated (e.g., off-gases, wastewaters, or sludges)

♦ Measurement of mass or volume, and concentration of contaminants in

each treatment residue

* Note that only general QA/QC information is recommended; any exceptions to the QA/QC procedures should be documented.

c. For RA reports involving long-term response actions, such as groundwater pump

and treat remedies, interim RA reports should include the most recent performance results, and

information about the project’s progress and status in order to indicate how well a technology

has been performing over time. Final RA reports should update the performance data included in

the interim report once the project has been completed.

5-3. Factors that Affect Cost and Performance.

a. The Guide to Documenting and Managing Cost and Performance Information for

Remediation Projects (EPA 542-B-98-007) lists factors that can affect the cost or performance of

a treatment technology and recommends that those factors be documented when reporting

technology cost and performance. These include matrix characteristics, such as soil types, soil

properties, and organic contaminants that may be present in a matrix being treated; and operating

parameters of the treatment system, such as residence time and system throughput. Nonmatrix

characteristics such as geology and hydrogeology for in situ applications are also important to

document. Technologies for which factors are provided are listed in Exhibit 5-2. Suggested

parameters to report for these technologies are provided in Exhibit 5-3.
EP 1110-1-19

30 Jun 01

5-3

Exhibit 5-2

Example Remedial Technologies

Ex Situ Soil Remediation Groundwater Remediation and/or Containment

♦ Composting

♦ Incineration

♦ Land Treatment

♦ Slurry-Phase Bioremediation

♦ Soil Washing

♦ Stabilization

♦ Thermal Desorption

In Situ Soil Remediation and/or

Containment

♦ Bioventing

♦ Capping

♦ In Situ Heating

♦ Phytoremediation

♦ Soil Flushing

♦ Soil Vapor Extraction

♦ Vitrification

♦ Air Sparging

♦ Bioremediation

♦ Bioslurping

♦ Circulating Wells (UVB)

♦ Cosolvents and Surfactants

♦ Multi-Phase Extraction

♦ Dynamic Underground Stripping

♦ In Situ Oxidation (Fenton’s Reagent)

♦ Natural Attenuation (Chlorinated Compounds)

♦ Natural Attenuation (Nonchlorinated

Hydrocarbons)

♦ Permeable Reactive Barriers

♦ Phytoremediation

♦ Pump and Treat System

♦ Steam Flushing

♦ Vertical Barrier Walls

b. For the RA report, both matrix characteristics and operating parameters of the

treatment system should be reported in an appendix as well as site conditions (e.g.,

geology/hydrogeology), as applicable, that may impact the cost and performance of the treatment

technologies used in the remedy. The appendix should report the values or results of each

parameter as well as the procedures used to measure the parameter.
Exhibit 5-3

Suggested Parameters to Report that Affect Cost and Performance

Soil Types Aggregate Soil Matrix Properties Organic Properties System Parameters 

Technology

Operating Parameters

Soil Classification

Clay Content and/or

Particle Size Distribution

Hydraulic Conductivity

Moisture Content

Air Permeability

pH

Porosity

Depth or Thickness of

Zone of Interest

Total Organic Carbon

Oil and Grease or Total

Petroleum Hydrocarbons

Presence of NAPLs

Air Flow Rate

Mixing Rate / Frequency

Operating Pressure /

Vacuum

pH

Pumping Rate

Residence Time

System Throughput

Temperature

Components/Additives &

Dosage for Wash/Flush

Biomass Concentration

Mibil Atiit

Bioventing        Capping     In Situ Heating        Phytoremediation        Soil Flushing       Soil Vapor Extraction        In Situ Soil Remediation

and/or Containment

Vitrification     Composting       Incineration      

5-4

Land Treatment         Slurry-Phase Bioremediation        Soil Washing     Stabilization      

Ex Situ Soil Remediation

Thermal Desorption     

Nonmatrix Characteristics that Affect Cost or Performances Notes

Contaminants: Type and concentration of contaminants.Cleanup goals/remediation objectives and requirements: Maximum contaminant levels, schedules, sampling and analysis.Environmental Setting (for In Situ Technologies): Geology, stratigraphy, and hydrogeology (primarily).Quantiy of material treated. Cubic yards or 1,000 gallons of water.

1 Future use; precipitation; design infiltration rate; permeability of clay liner, geomemb2 Electrical conductivity (for electrical heating); electrical or radio frequency (RF) powe3 Plants per unit area and plant type4 Lower explosive limit; glass-forming metals; electrical conductivity; power consumpt5 Moisture content; soil loading rate6 BTU value; halogen content; metal content7 Field capacity; moisture content8 Density of slurry; volume fraction of water9 Cation exchange capacity of soils10 Curing time; compressive strength; volume increase; permeability11 Bulk density
Exhibit 5-3, cont.

Suggested Parameters to Report that Affect Cost and Performance

Soil Types Aggregate Soil Matrix Properties Organic Properties System Parameters 

Technology

Operating Parameters

Soil Classification

Clay Content and/or

Particle Size Distribution

Hydraulic Conductivity

Moisture Content

Air Permeability

pH

Porosity

Depth or Thickness of

Zone of Interest

Total Organic Carbon

Oil and Grease or Total

Petroleum Hydrocarbons

Presence of NAPLs

Air Flow Rate

Mixing Rate / Frequency

Operating Pressure /

Vacuum

pH

Pumping Rate

Residence Time

System Throughput

Temperature

Components/Additives &

Dosage for Wash/Flush

Biomass Concentration

Mibil Atiit

Air Sparging       Bioremediation        Bioslurpiing       Circulating Wells (UVB)         Cosolvents/Surfactants        Dual-Phase Extraction        Dynamic Underground Stripping         In Situ Oxidation (Fenton’s Reagent)        Natural Attenuation (Chlorinated)          Natural Attenuation (Nonchlorinated)        Permeable Reactive Barriers       Phytoremediation        Pump and Treat System      

5-5

Steam Flushing       

Groundwater Remediation and/or Containment

Vertical Barrier Walls    

Nonmatrix Characteristics that Affect Cost or Performances Notes

Contaminants: Type and concentration of contaminants.Cleanup goals/remediation objectives and requirements: Maximum contaminant levels, schedules, sampling and analysis.Environmental Setting (for In Situ Technologies): Geology, stratigraphy, and hydrogeology (primarily).Quantiy of material treated. Cubic yards or 1,000 gallons of water.

12 Efficiency of recovery and recycling13 Injection rates; costs of chemicals14 Redox conditions; electron acceptors (oxygen, nitrate, iron, sulfate, methane); elec

 presence of breakdown products; levels of ethene, ethane, or methane

15 Dissolved oxygen levels; electron acceptors (oxygen, nitrate, iron, sulfate, methane)16 Flow rate through gate (for funnel-and-gate system); type of reactant (e.g., iron gran17 Plants per unit area and plant type18 For the treatment component of the pump and treat system, the operating parame

 used (e.g., carbon adsorption, air stripper); for additional information, please refe

 Environmental Restoration Cost and Performance, USACE 199619 Permeability of wall material and depth of key
EP 1110-1-19

30 Jun 01

5-6

c. Exhibits 5-4 and 5-5 provide examples of how matrix characteristics and

operating parameters may be reported in Appendix A of the RA report for a remedial action that

uses a land treatment system to remediate contaminated soil.

Exhibit 5-4

Example Matrix Characteristics

Parameter Value/Result Measurement Procedure

Soil Types

Soil classification

Mixture of lagoon contents;

lagoon had a clay bottom and

sandy contents, which ranged from

silty clay to fine sand

Because the medium treated was a

mixture of lagoon contents, it did not lend

itself to a formal classification analysis.

Aggregate Soil Properties

pH 6.9

The value listed represents an average

measured during one of the sampling

events; EPA Method SW-846/9045 was

used to measure the pH of the soil.

Total organic carbon 16,000 mg/kg

The value listed represents an average

measured during one of the sampling

events; EPA Method SW-846/9060 was

used to measure the total organic carbon

in the soil.

Quantity of soil treated 8,100 yd3 (total for 3 lifts) NA

NA - not applicable. Measurement procedures are reported only for those parameters where different procedures are available.
EP 1110-1-19

30 Jun 01

5-7

Exhibit 5-5

Example Operating Parameters

Parameter Value/Result Measurement Procedure

System Parameters

Soil mixing rate /

frequency

Soil placed in the subplots

was tilled every two weeks.

Mixing rate or frequency is the rate of tilling for land

treatment.

Soil moisture content

(%)

12.4 - 22.8 (Lift 1)

12.9 - 21.1 (Lift 2)

8.5 - 14.7 (Lift 3)

Soil moisture was measured using the gravimetric

ASTM standard D 2216-90, Test Method for

Laboratory Determination of Water (Moisture) Content

of Soil and Rock.

pH

6.6 - 7.2 (Lift 1)

6.8 - 7.5 (Lift 2)

6.4 - 7.0 (Lift 3)

Values shown represent the ranges of pH for each lift.

EPA Method SW-846/9045 was used to measure the pH

content.

Residence time

(months)

9 - 15 (Lift 1)

6 - 10 (Lift 2)

4 (Lift 3)

Ranges are given for each lift because of the variations

by subplot.

Soil temperature (°F)

13 - 99 (Lift 1)

13 - 102 (Lift 2)

29 - 102 (Lift 3)

NA

Biological Activity

Carbon/Total Kjeldahl

Nitrogen

8.8 - 15.4 (Lift 1)

8.8 - 78 (Lift 2)

6 - 67 (Lift 3)

Values represent the ratio of Carbon to Total Kjeldahl

Nitrogen in the soil at the time of measurement for each

lift. Ranges are shown for the eight treatment subplots.

EPA Methods 415.1 (Modified) and 351.1 (Modified)

were used.

Hydrocarbon

degradation

(mg/kg/month)

13 - 58 (Lift 1)

No values were determined

for Lifts 2 and 3.

Calculation of hydrocarbon degradation was based on

the difference between the initial and final TCIC

concentrations in the first lift and dividing that value by

the amount of time required for treatment of soil in that

cell in the first lift. The values shown represent the

range measured for the eight treatment subplots.

PAH degraders

(cfu/gm)

1.0x10 5 - 5.0x10 7 (Lift 1)

7.0x10 2 - 4.5x10 6 (Lift 2)

No values were determined

for Lift 3.

“Replica Plating Method for Estimating PhenanthreneUtilizing and Phenanthrene-Cometabolizing Microorganisms,” Shiaris, M., Cooney, J., Applied and

Environmental Microbiology, February 1983, Vol. 45,

No. 2, pp. 706-710.

Total heterotrophs

(cfu/gm)

7x10 5 - 9.9x10 7 (Lift 1)

6.3x10 5 - 6.6x10 7 (Lift 2)

7.0x10 4 - 1.1x10 7 (Lift 3)

“Agar-Plate Method for Total Microbial Count,”

F. Clark, Methods of Soil Analysis, Vol. 2, pp. 1460-

1465.

NA - not applicable. Measurement procedures are reported only for those parameters where different procedures are available.
EP 1110-1-19

30 Jun 01

6-1

CHAPTER 6

DOCUMENTING PROJECT COSTS

6-1. General.

a. This chapter provides more detailed information on documenting project costs in

the RA report, expanding on concepts presented in Chapter 4 (Paragraph 4-9). For

environmental restoration projects, project costs should be reported using primarily the RA (for

RA capital and operating costs) and O&M (for post-RA costs) work breakdown structures, which

are intended to coincide with the RA and O&M

phases of the remedial response process. The

use of the RA WBS will help provide RA cost

data for input into HCAS. Cost reporting

templates for HCAS data entry are provided in

Appendix D of this guide. The data from these

templates will be input by the USACE HTRW

CX into the HCAS software upon receiving the

RA report. Cost data should be documented in

Appendix B of the RA report.

b. Each project typically uses a

project-specific WBS to roll up costs. For the

purposes of upward reporting of costs in a standardized manner in the RA report, these costs

must be mapped from the project-specific WBS to the standard HTRW RA WBS. This will

permit a standardized roll up of costs for nationwide historical cost input to the HCAS database.

6-2. Definitions. The types of costs to document in the RA report include capital, O&M (RA

operating and post-RA O&M), and periodic costs. These are defined below. Figure 6-1

illustrates the relationship of these costs to the RA and O&M phases.

a. Capital costs are those expenditures that are required to construct the RA. They

are exclusive of the costs required to operate or maintain the action throughout its lifetime.

Capital costs consist primarily of expenditures initially incurred to build or install the remedial

action (e.g., construction of a groundwater treatment system and related site work). Capital costs

include all labor, equipment, and material costs, including contractor markups such as overhead

and profit, associated with construction activities. The RA WBS should be primarily used to

report capital costs. Capital costs can also include expenditures for professional/technical

services that are necessary to support construction of the RA.

b. O&M costs are those post-construction costs necessary to ensure or verify the

continued effectiveness of a remedial action. O&M costs documented in the RA report can

include RA operating costs and post-RA O&M costs. The RA WBS should be primarily used to

report RA operating costs and the O&M WBS should be primarily used to estimate post-RA

O&M costs. O&M costs include all labor, equipment, and material costs, including contractor

markups such as overhead and profit, associated with O&M activities. O&M costs can also

include expenditures for professional/technical services necessary to support O&M activities.

Actual vs. Estimated Costs

Often, especially at sites involving

groundwater remediation, the actual costs

associated with the RA will not be available at the

time the RA report is being written. In addition,

costs may not be available at PRP sites, or

because of claims and change orders, which may

not be settled until many years after RA

completion. In these cases, the best available

estimated costs should be used.
EP 1110-1-19

30 Jun 01

6-2

c. Periodic costs are those capital or O&M costs that occur only once every few

years (e.g., five-year reviews, equipment replacement) or expenditures that occur only once

during the entire O&M period or remedial timeframe (e.g., site close out). Periodic costs can be

incurred during the RA operating period, but are more likely to be incurred during the post-RA

O&M period. Either the RA or O&M WBS can be used to report periodic costs.

Exhibit 6-1

Relationship of Capital and O&M Costs to Pipeline Phases

6-3. Cost Element Structure. All applicable capital, O&M, and periodic costs should be

documented in the RA report. To help identify the cost element structure to report costs; capital,

O&M, and periodic cost elements are described in Exhibits 6-2, 6-3, and 6-4, respectively.

Exhibits 6-2 and 6-3 includes second-level elements from the HTRW RA and O&M work

breakdown structures, respectively, for construction and O&M activities. Professional/technical

services and institutional controls have been added to the descriptions in Exhibits 6-2 and 6-3;

however, these costs are not reported into HCAS. More information on the RA and O&M work

breakdown structures is provided below.

a. The RA WBS, Account 33XXX, includes construction (RA capital) and operation

during the remedial action (RA operating). Account 33XXX excludes all project management at

all phases and excludes pre construction investigations and remedial design. Account 33XXX

excludes post construction O&M, which is in Account 34XXX.

b. The O&M WBS, Account 34XXX, includes post construction O&M (post RA

O&M), which is long term, indefinite term, or caretaker status following remedial action.

Account 34XXX includes such items as operation labor and equipment, maintenance and repair,

fuel, utilities, bulk chemicals, raw materials, plant ownership/rental, plant upgrades and

replacements, transport waste materials to the plant, preparation and handling of waste materials

at the plant, training, regulatory approvals, etc.

6-4. Capital Cost Elements. The majority of the capital cost elements listed in Exhibit 6-2

are construction activities (e.g., sitework) that are incurred as part of the physical construction of

the RA. Project management, remedial design, and construction management are
EP 1110-1-19

30 Jun 01

6-3

professional/technical services to support construction of the remedial action. Institutional

controls, which are legal or administrative measures used to limit or restrict site access, can be a

major component of the RA (if required) and therefore warrant separate consideration.

Contingency is not included as a separate cost element since the costs reported in the RA report

are known, or actual, RA costs.

Exhibit 6-2

RA Capital and Operating Cost Elements

Cost Element Description

331XX.01

Mobilization and

Preparatory Work

Includes all preparatory work required during remedial action or construction. This

includes submittals; construction plans; mobilization of personnel, facilities and

equipment; construction of temporary facilities; temporary utilities; temporary

relocations and setup of decontamination facilities and construction plant.

331XX.02

Monitoring,

Sampling, Testing,

and Analysis

Provides for all work during remedial action associated with air, water, sludge, solids

and soil sampling, monitoring, testing, and analysis. Includes sample taking, shipping

samples and sample analysis by on-site and off-site laboratory facilities.

331XX.03

Sitework

Sitework during remedial action consists of site preparation, site improvements, and

site utilities. Site preparation includes demolition, clearing, and earthwork. Site

improvements include roads, parking, curbs, gutters, walks and other hardscaping.

Site utilities include water, sewer, gas, other utility distribution. Also includes new

fuel storage tanks. All work involving contaminated or hazardous material is excluded

from this system. Storm drainage involving contaminated surface water is included

under "Surface Water Collection and Control" (331XX.05). Note that topsoil, seeding,

landscaping and reestablishment of existing structures altered during remediation

activities are included in "Site Restoration" (331XX.20).

331XX.04

Ordnance and

Explosive-Chemical

Warfare Material

Removal and

Destruction

Includes the locating, removing, and destruction of all ordnance, conventional or

chemical, fused or unfused, related scrap, propellants, and delivery vehicles during

remedial action. Providing for public involvement, providing subsurface data for the

delineating the extent of the contamination. Also includes the construction of

temporary explosive storage bunkers and surveys.

331XX.05

Surface Water

Collection and

Control

Provides for the collection and control of contaminated surface water through the

construction of storm drainage piping and structures, erosion control measures, and

civil engineering structures such as berms, dikes and levees. Includes the collection of

surface water through the construction of lagoons, basins, tanks, dikes, and pump

systems. Includes transport to treatment plant.

331XX.06

Groundwater

Collection and

Control

Provides for the remedial action collection and control of contaminated groundwater

through the construction of piping, wells, trenches, slurry walls, sheet piling and other

physical barriers. Includes the collection of groundwater through the construction of

lagoons, basins, tanks, dikes, and pump systems. Includes transport to treatment plant.

331XX.07

Air Pollution/Gas

Collection and

Control

Includes the remedial action construction for the collection and control of gas, vapor

and dust.
EP 1110-1-19

30 Jun 01

6-4

Exhibit 6-2, cont.

RA Capital and Operating Cost Elements

Cost Element Description

331XX.08

Solids Collection and

Containment

Provides for exhuming and handling of solid hazardous, toxic and radioactive waste

(HTRW) during remedial action through excavation, sorting, stockpiling, and filling

containers. Provides for containment of solid waste through the construction of

multilayered caps as well as dynamic compaction of burial grounds, cribs, or other

waste disposal units. Includes transport to treatment plant.

331XX.09

Liquids/Sediment/Slu

dge Collection and

Containment

Includes collection during remedial action of HTRW-contaminated liquids and sludges

through dredging and vacuuming, and the furnishing and filling of portable containers.

Includes the containment of liquids and sludges through the construction of lagoons,

basins, tanks, dikes, and drain system. Includes transport to treatment plant.

331XX.10

Drums/Tanks/Structu

res/Miscellaneous

Demolition and

Removal

Includes the demolition and removal during remedial action of HTRW contaminated

drums, tanks, contaminated paint removal, and other structures by excavation and

downsizing. Does not include filling portable hazardous waste containers or transport

of wastes to treatment or disposal facilities. See "Solids Collection and Containment"

(331XX.08), "Disposal (Other than Commercial)" (331XX.18), and "Disposal

(Commercial)" (331XX.19)

331XX.11

Biological Treatment

Includes operation (separate items for each subsystem technology) of the plant facility

during the remedial action phase, based on the volume of waste material treated,

including portable treatment equipment which is charged on a time basis and can be

used on more than one project (331XX.11.(01.-14.)). Includes a separate item for the

construction of a permanent plant facility, including permanent treatment equipment

which is purchased for one project only (331XX.11.50.). Biological treatment is the

microbial transformation of organic compounds. Biological treatment processes can

alter inorganic compounds such as ammonia and nitrate, and can change the oxidation

state of certain metal compounds. Includes in-situ biological treatment such as land

farming as well as activated sludge, composting, trickling filters, anaerobic, and

aerobic digestion. Includes process equipment and chemicals required for treatment.

For transportation see "Transport to Treatment Plant" (331XX.05.11, 331XX.06.08,

331XX.08.03 or 331XX.09.04).

331XX.12

Chemical Treatment

Includes operation (separate items for each subsystem technology) of the plant facility

during the remedial action phase, based on the volume of waste material treated,

including portable treatment equipment which is charged on a time basis and can be

used on more than one project (331XX.12.(01.-14.)). Includes a separate item for the

construction of a permanent plant facility, including permanent treatment equipment

which is purchased for one project only (331XX.12.50.). Chemical treatment is the

process in which hazardous wastes are chemically changed to remove toxic

contaminants from the environment. Type of treatment included in this system are

oxidation/reduction, solvent extraction, chlorination, ozonation, ion exchange,

neutralization, hydrolysis, photolysis, dechlorination, and electrolysis reactions.

Includes process equipment and chemicals required for treatment. For transportation

see "Transport to Treatment Plant" (331XX.05.11, 331XX.06.08, 331XX.08.03 or

331XX.09.04).
EP 1110-1-19

30 Jun 01

6-5

Exhibit 6-2, cont.

RA Capital and Operating Cost Elements

Cost Element Description

331XX.13

Physical Treatment

Includes operation (separate items for each subsystem technology) of the plant facility

during the remedial action phase, based on the volume of waste material treated,

including portable treatment equipment which is charged on a time basis and can be

used on more than one project (331XX.13.(01.-32.)). Includes a separate item for the

construction of a permanent plant facility, including permanent treatment equipment

which is purchased for one project only (331XX.13.50.). These treatment processes

are the physical separation of contaminants from solid, liquid or gaseous waste

streams. The treatments are applicable to a broad range of contaminant

concentrations. Physical treatments generally do not result in total destruction or

separation of the contaminants in the waste stream, consequently post-treatment is

often required. Type of physical treatment included in this system are filtration,

sedimentation, flocculation, precipitation, equalization, evaporation, stripping, soil

washing, and carbon adsorption. Includes process equipment and chemicals required

for treatment. For transportation see "Transport to Treatment Plant" (331XX.05.11,

331XX.06.08, 331XX.08.03 or 331XX.09.04).

331XX.14

Thermal Treatment

Includes operation (separate items for each subsystem technology) of the plant facility

during the remedial action phase, based on the volume of waste material treated,

including portable treatment equipment which is charged on a time basis and can be

used on more than one project (331XX.14.(01.-07.)). Includes a separate item for the

construction of a permanent plant facility, including permanent treatment equipment

which is purchased for one project only (331XX.14.50.). Thermal treatment is the

destruction of wastes through exposure to high temperature in combustion chambers

and energy recovery devices. Several processes capable of incinerating a wide range

of liquid and solid wastes include fluidized bed, rotary kiln, multiple hearth, infrared,

circulating bed, liquid injection, pyrolysis, plasma torch, wet air oxidation,

supercritical water oxidation, molten salt destruction, and solar detoxification.

Includes process equipment and chemicals required for treatment. For transportation

see "Transport to Treatment Plant" (331XX.05.11, 331XX.06.08, 331XX.08.03 or

331XX.09.04).

331XX.15

Stabilization/Fixation/

Solidification

Includes operation (separate items for each subsystem technology) of the plant facility

during the remedial action phase, based on the volume of waste material treated,

including portable treatment equipment which is charged on a time basis and can be

used on more than one project (331XX.15.(01.-07.)). Includes a separate item for the

construction of a permanent plant facility, including permanent treatment equipment

which is purchased for one project only (331XX.15.50.). Stabilization/fixation/encapsulation processes attempt to improve the handling and physical

characteristics of the wastes, decrease the surface area, limit the solubility of any

pollutants and detoxify contained pollutants. For transportation see "Transport to

Treatment Plant" (331XX.05.11, 331XX.06.08, 331XX.08.03 or 331XX.09.04).

331XX.16

Reserved

Reserved for future use.
EP 1110-1-19

30 Jun 01

6-6

Exhibit 6-2, cont.

RA Capital and Operating Cost Elements

Cost Element Description

331XX.17

Decontamination and

Decommissioning

(D&D)

Decontamination and decommissioning during remedial action are all activities

associated with shutdown and final cleanup of a nuclear or other facility. Includes

facility shutdown and dismantling activities, preparation of decommissioning plans,

procurement of equipment and materials, research and development, spent fuel

handling, and hot cell cleanup.

331XX.18

Disposal (Other than

Commercial)

Includes operation (separate items for each subsystem disposal method) of the plant

facility during the remedial action phase, based on the volume of waste material

disposed, including portable treatment equipment which is charged on a time basis and

can be used on more than one project (331XX.18.(01.-10.)). Includes a separate item

for the construction of a permanent disposal facility, including permanent disposal

equipment, which is purchased for one disposal facility only (331XX.18.15.).

Disposal (Other than Commercial) provides for the final placement of HTRW or

ordnance at facilities owned or controlled by the Government. An example would be

the disposal of wastes through burial at a DOE nuclear facility or ordnance disposal at

DOD facilities. Includes handling, disposal fees, and transportation to the final

Destruction/Disposal/Storage facility. Excluded is the transportation to a facility for

treatment prior to final disposal. For transportation prior to final disposal see

"Transport to Treatment Plant" (331XX.05.11, 331XX.06.08, 331XX.08.03 or

331XX.09.04). Disposal may be accomplished through the use of secure landfills,

burial grounds, trench, pits, above ground vault, underground vault, underground

mine/shaft, tanks, pads (tumulus / retrievable storage, other), storage buildings or

protective cover structures, cribs, deep well injection, incinerator, or other.

331XX.19

Disposal

(Commercial)

Commercial disposal during remedial action provides for the final placement of

HTRW at third party commercial facilities that charge a fee to accept waste depending

on a variety of waste acceptance criteria. Fees are assessed based on different waste

categories, methods of handling, and characterization. Disposal may be accomplished

through the use of secure landfills, surface impoundments, deep well injection, or

incineration. Includes transportation to the final Destruction/Disposal/Storage facility.

Excludes transportation to a facility for treatment prior to disposal. For transportation

see "Transport to Treatment Plant" (331XX.05.11, 331XX.06.08, 331XX.08.03 or

331XX.09.04).

331XX.20

Site Restoration

Site restoration during remedial action includes topsoil, seeding, landscaping,

restoration of roads and parking, and other hardscaping disturbed during site

remediation. Note that all vegetation and planting is to be included as well as the

installation of any site improvement damaged or altered during construction. All

vegetation and planting for the purpose of erosion control during construction

activities should be placed under "Erosion Control" (331XX.05.13). Treated soil used

as backfill will be placed under "Disposal (Other than Commercial)" (331XX.18). All

new site improvements, those not disturbed during construction, are to be included

under "Sitework" (331XX.03).
EP 1110-1-19

30 Jun 01

6-7

Exhibit 6-2, cont.

RA Capital and Operating Cost Elements

Cost Element Description

331XX.21

Demobilization

Provides for all work associated with remedial action plant takedown and removal of

temporary facilities, utilities, equipment, material, and personnel.

331XX.9x

Other

Includes all Hazardous, Toxic, Radioactive Waste Remedial Action work not

described by the above-listed systems.

Project Management Professional/technical services to support construction or installation of remedial

action not specific to remedial design or construction management.

Remedial Design Professional/technical services to design the remedial action, including pre-design

activities to collect the necessary data.

Construction

Management

Professional/technical services to manage construction or installation of remedial

action, excluding any similar services provided as part of construction activities.

Institutional Controls Non-engineering (i.e., administrative or legal) measures to reduce or minimize

potential for exposure to site contamination or hazards (i.e., limit site access or restrict

site access).

6-5. O&M Cost Elements.

a. Many of the O&M cost elements listed in Exhibit 6-3 are incurred as part of

physical operation and maintenance activities. Project management and technical support are

professional/technical services to support O&M activities. Institutional controls may require

annual update or maintenance to ensure potential for exposure to site contamination or hazards is

reduced or minimized. Contingency, which covers unknowns or unanticipated conditions

associated with future O&M activities, should be added to the total of projected O&M costs (i.e.,

post-RA O&M), which are estimated only at the time of the RA report.

b. O&M costs can vary and may be estimated for different time periods, depending

on the operating conditions and requirements. For example, the first five years of a groundwater

monitoring program may require semiannual sampling, while the next twenty years may only

require annual sampling. Likewise, an installed cap or cover may require more frequent

inspections during the first year of O&M than during subsequent years.
EP 1110-1-19

30 Jun 01

6-8

Exhibit 6-3

Post-RA O&M Cost Elements

Cost Element Description

342XX.02

Monitoring, Sampling,

Testing, and Analysis

Provides for all work during post construction O&M associated with air, water,

sludge, solids and soil sampling, monitoring, testing, and analysis. Includes

sample taking, shipping samples and sample analysis by on-site and off-site

laboratory facilities.

342XX.03

Sitework

Post construction O&M. Sitework includes site improvements, and site

utilities. Site improvements include roads, parking, curbs, gutters, walks and

other hardscaping. Site utilities include water, sewer, gas, other utility

distribution. Also includes fuel storage tanks. All work involving

contaminated or hazardous material is excluded from this system. Storm

drainage involving contaminated surface water is included under "Surface

Water Collection and Control" (342XX.05).

342XX.05

Surface Water Collection

and Control

Provides for post construction O&M of the system for the collection and

control of contaminated surface water through storm drainage piping and

structures, erosion control measures, and civil engineering structures such as

berms, dikes and levees. Includes transport to treatment plant.

342XX.06

Groundwater Collection

and Control

Provides for post construction O&M of the system for the collection and

control of contaminated groundwater through piping, wells, trenches, slurry

walls, sheet piling and other physical barriers. Includes transport to treatment

plant.

342XX.07

Air Pollution/Gas Collection

and Control

Includes the post construction O&M of the system for collection and control of

gas, vapor, and dust.

342XX.08

Solids Collection and

Containment

Provides for post construction O&M of the system for exhuming and handling

of solid hazardous, toxic and radioactive waste (HTRW) through excavation,

sorting, stockpiling, and filling containers. Provides for post construction

O&M of multilayered caps. Includes transport to treatment plant.

342XX.09

Liquids/Sediments/Sludge

Collection and Containment

Includes post construction O&M of the system for collection of HTRWcontaminated liquids and sludges through dredging and vacuuming, and the

furnishing and filling of portable containers. Includes the post construction

O&M of the system for containment of liquids and sludges through lagoons,

basins, tanks, and dikes. Includes transport to treatment plant.
EP 1110-1-19

30 Jun 01

6-9

Exhibit 6-3, cont.

Post-RA O&M Cost Elements

Cost Element Description

342XX.11

Biological Treatment

Includes post construction O&M (separate for each subsystem technology) of

the plant facility, based on the volume of waste material treated, including

portable treatment equipment which is charged on a time basis and can be used

on more than one project (342XX.11.(01.-14.)). Includes a separate item for

the yearly post construction O&M of a permanent plant facility

(342XX.11.50.). Biological treatment is the microbial transformation of

organic compounds. Biological treatment processes can alter inorganic

compounds such as ammonia and nitrate, and can change the oxidation state of

certain metal compounds. Includes in-situ biological treatment such as land

farming as well as activated sludge, composting, trickling filters, anaerobic,

and aerobic digestion. Includes process equipment and chemicals required for

treatment. For transportation see "Transport to Treatment Plant"

(342XX.05.11, 342XX.06.08, 342XX.08.03 or 342XX.09.04).

342XX.12

Chemical Treatment

Includes post construction O&M (separate for each subsystem technology) of

the plant facility, based on the volume of waste material treated, including

portable treatment equipment which is charged on a time basis and can be used

on more than one project (342XX.12.(01.-14.)). Includes a separate item for

the yearly post construction O&M of a permanent plant facility

(342XX.12.50.). Chemical treatment is the process in which hazardous wastes

are chemically changed to remove toxic contaminants from the environment.

Type of treatment included in this system are oxidation/reduction, solvent

extraction, chlorination, ozonation, ion exchange, neutralization, hydrolysis,

photolysis, dechlorination, and electrolysis reactions. Includes process

equipment and chemicals required for treatment. For transportation see

"Transport to Treatment Plant" (342XX.05.11, 342XX.06.08, 342XX.08.03 or

342XX.09.04).

342XX.13

Physical Treatment

Includes post construction O&M (separate for each subsystem technology) of

the plant facility, based on the volume of waste material treated, including

portable treatment equipment which is charged on a time basis and can be used

on more than one project (342XX.13.(01.-32.)). Includes a separate item for

the yearly post construction O&M of a permanent plant facility

(342XX.13.50.). These treatment processes are the physical separation of

contaminants from solid, liquid or gaseous waste streams. The treatments are

applicable to a broad range of contaminant concentrations. Physical treatments

generally do not result in total destruction or separation of the contaminants in

the waste stream, consequently post-treatment is often required. Type of

physical treatment included in this system are filtration, sedimentation,

flocculation, precipitation, equalization, evaporation, stripping, soil washing,

and carbon adsorption. Includes process equipment and chemicals required for

treatment. For transportation see "Transport to Treatment Plant"

(342XX.05.11, 342XX.06.08, 342XX.08.03 or 342XX.09.04).
EP 1110-1-19

30 Jun 01

6-10

Exhibit 6-3, cont.

Post-RA O&M Cost Elements

Cost Element Description

342XX.14

Thermal Treatment

Includes post construction O&M (separate for each subsystem technology) of

the plant facility, based on the volume of waste material treated, including

portable treatment equipment which is charged on a time basis and can be used

on more than one project (342XX.14.(01.-07.)). Includes a separate item for

the yearly post construction O&M of a permanent plant facility

(342XX.14.50.). Thermal treatment is the destruction of wastes through

exposure to high temperature in combustion chambers and energy recovery

devices. Several processes capable of incinerating a wide range of liquid and

solid wastes include fluidized bed, rotary kiln, multiple hearth, infrared,

circulating bed, liquid injection, pyrolysis, plasma torch, wet air oxidation,

supercritical water oxidation, molten salt destruction, and solar detoxification.

Includes process equipment and chemicals required for treatment. For

transportation see "Transport to Treatment Plant" (342XX.05.11,

342XX.06.08, 342XX.08.03 or 342XX.09.04).

342XX.15

Stabilization/Fixation/

Capsulation

Includes post construction O&M (separate for each subsystem technology) of

the plant facility, based on the volume of waste material treated, including

portable treatment equipment which is charged on a time basis and can be used

on more than one project (342XX.15.(01.-07.)). Includes a separate item for

the yearly post construction O&M of a permanent plant facility

(342XX.15.50.). Stabilization/fixation/encapsulation processes attempt to

improve the handling and physical characteristics of the wastes, decrease the

surface area, limit the solubility of any pollutants and detoxify contained

pollutants. For transportation see "Transport to Treatment Plant"

(342XX.05.11, 342XX.06.08, 342XX.08.03 or 342XX.09.04).

342XX.18

Disposal (Other than

Commercial)

Includes post construction O&M (separate for each subsystem disposal

method) of the plant facility, based on the volume of waste material disposed,

including portable treatment equipment which is charged on a time basis and

can be used on more than one project (331XX.18.(01.-10.)). Includes a

separate item for the yearly post construction O&M of a permanent disposal

facility (342XX.18.15.). Disposal (Other than Commercial) provides for the

final placement of HTRW or ordnance at facilities owned or controlled by the

Government. An example would be the disposal of wastes through burial at a

DOE nuclear facility or ordnance disposal at DOD facilities. Includes

handling, disposal fees, and transportation to the final Destruction/Disposal/

Storage facility. Excluded is the transportation to a facility for treatment prior

to final disposal. For transportation prior to final disposal see "Transport to

Treatment Plant" (342XX.05.11, 342XX.06.08, 342XX.08.03 or

342XX.09.04). Disposal may be accomplished through the use of secure

landfills, burial grounds, trench, pits, above ground vault, underground vault,

underground mine/shaft, tanks, pads (tumulus / retrievable storage, other),

storage buildings or protective cover structures, cribs, deep well injection,

incinerator, or other.

342XX.9X

Other

Includes all Hazardous, Toxic, Radioactive Waste post construction O&M

work not described by the above listed systems.

Contingency Costs to cover unknowns, unforeseen circumstances, or unanticipated

conditions associated with projected post-RA O&M.
EP 1110-1-19

30 Jun 01

6-11

Exhibit 6-3, cont.

Post-RA O&M Cost Elements

Cost Element Description

Project Management Professional/technical services to manage O&M activities not specific to

technical support listed below.

Technical Support Professional/technical services to monitor, evaluate, and report progress of

operation and maintenance.

Institutional Controls Update or maintenance of non-engineering measures to reduce or minimize

potential for exposure to site contamination or hazards.

6-6. Periodic Cost Elements. The periodic cost elements listed in Exhibit 6-4 include both

construction or O&M-type activities and professional/technical services. Distinctions should be

made between periodic costs that occur during the RA operating and post-RA O&M periods.

Contingency should be added to projected periodic costs that may occur during the post-RA

O&M period. Periodic costs should be rolled up into the appropriate items of the RA WBS

and/or the O&M WBS.

Exhibit 6-4

RA or Post-RA O&M Periodic Cost Elements

Cost Element Description

Remedy Failure or

Replacement

Construction activity to replace an installed remedy or key components of the

remedy.

Demobilization of On-Site

Extraction, Containment, or

Treatment Systems*

Construction activity to dismantle or take down extraction , containment, or

treatment facilities upon completion of remedial action.

* Specify extraction, containment, or treatment system. Examples include groundwater extraction

system, soil vapor extraction system, groundwater treatment facility, etc. More than one system

may be associated with an individual alternative.

Contingency (post-RA only) Costs to cover unknowns, unforeseen circumstances, or unanticipated

conditions associated with projected periodic construction/operation activities.

Five-Year Reviews Professional/technical services to prepare five-year review reports (if

hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants remain on-site above levels

that allow for unrestricted use and unlimited exposure).

Groundwater Performance

and Optimization Study

Professional/technical services to analyze and optimize on-going groundwater

pump and treat systems.

Remedial Action Report Professional/technical services to prepare remedial action report upon

completion of RA.

Institutional Controls Periodic update or maintenance of non-engineering measures to reduce or

minimize potential for exposure to site contamination or hazards.
EP 1110-1-19

30 Jun 01

6-12

6-7. Project Cost Appendix. To support the summary of total project costs in the RA report

(Paragraph 4-9 of this guide), cost information should be provided in an appendix to the RA

report. This should include a cost breakdown and, if treatment was part of the remedy,

calculation of technology-specific unit cost(s).

a. Cost Breakdown

(1) The cost breakdown should be in the form of one- to two-page table(s) that

presents all RA capital and operating costs, post-RA O&M costs, and RA or post-RA O&M

periodic costs, actual or projected. The table(s)

should follow an activity-based format that

identifies all cost elements and sub-elements

using the RA WBS or O&M WBS, as

applicable for each of the types of costs

presented (e.g., RA capital costs, RA operating

costs, post-RA O&M costs).

(2) Exhibit 6-5 provides an example

of how a cost breakdown may be reported in

Appendix B of the RA report for a remedial

action that uses land treatment system to

remediate contaminated soil. In this example,

no periodic costs apply.

b. Technology-Specific Unit Cost

(1) The Guide to Documenting and

Managing Cost and Performance Information

for Remediation Projects (EPA 542-B-98-007)

presents a recommended format for reporting

technology-specific costs. One of the purposes

of this format is to enable the calculation of a

unit cost using only those items directly related

to the performance of a technology. This unit

cost could then be used for comparison with

unit costs of other technologies. The unit cost calculation excludes all project costs associated

with remediation that are not directly attributable to a specific technology. In addition, the

technology-specific unit cost calculation should exclude all costs for project management,

remedial design, construction management, and technical support that are typically added at the

bottom of an estimate or cost breakdown.

(2) For the RA report, if treatment using one or more technologies is part of the

remedy, technology-specific unit costs should be calculated and reported in the project cost

appendix. The total costs and quantities used for the calculation should be clearly stated.

(3) In the example shown in Exhibit 6-5, the subtotal RA capital costs and subtotal

RA operating costs would all be considered specific to land treatment, but not projected

Cost Growth

As a project moves from the planning

stage to the implementation stage, more and

more becomes known about the actual costs of

the project. During the course of RA projects,

the expected accuracy of cost estimates ranges

from about –30% to +50% for the ROD to

about –10% to +15% at the time of RA bid and

award to 0% at the completion of work.

Contingency is typically added to

estimates at various stages to account for cost

growth potential. Scope (design) contingency

covers unknowns associated with an

incomplete design. Bid (construction)

contingency accounts for unforeseen costs that

become known as construction proceeds. This

amount represents a reserve for quantity

overruns, modifications, change orders, claims,

etc.

In addition to comparison to the ROD

estimate, reporting of actual costs in the RA

report allows for comparison to the bid/award

estimate and assess the amount and possible

causes of cost growth during implementation

of the RA.
EP 1110-1-19

30 Jun 01

6-13

groundwater monitoring costs. As shown by the calculation in Exhibit 6-6, the unit cost for land

treatment would be $33.73 per cubic yard using a total technology-specific cost of $273,247 and

quantity treated of 8,100 cubic yards.

(4) For more detailed information on calculation of technology-specific unit cost, see

the Guide to Developing and Managing Cost and Performance Information for Remediation

Projects at http://www.frtr.gov/cost/.

c. HCAS Reporting. HCAS project and WBS cost breakdown forms shall be

completed and included in the RA report. Exhibit 6-7 shows an example. Note that costs of

project management, remedial design, construction management, and other items without WBS

numbers (33 or 34 series) are not reported to HCAS.
EP 1110-1-19

30 Jun 01

6-14

Exhibit 6-5

Example Cost Breakdown

Site: U Creosote Superfund Site Description:

Location:

Phase:

Date:

ACTUAL RA CAPITAL COSTS:

331XX HTRW Remedial Action

.01 Mobilization and Preparatory Work

.01 Mob Construction Equipment & Facilities Excavator, etc.

.03 Submittals/ Implementation Plans QAPP, SSHP, etc.

.04 Setup/Construct Temporary Facilities Roads/parking/signs, trailer

.05 Construct Temporary Utilities Electrical and water hookup

SUBTOTAL

.03 Sitework

.02 Clearing and Grubbing Work area

.05 Fencing

SUBTOTAL

.08 Solids Collection and Containment

.01 Contaminated Soil Excavation

.11 Biological Treatment

.03 Construction of Land Treatment Unit

.90 Installation of Clay Liner Impermeable layer

.91 Shaping of Retention Pond

.92 Installation of Subsurface Drainage

.93 Construction of Perimeter Berms

.94 Installation of Run-On Drainage Swales

.95 Installation of Irrigation System

.96 Rental of Tractor and Tiller

.97 Level D PPE Boots, hard hats, etc. for 20 people

SUBTOTAL

.20 Site Restoration

.01 Earthwork Backfill, grading

SUBTOTAL

.21 Demobilization

.01 Removal of Temporary Facilities Roads/parking/signs, trailer

.02 Removal of Temporary Utilities Electrical and water hookup

.04 Demob Construction Equipment & Facilities Excavator, etc.

.06 Submittals Post-const. reports

SUBTOTAL

SUBTOTAL

Project Management

Remedial Design

Construction Management

TOTAL RA CAPITAL COSTS

$8,445

8,100

EA

EA

EA

EA

CY $1.04 $8,445

$1,651

$929

$303,026

$929

1 EA $4,939 $4,939

$9,635

EA $2,116 $2,116

ACTUAL & PROJECTED COSTS (1 of 2)

The selected treatment consisted of a land treatment system to remediate excavated site 

Live Oak, Florida soils. All costs are expressed in 1998 dollars.

Final RA Report (OU 2)

October 27, 1998

UNIT

EA

TOTAL

DESCRIPTION QTY UNIT COST (1998 $$)

1 EA

NOTES

1 EA $8,466 $8,466

$5,350 $5,350

1 EA $6,602 $6,602

1 EA $3,716 $3,716

$24,134

4.0 AC $4,090 $16,360

7,500 LF $2.89 $21,666

$38,026

7,000 CY $5.70 $39,900

8,100 CY $0.95 $7,695

$5,658 $5,658

1 $48,216 $48,216

1

2,000 LF $5.65 $11,300

3,000 LF $1.98 $5,940

1 $15,802 $15,802

1 $10,653 $10,653

20 EA $102.60 $2,052

$139,521

$227,456

18,320

1 EA $1,651

1

1

34,350

22,900
EP 1110-1-19

30 Jun 01

6-15

Exhibit 6-5, cont.

Example Cost Breakdown

ACTUAL RA OPERATING COSTS:

331XX HTRW Remedial Action

.02 Monitoring, Sampling, Testing, & Analysis

.13 Peformance Monitoring (On-Site Lab)

SUBTOTAL

.11 Biological Treatment

.03 Land Treatment

.90 Equipment Operation Sprayer and tiller

.91 Spread Soil Contaminated soil

.92 Maintenance/Repair Site vehicles

.93 Additional Costs Diesel fuel/fertilizer/seed cultures

SUBTOTAL

SUBTOTAL

Project Management

TOTAL ACTUAL RA OPERATING COSTS

PROJECTED POST-RA O&M COSTS:

342XX HTRW Operation and Maintenance

.02 Monitoring, Sampling, Testing, & Analysis

.04 Groundwater Monitoring

SUBTOTAL

TOTAL PROJECTED POST-RA O&M COSTS

TOTAL PROJECT COST

$21,000

$21,000

$456,523

NOTES

$132,497

UNIT TOTAL

DESCRIPTION QTY UNIT COST (1998 $$)

$61,331

$126,031

6,466

1 $4,292 $4,292

1 $3,251 $3,251

EA

EA

1 $15,232 $15,232

8,100 CY $4.76 $38,556

EA

DESCRIPTION QTY UNIT COST (1998 $$) NOTES

TOTAL

ACTUAL & PROJECTED COSTS (2 of 2)

UNIT

$64,700

1 EA $64,700 $64,700

5 EA $4,200 $21,000
EP 1110-1-19

30 Jun 01

6-16

Exhibit 6-6

Example Technology-Specific Unit Cost Calculation

LAND TREATMENT

RA CAPITAL COSTS:

Solids Collection and Containment

Biological Treatment

SUBTOTAL

RA OPERATING COSTS:

Monitoring, Sampling, Testing, & Analysis

Biological Treatment

SUBTOTAL

TOTAL TECHNOLOGY-SPECIFIC COST

Cubic Yards of Soil Treated

TECHNOLOGY-SPECIFIC UNIT COST (Per Cubic Yard) $33.73

$273,247

$126,031

$7,695

$139,521

$147,216

8,100

$64,700

$61,331
EP 1110-1-19

30 Jun 01

6-17

Exhibit 6-7

Example HCAS Data Report and WBS Cost Breakdown

Historical Cost Analysis System (HCAS)

Project Data Entry Form (Sheet 1)

Project Information

Project Name U Creosote Operable Unit 2

Project Number XXXX-YYYY-ZZ

Project Phase (Select one)

Studies and Design

Remedial Action 

Operations and Maintenance

Project Note (Describe the project)

Landfarming treatment technology was used to remediate 8,100 cubic yards of

PAH-contaminated soil.

 

 

 

 

Contract Information

Contract Number DACW62-97-C-0100

 Managing Organization U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Organization Name Jacksonville District

Site Owner Private Party

Other ID Number 

Prime Contractor Cleanup, Inc.

Contract Type (Select one)

Cost + Award Fee

Cost + Base + Award Fee

Cost + Fixed Fee 

Cost + Incentive Award

Fixed Price

Not Availiable

Other

Procurement Type (Select one)

 Two Step Sealed Bid

Sealed Bid (IFB)

Competitive Negotiation (RFP) 

Sole Source (SSC)

Other
EP 1110-1-19

30 Jun 01

6-18

Exhibit 6-7, cont.

Example HCAS Data Report and WBS Cost Breakdown

Historical Cost Analysis System (HCAS)

Project Data Entry Form (Sheet 2)

Site Information

State/Country Florida/USA

Installation 

Site Name Live Oak, FL

Site Number 

EPA Region IV

Current Use (Select one)

Installation Operation

Industry Operation

Residential

Recreational

Wildlife Refuge

Waste Disposal 

Administrative Office

Commercial

Other

Unknown

Future Use (Select one)

Installation Operation

Industry Operation

Residential

Recreational

Wildlife Refuge

Waste Disposal

Administrative Office

Commercial

Other

Unknown 

Point of Contact

Data Entry Person POC#2 POC#3 

Title/Role Contractor Estimator 

Organization Cleanup, Inc. 

Name E.S. Timator 

Address 123 Main St. 

City, State Cleantown, FL 

Zip 12345

Telephone 999-999-9999 

Fax 999-999-8888 

Email estimator@cleanup.com 

Enter up to 3 POC's.
EP 1110-1-19

30 Jun 01

6-19

Exhibit 6-7, cont.

Example HCAS Data Report and WBS Cost Breakdown

Historical Cost Analysis System (HCAS)

Project Data Entry Form (Sheet 3)

Profile - General Characteristics

Regulatory Class Public Concern

CERCLA  Low

RCRA High 

Other Historical/Archoelogical

Unknown Yes

National Priority List No 

Yes  Innovative Technology

No Yes

Wetland No 

Yes Size of Exclusion Zone (Acres) 4

No  Size of Area (Acres) 10

Flood Plain

Yes

No 

Profile - Contaminants/Technical Approach

Site Type Media Contaminant Technical Approach

AG Storage Tanks Air Nonhal VOC's CWM/OEW Remvl

UG Storage Tanks Equipment/Mach Halogenated VOC's Surf Water Control

Drums/Cont <250 GA Groundwater Nonhal Semi VOC's Grnd Water Control

Unauth Disposl Area Liquid Halogen Semi VOC's Air/Gas Control

Facil/Bldgs Surface Water Fuels Solids Contain

Fire Train/Open Burn Sediment Inorganics Liq/Sed/Sludge Cntrl

Firing Rnge/Open Det Sludge Low Lev Rad Waste Drums/Tanks Remvl

Pit/Trench Soil High Lev Rad Waste Biological Treatment

Surf Impnd/Lagoons Solid/Debris Low Rad Mixed Wst Chemical Treatment

Lakes/Ponds/Swamp Struct Bldg Matls TRU Waste Physical Treatment

Landfill Other CWM/OEW Thermal Treatment

Ocean Asbestos Stab/Fix/Encap

Rivers/Streams Unknown Decon & Decommish

Spill/Emerg Resp Other Disposal (Not Comm)

Waste Pile Disposal Commercial

Other Other 

Pick as many Profile combinations as necessary:

Unauth Disp Area Soil Fuels Biological Treatment

 
EP 1110-1-19

30 Jun 01

6-20

Exhibit 6-7, cont.

Example HCAS Data Report and WBS Cost Breakdown

Historical Cost Analysis System (HCAS)

Project Data Entry Form (Sheet 4)

Cost

Start Date 9/29/96

End Date 9/22/98

Number of Mods 0

Reasons for Mods (Select those applicable)

Administrative

Changes for Time or Cost

Changes Requested by Government Authority

Design Deficiency

Differing Site Conditions

Funding Level Change

New Federal Regulation

Other Changes

Suspension or Termination of Work

Value Engineering Change

Variations in Estimated Quantities

Variations Not Readily Identifiable During Design

Cost

Award Amount $399,000

Actual Amount $374,487

Cost Variance -6%

Cost Breakdown

 See next sheets. 

The HCAS Cost Breakdown is structured in accordance with 

the February 1996 "HTRW Remedial Action Work Breakdown Structure

(RA WBS)" and "HTRW O&M Work Breakdown Structure (O&M WBS)".

The next sheets show the RA WBS and O&M WBS to the Third Level 

as required for the HCAS cost report portion of the "RA Report". 

The costs reported shall be "Burdened Costs", meaning that contractor 

markups, general requirements, overhead, and profit shall be included

in the costs.

The complete RA WBS and O&M WBS to the Fourth Level is at: 

http://www.FRTR.gov/cost/ec2/wbs1.html

The HCAS 3.1 software can be downloaded from:

http://www.FRTR.gov/cost/ec2/index.html
EP 1110-1-19

30 Jun 01

6-21

Exhibit 6-7, cont.

Example HCAS Data Report and WBS Cost Breakdown

WBS Number DESCRIPTION QTY UOM UNIT 

COST 

COST 

$ 

33XXX HTRW CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES

331XX HTRW REMEDIAL ACTION (Capital and Operating) 

01 MOBILIZATION AND PREPARATORY WORK 

01 01 Mobilization of Construction Equipment and Facilities 1 EA 8,466 8,466

01 02 Mobilization of Personnel EA

01 03 Submittals/Implementation Plans 1 EA 5,350 5,350

01 04 Setup/Construct Temporary Facilities 1 EA 6,602 6,602

01 05 Construct Temporary Utilities 1 EA 3,716 3,716

01 06 Temporary Relocations of Roads/Structures/Utilities EA

01 07 Construction Plant Erection EA

01 08 Institutional Controls EA

01 09 Alternate Water Supply EA

01 10 Population Relocation EA

01 9X Other (Use Numbers 90-99)

02 MONITORING, SAMPLING, TESTING, AND ANALYSIS 

02 01 Meteorological Monitoring EA

02 02 Radiation Monitoring EA

02 03 Air Monitoring and Sampling EA

02 04 Monitoring Wells EA

02 05 Sampling Surface Water/Groundwater/Liquid Waste EA

02 06 Sampling Soil and Sediment EA

02 07 Sampling Asbestos EA

02 08 Sampling Radioactive Contaminated Media EA

02 09 Laboratory Chemical Analysis EA

02 10 Radioactive Waste Analysis EA

02 11 Geotechnical Testing EA

02 12 Geotechnical Instrumentation EA

02 13 On-Site Laboratory Facilities 1 EA 64,700 64,700

02 14 Off-Site Laboratory Facilities EA

02 9X Other (Use Numbers 90-99)

03 SITEWORK

03 01 Demolition SY

03 02 Clearing and Grubbing 4 ACR 4,090 16,360

03 03 Earthwork CY

03 04 Roads/Parking/Curbs/Walks SY

03 05 Fencing 7500 LF 2.89 21,666

03 06 Electrical Distribution LF

03 07 Telephone/Communication Distribution LF

03 08 Water/Sewer/Gas Distribution LF

03 09 Steam and Condensate Distribution LF

03 10 Fuel Line Distribution LF

03 11 Storm Drainage/Subdrainage LF

03 12 Permanent Cover Structure Over Containment Area SF

03 13 Development of Borrow Pit/Haul Roads ACR
EP 1110-1-19

30 Jun 01

6-22

Exhibit 6-7, cont.

Example HCAS Data Report and WBS Cost Breakdown

WBS Number DESCRIPTION QTY UOM UNIT 

COST 

COST 

$ 

331XX 03 14 Fuel Storage Tanks (New) EA

03 9X Other (Use Numbers 90-99) 

04 ORDNANCE AND EXPLOSIVE - CHEMICAL WARFARE 

04 01 Ordnance Removal and Destruction ACR

04 9x Other (Use Numbers 90-99) 

05 SURFACE WATER COLLECTION AND CONTROL

05 01 Berms/Dikes LF

05 02 Floodwalls SF

05 03 Levees LF

05 04 Terraces and Benches LF

05 05 Channels/Waterways (Soil/Rock) LF

05 06 Chutes or Flumes LF

05 07 Sediment Barriers LF

05 08 Storm Drainage LF

05 09 Lagoons/Basins/Tanks/Dikes/Pump System ACR

05 10 Pumping/Draining/Collection MGA

05 11 Transport to Treatment Plant MGA

05 12 Earthwork CY

05 13 Erosion Control ACR

05 14 Development of Borrow Pit/Haul Roads ACR

05 9X Other (Use Numbers 90-99) 

06 GROUNDWATER COLLECTION AND CONTROL

06 01 Extraction and Injection Wells EA

06 02 Subsurface Drainage/Collection LF

06 03 Slurry Walls SF

06 04 Grout Curtain SF

06 05 Sheet Piling SF

06 06 Lagoons/Basins/Tanks/Dikes/Pump System ACR

06 07 Pumping/Collection MGA

06 08 Transport to Treatment Plant MGA

06 09 Development of Borrow Pit/Haul Roads ACR

06 9x Other (Use Numbers 90-99)

07 AIR POLLUTION/GAS COLLECTION AND CONTROL 

07 01 Gas/Vapor Collection Trench System LF

07 02 Gas/Vapor Collection Well System EA

07 03 Gas/Vapor Collection at Lagoon Cover SY

07 04 Fugitive Dust/Vapor/Gas Emissions Control ACR

07 9x Other (Use Numbers 90-99)

08 SOLIDS COLLECTION AND CONTAINMENT 

08 01 Contaminated Soil Collection 8,100 CY 0.95 7,695

08 02 Waste Containment, Portable (Furnish/Fill) CY

08 03 Transport to Treatment Plant CY
EP 1110-1-19

30 Jun 01

6-23

Exhibit 6-7, cont.

Example HCAS Data Report and WBS Cost Breakdown

WBS Number DESCRIPTION QTY UOM UNIT 

COST 

COST 

$ 

331XX 08 04 Radioactive Specific Waste Containment (Furnish/Fill) CY

08 05 Capping of Contaminated Area/Waste Pile (Soil/Asphalt ACR

08 06 Nuclear Waste Densification (Dynamic Compaction) CY

08 07 Development of Borrow Pit/Haul Roads ACR

08 9x Other (Use Numbers 90-99)

09 LIQUIDS/SEDIMENTS/SLUDGES COLLECTION AND 

09 01 Dredging/Excavating CY

09 02 Industrial Vacuuming CY

09 03 Waste Containment, Portable (Furnish/Fill) MGA

09 04 Transport to Treatment Plant MGA

09 05 Radioactive Specific Waste Containment (Furnish/Fill) MGA

09 06 Pumping/Draining/Collection MGA

09 07 Lagoons/Basins/Tanks/Pump System ACR

09 08 Development of Borrow Pit/Haul Roads ACR

09 9x Other (Use Numbers 90-99)

10 DRUMS/TANKS/STRUCTURES/MISCELLANEOUS 

10 01 Drum Removal EA

10 02 Tank Removal EA

10 03 Structure Removal SF

10 04 Asbestos Abatement SF

10 05 Piping and Pipeline Removal LF

10 06 Radioactive Specific Waste Containment (Furnish/Fill) CY

10 07 Miscellaneous Items ACR

10 08 Contaminated Paint Removal SF

10 9x Other (Use Numbers 90-99)

11 BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT 

11 01 Activated Sludge (Sequencing Batch Reactors) MGA

11 02 Rotating Biological Contactors MGA

11 03 Land Treatment/Farming (Solid Phase Biodegradation) 8,100 CY 24.80 200,852

11 04 In-Situ Biodegradation/Bioreclamation CY

11 05 Trickling Filters MGA

11 06 Biological Lagoons MGA

11 07 Composting CY

11 08 Sludge Stabilization - Aerobic CY

11 09 Sludge Stabilization - Anaerobic CY

11 10 Genetically Engineered Organisms (White Rot Fungus) CY

11 11 Slurry Biodegradation CY

11 12 Bioventing SF

11 13 Bioslurping SF

11 14 Biopile (Heap Pile Remediation) CY

11 50 Construction of Permanent Plant Facility EA

11 9x Other (Use Numbers 90-99)
EP 1110-1-19

30 Jun 01

6-24

Exhibit 6-7, cont.

Example HCAS Data Report and WBS Cost Breakdown

WBS Number DESCRIPTION QTY UOM UNIT 

COST 

COST 

$ 

331XX 12 CHEMICAL TREATMENT

12 01 Oxidation/Reduction (Catalytic Oxidation, UV Ozone, MGA

12 02 Solvent Extraction MGA

12 03 Chlorination MGA

12 04 Ozonation MGA

12 05 Ion Exchange MGA

12 06 Neutralization MGA

12 07 Chemical Hydrolysis MGA

12 08 Ultraviolet Photolysis MGA

12 09 Dehalogenation (Catalytic Dechlorination) CY

12 10 Alkali Metal Dechlorination CY

12 11 Alkali Metal/Polyethylene Glycol (A/PEG) CY

12 12 Base-Catalyzed Decomposition Process (BCDP) CY

12 13 Electrolysis MGA

12 14 Vapor Recovery/Reuse (Internal Combustion Engine) CF

12 50 Construction of Permanent Plant Facility EA

12 9x Other (Use Numbers 90-99)

13 PHYSICAL TREATMENT

13 01 Filtration/Ultrafiltration MGA

13 02 Sedimentation MGA

13 03 Straining MGA

13 04 Coagulation/Flocculation/Precipitation MGA

13 05 Equalization MGA

13 06 Evaporation MGA

13 07 Air Stripping MGA

13 08 Steam Stripping MGA

13 09 Soil Washing (Surfactant/Solvent) CY

13 10 Soil Flushing (Surfactant/Solvent) CY

13 11 Solids Dewatering CY

13 12 Oil/Water Separation MGA

13 13 Dissolved Air Floatation MGA

13 14 Heavy Media Separation CY

13 15 Distillation MGA

13 16 Chelation MGA

13 17 Solvent Extraction MGA

13 18 Supercritical Extraction MGA

13 19 Carbon Adsorption - Gases CF

13 20 Carbon Adsorption - Liquids MGA

13 21 Membrane Separation - Reverse Osmosis MGA

13 22 Membrane Separation - Electrodialysis MGA

13 23 Soil Vapor Extraction CY

13 24 Shredding CY

13 25 Aeration CY

13 26 Advanced Electrical Reactor CY

13 27 Low Level Waste (LLW) Compaction CY

13 28 Agglomeration CY
EP 1110-1-19

30 Jun 01

6-25

Exhibit 6-7, cont.

Example HCAS Data Report and WBS Cost Breakdown

WBS Number DESCRIPTION QTY UOM UNIT 

COST 

COST 

$ 

331XX 13 29 In-Situ Steam Extraction MGA

13 30 Filter Presses MGA

13 31 Lignin Adsorption/Sorptive Clays CY

13 32 Air Sparging MGA

13 50 Construction of Permanent Plant Facility EA

13 9x Other (Use Numbers 90-99)

14 THERMAL TREATMENT 

14 01 Incineration CY

14 02 Low Temperature Thermal Desorption CY

14 03 Supercritical Water Oxidation MGA

14 04 Molten Salt Destruction CY

14 05 Radio Frequency Heating CY

14 06 Solar Detoxification CY

14 07 High Temperature Thermal Desorption CY

14 50 Construction of Permanent Plant Facility EA

14 9x Other (Use Numbers 90-99)

15 STABILIZATION/FIXATION/ENCAPSULATION

15 01 Molten Glass CY

15 02 In-Situ Vitrification CY

15 03 In-Situ Pozzolan Process (Lime/Portland Cement) CY

15 04 Pozzolan Process (Lime/Portland Cement) CY

15 05 Asphalt-Based Encapsulation CY

15 06 Radioactive Waste Solidification (Grouting/Other) CY

15 07 Sludge Stabilization (Aggregate/Rock/Slag) CY

15 50 Construction of Permanent Plant Facility EA

15 9x Other (Use Numbers 90-99)

16 RESERVED FOR FUTURE USE

17 DECONTAMINATION AND DECOMMISSIONING (D&D)

17 01 Pre-Decommissioning Operations SF

17 02 Facility Shutdown Activities SF

17 03 Procurement of Equipment and Material SF

17 04 Dismantling Activities SF

17 05 Research and Development (R&D) SF

17 06 Spent Fuel Handling SF

17 07 Hot Cell Cleanup SF

17 9x Other (Use Numbers 90-99)

18 DISPOSAL (OTHER THAN COMMERCIAL)

18 01 Landfill/Burial Ground/Trench/Pits CY

18 02 Above-Ground Vault CY

18 03 Underground Vault CY

18 04 Underground Mine/Shaft CY

18 05 Tanks MGA
EP 1110-1-19

30 Jun 01

6-26

Exhibit 6-7, cont.

Example HCAS Data Report and WBS Cost Breakdown

WBS Number DESCRIPTION QTY UOM UNIT 

COST 

COST 

$ 

331XX 18 06 Pads (Tumulus/Retrievable Storage/Other) CY

18 07 Storage Bldgs/Protective Cvr Structures/Other Bldgs & CY 

18 08 Cribs CY

18 09 Deep Well Injection MGA

18 10 Incinerator CY

18 15 Construction of Permanent Disposal Facility EA

18 20 Container Handling EA

18 21 Transportation to Storage/Disposal Facility TON

18 22 Disposal Fees and Taxes TON

18 23 Mixed Waste Storage Fees and Taxes TON

18 9x Other (Use Numbers 90-99)

19 DISPOSAL (COMMERCIAL)

19 20 Container Handling EA

19 21 Transportation to Storage/Disposal Facility TON

19 22 Disposal Fees and Taxes TON

19 23 Mixed Waste Storage Fees and Taxes TON

19 9x Other (Use Numbers 90-99)

20 SITE RESTORATION

20 01 Earthwork 8,100 CY 1.04 8,445

20 02 Permanent Markers EA

20 03 Permanent Features EA

20 04 Revegetation and Planting ACR

20 05 Removal of Barriers EA

20 9x Other (Use Numbers 90-99)

21 DEMOBILIZATION

21 01 Removal of Temporary Facilities 1 EA 1,651 1,651

21 02 Removal of Temporary Utilities 1 EA 929 929

21 03 Final Decontamination EA

21 04 Demobilization of Construction Equipment and Facilities 1 EA 2,116 2,116

21 05 Demobilization of Personnel EA

21 06 Submittals 1 EA 4,939 4,939

21 07 Construction Plant Takedown EA

21 9x Other (Use Numbers 90-99)

9X OTHER (Use Numbers 90-99)

TOTAL AMOUNT $ 353,487
EP 1110-1-19

30 Jun 01

6-27

Exhibit 6-7, cont.

Example HCAS Data Report and WBS Cost Breakdown

WBS Number DESCRIPTION QTY UOM UNIT 

COST 

COST 

$ 

34XXX HTRW POST CONSTRUCTION AND FINANCIAL 

CLOSEOUT ACTIVITIES

341XX FISCAL/FINANCIAL CLOSE ACTIVITIES

342XX HTRW OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE (POST 

CONSTRUCTION) 

02 MONITORING, SAMPLING, TESTING, AND 

02 01 Meteorological Monitoring EA

02 02 Radiation Monitoring EA

02 03 Air Monitoring and Sampling EA

02 04 Monitoring Wells 5 EA 4,200 21,000

02 05 Sampling Surface Water/Groundwater/Liquid Waste EA

02 06 Sampling Soil and Sediment EA

02 07 Sampling Asbestos EA

02 08 Sampling Radioactive Contaminated Media EA

02 09 Laboratory Chemical Analysis EA

02 10 Radioactive Waste Analysis EA

02 11 Geotechnical Testing EA

02 12 Geotechnical Instrumentation EA

02 13 On-site Laboratory Facilities EA

02 14 Off-site Laboratory Facilities EA

02 9X Other (Use Numbers 90-99) EA

03 SITEWORK

03 04 Roads/Parking/Curbs/Walks SY/YR

03 05 Fencing LF/YR

03 06 Electrical Distribution LF/YR

03 07 Telephone/Communication Distribution LF/YR

03 08 Water/Sewer/Gas Distribution LF/YR

03 09 Steam and Condensate Distribution LF/YR

03 10 Fuel Line Distribution LF/YR

03 11 Storm Drainage/Subdrainage LF/YR

03 12 Permanent Cover Structure Over Contaminated Area SF/YR

03 14 Fuel Storage Tanks (New) EA/YR

03 9X Other (Use Numbers 90-99) 

05 SURFACE WATER COLLECTION AND CONTROL

05 01 Berms/Dikes LF/YR

05 02 Floodwalls SF/YR

05 03 Levees LF/YR

05 04 Terraces and Benches LF/YR

05 05 Channels/Waterways (Soil/Rock) LF/YR

05 06 Chutes or Flumes LF/YR

05 07 Sediment Barriers LF/YR
EP 1110-1-19

30 Jun 01

6-28

Exhibit 6-7, cont.

Example HCAS Data Report and WBS Cost Breakdown

WBS Number DESCRIPTION QTY UOM UNIT 

COST 

COST 

$ 

342XX 05 08 Storm Drainage LF/YR

05 09 Lagoons/Basins/Tanks/Dikes/Pump System ACR/YR

05 10 Pumping/Draining/Collection MGA

05 11 Transport to Treatment Plant MGA

05 13 Erosion Control ACR/YR

05 9X Other (Use Numbers 90-99) 

06 GROUNDWATER COLLECTION AND CONTROL

06 01 Extraction and Injection Wells EA/YR

06 02 Subsurface Drainage/Collection LF/YR

06 03 Slurry Walls SF/YR

06 04 Grout Curtain SF/YR

06 05 Sheet Piling SF/YR

06 06 Lagoons/Basins/Tanks/Dikes/Pump System ACR/YR

06 07 Pumping/Collection MGA

06 08 Transport to Treatment Plant MGA

06 9x Other (Use Numbers 90-99)

07 AIR POLLUTION/GAS COLLECTION AND CONTROL 

07 01 Gas/Vapor Collection Trench System LF/YR

07 02 Gas/Vapor Collection Well System EA/YR

07 03 Gas/Vapor Collection at Lagoon Cover SY/YR

07 04 Fugitive Dust/Vapor/Gas Emissions Control ACR/YR

07 9x Other (Use Numbers 90-99)

08 SOLIDS COLLECTION AND CONTAINMENT 

08 01 Contaminated Soil Collection CY

08 02 Waste Containment, Portable (Furnish/Fill) CY

08 03 Transport to Treatment Plant CY

08 04 Radioactive Specific Waste Containment (Furnish/Fill) CY

08 05 Capping of Contaminated Area/Waste Pile (Soil/Asph ACR/YR

08 06 Nuclear Waste Densification (Dynamic Compaction) CY

08 9x Other (Use Numbers 90-99)

09 LIQUIDS/SEDIMENTS/SLUDGES COLLECTION AND 

CONTAINMENT 

09 01 Dredging/Excavating CY

09 02 Industrial Vacuuming CY

09 03 Waste Containment, Portable (Furnish/Fill) MGA

09 04 Transport to Treatment Plant MGA

09 05 Radioactive Specific Waste Containment (Furnish/Fill) MGA

09 06 Pumping/Draining/Collection MGA

09 07 Lagoons/Basins/Tanks/Dikes/Pump System ACR/YR
EP 1110-1-19

30 Jun 01

6-29

Exhibit 6-7, cont.

Example HCAS Data Report and WBS Cost Breakdown

WBS Number DESCRIPTION QTY UOM UNIT 

COST 

COST 

$ 

342XX 09 9x Other (Use Numbers 90-99)

11 BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT 

11 01 Activated Sludge (Seq Batch Reactors) MGA

11 02 Rotating Biological Contactors MGA

11 03 Land Treatment/Farming (Solid Phase Biodegradation) CY

11 04 In-Situ Biodegradation/Bioreclamation CY

11 05 Trickling Filters MGA

11 06 Biological Lagoons MGA

11 07 Composting (Soil Pile Bioremediation) CY

11 08 Sludge Stabilization - Aerobic CY

11 09 Sludge Stabilization - Anaerobic CY

11 10 Genetically Engineered Organisms (White Rot Fungus) CY

11 11 Slurry Biodegradation CY

11 12 Bioventing SF

11 13 Bioslurping SF

11 14 Biopile (Heap Pile Remediation) CY 

11 50 Post Construction O&M of Permanent Plant Facility EA/YR

11 9x Other (Use Numbers 90-99)

12 CHEMICAL TREATMENT

12 01 Oxidation/Reduction (Catalytic) MGA

12 02 Solvent Extraction MGA

12 03 Chlorination MGA

12 04 Ozonation MGA

12 05 Ion Exchange MGA

12 06 Neutralization MGA

12 07 Chemical Hydrolysis MGA

12 08 Ultraviolet Photolysis (UV Oxidation) MGA

12 09 Dehalogenation (Catalytic Dechlorination) CY

12 10 Alkali Metal Dechlorination CY

12 11 Alkali Metal/Polyethylene Glycol (A/PEG) CY

12 12 Base-Catalyzed Decomposition Process CY

12 13 Electrolysis MGA

12 14 Vapor Recovery/Reuse (Internal Combustion Engine) CF

12 50 Post Construction O&M of Permanent Plant Facility EA/YR

12 9x Other (Use Numbers 90-99)

13 PHYSICAL TREATMENT

13 01 Filtration/Ultrafiltration MGA

13 02 Sedimentation MGA

13 03 Straining MGA

13 04 Coagulation/Flocculation/Precipitation MGA
EP 1110-1-19

30 Jun 01

6-30

Exhibit 6-7, cont.

Example HCAS Data Report and WBS Cost Breakdown

WBS Number DESCRIPTION QTY UOM UNIT 

COST 

COST 

$ 

342XX 13 05 Equalization MGA

13 06 Evaporation MGA

13 07 Air Stripping MGA

13 08 Steam Stripping MGA

13 09 Soil Washing (Surfactant/Solvent) CY

13 10 Soil Flushing (Surfactant/Solvent) CY

13 11 Solids Dewatering CY

13 12 Oil/Water Separation MGA

13 13 Dissolved Air Floatation MGA

13 14 Heavy Media Separation CY

13 15 Distillation MGA

13 16 Chelation MGA

13 17 Solvent Extraction MGA

13 18 Supercritical Extraction MGA

13 19 Carbon Adsorption - Gases CF

13 20 Carbon Adsorption - Liquids MGA

13 21 Membrane Separation - Reverse Osmosis MGA

13 22 Membrane Separation - Electrodialysis MGA

13 23 Soil Vapor Extraction CY

13 24 Shredding CY

13 25 Aeration CY

13 26 Advanced Electrical Reactor CY

13 27 Low Level Waste (LLW) Compaction CY

13 28 Agglomeration CY

13 29 In-Situ Steam Extraction MGA

13 30 Filter Presses MGA

13 31 Lignin Adsorption/Sorptive Clays CY

13 32 Air Sparging MGA

13 50 Post Construction O&M of Permanent Plant Facility EA/YR

13 9x Other (Use Numbers 90-99)

14 THERMAL TREATMENT 

14 01 Incineration CY

14 02 Low Temperature Thermal Desorption CY

14 03 Supercritical Water Oxidation MGA

14 04 Molten Salt Destruction CY

14 05 Radio Frequency Heating CY

14 06 Solar Detoxification CY

14 07 High Temperature Thermal Desorption CY

14 50 Post Construction O&M of Permanent Plant Facility EA/YR

14 9x Other (Use Numbers 90-99)

15 STABILIZATION/FIXATION/ENCAPSULATION

15 01 Molten Glass CY
EP 1110-1-19

30 Jun 01

6-31

Exhibit 6-7, cont.

Example HCAS Data Report and WBS Cost Breakdown

WBS Number DESCRIPTION QTY UOM UNIT 

COST 

COST 

$ 

342XX 15 02 In-Situ Vitrification CY

15 03 In-Situ Pozzolan Process (Lime/Portland Cement) CY

15 04 Pozzolan Process (Lime/Portland Cement) CY

15 05 Asphalt-Based Encapsulation CY

15 06 Radioactive Waste Solidification (Grouting/Other) CY

15 07 Sludge Stabilization (Aggregate/Rock/Slag) CY

15 50 Post Construction O&M of Permanent Plant Facility EA/YR

15 9x Other (Use Numbers 90-99)

18 DISPOSAL (OTHER THAN COMMERCIAL)

18 01 Landfill/Burial Ground/Trench/Pits CY

18 02 Above-Ground Vault CY

18 03 Underground Vault CY

18 04 Underground Mine/Shaft CY

18 05 Tanks MGA

18 06 Pads (Tumulus/Retrievable Storage/Other) CY

18 07 Storage Bldgs/Protective Cvr Structures/Other Bldgs & CY 

18 08 Cribs CY

18 09 Deep Well Injection MGA

18 10 Incinerator CY

18 15 Post Construction O&M of Permanent Disposal Fac EA/YR

18 20 Container Handling EA

18 21 Transportation to Storage/Disposal Facility TON

18 22 Disposal Fees & Taxes TON

18 23 Mixed Waste Storage Fees & Taxes TON

18 9x Other (Use Numbers 90-99)

9X OTHER (Use Numbers 90-99)

TOTAL AMOUNT $ 21,000
EP 1110-1-19

30 Jun 01

A-1

APPENDIX A

GLOSSARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION TERMS

The following definitions were taken primarily from Superfund/Oil Program Implementation

Manual FY 2001, Appendix B: Response Actions (OSWER Publication 9200.3-14-1F-P).

Cleanup Goals

Achieved

This measure is used to indicate when cleanup goals have been achieved

for groundwater and surface water restoration, including monitored

natural attenuation. It is necessary to track achievement of cleanup goals

for these remedies because the goals will not have been achieved at the

time that remedial action (RA) has been completed. Cleanup Goals

Achieved has been accomplished once the final RA report has been

approved in writing.

Feasibility Study The primary objective of a feasibility study (FS) is to ensure that

appropriate remedial alternatives are developed and evaluated such that

an appropriate remedy may be selected. A FS involves the identification

and detailed evaluation of potential remedial alternatives. This process

begins with the formulation of viable alternatives, which involves

defining remediation objectives/cleanup goals, general response actions,

volumes or area of media to be addressed, and potentially applicable

technologies. Following a preliminary screening of alternatives, a

reasonable number of appropriate alternatives undergo a detailed analysis

using the nine evaluation criteria in the National Contingency Plan

(NCP). During a remedial investigation/feasibility study (RI/FS),

information is gathered to support an informed decision regarding the

remedy (if any) that is most appropriate for a given site or an operable

unit within a site. Interim or early actions to initiate risk reduction

activities can be undertaken throughout the RI/FS process.

Long-Term

Response Action

Long-term response action (LTRA) is defined as the Fund-financed

operation of groundwater and surface water restoration measures,

including monitored natural attenuation, for the first ten years of

restoration. The Fund continues to pay up to 90 percent of the costs

during the LTRA period, then the State funds the entire operation after the

ten year period has expired. LTRA begins on the date that the designated

Regional official approves the interim RA report in writing. LTRA is

complete after 10 years, after a technical impracticability determination

has been made, or after cleanup goals have been achieved and

documented in a final RA report, whichever occurs first. LTRA

transitions to O&M if cleanup goals have not been achieved, or if

continued monitoring will be required, once ten years have expired. The

term LTRA does not apply to groundwater and surface water restoration

measures conducted under other financing mechanisms, groundwater or

surface water containment measures, groundwater or surface water

measures initiated for the primary purpose of providing a safe drinking

water supply, or groundwater monitoring.
EP 1110-1-19

30 Jun 01

A-2

Natural Resource

Trustees

Natural Resource Trustees are authorized by the Comprehensive

Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980

(CERCLA) to assist EPA in characterizing the nature and extent of siterelated contamination and impacts. The Trustees also act on behalf of the

public to determine whether environmental restoration is needed in light

of the response actions at a given site.

Operable Unit The NCP defines an operable unit (OU) as a “discrete action that

comprises an incremental step toward comprehensively addressing site

problems. This discrete portion of a remedial response manages

migration, or eliminates or mitigates a release, threat of a release, or

pathway of exposure” (NCP §300.5). Hence, an OU can be a certain

geographic portion of a site or can address an environmental medium at

the site (e.g., groundwater, soil). OUs may also be comprehensive but

temporary remedies (e.g., temporary caps across a site) that provide

interim protection of human health and the environment before final

remediation. The cleanup of a site can be divided into a number of OUs,

depending on the complexity of the problems associated with the site.

Operational and

Functional

For many sites, the completion of RA also marks the completion of the

operational and functional (O&F) period. O&F activities are conducted

after physical construction of the remedy is complete to ensure that it is

functioning properly and operating as designed. The NCP provides a

maximum timeframe of one year for performing O&F activities; however,

EPA may extend the one-year period, as appropriate. O&F activities may

be conducted for containment, groundwater restoration, and surface water

restoration remedies in order to ensure that the remedy functions properly

and operates as designed. Monitored natural attenuation remedies do not

go through an O&F determination. The O&F period is part of the RA and

occurs during the last year of the RA. Formal O&F determinations are

made primarily for Fund-financed projects, since O&F governs when

O&M or LTRA begins. O&F is considered complete on the date that the

designated Regional official approves the interim RA report (for sites

with groundwater or surface water restoration remedies) or final RA

report in writing.

Operation and

Maintenance

Operation and maintenance (O&M) are the activities required to maintain

the effectiveness or the integrity of the remedy. In the case of Fundfinanced measures, O&M activities are required to restore groundwater or

surface waters, and to continue the operation of such measures beyond the

LTRA period until the cleanup goals have been achieved. Except for

Fund-financed groundwater or surface water restoration actions covered

under NCP §300.435(f)(4), O&M measures are initiated after the remedy

has achieved the remediation objectives and/or cleanup goals listed in the

ROD, and the remedy has been determined to be O&F. O&M typically

starts on the date that the designated Regional official approves the final
EP 1110-1-19

30 Jun 01

A-3

RA report. In the case of Fund-financed LTRA that continues for a full

ten years without achieving the cleanup goals, O&M starts upon

completion of LTRA. In the case of Federal facility-lead groundwater

and surface water restorations, including monitored natural attenuation,

O&M starts on the date that the designated Regional official approves the

interim RA report in writing. O&M completion is defined, where

appropriate, as the date that the remediation objectives/cleanup goals or

conditions specified has been met with respect to O&M. O&M may be

completed when the cleanup goals have been achieved, or it may be

indefinite, as in the case of a landfill cap.

Potentially

Responsible Party

Under CERCLA §104, a person or entity potentially responsible for a

release of hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants into the

environment (i.e., a potentially responsible party [PRP]), may also be

allowed to conduct certain response actions in accordance with CERCLA

§122, if the lead agency determines that party is qualified and otherwise

capable. For a PRP-lead RI/FS response action, either EPA or the State

serves as the lead agency and oversees the PRP’s work and development

of the proposed plan and the ROD. The lead agency determines whether

the PRP, or the PRP’s contractor, is qualified and capable of doing the

work. PRPs may participate in the remedy selection process by

submitting comments on the proposed plan or other information contained

in the administrative record file during the formal public comment period

that is held before the final remedy selection. However, PRPs generally

should not be permitted to write proposed plans, RODs, or any

amendments to those.

Potentially

Responsible Party

Long-Term

Response

Potentially responsible party long-term response (PRP LR) is a type of

O&M. In the past, the term LTRA has been used to describe PRP-lead

groundwater and surface water restoration measures, including monitored

natural attenuation. However, PRP-lead groundwater and surface water

restoration measures, including monitored natural attenuation, are covered

by a separate action, PRP LR. Because PRP LR is a specific type of

O&M, the ten-year timeframe does not apply. LTRA begins on the date

that the designated Regional official approves the interim RA report in

writing. PRP LR is complete after a technical impracticability

determination has been made, or cleanup goals have been achieved and

documented in a final RA report, whichever occurs first. The term PRP

LR does not apply to groundwater and surface water restoration measures

conducted under other leads, to groundwater or surface water containment

measures, groundwater or surface water measures initiated for the primary

purpose of providing a safe drinking water supply, or to groundwater

monitoring.
EP 1110-1-19

30 Jun 01

A-4

Record of Decision The record of decision (ROD) documents the remedy selection and the

RA plan for a site or an operable unit and serves the following three basic

functions: it certifies that the remedy selection process was carried out in

accordance with CERCLA and with the NCP; it describes the technical

parameters of the remedy, specifying the methods selected to protect

human health and the environment including treatment, engineering, and

institutional control components, as well as remediation

objectives/cleanup goals; and, it provides the public with a consolidated

summary of information about the site and the chosen remedy, including

the rationale behind the selection. While the ROD should provide a

comprehensive description of site conditions, the scope of the action, the

selected remedy, remediation objectives/cleanup goals, and the reason for

selecting the remedy, it is only one part of the administrative record file,

which contains the full details of site characterization, alternatives

evaluation, and remedy selection.

Regional

Contingency Plan

Each EPA Region is responsible for developing regional contingency

plans “to coordinate timely, effective response by various Federal

agencies and other organizations to discharges of oil or releases of

hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants” (40 CFR 300.210 (b)).

Each plan includes information on facilities and resources within the

Region that may be useful in responses. To the extent possible, regional

contingency plans must follow the format of the NCP and be coordinated

with the appropriate state emergency response plans.

Remedial Action A remedial action (RA) is the implementation of the remedy selected in

the ROD. A RA is complete when the remediation objectives and/or

cleanup goals stated in the ROD have been achieved, and the remedy has

been determined to be O&F.

Remedial Design Remedial design (RD) is an engineering phase during which additional

technical information and data identified are incorporated into technical

drawings and specifications developed for the subsequent RA. These

specifications are based on the detailed description of the selected remedy

and on the remediation/cleanup criteria provided in the ROD.

Remedial

Investigation

A remedial investigation (RI) involves collecting the data necessary to

adequately characterize the site for the purpose of developing and

evaluating effective remedial alternatives. In general, the RI consists of

the following actions: determining the nature and extent of the

contamination at the site or operable unit; assessing risks to human health

and the environment from this contamination; and, conducting treatability

tests to evaluate the potential performance and cost of the treatment

technologies being considered to address these risks. In characterizing

the site, the lead agency or PRP identifies the source of contamination,

the potential routes of migration, and the current and the potential human
EP 1110-1-19

30 Jun 01

A-5

and environmental receptors. During a RI/ FS, information is gathered to

support an informed decision regarding the remedy (if any) that is most

appropriate for a given site or an operable unit within a site. Interim or

early actions to initiate risk reduction activities can be undertaken

throughout the RI/FS process.

Revised Model

CERCLA RD/RA

Consent Decree

The Revised Model CERCLA RD/RA Consent Decree, published July

1995, superseded the 1991 interim model. The Model Consent Decree

serves as a template for binding settlement agreements that serve as

determinations of responsibility under CERCLA and the NCP.
EP 1110-1-19

30 Jun 01

B-1

APPENDIX B

EXAMPLE REMEDIAL ACTION REPORT –

EX SITU SOIL REMEDIATION

NOTE:

The following example remedial action report is based on an actual Superfund site, but some

information has been altered to illustrate the concepts of the guide. In addition, names have been

changed to avoid confusion with the actual site.

Content and format of actual RA reports may vary from this example due to considerations such

as project lead and support roles, availability of information, and site-specific conditions. The

information presented in this example report (e.g., costs) should not necessarily be used as a

technical basis for completing remedial action at an actual site (e.g., as a source of cost

information).
FINAL

REMEDIAL ACTION REPORT

SLIPPERY CHEMICAL SUPERFUND

SITE, OPERABLE UNIT 3

GREASE, TEXAS

September 2000
TABLE OF CONTENTS

Slippery Chemical OU 3 Final RA Report i

Abstract............................................................................................................................................iii

Section 1 Introduction............................................................................................................ 1-1

Site Description....................................................................................................1-1

Geology and Stratigraphy.....................................................................................1-1

Relevant Operations and Waste Management Practices......................................1-1

Regulatory History...............................................................................................1-2

Nature and Extent of contamination.....................................................................1-2

Section 2 Operable Unit Background ..................................................................................... 2-1

Remedy Selection.................................................................................................2-1

Cleanup Goals/Standards.....................................................................................2-1

Section 3 Construction Activities........................................................................................... 3-1

Construction and Implementation of the Treatment Remedy..............................3-1

Section 4 Chronology of Major Events for the Operable Unit.................................................. 4-1

Section 5 Performance Standards and Construction Quality Control ..................................... 5-1

Performance Standards.........................................................................................5-1

Quality Assurance and Quality Control...............................................................5-2

Data Assessment ......................................................................................5-2

Data Quality.............................................................................................5-3

Section 6 Final Inspections and Certifications ....................................................................... 6-1

Inspections............................................................................................................6-1

Certifications........................................................................................................6-1

Health and Safety.................................................................................................6-1

Section 7 Operations and Maintenance Activities................................................................... 7-1

Section 8 Summary of Project Costs...................................................................................... 8-1

Procurement Process............................................................................................8-1

Treatment System Cost ........................................................................................8-1

Section 9 Observations and Lessons Learned....................................................................... 9-1

Cost-Related.........................................................................................................9-1

Performance-Related............................................................................................9-1

Other Lessons Learned.........................................................................................9-2
TABLE OF CONTENTS

Slippery Chemical OU 3 Final RA Report ii

Section 10 Operable Unit Contacts ........................................................................................ 10-1

Section 11 References........................................................................................................... 11-1

Appendix A – Cost and Performance Factors.................................................................................A-1

Appendix B – Project Costs............................................................................................................B-1
Abstract

Slippery Chemical OU 3 Final RA Report iii

Operable Unit 3

On-Site Thermal Treatment

Slippery Chemical Superfund Site, Grease, Texas

Site Name and Operable Unit: Slippery Chemical Superfund Site, Operable Unit 3

Location: Grease, Texas

Regulatory Oversight: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region VI

Texas Natural Resources Conservation Commission

Contractor Oversight: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Ft. Worth District

Remedial Action Contractor: H&S Consultants, Grease, TX

Waste Source: Two lined and two unlined waste management lagoons; disposal of drums of

chemical waste, chemical sludge and demolition debris on the ground surface

and in the shallow subsurface

Contaminants: Organic Compounds

• 470 to 1,500,000 μg/kg ß-Naphthylamine

• 3.8 to 8,200 μg/kg Fenac

• Halogenated and non-halogenated VOCs and SVOCs detected in soil

Technology: On-Site Incineration

• The incineration system consisted of a co-current, rotary kiln and a

secondary combustion chamber (SCC).

• The kiln operated at an exit gas temperature above 1599°F and the SCC

operated above 1801°F.

• Hot gases exiting the SCC passed through an evaporative cooler, a

baghouse, a Venturi quench unit, and a caustic scrubber.

• Excavated soil was dried and screened to remove oversized organic and

inorganic debris.

• Excavated soil and shredded combustible material were fed to the

incinerator.

• Treated soil and fly ash were stockpiled for compliance sampling.

• Treated soil and fly ash that met treatment standards were used as fill

material at the site.

Cleanup Type: Full-Scale

Purpose/Significance Remediation designed to provide permanent destruction of soil contaminants; no

Of Application: long-term waste management requirements following on-site backfill of

incinerator ash.

Type/Quantity of 295,087 tons (194,520 cubic yards) of contaminated soil

Media Treated: Moisture content: 17.6% average, range of 10 to 25.5%

BTU value: 274 Btu/lb

Period of Operation: Trial burn: 1/25/97 to 2/4/97

Full-scale operation: 3/4/98 to 4/22/99
Abstract

Slippery Chemical OU 3 Final RA Report iv

Operable Unit 3, cont.

On-Site Thermal Treatment

Slippery Chemical Superfund Site, Grease, Texas

Regulatory Destruction and removal efficiency (DRE) of 99.99% for POHC.

Requirements/ Treated soil objectives were 55 mg/kg for b-Naphthylamine and 1,000 mg/kg for Fenac.

Cleanup Goals: Treated soil and fly ash with TCLP concentrations in excess 25 times the drinking water

standard for any one of eight metals were stabilized.

Air emission requirements included control of metals, hydrogen chloride, total dioxins and

furans, carbon monoxide, nitrous oxides, and particulate matter in the stack gas.

Results: Sampling of treated soil indicated that the cleanup goals were met. Three percent of the soil

required re-treatment to achieve cleanup levels.

Two batches of fly ash required stabilization prior to on-site backfill.

Emissions data from the trial burn and full-scale operations indicated that all emissions

standards were met.

Costs: The total cost for this project was $134,622,950, with RA capital costs of $64,676,100, RA

operating costs of $69,890,000, and RA periodic costs of $56,850. The total technologyspecific cost was $109,190,500. Therefore, using a quantity of 194,520 cubic yards, the

technology-specific unit cost was calculated at $478 per cubic yard.

Description: The SCS Site included a chemical manufacturing facility that operated from 1951 to 1982,

producing chemical intermediates used in dye, cosmetic, textile, pharmaceutical, pesticide and

herbicide manufacturing. Two lined wastewater treatment lagoons, a dry unlined sludge lagoon,

and an unlined leachate lagoon were constructed at the site during the late 1950s, probably for

use as waste impoundments. Drums of chemical waste, chemical sludge, and demolition debris

were disposed on the ground surface and in the shallow subsurface at the site.

Site soil and chemical sludge were contaminated with VOCs, SVOCs including bnaphthylamine, the herbicide Fenac, and metals. These compounds were detected throughout

the site regardless of sampling depth. A ROD was signed in September 1988, specifying on-site

incineration as the remedial technology for addressing soil contamination at the site.

Contaminated soil/sludge/sediment and groundwater were identified as Operable Unit (OU) 3.

Site work for construction of the incinerator commenced in April 1995. Incinerator shake down

and a clean burn were conducted in January 1996. The incinerator was then shut down until

September 1996 due to a lawsuit filed to stop the remediation project. System optimization and

preliminary testing were conducted in the Fall of 1996. The trial burn and risk burns were

conducted in January and February 1997. Following approval of the test results, the incinerator

was put into full-scale operation in March 1998. All site soil was excavated down to the water

table (about 15 feet below ground surface) and treated. The total area of the SCS Site is 9.6

acres. The incineration system consisted of a co-current, rotary kiln followed by a SCC. After

confirming that treated soil and fly ash met the cleanup criteria, the materials were backfilled at

the site. Treatment was completed in April 1999.
SECTIONONE Introduction

Slippery Chemical OU 3 Final RA Report 1-1

SITE DESCRIPTION

The Slippery Chemical Superfund (SCS) Site is located in Slick County, Texas, in the city of

Grease. The site was a chemical manufacturing facility that operated from 1951 to 1982. During

its operation, the Slippery Chemical Company produced chemical intermediates used in dye,

cosmetic, textile, pharmaceutical, pesticide and herbicide manufacturing. The total area of the

site is 9.6 acres and includes the previous location of the Slippery Chemical Company and the

adjacent Oily Chemical Company property. Figure 1 shows the general layout of the site.

The Slippery Chemical plant included several major buildings, two lined wastewater treatment

lagoons, a dry unlined sludge lagoon, and an unlined leachate lagoon. The lagoons were

constructed during the late 1950s, probably for use as waste impoundments. The leachate lagoon

was constructed in the lowest portion of the site, and is assumed to be the collection point for all

surface runoff at the site. Approximately 60 process tanks and reactors were located inside and

surrounding the process buildings. Approximately 10 additional larger tanks were staged outside

of the buildings for bulk storage of acids, bases, and fuel oils.

The area surrounding the site includes the Oily Chemical Company to the west, Rough Paper

Company to the southwest, Wet Creek to the south, the west branch of the Roaring River to the

north, and an apartment complex and shopping center to the east.

GEOLOGY AND STRATIGRAPHY

The general lithology of the upper 15 feet of overburden material at the SCS Site consists of

sandy clay floodplain deposits with various lenses of clay dispersed throughout. Below

approximately 15 feet, the alluvial sediments increase in grain size with increasing depth to sand

and gravel and then to sand with gravel and cobble-sized sandstone fragments. The bedrock is a

soft gray to shaley claystone and medium hard limestone ranging from less than 1 foot to 31 feet

in thickness, and occurs at approximately 110 feet bgs.

Groundwater at the SCS Site flows to the north, east and south. Local groundwater flows to the

south and southeast toward Wet Creek. Groundwater is typically encountered at 12 to 15 feet

bgs.

RELEVANT OPERATIONS AND WASTE MANAGEMENT PRACTICES

From the late 1950s through the early 1980s, four waste management lagoons (waste

impoundments) were operated at the SCS Site. The two wastewater lagoons were lined, but the

sludge lagoon and leachate lagoon were unlined. Additionally, drums of chemical waste,

chemical sludge, and demolition debris were disposed on the ground surface and in the shallow

subsurface at the site.
SECTIONONE Introduction

Slippery Chemical OU 3 Final RA Report 1-2

REGULATORY HISTORY

Slippery Chemical was cited many times by state and federal agencies for violating

environmental and health and safety regulations. In 1982, after Slippery Chemical failed to

respond to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (USEPA’s) request to clean up the site,

the USEPA initiated an emergency removal action during which drums, surface sludges, and

storage tanks were removed. During this removal action, USEPA removed 1,700 exposed drums

and drained and neutralized approximately 10 large tanks used for bulk storage of acids, bases,

and fuel oil. Access to the site was controlled using an 8-foot fence, and warning signs were

posted.

A Superfund remedial investigation and feasibility study (RI/FS) was initiated in 1983. The first

two phases of the RI/FS led to interim remedial actions, specifically: Operable Unit (OU) -1 –

the remediation of a leachate stream that was discharging to an off-site area; and OU-2 – the

removal of the two lined wastewater treatment lagoons and the on-site structures. Phase I was

completed in 1987. Phase II was completed in 1988.

The September 1988 Record of Decision (ROD) addressed both soil/sludge/sediment

contamination and groundwater contamination at the SCS site; however, OU-3, the subject of

this report, only addresses soil/sludge/sediment.

The Phase III RI/FS was initiated in January 1987. During Phase III field investigations,

samples of soil, groundwater, surface water and sediment were collected. Forty-one test pits

were excavated to characterize contaminated soil and sludge at the site. Each test pit was

excavated to the water table or to a depth of 15 feet below ground surface (bgs), whichever was

more shallow.

NATURE AND EXTENT OF CONTAMINATION

During the Phase III RI/FS, soil, groundwater, surface water, and sediment contamination was

observed throughout the site. OU-3 addressed all of these contaminated media. The degree of

contamination varied throughout the study area. In general, the frequency of occurrence and

concentrations of contaminants were greatest on the Slippery Chemical property and

immediately off-site, particularly on the Oily Chemical property, which is located immediately

north of the Slippery Chemical property. Based on local groundwater patterns, the Oily

Chemical property is considered to be down gradient of the Slippery Chemical Property.

Chemical sludge and contaminated soil were observed in all of the open area on the SCS Site.

The soil and sludge were contaminated with volatile organic compounds (VOCs), semivolatile

organic compounds (SVOCs), Fenac, β-naphthylamine, and metals. Organic contaminants (i.e.,

Fenac) were consistently observed in samples collected throughout the site. Field screening

revealed that the vadose zone at the site was contaminated to varying concentrations with

chlorinated solvents and benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylenes (BTEX). Substituted

chlorinated phenols and alkyl phenols were also present. These compounds occurred throughout

the site regardless of sampling depth; therefore, no one particular area of the Slippery Chemical

property or the adjacent Oily Chemical property could have been considered the most likely
SECTIONONE Introduction

Slippery Chemical OU 3 Final RA Report 1-3

source of contamination. Metals were also detected in soil samples; however, it is not clear

whether activities at the Slippery Chemical plant were the source of metals contamination.
SECTIONONE Introduction

Slippery Chemical OU 3 Final RA Report 1-4

FIGURE 1

SLIPPERY CHEMICAL SUPERFUND SITE
SECTIONTWO Operable Unit Background

Slippery Chemical OU 3 Final RA Report 2-1

REMEDY SELECTION

Based upon CERCLA requirements and a detailed analysis of the alternatives, USEPA and the

Texas Natural Resources Conservation Commission (TNRCC) recommended incineration of all

soil and buried waste within the SCS Site boundary down to the groundwater table. The selected

remedy was deemed:

• To be protective of human health and the environment,

• To meet all applicable or relevant and appropriate federal and state requirements

(ARARs), and

• To be cost-effective.

This remedy satisfies the statutory preference for remedies that employ treatment that reduces

toxicity, mobility or volume as a principal element and utilizes permanent solutions and

alternative treatment technologies to the maximum extent practicable.

The selected remedy for the SCS Site included:

• Excavation of approximately 252,000 cubic yards (CY) of contaminated sludge, soil, and

sediments,

• Treatment of excavated materials in an on-site mobile rotary kiln incinerator,

• Backfilling all excavations (potentially with incinerator ash), and

• Installation of a vegetative cover.

CLEANUP GOALS/STANDARDS

The following table lists the remediation objectives for soil treated in the incinerator operated at

the SCS Site. These objectives were established in the September 1988 ROD to meet TNRCC

requirements.

Treated Soil Objectives

Contaminant Cleanup Level

(mg/kg)

Volatile Organics

Benzene 100

Chlorobenzene 10,000

1,2-Dichloroethene 7,000

Ethylbenzene 70,000

Tetrachloroethane 2,000

Toluene 100,000

Trichloroethene 2,000
SECTIONTWO Operable Unit Background

Slippery Chemical OU 3 Final RA Report 2-2

Contaminant Cleanup Level

(mg/kg)

Total Xylenes 5,000

Semivolatile Organics

Benzo(a)anthracene 6,000

Benzo(b)fluoranthene 6,000

Benzo(k)fluoranthene 60,000

Benzoic Acid 3,300

Benzo(a)pyrene 660

Chrysene 300,000

1,2-Dichlorobenzene 7,000

1,4-Dichlorobenzene 8,000

Fluoranthene 400,000

Naphthalene 8,000

Pentachlorophenol 40,000

Phenanthrene 80,000

Phenol 400,000

Pyrene 300,000

1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 20,000

β-Naphthylamine 55

Chlorinated Herbicide

Fenac 1,000
SECTIONTHREE Construction Activities

Slippery Chemical OU 3 Final RA Report 3-1

CONSTRUCTION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THE TREATMENT REMEDY

A background air monitoring study was performed prior to on-site construction activities. The

study was conducted from October 10 through December 5, 1994. The perimeter air monitoring

program was initiated in March 1995, and excavation began in April 1995. In order to support

the vertical excavation at the site boundaries, a sheet pile excavation support system was

installed to allow “straight cut” excavations. Soil excavation was the first step in incinerator

construction, and the unit was sited on imported clean fill placed after the initial excavation.

Construction of the incineration system was completed in December 1995. System shakedown

and a clean burn were conducted on January 13, 1996. The incinerator was then shut down until

September 23, 1996 due to a lawsuit that was filed by a local opposition group against the

USEPAto stop the remediation project. Approval to continue the project was issued on August

14, 1996.

A mobile, on-site incineration system was used to decontaminate soil, sludge, and sediment at

the SCS Site. The incineration system consisted of a rotary kiln, a secondary combustion

chamber (SCC), and an air pollution control system (APCS). Rotary kiln incinerators are able to

process a wide variety of waste feed compositions and handle oversized wastes with minimal

processing pre-treatment. The rotary kiln portion of the system is used to volatilize and destroy

the majority of the organic contaminants. The remaining organic contaminants exit the kiln with

the hot gases into the SCC where additional destruction occurs. The APCS is used to provide

particulate matter and acid gas control. Figure 2 shows a schematic of the on-site incineration

system.

Site characteristics, operating limits, and operating parameters of the incineration system are

presented in Appendix A. The system was operated using the following steps:

• Contaminated soil was excavated down to the water table over the entire site and was dried

by adding cement kiln dust or lime. Soil was then transported to the debris separation

building. Material greater than 4 inches in diameter was removed from the soil by rotating

barrel screens and underwent manual segregation into organic and inorganic debris. Organic

debris (e.g., wood) was shredded. Inorganic debris was either landfilled (e.g., plastic),

recycled (e.g., steel) or cleaned for backfill (e.g., rocks). Material less than 4 inches in

diameter was stockpiled in the feed preparation building after ferrous material was

electromagnetically removed.

• Soil was blended with shredded brush, roots, trees, and other combustible material. The soil

was fed onto a variable-speed, apron conveyor, a weigh belt conveyor, and into the kiln feed

hopper. Feed material was delivered from the hopper to the kiln via dual, water-cooled, feed

screws. The feed material was sampled and analyzed for metals, SVOCs (including βnaphthylamine), VOCs, Fenac, and physical/chemical parameters (e.g., BTU, moisture, ash,

and chlorine).

• The rotary kiln was 60 feet long and had an inside diameter of 11 feet. The kiln was operated

concurrently with the waste feed located at the same end as the oxygen-natural gas burners.
SECTIONTHREE Construction Activities

Slippery Chemical OU 3 Final RA Report 3-2

Contaminated soil traveled through the kiln via gravity. The kiln was operated at a minimum

exit gas temperature of 1599°F.

• The kiln discharge chamber was sized to reduce the flue gas velocity and remove large

particulate matter in the exit gas stream. The hot gas cyclone subsequently removed

additional particulate matter in the flue gas prior to entering the SCC. The SCC was operated

at a minimum temperature of 1801°F and a minimum gas retention time of 2 seconds.

• Exhaust gases from the SCC were cooled to 400°F using air-atomized, water spray nozzles in

an evaporative cooler. The cooled flue gases then passed through a baghouse for removal of

particulate matter. The baghouse was designed with a 3-to-1 air-to-cloth ratio.

• The baghouse gas discharged to an induced draft (ID) fan, which drew gases through the

entire system and discharged them through the wet scrubber system to the discharge stack.

The fan produced negative pressure throughout the incineration system to eliminate fugitive

emissions.

• Exhaust gases from the baghouse were cooled from approximately 350°F to 185°F with

water sprays in the Venturi quench unit. A mildly caustic scrubber water solution neutralized

dissolved acid gases in one of two countercurrent, packed-bed absorbers, which were

operated in parallel. The pH of the scrubber water was maintained between 6.5 and 9 by

addition of a sodium hydroxide solution. The cleaned gas passed through a high-efficiency,

multi-pass mist eliminator for removal of entrained water droplets.

• Cleaned flue gas was exhausted through a 150-foot tall stack equipped with continuous

emission monitors (CEMs) that analyzed the gas for oxygen (O2), carbon monoxide (CO),

carbon dioxide (CO2), total hydrocarbons (THC), and nitrogen oxides (NOx).

• Bottom ash and fly ash were segregated prior to disposal. Bottom ash consisted of treated

soil from the kiln and ash collected by the cyclone and SCC. Fly ash consisted of ash from

the evaporative cooler and baghouse. Each ash stream was cooled and wetted by spraying

with excess scrubber system water, after which it was conveyed to the ash storage area. A

10,000 cubic feet per minute (cfm) scrubber and Lamella clarifier system captured steam

issuing from the wet ash drag conveyor to prevent off-site migration of particulate matter.

• Fly was were tested for TCLP metals as each storage bin was filled. Each day’s production of

bottom ash was separated for testing of TCLP metals, Fenac, SVOCs (including

b-naphthylamine), and VOCs. Ash failing the cleanup criteria was retreated. Ash meeting

the cleanup criteria was backfilled on-site. Ash with TCLP concentrations greater than 25

times any of the drinking water standards was stabilized prior to backfill.

In addition to the incineration system, a 100-gallon per minute (gpm) wastewater treatment plant

(WWTP) was installed and operated at the site to remove metals and organic compounds from

various water streams generated during the project. Treated wastewater was discharged to Wet

Creek. Wastewater treated at the WWTP included: incineration system pad cleaning water; ash

handling pad cleaning water; wash water from equipment and personnel decontamination
SECTIONTHREE Construction Activities

Slippery Chemical OU 3 Final RA Report 3-3

activities; water collected from the leachate lagoon; water collected from the soil excavation

cavities; and potentially-contaminated storm water. The WWTP included the following

treatment technologies:

• Primary settling;

• Wastewater equalization tanks;

• Metals removal through chemical addition, flocculation, and clarification;

• Neutralization;

• Sand filtration for suspended solids removal;

• Air stripping with activated carbon columns for treating organics transferred to the air

stream;

• Bag filtration for removal of small-diameter suspended solids;

• Activated carbon adsorption for removal of residual organics; and

• Sludge dewatering with a filter press.
SECTIONTHREE Construction Activities

Slippery Chemical OU 3 Final RA Report 3-4
SECTIONFOUR Chronology of Major Events for the Operable Unit

Slippery Chemical OU 3 Final RA Report 4-1

The following table includes the dates of the most significant events in the operation of the

incinerator system and WWTP at the SCS site.

Date Activity

September 29, 1988 Phase III ROD signed by the U.S. EPA and the Army

Spring 1989 Phase II remediation completed

October 1990 – August 1991 Incineration feasibility study conducted

September 30, 1993 Contract awarded

November 15, 1993 Notice to proceed issued

November 14, 1994 Mobilization to the site

May 13, 1995 WWTP put into operation

January 3, 1996 Construction of incinerator and supporting facilities complete

January 13, 1996 Shakedown and clean burn complete

January 14, 1996 – August 14, 1996 Stop work in effect due to lawsuit

September 19, 1996 Public meeting held on the revised trial burn risk assessment protocol

January 20 – 22, 1997 Risk Burn No. 1 conducted

January 25 – February 4, 1997 Trial Burn conducted

February 7 – 9, 1997 Risk Burn No. 2 conducted

February 10, 1997 – March 4, 1998 Project shutdown for risk and trial burn data review

February 10, 1998 Public meeting held on the risk assessment

March 9, 1998 Full-scale operations started

April 22, 1999 Soil incineration completed

November 23, 1999 Project completion
SECTIONFIVE Performance Standards and Construction Quality Control

Slippery Chemical OU 3 Final RA Report 5-1

PERFORMANCE STANDARDS

The following table provides the performance objectives that were established for the SCS Site

incinerator in the September 1988 ROD:

Incinerator Performance Objectives

Parameter Performance Criteria

Principal Organic Hazardous Constituent

(POHC) destruction removal efficiency (DRE) ≥ 99.99%

Particulate Matter (PM) Emissions ≤0.01 grains/dry standard cubic foot (gr/dscf) @ 7% O2

Hydrochloric Acid (HCl) Emissions ≤4 lb/hr or 99% reduction

Total Dioxins and Furans Emissions ≤30 nanograms/dry standard cubic meter (ng/dscm) @ 7% O2

NOx Emissions ≤300 parts per million – volume (ppmv) @ 7% O2 (daily

average)

CO Emissions ≤100 ppmv @ 7% O2 (hourly rolling average)

Metal Emissions

As

Be

Cd

Cr+6

Cr

Pb

<0.11 g/sec

<0.20 g/sec

<0.27 g/sec

<0.04 g/sec

<0.12 g/sec

<1,384 g/sec

Fly ash and bottom ash were analyzed for metals using the toxicity characteristic leaching

procedure (TCLP). The results were compared to the Texas drinking water standards listed in

the table below. Ash meeting these standards could be backfilled on-site without restriction.

Ash failing these standards, but with TCLP concentrations less than 25 times the drinking water

standards, could be returned to the site as fill material but could not be placed below 553 feet

mean sea level (8 feet above the average water table). As specified in the 1988 ROD, treated soil

with TCLP concentrations greater than 25 times the drinking water standard required

stabilization prior to backfill.

Ash TCLP Concentration Objectives

Metal Drinking Water Standard

(mg/L)

25 x Standard

(mg/L)

Arsenic 0.05 1.25

Barium 1.0 25

Cadmium 0.01 0.25

Chromium 0.05 1.25

Lead 0.05 1.25

Mercury 0.002 0.05

Selenium 0.01 0.25

Silver 0.05 1.25
SECTIONFIVE Performance Standards and Construction Quality Control

Slippery Chemical OU 3 Final RA Report 5-2

As discussed previously, perimeter air monitoring was routinely performed at the site. Three

VOCs were selected as key indicator compounds to be monitored by the HNu if the average

NMOC reading exceeded 1 parts per million (ppm). Perimeter action levels were set at 10% of

the OSHA permissible exposure limits (PELs) for each of the three selected contaminants. The

perimeter action levels were:

• 9.146 ppm for toluene

• 7.777 ppm for chlorobenzene

• 2.511 ppm for tetrachloroethene

The table below provides the discharge limitations for the WWTP at the SCS Site as specified in

the September 1988 ROD. Weekly samples of the WWTP effluent were required whenever the

WWTP was in operation.

Wastewater Discharge Limitations

Parameter Monthly Average (mg/L) Daily Maximum (mg/L)

β-Naphthylamine 0.012 0.024

Fenac 0.100 0.200

Toluene 0.010 0.020

Chlorobenzene 0.010 0.020

1,2-Dichlorobenzene 0.010 0.020

1,4-Dichlorobenzene 0.010 0.020

1,2-Dichloroethane 0.010 0.020

Trichloroethene 0.005 0.010

Total Arsenic 0.100 0.200

Total Barium 2.000 4.000

Total Cadmium 0.060 0.120

Total Nickel 0.200 0.400

Total Chromium 0.150 0.300

Total Lead 1.000 2.000

pH 6 to 9 standard units 6 to 9 standard units

QUALITY ASSURANCE AND QUALITY CONTROL

Data Assessment

An incineration feasibility study was conducted between October 1990 and August 1991. All test

runs met the cleanup criteria established for the SCS Site. The pilot-scale rotary kiln incinerator

achieved 99.99% destruction removal efficiency (DRE) of Principal Organic Hazardous

Constituents (POHCs), which were spiked into the soil. The leachable metal concentrations in
SECTIONFIVE Performance Standards and Construction Quality Control

Slippery Chemical OU 3 Final RA Report 5-3

the ash from the pilot study were either non-detect or were below TCLP limits for characteristic

hazardous waste, so no fixation or stabilization was required prior to backfilling incinerator ash

on site. Some fly ash had TCLP metal concentrations above the drinking water standards.

A risk assessment concluded that full-scale operation of the incinerator at the SCS Site would not

pose a threat to public health. All of the estimated risks were within the range that is considered

acceptable for cleanup activities performed under the Superfund hazardous waste program.

The results from the trial burn demonstrated that the incinerator met the RCRA performance

standards of 40 CFR 264 and other regulatory and contractual requirements while burning site

soils spiked with POHCs and metals.

During full-scale operations, all treated soil batches met the cleanup criteria for Fenac after the

first pass; eight treated soil batches did not initially meet the cleanup goal for β-naphthylamine.

Of the total mass of soil treated, less than 3% required additional thermal treatment after the first

pass. Soil not meeting the cleanup criteria was sent back to the feed preparation building where it

was blended with the other soil, and then conveyed to the incinerator.

TCLP metals results for 2 batches of fly ash were greater than 25 times the drinking water

standard (once during a metals spiking test and the other time during full-scale operation). The

fly ash from these batches was stabilized prior to backfill.

Stack testing, perimeter air monitoring and ambient air monitoring performed in the community

near the project site met all specified objectives.

Data Quality

All trial burn testing was conducted in accordance with the source test sampling and analysis

protocols specified in the quality assurance plan for the trial burn. All data gathered during the

trial burn were found to be of acceptable quality to demonstrate that the incinerator met the

performance standards. The quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) results were compared to

the data quality objectives specified in the Project Quality Assurance Plan contained in the Trial

Burn Plan. This comparison showed that greater than 90% of the accuracy, precision, and

method performance objectives were met.

The perimeter air sampling and off-site ambient air sampling were conducted in accordance with

the SCS Site Perimeter Air Sampling Plan, including the calibration, sampling and analytical

procedures. Other sampling and analysis activities during full-scale operations (e.g., soil and ash

tests) were conducted according to the protocols in the Chemical Quality Management Sampling

Plan.
SECTIONSIX Final Inspections and Certifications

Slippery Chemical OU 3 Final RA Report 6-1

INSPECTIONS

The project utilized the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Three Phase Inspection

Program which included the Preparatory Inspection – prior to the start of work, Initial Inspection

– as soon as representative portion of the work was complete, and Follow Up Inspection – daily

until the work is complete. Prior to site mobilization a list of the Definable Features of Work

was generated. The Definable Features of Work list was a guideline for initiating the Three

Phase Inspection Program on individual work tasks. The Definable Features of Work list was

updated monthly and forwarded to the USACE for information only.

CERTIFICATIONS

As part of the submittal process data, drawings, instructions, schedules, statements, reports,

certificates, samples, and records were transmitted to the USACE for either review and action or

for information only. Each individual submittal was given a unique transmittal number.

Submittals were forwarded to the USACE on Government Form SF4025 and to other reviewers

such as the USACE Architectural Engineer, USEPA, and TNRCC on Government Form

SF4026. Submittals were tracked in the Complete Submittal Register that was updated on a

monthly basis. A copy of all submittals was kept on file at the project site.

The Quality Control Department was responsible for generating a Daily Contractors Quality

Control Report (DCQCR). Starting with mobilization, through the contract completion date, a

DCQCR was generated and issued for each contract day. The report included the following

information: date, report number corresponding to the number of contract days, general weather

information, work performed by H&S Consultants, attachment reports, work performed by

subcontractors, inspections performed, testing performed, verbal instructions received from

Government personnel, verbal instructions received from Government personnel on construction

deficiencies, safety violations observed, remarks, and worker hours and equipment use. Two

copies of the report (one with the original H&S Consultants QC signature) were forwarded to the

USACE QA Field Office.

Data Quality Objectives (DQOs) were established prior to the start of the project and were

updated throughout the project. Individual programs such as the Perimeter Air Sampling

Program and the Chemical Quality Management/Sampling Program defined DQOs. Objectives

included precision, accuracy, representativeness, comparability, and completeness. In 1997, a

process to consolidate the DQOs was performed. The result was a document that defined DQOs

for all chemical data generated on the project. The DQOs were summarized using a seven step

process outlined in EPA’s “Guidance for the Data Quality Objectives Process” (1994).

HEALTH AND SAFETY

A Permea-Tec pad was used to verify that beta-napthylamine (BNA) had not permeated gloves

and protective clothing during usage. To use this method as a field verification of chemical

protective gloves, a worker wore a pad on the back of the hand over the top of the inner glove

and beneath the outer glove for approximately two hours. After wear, the outer glove was
SECTIONSIX Final Inspections and Certifications

Slippery Chemical OU 3 Final RA Report 6-2

removed and the Permea-Tec pad was retrieved. The analysis of the pad was activated with tap

water. A positive indication of breakthrough of 2-naphthlylamine (2-NA) through the personal

protective equipment (PPE) would result in a predominately red color change of the pad. During

the course of the project, no positive results were found with the 780 separate pad tests collected.

A Surface Swype pad was also used to determine surface contamination of aromatic amine

compounds. A monthly wipe sampling program using these pads was implemented to confirm

that support areas were not becoming contaminated during site activities. During the course of

the project, no positive results were found from the 627 Surface Swype samples collected in

trailers and support facilities.

Surface Swype pads were also used to confirm that equipment, which had entered the exclusion

zone, was decontaminated of aromatic amines prior to release from the exclusion zone. During

the equipment decontamination program, only three of the 2,864 pads showed the characteristic

color change indicating the presence of aromatic amines. Of the three positive samples, one was

found to be a false positive through additional testing and research, and the other two were

equipment which were re-cleaned using a decontamination solution formulated to remove

aromatic amine compounds. After re-cleaning with the decontamination solution, the equipment

Surface Swype was repeated and no color change was indicated.

Another type of pad utilized was a Skin Swype pad. The Skin Swype pad was used to

determine that no inadvertent skin contamination with 2-NA had occurred. When a worker

exited the exclusion zone, the worker’s skin was wiped with a Skin Swype pad prior to

washing, the pad was placed in a small cup containing developing solution, the developing

solution was allowed to wick through the pad. If a strip near the top of the pad changed color, it

was considered to be positive for an aromatic amine. None of the 770 Skin Swype pads

showed a positive result.
SECTIONSEVEN Operations and Maintenance Activities

Slippery Chemical OU 3 Final RA Report 7-1

The Risk Assessment Report and associated risk analysis were complete in January 1998, at

which time the USACE notified H&S Consultants to prepare for the operation phase. In late

February 1998, a clean burn demonstration was performed to ensure that the thermal destruction

facility (TDF) was mechanically capable of performing during the Operations Phase. On March

4

th, with the clean burn successfully complete, and with concurrence from USEPA and USACE,

the Operation Phase commenced.

With-in several days of the Operation Phase concerns were raised over whether dust was

entrained in the steam generated from the thermal process and whether, if entrained, it was

leaving the site boundary. Several members of the project team including USEPA, TNRCC,

USACE, and H&S Consultants inspected the process and determined that there was no dust

leaving the site boundary, but that modifications could be made to help alleviate the dust

concern. The first effort was to install a hood equipped with mist spray nozzles on the ashreceiving bin. The use of mist nozzles in the ash-receiving bin knocked out dust that was

entrained in the steam. The second effort was to partially enclose the fly ash building. This

allowed additional residence time in the building for steam to settle. The first two efforts were

implemented immediately. The third effort included locating a steam scrubber that could be

installed as final precaution to scrub the steam of any entrained dust. By the end of April 1998, a

steam scrubber was mobilized to the site, modified for the site-specific application, and installed

in the ash-receiving bin.

In early April 1998, after preliminary kiln refractory brick repairs failed, a decision was made to

re-line the kiln with a castable refractory. Installation of the new refractory took place during the

last three weeks of April and the first week of May. The Operation Phase resumed during the

first week of May 1998.

As per the TNRCC Air Equivalency Document and the Trial Burn Plan, Operation Phase Stack

Testing was performed. Once per month for the first three months of operations stack testing

was performed for dioxin and Furan analysis. Once per quarter for the duration of the project

stack testing was performed for particulate and metals analysis.

During the Operation Phase several statistical operating goals were established. A “utilization

percentage” was calculated to illustrate performance of the TDF as compared to a benchmark

operating rate of 47 tons per hour. A “utilization average” was calculated to summarize the

performance of the TDF. An “availability percentage” was calculated to illustrate the time the

TDF was physically available to operate. An “availability average daily tons” was calculated to

summarize the TDF production during available operating hours. An “availability TPH” was

calculated to summarize the TDF production rate during available operating hours. The

percentage of ash requiring additional thermal treatment was calculated and compared to a

project goal. The following table summarizes the Operation Phase performance versus

established goals.
SECTIONSEVEN Operations and Maintenance Activities

Slippery Chemical OU 3 Final RA Report 7-2

Operation Phase Performance

Parameter Goal Achieved

Utilization % 86.0% 75.0%

Utilization Avg. TPH 40.4 TPH 35.3 TPH

Availability % 71.0% 78.1%

Availability Avg. Daily Tons 688.8 Tons 660.7

Availability TPH 28.7 TPH 27.53 TPH

Ash Req. Add. Thermal Treat 5% 2.7%

The Operation Phase was complete on April 22nd, 1999 when the final soil to be incinerated was

fed to the TDF. Final bottom ash analytical results were received on April 23, at which time the

TDF burners were shut off and the Demobilization Phase started.
SECTIONEIGHT Summary of Project Costs

Slippery Chemical OU 3 Final RA Report 8-1

PROCUREMENT PROCESS

USACE awarded the contract to perform the soil remediation at OU-3 to Remedial Services

International on September 30, 1993, with remediation activities performed by Remedial

Services International. Remedial Services International was subsequently acquired by H&S

Consultants, which was later acquired by ABC Corporation. The contract was awarded using a

firm fixed-price cost structure. On September 23, 1996, the contract was converted to a cost plus

fixed fee contract.

TREATMENT SYSTEM COST

The table below summarizes total project costs for the RA at OU 3. Appendix B provides a

breakdown of these costs.

Cost Item Adjusted

ROD Estimate

Actual Cost1 Difference2

RA Capital Costs (1994-1999) $78,150,000 $64,676,100 - 17 %

RA Operating Costs (1998-1999)3$45,800,000 69,890,000 + 53 %

RA Periodic Costs (1999) $45,000 56,850 + 26 %

Total Costs Incurred, Years 0-5 (Actual $$) $123,995,000 $134,622,950 + 9 %

1 Costs are based on the respective years that the costs were incurred. The ROD estimates were adjusted from

1988 dollars to the appropriate year’s dollar basis using ENR building cost index factors.

2 Differences between the actual RA operating costs and the adjusted ROD estimate are largely attributable to the

waiting phase associated with a project shutdown pending the outcome of a lawsuit filed by a citizens group

($14,268,000). Costs were saved during site restoration by using clean, excavated rock as backfill and by

eliminating the need for vegetative cover (see Section 9 for additional information).

.
SECTIONNINE Observations and Lessons Learned

Slippery Chemical OU 3 Final RA Report 9-1

COST-RELATED

Costs on similar future projects could be reduced by taking preliminary steps to minimize the

chances for shutdowns caused by legal actions. Millions of dollars in costs were incurred while

the incinerator was shutdown pending the outcome of a lawsuit brought by an opposition group.

A significant cost savings was realized due to a change incorporated into the contract

specifications allowing for the cleaning and backfilling of excavated rock. The reuse of rock

eliminated costs associated with importing stone from an outside source.

The initial remedial design included laying cover material capable of supporting vegetation over

treated soil depleted of organic material. Two studies demonstrated that the addition of compost

and fertilizer to the treated soil would be sufficient to allow sustained growth of a vegetative

cover. The amended design resulted in elimination of costs associated with importing fill

materials and topsoil.

PERFORMANCE-RELATED

Project managers of future similar projects should perform a thorough review of the proposed

equipment layout plans. Equipment locations are particularly important to consider with material

handling systems. Bins and buildings to store and/or stabilize ash should be located in close

proximity to ash sources to minimize the amount of high wear/severe duty equipment (e.g.,

screw augers and drag conveyors) necessary.

The feed preparation area should be as large as physically possible to allow sufficient room for

any additional equipment, which may become necessary for trash separation, drum handling

operations, pre-drying and similar operations.

Dust suppression is an important aspect of managing soil and ash on-site. When possible, soil

and ash management operations should be conducted within an enclosed structure such as a

building under slight negative pressure or using enclosed equipment.

During the preliminary site investigation and incinerator conceptual design, the moisture content

of site soil should be characterized. Worst case moisture content should be included in the RFP

so the contractor design engineers can size the kiln and burners accordingly. Soil moisture will

greatly affect the allowable throughput rate and the ability of the system to remove contaminants

from the soil. A heat transfer specialist should do a thorough review of the assumptions and

calculations used to size the incineration equipment.

The temperature of the treated soil exiting the kiln is a primary indicator of whether the soil will

meet the treatment requirements. The contractor should measure the kiln exit soil temperatures to

obtain a real-time indication of the kiln efficiency, rather than waiting 72 hours for the analytical

results of the treated soil samples.

Due to the severe environments under which they operate, the ash conveyance system may be

particularly susceptible to mechanical failure. A thorough review of the contractor’s proposed
SECTIONNINE Observations and Lessons Learned

Slippery Chemical OU 3 Final RA Report 9-2

system should be performed. The review should draw upon the vast quantity of material handling

information and experience available within the combustion industry.

Whenever cost and space allow, redundant systems should be implemented in order to keep the

incinerator operational. The incinerator cannot physically operate without certain systems online

(e.g., drag conveyors or pumps) and the incinerator must not be allowed to operate if certain

equipment is not operational per permit requirements (e.g., Continuous Emission Monitors

[CEMs]). Incinerator downtime can be costly because site personnel must be paid and equipment

rental fees are incurred whether the incinerator is operating or not.

Performing a clean burn prior to feeding hazardous waste to the incinerator can have the

following benefits:

• Serves as a mechanical shakedown of the system;

• Provides an opportunity to do performance testing on the CEMs; and

• Provides an opportunity to debug any programming or control systems without the risk of

any sort of a release or labor-intensive decontamination prior to correcting any problems.

During the incinerator optimization stage and the trial burn tests, the incinerator should be

operated under a wide range of operating conditions (e.g., varied feed rate, kiln rotation speed,

and combustion temperature) to ensure that the permit limits allow the desired level of operating

flexibility.

OTHER LESSONS LEARNED

The USACE and the state regulatory agency were involved with a proactive, USEPA-lead public

relations effort that was implemented from the beginning of the project. This was achieved by

developing a public relations plan in conjunction with the local community.

Ninety to one hundred twenty days was allowed for state review of permit equivalency

documents, including the Trial Burn Plan.

The RFP specifications delineated which activities were construction-related and which activities

were service-related. Difficulties can arise when personnel working side-by-side on the same

equipment are paid different wages.

Staffing requirements for an incineration project are greater than the typical USACE construction

project. Required staff included an on-site project chemist, thermal incineration experts, office

engineers, project engineers, quality assurance staff, and an on-site authorized contracting

officer’s representative. In addition, the contracting officer’s representative was given more

authority to process changes so the changes could be incorporated in a timely manner.

A Construction Management Plan was developed that included the roles and responsibilities of

the participating organizations and individuals.
SECTIONNINE Observations and Lessons Learned

Slippery Chemical OU 3 Final RA Report 9-3

The project manager prepared for the worst weather possible at the site. Freezing pipes, power

outages, late deliveries, inability to move equipment and excavations filling with water are

examples of weather-related problems. These occurrences, if not anticipated, could have delayed

the project and been a source of additional costs.

Local emergency responders were involved with emergency response planning and drills. They

were provided with the required training and the necessary response equipment if they were not

already prepared for incinerator-related emergencies.

All pertinent federal and state regulations and guidance documents identified in the project

specifications were available on-site for reference.

Due to the large volume of information gathered and shared with outside agencies, a computerbased information and issue tracking system was used for this project. The system contained

complete descriptions of the issues, responsible individuals, inception dates, and anticipated

resolution dates. The system was reviewed on a regular basis to track the status of outstanding

issues.

Before initiating site work, a cost-benefit analysis was performed to determine if a backup to the

primary laboratory should be selected. Selection of a backup laboratory at the beginning of the

project eliminated time spent for laboratory validation and approval, which could have impacted

the project in progress if a laboratory had not been selected prior to start of work.

An active safety incentive program increased worker safety awareness and reduced injuries and

accidents.
SECTIONTEN Operable Unit Contacts

Slippery Chemical OU 3 Final RA Report 10-1

Remedial Action Contractor:

Primary Contact Name and Title: Mr. Frederick Stanley, President

Company Name: H&S Consultants

Address: 630 Hilton Street, Grease, TX 99990

Phone Number: (555) 555-4102

RA Oversight Contractor:

Company Name: RJB Consultants Contract Number: 9999-8888-5555RT

Address: 999 What Street, Sometown, TX 99994

Phone Number: (555) 555-4444

Work Assignment

Number: 44444-66-22222XJ

Analytical Laboratory:

For the USACE:

Company Name: Eastern Laboratories, Inc.

Address: 101 South 16th Street, Padre Island, TX 99998

Phone Number: (555) 555-4455

Project Management:

For the USACE:

Name: Joe Civil

Company Name: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Address: Ft. Worth District

Phone Number: (888) 555-1234

Email: civil@usace.army.mil

For the EPA:

Name: Alice Jones

U.S. EPA Region: VI

Address: 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200, Dallas, TX 75202

Phone Number: (214) 665-1212

Email: jones@epa.gov
SECTIONELEVEN References

Slippery Chemical OU 3 Final RA Report 11-1

1. USEPA Region 3, Record of Decision – Slippery Chemical Superfund Site, Operable Unit 3,

August 1988.

2. USEPA’s Slippery Chemical Home Page,

http://www.epa.gov/reg3hwmd/super/slippery/pad.htm.

3. Fact Sheet, “Slippery Chemical Superfund Site On-Site Soil Incineration”, October 1, 1999.

4. Slippery Project Summary Milestones

5. USACE, Specifications (for Fixed-Price Services Contract), On-Site Soil Incineration,

Slippery Chemical Superfund Site, April 1993.

6. James Q. Public, Consulting Engineers, Inc., Incineration Treatability Study Report, Slippery

Chemical Superfund Site, August 1991.

7. Texarkana Research Institute, Trial Burn Plan for the Slippery Chemical Superfund Site,

September 20, 1996.

8. H&S Consultants, Wastewater Management Plan, Revision No. 3, for On-Site Soil

Incineration, Slippery Chemical Superfund Site, August 1997.

9. Sandra Upps of TNRCC, Air Equivalency Permit, February 6, 1998.

10. Eastern, Slippery Chemical Site, Incinerator Full-Scale Operation, Integrated Risk

Assessment, November 1997.

11. H&S Consultants, Quantity Tracking Logs and Volume Calculation Information, October 28,

1999.

12. H&S Consultants, Test Report for Trial Burns No. 1 and No. 2 on the Slippery Chemical

Superfund Site’s Mobile On-Site Hazardous Waste Incinerator, September 12, 1997.

13. Perry’s Chemical Engineers’ Handbook, Sixth Edition, McGraw Hill Book Company, New

York, 1984.

14. http://pmep.cce.cornell.edu/profiles/herb-growthreg/fatty-alcohol-monuron/fenac/herb-proffenac.html

15. Analytical results from full-scale incineration operations (not bound in a report).

16. Chad R. Rogers and Michael B. Provo, USACE, Slippery Chemical Superfund Onsite

Incineration Project Lessons Learned.

17. USACE, Internal Project Description, Slippery Chemical Superfund Site.

18. MTV Laboratories, Hydrometer Analysis Reports, Slippery Chemical Superfund Site,

November 15, 1996 through April 1, 1999.

19. Stan Bopp, USACE, Final Cost Report, Slippery Chemical Superfund Site, April 21, 2000.
APPENDIXA Cost and Performance Factors

Slippery Chemical OU 3 Final RA Report A-1

The table below lists selected characteristics for the soil at the SCS Site. Except where noted,

data provided are average values for pre-treatment soil samples collected during the 1997 trial

burns.

Site Characteristics

Characteristic Value Measurement Procedure

Soil Classification1 SM

(silty sands and silt-sand mixtures) USCS

Clay Content13.8 to 8.8% ASTM D422

Moisture Content 16%2 ASTM D-3173

Total Petroleum Hydrocarbon

(TPH) Content 181 to 6,569 mg/kg EPA 418.1

Bulk Density 99.8 to 109.6 lbs/ft3 ASTM D 4253 and 4254

BTU Value 274 BTU/lb ASTM D 2015

Halogen Content 260 mg/kg Chlorine ASTM E 442 or D 808/D 4327

Metal Content

Arsenic

Beryllium

Cadmium

Chromium

Lead

7.65 mg/kg

0.67 mg/kg

0.16 mg/kg

24.5 mg/kg

41.6 mg/kg

ICP

ICP

ICP, GFAA

ICP

ICP

1

These data correspond to treated soil samples. Data was not available for untreated soil.

2 During full-scale operations, the soil moisture content ranged from 10.0 to 25.5% and averaged 17.6%.

The following table lists the operating limits for the incineration system that were approved by

the USEPA and TNRCC prior to full-scale operation of the system. These operating limits were

developed based on the results of the trial burns and risk burns.

Operating Limits

Parameter Value

Waste Feed Rate, Maximum Allowable 47.3 tons/hr rolling average

Kiln Hood Pressure, Maximum Allowable 0 inches water column (wc) instantaneous

-0.1 inches wc for 10 seconds or more

Kiln Exit Temperature, Minimum Allowable 1599oF hourly average

1000oF instantaneous

Kiln Exit Temperature, Maximum Allowable 2200oF

Kiln Rotation, Minimum Allowable 0.4 revolutions per minute (rpm)

SCC Temperature, Minimum Allowable 1801oF

SCC Temperature, Maximum Allowable 2600oF

SCC Residence Time, Minimum Allowable 2 seconds

Baghouse Inlet Temperature, Maximum Allowable 500oF

Baghouse Air-to-Cloth ratio, Maximum Allowable 3.6 to 1

Bag House Pressure Drop, Minimum Allowable 1.0 inches wc for more than 5 minutes
APPENDIXA Cost and Performance Factors

Slippery Chemical OU 3 Final RA Report A-2

Parameter Value

Bag House Pressure Drop, Maximum Allowable 6 inches wc for more than 5 minutes

Scrubber Inlet Temperature, Maximum Allowable 250oF

Scrubber Liquid pH, Minimum Allowable 6.5

Scrubber Liquid Feed Rate, Minimum Allowable 450 gallons per minute (gpm) hourly average

CO Emissions, Maximum Allowable 200 parts per million by volume (ppmv) instantaneous

100 ppmv hourly rolling average

NOx Emissions, Maximum Allowable 300 ppmv daily average

Stack Gas Velocity, Maximum Allowable 46.2 ft/sec hourly average

The table below lists values for selected parameters observed during incineration operations at

OU-3. Observed values are compared to design values for each parameter. The parameters were

selected for this report based on USACE guidance. Data provided are based on average

conditions during full-scale operation of the incinerator system.

Operating Parameters

System Parameter Design Value Actual Value

Residence Time (Air in SCC) >2 seconds 1.7 to 4.6 seconds

Residence Time (Soil in Kiln) 30 minutes 24.6 to 44.3 minutes

System Throughput 60 ton/hr 40.4 tons/hr (average)

Flue Gas Temperature Information not available

Information not available

>1599 °F (kiln)

>1801 °F (SCC)
APPENDIXB Project Costs

Slippery Chemical OU 3 Final RA Report B-1

The following tables present a breakdown of actual costs incurred for the project and calculation

of technology-specific unit cost for incineration. HCAS data entry sheets are also attached to

this appendix.

Site: Slippery Chemical Site Description:

Location:

Phase:

Date:

RA CAPITAL COSTS:

331XX HTRW Remedial Action

.01 Mobilization and Preparatory Work

.02 Mob of Personnel

.03 Submittals/ Implementation Plans

.04 Setup/Construct Temporary Facilities Fence, roads/parking, signs, trailers

.05 Construct Temporary Utilities

SUBTOTAL

.03 Sitework

.08 Water/Sewer Relocation

.06 Groundwater Collection

.05 Earthwork - Sheet Piling

.08 Solids Collection and Containment

.01 Contaminated Soil Excavation

.10 Drums/Tanks/Struct/Misc Removal

.01 Drum Handling and Removal

.07 Debris Removal

SUBTOTAL

.13 Physical Treatment

.20 Carbon Adsorption - Liquids WWTP

.05 Mobilize/Setup/Relocate Plant

.07 Demobilize Plant

SUBTOTAL

.14 Thermal Treatment

.01 Incineration

.04 Pads/Foundations/Spill Control

.05 Mobilize/Setup Plant

.06 Startup/Readiness Test/Trial Burn

.07 Demobilize Plant

SUBTOTAL

.18 Disposal (Other than Commercial)

.21 Transport to Storage/Disposal Facility Load/Haul/Unload

.19 Disposal (Commercial)

.21 Transport to Storage/Disposal Facility Load/Haul/Unload

.20 Site Restoration

.01.03 Earthwork - Backfill

.01.04 Earthwork - Borrow

.01.90 Grading & Topsoil

.03.90 Storm Drainage

.04 Revegetation and Planting Seeding/mulch/fertilizer

SUBTOTAL

.21 Demobilization

.01 Removal of Temporary Facilities Fence, roads/parking, signs, trailers

.02 Removal of Temporary Utilities

.03 Final Decontamination

.04 Demobilization of Construction Equipment Excavator, etc.

SUBTOTAL

SUBTOTAL

Project Management

Remedial Design

Construction Management

TOTAL RA CAPITAL COSTS

EA $245,000 $245,000

1 EA $378,000 $378,000

$64,676,100

5,915,600

5,640,000

$882,000

$49,576,000

3,544,500

1 EA $408,000 $408,000

EA $811,000 $811,000

1 EA $71,000 $71,000

EA $12,910,000 $12,910,000

EA $2,248,000 $2,248,000

$21,492,000

1 EA

1

1

8 AC $10,750 $86,000

$8,641,000

39,875 SF $48 $1,914,000

2,425 LF $378 $916,000

1

1 EA $122,000 $122,000

1 EA $2,665,000 $2,665,000

NOTES

1 EA $2,683,000 $2,683,000

UNIT TOTAL

DESCRIPTION QTY UNIT COST (1994 $$)

ACTUAL COSTS (1 of 2)

Grease, Texas

Final RA Report (OU-3)

June 7, 1999

The selected treatment consisted of a mobile rotary kiln incinerator used to treat excavated 

sludge, soil and sediments onsite. In addition, a waste water treatment plant (WWTP) used 

granular activated carbon (GAC) to treat all water produced from the excavation and 

incineration processes.

EA $99,000 $99,000

1 EA $318,000 $318,000

$1,637,000

1 EA $812,000 $812,000

1 EA $3,171,000 $3,171,000

$3,448,000

194,520 CY $13 $2,544,000

12,376 CY $16 $195,000

1

194,520 CY $15 $2,856,000

$4,420,000 $4,420,000

1

$315,000

$529,000

185 EA $1,157 $214,000

8 AC $39,375

87,204 SF $55 $4,809,000

275,467 TON $14 $3,762,000

2,200 TON $275 $604,000
APPENDIXB Project Costs

Slippery Chemical OU 3 Final RA Report B-2

RA OPERATING COSTS

(1)

:

331XX HTRW Remedial Action

.02 Monitoring, Sampling, Testing, and Analysis

.03 Air Monitoring and Sampling (17.3 mo) HNu, Summa Cannisters, CEMs

.13 On Site Laboratory Facilities GC, MS

.14 Off Site Waste Water Analysis (17.3 mo) NPDES Compliance

SUBTOTAL

.13 Physical Treatment

.20 Carbon Adsorption - Liquids (21,000 MGA) WWTP

.08 Plant Operation

.14 Thermal Treatment

.01 Incineration (194,520 CY)

.01 Solids Preparation and Handling Drying, blending, feeding

.08 Ownership Plant / Plant Operation

.10 Performance Testing

.90 Utilities Electricity + fuel

.91 Waiting Phase

SUBTOTAL

.15 Stabilization/Fixation

.04 Pozzolan Process

SUBTOTAL

Project Management

Technical Support

TOTAL RA OPERATING COSTS

RA PERIODIC COSTS:

Remedial Action Report 1 report upon project completion

TOTAL RA PERIODIC COSTS

TOTAL ACTUAL RA COSTS INCURRED $134,622,950

(1)

 Actual costs based on the respective year the costs were incurred (i.e., 1998 and 1999).

$56,850

COST (1999 $$) NOTES

1 EA $56,850 $56,850

DESCRIPTION QTY UNIT

UNIT TOTAL

4,796,000

$69,890,000

$62,805,000

2,289,000

$54,325,000

17.3 MO $127,399 $2,204,000

3,054 CY $73 $223,000

EA $268,000 $268,000

$6,053,000

$5,574,000 $5,574,000

1 EA $211,000 $211,000

1 EA $11,542,000 $11,542,000

7 MO $2,038,286 $14,268,000

14.2 MO $742,324 $10,541,000

14.2 MO $1,027,715 $14,594,000

UNIT TOTAL

DESCRIPTION QTY UNIT COST (Actual $$)

ACTUAL COSTS (2 of 2)

NOTES

194,520 CY $17 $3,380,000

1 EA

1
APPENDIXB Project Costs

Slippery Chemical OU 3 Final RA Report B-3

INCINERATION

TECHNOLOGY-SPECIFIC UNIT COST CALCULATION

RA CAPITAL COSTS:

Solids Collection and Containment'

Drums/Tanks/Struct/Misc Removal

Physical Treatment

Thermal Treatment

Disposal (Other than Commercial)

Disposal (Commercial)

SUBTOTAL

RA OPERATING COSTS:

Monitoring, Sampling, Testing, and Analysis

Physical Treatment

Thermal Treatment

Stabilization/Fixation

SUBTOTAL

TOTAL TECHNOLOGY-SPECIFIC COST

Volume of Media Treated (Cubic Yards)

TECHNOLOGY-SPECIFIC UNIT COST (Per Cubic Yard) $478

$92,930,000

$2,856,000

$529,000

$882,000

$21,492,000

$604,000

$3,762,000

$30,125,000

194,520

$62,805,000

$6,053,000

$2,204,000

$54,325,000

$223,000
Historical Cost Analysis System (HCAS)

Project Data Entry Form (Sheet 1)

Project Information

Project Name Slippery Chemical Operable Unit 3

Project Number

Project Phase (Select one)

Studies and Design

Remedial Action  ̧

Operations and Maintenance

Project Note (Describe the project)

Incineration treatment technology was utilized to remediate 194,520 cy of soil

contaminated with VOCs, SVOCs, Fenac, Naphthylamine, etc.

 

 

 

Contract Information

Contract Number DACW63-93-C-0200

Managing Organization U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Organization Name Ft. Worth District

Site Owner Private Party

Other ID Number 

Prime Contractor H&S Consultants

Contract Type (Select one)

Cost + Award Fee

Cost + Base + Award Fee

Cost + Fixed Fee  ̧

Cost + Incentive Award

Fixed Price

Not Availiable

Other

Procurement Type (Select one)

 Two Step Sealed Bid

Sealed Bid (IFB)

Competitive Negotiation (RFP)  ̧

Sole Source (SSC)

Other
Historical Cost Analysis System (HCAS)

Project Data Entry Form (Sheet 2)

Site Information

State/Country Texas/USA

Installation 

Site Name Grease, TX

Site Number 

EPA Region VI

Current Use (Select one)

Installation Operation

Industry Operation

Residential

Recreational

Wildlife Refuge

Waste Disposal  ̧

Administrative Office

Commercial

Other

Unknown

Future Use (Select one)

Installation Operation

Industry Operation

Residential

Recreational

Wildlife Refuge

Waste Disposal

Administrative Office

Commercial

Other

Unknown  ̧

Point of Contact

Data Entry Person POC#2 POC#3 

Title/Role Contractor Estimator 

Organization H&S Consultants 

Name John Jones 

Address 630 Hilton St. 

City, State Grease, TX 

Zip 99990 

Telephone 555-555-4102 

Fax 555-555-4103 

Email jjones@h&s.com 

Enter up to 3 POC's.
Historical Cost Analysis System (HCAS)

Project Data Entry Form (Sheet 3)

Profile - General Characteristics

Regulatory Class Public Concern

CERCLA  ̧ Low

RCRA High  ̧

Other Historical/Archoelogical

Unknown Yes

National Priority List No  ̧

Yes  ̧ Innovative Technology

No Yes

Wetland No  ̧

Yes Size of Exclusion Zone (Acres) 9.6

No  ̧ Size of Area (Acres) 9.6

Flood Plain

Yes

No  ̧

Profile - Contaminants/Technical Approach

Site Type Media Contaminant Technical Approach

AG Storage Tanks Air Nonhal VOC's CWM/OEW Remvl

UG Storage Tanks Equipment/Mach Halogenated VOC's Surf Water Control

Drums/Cont <250 GA Groundwater Nonhal Semi VOC's Grnd Water Control

Unauth Disposl Area Liquid Halogen Semi VOC's Air/Gas Control

Facil/Bldgs Surface Water Fuels Solids Contain

Fire Train/Open Burn Sediment Inorganics Liq/Sed/Sludge Cntrl

Firing Rnge/Open Det Sludge Low Lev Rad Waste Drums/Tanks Remvl

Pit/Trench Soil High Lev Rad Waste Biological Treatment

Surf Impnd/Lagoons Solid/Debris Low Rad Mixed Wst Chemical Treatment

Lakes/Ponds/Swamp Struct Bldg Matls TRU Waste Physical Treatment

Landfill Other CWM/OEW Thermal Treatment

Ocean Asbestos Stab/Fix/Encap

Rivers/Streams Unknown Decon & Decommish

Spill/Emerg Resp Other Disposal (Not Comm)

Waste Pile Disposal Commercial

Other Other 

Pick as many Profile combinations as necessary:

Surf Impnd/Lagoons Nonhal VOCs Thermal Treatment

Surf Impnd/Lagoons Halogenated VOCs Thermal Treatment

Surf Impnd/Lagoons Nonhal SVOCs Thermal Treatment

Surf Impnd/Lagoons Halogenated SVOCs Thermal Treatment

Soil

Soil

Soil

Soil
Historical Cost Analysis System (HCAS)

Project Data Entry Form (Sheet 4)

Cost

Start Date

End Date

Number of Mods 0

Reasons for Mods (Select those applicable)

Administrative

Changes for Time or Cost

Changes Requested by Government Authority

Design Deficiency

Differing Site Conditions

Funding Level Change

New Federal Regulation

Other Changes

Suspension or Termination of Work

Value Engineering Change

Variations in Estimated Quantities

Variations Not Readily Identifiable During Design

Cost

Award Amount

Actual Amount

Cost Variance

Cost Breakdown

See next sheets. 

The HCAS Cost Breakdown is structured in accordance with 

the February 1996 "HTRW Remedial Action Work Breakdown Structure

(RA WBS)" and "HTRW O&M Work Breakdown Structure (O&M WBS)".

The next sheets show the RA WBS and O&M WBS to the Third Level 

as required for the HCAS cost report portion of the "RA Report". 

The costs reported shall be "Burdened Costs", meaning that contractor 

markups, general requirements, overhead, and profit shall be included

in the costs.

The complete RA WBS and O&M WBS to the Fourth Level is at: 

http://www.FRTR.gov/cost/ec2/wbs1.html

The HCAS 3.1 software can be downloaded from:

http://www.FRTR.gov/cost/ec2/index.html

+13,381,000

9/30/1993

11/23/1999

$99,000,000

$112,381,000
WBS Number DESCRIPTION QTY UOM UNIT 

COST 

COST $ 

33XXX HTRW CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES

331XX HTRW REMEDIAL ACTION (Capital and Operating) 

01 MOBILIZATION AND PREPARATORY WORK 

01 01 Mobilization of Construction Equipment and Facilities EA

01 02 Mobilization of Personnel 1 EA 3,171,000 3,171,000

01 03 Submittals/Implementation Plans 1 EA 2,683,000 2,683,000

01 04 Setup/Construct Temporary Facilities 1 EA 2,665,000 2,665,000

01 05 Construct Temporary Utilities 1 EA 122,000 122,000

01 06 Temporary Relocations of Roads/Structures/Utilities EA

01 07 Construction Plant Erection EA

01 08 Institutional Controls EA

01 09 Alternate Water Supply EA

01 10 Population Relocation EA

01 9X Other (Use Numbers 90-99)

02 MONITORING, SAMPLING, TESTING, AND ANALYSIS 

02 01 Meteorological Monitoring EA

02 02 Radiation Monitoring EA

02 03 Air Monitoring and Sampling 1 EA 5,574,000 5,574,000

02 04 Monitoring Wells EA

02 05 Sampling Surface Water/Groundwater/Liquid Waste EA

02 06 Sampling Soil and Sediment EA

02 07 Sampling Asbestos EA

02 08 Sampling Radioactive Contaminated Media EA

02 09 Laboratory Chemical Analysis EA

02 10 Radioactive Waste Analysis EA

02 11 Geotechnical Testing EA

02 12 Geotechnical Instrumentation EA

02 13 On-Site Laboratory Facilities 1 EA 211,000 211,000

02 14 Off-Site Laboratory Facilities 1 EA 268,000 268,000

02 9X Other (Use Numbers 90-99)

03 SITEWORK

03 01 Demolition SY

03 02 Clearing and Grubbing ACR

03 03 Earthwork CY

03 04 Roads/Parking/Curbs/Walks SY

03 05 Fencing LF

03 06 Electrical Distribution LF

03 07 Telephone/Communication Distribution LF

03 08 Water/Sewer/Gas Distribution 2,425 LF 378 916,000

03 09 Steam and Condensate Distribution LF

03 10 Fuel Line Distribution LF

03 11 Storm Drainage/Subdrainage LF

03 12 Permanent Cover Structure Over Containment Area SF

03 13 Development of Borrow Pit/Haul Roads ACR
WBS Number DESCRIPTION QTY UOM UNIT 

COST 

COST $ 

331XX 03 14 Fuel Storage Tanks (New) EA

03 9X Other (Use Numbers 90-99) 

04 ORDNANCE AND EXPLOSIVE - CHEMICAL WARFARE 

04 01 Ordnance Removal and Destruction ACR

04 9x Other (Use Numbers 90-99) 

05 SURFACE WATER COLLECTION AND CONTROL

05 01 Berms/Dikes LF

05 02 Floodwalls SF

05 03 Levees LF

05 04 Terraces and Benches LF

05 05 Channels/Waterways (Soil/Rock) LF

05 06 Chutes or Flumes LF

05 07 Sediment Barriers LF

05 08 Storm Drainage LF

05 09 Lagoons/Basins/Tanks/Dikes/Pump System ACR

05 10 Pumping/Draining/Collection MGA

05 11 Transport to Treatment Plant MGA

05 12 Earthwork CY

05 13 Erosion Control ACR

05 14 Development of Borrow Pit/Haul Roads ACR

05 9X Other (Use Numbers 90-99) 

06 GROUNDWATER COLLECTION AND CONTROL

06 01 Extraction and Injection Wells EA

06 02 Subsurface Drainage/Collection LF

06 03 Slurry Walls SF

06 04 Grout Curtain SF

06 05 Sheet Piling 87,204 SF 55 4,809,000

06 06 Lagoons/Basins/Tanks/Dikes/Pump System ACR

06 07 Pumping/Collection MGA

06 08 Transport to Treatment Plant MGA

06 09 Development of Borrow Pit/Haul Roads ACR

06 9x Other (Use Numbers 90-99)

07 AIR POLLUTION/GAS COLLECTION AND CONTROL 

07 01 Gas/Vapor Collection Trench System LF

07 02 Gas/Vapor Collection Well System EA

07 03 Gas/Vapor Collection at Lagoon Cover SY

07 04 Fugitive Dust/Vapor/Gas Emissions Control ACR

07 9x Other (Use Numbers 90-99)

08 SOLIDS COLLECTION AND CONTAINMENT 

08 01 Contaminated Soil Collection 194,520 CY 15 2,856,000

08 02 Waste Containment, Portable (Furnish/Fill) CY

08 03 Transport to Treatment Plant CY
WBS Number DESCRIPTION QTY UOM UNIT 

COST 

COST $ 

331XX 08 04 Radioactive Specific Waste Containment (Furnish/Fill) CY

08 05 Capping of Contaminated Area/Waste Pile (Soil/Asphalt ACR

08 06 Nuclear Waste Densification (Dynamic Compaction) CY

08 07 Development of Borrow Pit/Haul Roads ACR

08 9x Other (Use Numbers 90-99)

09 LIQUIDS/SEDIMENTS/SLUDGES COLLECTION AND 

09 01 Dredging/Excavating CY

09 02 Industrial Vacuuming CY

09 03 Waste Containment, Portable (Furnish/Fill) MGA

09 04 Transport to Treatment Plant MGA

09 05 Radioactive Specific Waste Containment (Furnish/Fill) MGA

09 06 Pumping/Draining/Collection MGA

09 07 Lagoons/Basins/Tanks/Pump System ACR

09 08 Development of Borrow Pit/Haul Roads ACR

09 9x Other (Use Numbers 90-99)

10 DRUMS/TANKS/STRUCTURES/MISCELLANEOUS 

10 01 Drum Removal 185 EA 1,157 214,000

10 02 Tank Removal EA

10 03 Structure Removal SF

10 04 Asbestos Abatement SF

10 05 Piping and Pipeline Removal LF

10 06 Radioactive Specific Waste Containment (Furnish/Fill) CY

10 07 Miscellaneous Items 8 ACR 39,375 315,000

10 08 Contaminated Paint Removal SF

10 9x Other (Use Numbers 90-99)

11 BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT 

11 01 Activated Sludge (Sequencing Batch Reactors) MGA

11 02 Rotating Biological Contactors MGA

11 03 Land Treatment/Farming (Solid Phase Biodegradation) CY

11 04 In-Situ Biodegradation/Bioreclamation CY

11 05 Trickling Filters MGA

11 06 Biological Lagoons MGA

11 07 Composting CY

11 08 Sludge Stabilization - Aerobic CY

11 09 Sludge Stabilization - Anaerobic CY

11 10 Genetically Engineered Organisms (White Rot Fungus) CY

11 11 Slurry Biodegradation CY

11 12 Bioventing SF

11 13 Bioslurping SF

11 14 Biopile (Heap Pile Remediation) CY

11 50 Construction of Permanent Plant Facility EA

11 9x Other (Use Numbers 90-99)
WBS Number DESCRIPTION QTY UOM UNIT 

COST 

COST $ 

331XX 12 CHEMICAL TREATMENT

12 01 Oxidation/Reduction (Catalytic Oxidation, UV Ozone, MGA

12 02 Solvent Extraction MGA

12 03 Chlorination MGA

12 04 Ozonation MGA

12 05 Ion Exchange MGA

12 06 Neutralization MGA

12 07 Chemical Hydrolysis MGA

12 08 Ultraviolet Photolysis MGA

12 09 Dehalogenation (Catalytic Dechlorination) CY

12 10 Alkali Metal Dechlorination CY

12 11 Alkali Metal/Polyethylene Glycol (A/PEG) CY

12 12 Base-Catalyzed Decomposition Process (BCDP) CY

12 13 Electrolysis MGA

12 14 Vapor Recovery/Reuse (Internal Combustion Engine) CF

12 50 Construction of Permanent Plant Facility EA

12 9x Other (Use Numbers 90-99)

13 PHYSICAL TREATMENT

13 01 Filtration/Ultrafiltration MGA

13 02 Sedimentation MGA

13 03 Straining MGA

13 04 Coagulation/Flocculation/Precipitation MGA

13 05 Equalization MGA

13 06 Evaporation MGA

13 07 Air Stripping MGA

13 08 Steam Stripping MGA

13 09 Soil Washing (Surfactant/Solvent) CY

13 10 Soil Flushing (Surfactant/Solvent) CY

13 11 Solids Dewatering CY

13 12 Oil/Water Separation MGA

13 13 Dissolved Air Floatation MGA

13 14 Heavy Media Separation CY

13 15 Distillation MGA

13 16 Chelation MGA

13 17 Solvent Extraction MGA

13 18 Supercritical Extraction MGA

13 19 Carbon Adsorption - Gases CF

13 20 Carbon Adsorption - Liquids 21,000 MGA 146.95 3,086,000

13 21 Membrane Separation - Reverse Osmosis MGA

13 22 Membrane Separation - Electrodialysis MGA

13 23 Soil Vapor Extraction CY

13 24 Shredding CY

13 25 Aeration CY

13 26 Advanced Electrical Reactor CY

13 27 Low Level Waste (LLW) Compaction CY

13 28 Agglomeration CY
WBS Number DESCRIPTION QTY UOM UNIT 

COST 

COST $ 

331XX 13 29 In-Situ Steam Extraction MGA

13 30 Filter Presses MGA

13 31 Lignin Adsorption/Sorptive Clays CY

13 32 Air Sparging MGA

13 50 Construction of Permanent Plant Facility EA

13 9x Other (Use Numbers 90-99)

14 THERMAL TREATMENT 

14 01 Incineration 194,520 CY 389.76 75,817,000

14 02 Low Temperature Thermal Desorption CY

14 03 Supercritical Water Oxidation MGA

14 04 Molten Salt Destruction CY

14 05 Radio Frequency Heating CY

14 06 Solar Detoxification CY

14 07 High Temperature Thermal Desorption CY

14 50 Construction of Permanent Plant Facility EA

14 9x Other (Use Numbers 90-99)

15 STABILIZATION/FIXATION/ENCAPSULATION

15 01 Molten Glass CY

15 02 In-Situ Vitrification CY

15 03 In-Situ Pozzolan Process (Lime/Portland Cement) CY

15 04 Pozzolan Process (Lime/Portland Cement) 3,054 CY 73 223,000

15 05 Asphalt-Based Encapsulation CY

15 06 Radioactive Waste Solidification (Grouting/Other) CY

15 07 Sludge Stabilization (Aggregate/Rock/Slag) CY

15 50 Construction of Permanent Plant Facility EA

15 9x Other (Use Numbers 90-99)

16 RESERVED FOR FUTURE USE

17 DECONTAMINATION AND DECOMMISSIONING (D&D)

17 01 Pre-Decommissioning Operations SF

17 02 Facility Shutdown Activities SF

17 03 Procurement of Equipment and Material SF

17 04 Dismantling Activities SF

17 05 Research and Development (R&D) SF

17 06 Spent Fuel Handling SF

17 07 Hot Cell Cleanup SF

17 9x Other (Use Numbers 90-99)

18 DISPOSAL (OTHER THAN COMMERCIAL)

18 01 Landfill/Burial Ground/Trench/Pits CY

18 02 Above-Ground Vault CY

18 03 Underground Vault CY

18 04 Underground Mine/Shaft CY

18 05 Tanks MGA
WBS Number DESCRIPTION QTY UOM UNIT 

COST 

COST $ 

331XX 18 06 Pads (Tumulus/Retrievable Storage/Other) CY

18 07 Storage Bldgs/Protective Cvr Structures/Other Bldgs & CY 

18 08 Cribs CY

18 09 Deep Well Injection MGA

18 10 Incinerator CY

18 15 Construction of Permanent Disposal Facility EA

18 20 Container Handling EA

18 21 Transportation to Storage/Disposal Facility 275,467 TON 14 3,762,000

18 22 Disposal Fees and Taxes TON

18 23 Mixed Waste Storage Fees and Taxes TON

18 9x Other (Use Numbers 90-99)

19 DISPOSAL (COMMERCIAL)

19 20 Container Handling EA

19 21 Transportation to Storage/Disposal Facility 2,200 TON 275 604,000

19 22 Disposal Fees and Taxes TON

19 23 Mixed Waste Storage Fees and Taxes TON

19 9x Other (Use Numbers 90-99)

20 SITE RESTORATION

20 01 Earthwork 207,896 CY 14.99 3,117,000

20 02 Permanent Markers EA

20 03 Permanent Features 1 EA 245,000 245,000

20 04 Revegetation and Planting 8 ACR 10,750 86,000

20 05 Removal of Barriers EA

20 9x Other (Use Numbers 90-99)

21 DEMOBILIZATION

21 01 Removal of Temporary Facilities 1 EA 408,000 408,000

21 02 Removal of Temporary Utilities 1 EA 99,000 99,000

21 03 Final Decontamination 1 EA 812,000 812,000

21 04 Demobilization of Construction Equipment and Facilities 1 EA 318,000 318,000

21 05 Demobilization of Personnel EA

21 06 Submittals EA

21 07 Construction Plant Takedown EA

21 9x Other (Use Numbers 90-99)

9X OTHER (Use Numbers 90-99)

TOTAL AMOUNT $ 112,381,000
WBS Number DESCRIPTION QTY UOM UNIT 

COST 

COST 

$ 

34XXX HTRW POST CONSTRUCTION AND FINANCIAL 

CLOSEOUT ACTIVITIES

341XX FISCAL/FINANCIAL CLOSE ACTIVITIES

342XX HTRW OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE (POST 

CONSTRUCTION) 

02 MONITORING, SAMPLING, TESTING, AND 

02 01 Meteorological Monitoring EA

02 02 Radiation Monitoring EA

02 03 Air Monitoring and Sampling EA

02 04 Monitoring Wells EA

02 05 Sampling Surface Water/Groundwater/Liquid Waste EA

02 06 Sampling Soil and Sediment EA

02 07 Sampling Asbestos EA

02 08 Sampling Radioactive Contaminated Media EA

02 09 Laboratory Chemical Analysis EA

02 10 Radioactive Waste Analysis EA

02 11 Geotechnical Testing EA

02 12 Geotechnical Instrumentation EA

02 13 On-site Laboratory Facilities EA

02 14 Off-site Laboratory Facilities EA

02 9X Other (Use Numbers 90-99) EA

03 SITEWORK

03 04 Roads/Parking/Curbs/Walks SY/YR

03 05 Fencing LF/YR

03 06 Electrical Distribution LF/YR

03 07 Telephone/Communication Distribution LF/YR

03 08 Water/Sewer/Gas Distribution LF/YR

03 09 Steam and Condensate Distribution LF/YR

03 10 Fuel Line Distribution LF/YR

03 11 Storm Drainage/Subdrainage LF/YR

03 12 Permanent Cover Structure Over Contaminated Area SF/YR

03 14 Fuel Storage Tanks (New) EA/YR

03 9X Other (Use Numbers 90-99) 

05 SURFACE WATER COLLECTION AND CONTROL

05 01 Berms/Dikes LF/YR

05 02 Floodwalls SF/YR

05 03 Levees LF/YR

05 04 Terraces and Benches LF/YR

05 05 Channels/Waterways (Soil/Rock) LF/YR

05 06 Chutes or Flumes LF/YR

05 07 Sediment Barriers LF/YR
WBS Number DESCRIPTION QTY UOM UNIT 

COST 

COST 

$ 

342XX 05 08 Storm Drainage LF/YR

05 09 Lagoons/Basins/Tanks/Dikes/Pump System ACR/YR

05 10 Pumping/Draining/Collection MGA

05 11 Transport to Treatment Plant MGA

05 13 Erosion Control ACR/YR

05 9X Other (Use Numbers 90-99) 

06 GROUNDWATER COLLECTION AND CONTROL

06 01 Extraction and Injection Wells EA/YR

06 02 Subsurface Drainage/Collection LF/YR

06 03 Slurry Walls SF/YR

06 04 Grout Curtain SF/YR

06 05 Sheet Piling SF/YR

06 06 Lagoons/Basins/Tanks/Dikes/Pump System ACR/YR

06 07 Pumping/Collection MGA

06 08 Transport to Treatment Plant MGA

06 9x Other (Use Numbers 90-99)

07 AIR POLLUTION/GAS COLLECTION AND CONTROL 

07 01 Gas/Vapor Collection Trench System LF/YR

07 02 Gas/Vapor Collection Well System EA/YR

07 03 Gas/Vapor Collection at Lagoon Cover SY/YR

07 04 Fugitive Dust/Vapor/Gas Emissions Control ACR/YR

07 9x Other (Use Numbers 90-99)

08 SOLIDS COLLECTION AND CONTAINMENT 

08 01 Contaminated Soil Collection CY

08 02 Waste Containment, Portable (Furnish/Fill) CY

08 03 Transport to Treatment Plant CY

08 04 Radioactive Specific Waste Containment (Furnish/Fill) CY

08 05 Capping of Contaminated Area/Waste Pile (Soil/Asph ACR/YR

08 06 Nuclear Waste Densification (Dynamic Compaction) CY

08 9x Other (Use Numbers 90-99)

09 LIQUIDS/SEDIMENTS/SLUDGES COLLECTION AND 

CONTAINMENT 

09 01 Dredging/Excavating CY

09 02 Industrial Vacuuming CY

09 03 Waste Containment, Portable (Furnish/Fill) MGA

09 04 Transport to Treatment Plant MGA

09 05 Radioactive Specific Waste Containment (Furnish/Fill) MGA

09 06 Pumping/Draining/Collection MGA

09 07 Lagoons/Basins/Tanks/Dikes/Pump System ACR/YR
WBS Number DESCRIPTION QTY UOM UNIT 

COST 

COST 

$ 

342XX 09 9x Other (Use Numbers 90-99)

11 BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT 

11 01 Activated Sludge (Seq Batch Reactors) MGA

11 02 Rotating Biological Contactors MGA

11 03 Land Treatment/Farming (Solid Phase Biodegradation) CY

11 04 In-Situ Biodegradation/Bioreclamation CY

11 05 Trickling Filters MGA

11 06 Biological Lagoons MGA

11 07 Composting (Soil Pile Bioremediation) CY

11 08 Sludge Stabilization - Aerobic CY

11 09 Sludge Stabilization - Anaerobic CY

11 10 Genetically Engineered Organisms (White Rot Fungus) CY

11 11 Slurry Biodegradation CY

11 12 Bioventing SF

11 13 Bioslurping SF

11 14 Biopile (Heap Pile Remediation) CY 

11 50 Post Construction O&M of Permanent Plant Facility EA/YR

11 9x Other (Use Numbers 90-99)

12 CHEMICAL TREATMENT

12 01 Oxidation/Reduction (Catalytic) MGA

12 02 Solvent Extraction MGA

12 03 Chlorination MGA

12 04 Ozonation MGA

12 05 Ion Exchange MGA

12 06 Neutralization MGA

12 07 Chemical Hydrolysis MGA

12 08 Ultraviolet Photolysis (UV Oxidation) MGA

12 09 Dehalogenation (Catalytic Dechlorination) CY

12 10 Alkali Metal Dechlorination CY

12 11 Alkali Metal/Polyethylene Glycol (A/PEG) CY

12 12 Base-Catalyzed Decomposition Process CY

12 13 Electrolysis MGA

12 14 Vapor Recovery/Reuse (Internal Combustion Engine) CF

12 50 Post Construction O&M of Permanent Plant Facility EA/YR

12 9x Other (Use Numbers 90-99)

13 PHYSICAL TREATMENT

13 01 Filtration/Ultrafiltration MGA

13 02 Sedimentation MGA

13 03 Straining MGA

13 04 Coagulation/Flocculation/Precipitation MGA
WBS Number DESCRIPTION QTY UOM UNIT 

COST 

COST 

$ 

342XX 13 05 Equalization MGA

13 06 Evaporation MGA

13 07 Air Stripping MGA

13 08 Steam Stripping MGA

13 09 Soil Washing (Surfactant/Solvent) CY

13 10 Soil Flushing (Surfactant/Solvent) CY

13 11 Solids Dewatering CY

13 12 Oil/Water Separation MGA

13 13 Dissolved Air Floatation MGA

13 14 Heavy Media Separation CY

13 15 Distillation MGA

13 16 Chelation MGA

13 17 Solvent Extraction MGA

13 18 Supercritical Extraction MGA

13 19 Carbon Adsorption - Gases CF

13 20 Carbon Adsorption - Liquids MGA

13 21 Membrane Separation - Reverse Osmosis MGA

13 22 Membrane Separation - Electrodialysis MGA

13 23 Soil Vapor Extraction CY

13 24 Shredding CY

13 25 Aeration CY

13 26 Advanced Electrical Reactor CY

13 27 Low Level Waste (LLW) Compaction CY

13 28 Agglomeration CY

13 29 In-Situ Steam Extraction MGA

13 30 Filter Presses MGA

13 31 Lignin Adsorption/Sorptive Clays CY

13 32 Air Sparging MGA

13 50 Post Construction O&M of Permanent Plant Facility EA/YR

13 9x Other (Use Numbers 90-99)

14 THERMAL TREATMENT 

14 01 Incineration CY

14 02 Low Temperature Thermal Desorption CY

14 03 Supercritical Water Oxidation MGA

14 04 Molten Salt Destruction CY

14 05 Radio Frequency Heating CY

14 06 Solar Detoxification CY

14 07 High Temperature Thermal Desorption CY

14 50 Post Construction O&M of Permanent Plant Facility EA/YR

14 9x Other (Use Numbers 90-99)

15 STABILIZATION/FIXATION/ENCAPSULATION

15 01 Molten Glass CY
WBS Number DESCRIPTION QTY UOM UNIT 

COST 

COST 

$ 

342XX 15 02 In-Situ Vitrification CY

15 03 In-Situ Pozzolan Process (Lime/Portland Cement) CY

15 04 Pozzolan Process (Lime/Portland Cement) CY

15 05 Asphalt-Based Encapsulation CY

15 06 Radioactive Waste Solidification (Grouting/Other) CY

15 07 Sludge Stabilization (Aggregate/Rock/Slag) CY

15 50 Post Construction O&M of Permanent Plant Facility EA/YR

15 9x Other (Use Numbers 90-99)

18 DISPOSAL (OTHER THAN COMMERCIAL)

18 01 Landfill/Burial Ground/Trench/Pits CY

18 02 Above-Ground Vault CY

18 03 Underground Vault CY

18 04 Underground Mine/Shaft CY

18 05 Tanks MGA

18 06 Pads (Tumulus/Retrievable Storage/Other) CY

18 07 Storage Bldgs/Protective Cvr Structures/Other Bldgs & CY 

18 08 Cribs CY

18 09 Deep Well Injection MGA

18 10 Incinerator CY

18 15 Post Construction O&M of Permanent Disposal Fac EA/YR

18 20 Container Handling EA

18 21 Transportation to Storage/Disposal Facility TON

18 22 Disposal Fees & Taxes TON

18 23 Mixed Waste Storage Fees & Taxes TON

18 9x Other (Use Numbers 90-99)

9X OTHER (Use Numbers 90-99)

TOTAL AMOUNT $ 0
EP 1110-1-19

30 Jun 01

C-1

APPENDIX C

EXAMPLE REMEDIAL ACTION REPORT –

IN SITU SOIL AND GROUNDWATER REMEDIATION

NOTE:

The following example remedial action report is based on an actual Superfund site, but some

information has been altered to illustrate the concepts of the guide. In addition, names have been

changed to avoid confusion with the actual site.

Content and format of actual RA reports may vary from this example due to considerations such

as project lead and support roles, availability of information, and site-specific conditions. The

information presented in this example report (e.g., costs) should not necessarily be used as a

technical basis for completing remedial action at an actual site (e.g., as a source of cost

information).
INTERIM

REMEDIAL ACTION REPORT

LANDFILL 5 OPERABLE UNIT

FT. GRIFFEY, OHIO

September 2000
TABLE OF CONTENTS

Ft. Griffey Landfill 5 OU Interim RA Report i

Abstract............................................................................................................................................iii

Section 1 Introduction............................................................................................................ 1-1

Previous Investigations ........................................................................................1-1

Section 2 Operable Unit Background ..................................................................................... 2-1

Remedy Selection.................................................................................................2-1

Section 3 Construction Activities........................................................................................... 3-1

Pilot System..........................................................................................................3-1

Full-Scale System.................................................................................................3-1

Section 4 Chronology of Events............................................................................................. 4-1

Section 5 Performance Standards and Construction Quality Control ..................................... 5-1

Performance Objectives.......................................................................................5-1

Treatment Performance Data and Assessment.....................................................5-1

Groundwater Sampling.............................................................................5-2

Air Emissions Sampling...........................................................................5-2

Performance Data Quality....................................................................................5-2

Section 6 Final Inspections and Certifications ....................................................................... 6-1

Inspections............................................................................................................6-1

Certifications........................................................................................................6-1

Health and Safety.................................................................................................6-1

Section 7 Operation and Maintenance Activities .................................................................... 7-1

Section 8 Summary of Project Costs...................................................................................... 8-1

Section 9 Observations and Lessons Learned....................................................................... 9-1

Performance .........................................................................................................9-1

Cost ......................................................................................................................9-1

System Operation.................................................................................................9-2

Section 10 Operable Unit Contacts ........................................................................................ 10-1

Section 11 References........................................................................................................... 11-1
TABLE OF CONTENTS

Ft. Griffey Landfill 5 OU Interim RA Report ii

List of Appendices

Appendix A Cost and Performance Factors

Appendix B Project Costs
Abstract

Ft. Griffey Landfill 5 OU Interim RA Report iii

Landfill 5 Operable Unit

Air Sparging/Soil Vapor Extraction

Ft. Griffey, Ohio

Site Name and Operable Unit: Landfill 5 Operable Unit

Location: Fort Griffey, Ohio

Regulatory Oversight: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region V

Riverfront Air Pollution Control Agency

Contractor Oversight: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Louisville District

Remedial Action Contractor: Remediation Enhanced Developments, Inc., Cincinnati, OH

Waste Source: Disposal of refuse and liquid waste in an unlined landfill cell during the 1950s

and 1960s

Contaminants: Dichloroethene (DCE)

Trichloroethene (TCE)

Tetrachloroethene (PCE)

Vinyl Chloride (VC)

Benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylenes (BTEX)

Technology: Air Sparging/Soil Vapor Extraction

• The full-scale system includes 5 AS wells, 6 SVE wells, 10 vadose zone

piezometer (VZP) wells, and 3 dissolved oxygen sensor (DOS) wells.

• An impermeable layer on the ground is used to increase the SVE wells’

radii of influence.

• Two parallel systems of vapor-phase granular activated carbon (GAC) are

used.

• SVE system operates at 0-1,290 scfm.

• AS system operates at 0-210 scfm.

Cleanup Type: Full-Scale

Purpose/Significance Remediation designed to treat soils suspected of being sources of groundwater

Of Application: contamination and to treat impacted groundwater.

Type/Quantity of Approximately 60 pounds of TCE had been removed as of October 31, 1997

Media Treated: (based on concentrations in extracted soil gas). It is estimated that 27,800 cubic

yards of soil (by SVE) and 37,400,000 gallons of groundwater (by AS) will have

been treated by the end of system operation.

Period of Operation: Pilot Test: 1/5/95 to 1/15/95

Full-Scale Operation: Ongoing

Regulatory The cleanup levels established for groundwater in the upper aquifer beneath the

site are:

Requirements/ TCE: 5 μg/L (MCL from the Federal Safe Drinking Water Act)

Cleanup Goals: VC: 1 μg/L (Ohio State Model Toxics Control Act Method B)

Monitoring of manganese is required along the western border of South and

Northwest LF5 to determine any changes in concentration.

A site-specific air emission threshold limit of 2.5 parts per million volume

(ppmv) TCE was also established.
Abstract

Ft. Griffey Landfill 5 OU Interim RA Report iv

Landfill 5 Operable Unit

Air Sparging/Soil Vapor Extraction

Ft. Griffey, Ohio

Results: The concentration of TCE in the soil gas extracted by the SVE system generally decreased from

210 parts per billion by volume (ppbv) to 140 ppbv during the period of April 1, 1995 through

July 27, 1995. The extracted soil gas concentration then increased to a maximum of 640 ppbv

during the period of August 1, 1995 through December 27, 1999.

Costs: The total actual costs incurred for this project from Years 0-5 (1994-1999) are $1,852,104, with a

capital cost of $729,294. The total project costs remaining are $2,111,483 (Years 6-15). The

technology-specific unit costs for soil vapor extraction and air sparging were calculated at $65.75

per cubic yard and $18.83/1,000 gallons, respectively. These unit costs include both actual and

projected costs that are applicable to each technology.

Description: Ft. Griffey occupies approximately 86,000 acres along the northern bank of the Ohio River,

approximately 12 miles from Cincinnati, Ohio. Ft. Griffey began operating in 1917 and currently

serves as a military reservation. Ft. Griffey is divided by I-5 into North Ft. Griffey and the Main

Post.

The RI, completed in 1993 by RED, under contract with USACE, Lousiville District, included an

extensive landfill and soil gas survey and a groundwater investigation. The RI confirmed the

presence of chlorinated hydrocarbons and aromatic hydrocarbons contamination at LF5. Elevated

levels of TCE, PCE, and DCE were detected in the soil. TCE, VC and BTEX contamination was

detected in the groundwater. Elevated levels of Mn were also detected in the groundwater along

the western borders of South and Northwest LF5. However, the RI attributes these elevated levels

to the dissolution of Mn from geologic materials in the area of LF5.

The full-scale system operation began when the startup activities were completed on July 29,

1995. The full-scale system operation is currently ongoing. The concentration of TCE in the soil

gas extracted by the SVE system generally decreased from 210 parts per billion by volume (ppbv)

to 140 ppbv during the period of April 1, 1995 through July 27, 1995. The extracted soil gas

concentration then increased to a maximum of 640 ppbv during the period of August 1, 1995

through December 27, 1999. This increase generally corresponds to the opening of the passive

injection wells after July 29, 1995, suggesting that the use of the passive injection wells enhanced

the system’s performance.
SECTIONONE Introduction

Ft. Griffey Landfill 5 OU Interim RA Report 1-1

Ft. Griffey occupies approximately 86,000 acres along the northern bank of the Ohio River,

approximately 12 miles from Cincinnati, Ohio. Ft. Griffey began operating in 1917 and currently

serves as a military reservation. Ft. Griffey is divided by I-5 into North Ft. Griffey and the Main

Post.

Landfill 5 (LF5) is located on North Ft. Griffey near Reese Lake and Reese Springs, which is the

primary drinking water supply for the fort. The 52 acre landfill is divided into three cells - South,

Northeast, and Northwest - and is located adjacent to a gravel pit (Figure 1).

From the early 1950s to the late 1960s, LF5 was reportedly used for the disposal of refuse,

including domestic and light industrial solid waste and construction debris, and for the disposal

of liquid waste in unlined cells. In addition, LF5 was reportedly used as a gravel quarry in the

1940s and for equipment storage and maintenance. After disposal activities ceased, the landfill

was covered with native materials such as sand, gravel and soil; the landfill is currently covered

with trees and grass.

PREVIOUS INVESTIGATIONS

According to the 1993 remedial investigation (RI), there were no reports of hazardous waste

disposal in LF5. However, historical aerial photographs show two suspected liquid waste

disposal pits located in Northeast and South LF5 and evidence of equipment maintenance

activities near Northeast LF5 . Tetrachloroethene (PCE) and trichloroethene (TCE) are suspected

of having been used in degreasing and equipment maintenance operations at Ft. Griffey; leaks

and spills of solvents from maintenance operations on or near LF5 and disposal of solvents in

unlined pits are the suspected sources of contamination.

In 1988, a limited site investigation of LF5 was conducted by Larkin Midwest Laboratory. The

investigation indicated that the shallow groundwater beneath the landfill was contaminated with

chlorinated hydrocarbons, aromatic hydrocarbons, and manganese (Mn). While the data were not

provided in the available references, TCE was reported to have been found at concentrations

ranging from 1 to 32 micrograms per liter (μg/L).

In 1991, Remediation Enhanced Developments, Inc. (RED) conducted several pre-RI activities

under contract with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Louisville District including a

test pit investigation, a passive soil gas survey, and a preliminary ecological assessment.

According to RED, the results of these activities indicated that TCE and PCE were widely

distributed in the area of LF5.

The RI, completed in 1993 by RED, again under contract with USACE Louisville District,

included a more extensive landfill and soil gas survey and a groundwater investigation. The RI

confirmed the presence of chlorinated hydrocarbons and aromatic hydrocarbons contamination at

LF5. Elevated levels of TCE, PCE, and dichloroethene (DCE) were detected in the soil. TCE,

vinyl chloride (VC) and benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylene (BTEX) contamination was

detected in the groundwater. Elevated levels of Mn were also detected in the groundwater along

the western borders of South and Northwest LF5. However, the RI attributes these elevated

levels to the dissolution of Mn from geologic materials in the area of LF5.
SECTIONONE Introduction

Ft. Griffey Landfill 5 OU Interim RA Report 1-2

Low levels of BTEX were detected in the lower aquifer (<0.5 μg/L to 5.8 μg/L). However, TCE,

DCE, VC, and PCE, while detected in the upper aquifer, were not detected in the lower aquifer.

Mn and iron were detected in both the upper and lower aquifers. The RI determined that the

elevated levels of Mn were caused by dissolution of manganese from geologic material.

Results of groundwater quality indicator parameters measured during the RI, including increased

specific conductance, dissolved metals and biochemical oxygen demand, indicated that low

levels of metals and inorganic compounds were leaching from the landfill into the upper aquifer.

However, the parameters were reported to rarely exceed five times their background levels.

There was no evidence of leaching to the lower aquifer.
SECTIONONE Introduction

Ft. Griffey Landfill 5 OU Interim RA Report 1-3

FIGURE 1

LANDFILL 5 – LOCATION OF CELLS
SECTIONTWO Operable Unit Background

Ft. Griffey Landfill 5 OU Interim RA Report 2-1

Based on the findings of the RI, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), Region V,

the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD), the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (OEPA),

and the USACE Louisville District negotiated a cleanup strategy and entered into a Federal

facility agreement under Section 120 of CERCLA to address the contamination at LF5. These

parties agreed to address LF5 as a single operable unit (OU) and commissioned a feasibility

study (FS) in March 1993.

REMEDY SELECTION

In a record of decision (ROD) signed in October 1993, the remedy selected for LF5 included:

• Treatment of contaminated soils in areas that were suspected sources of groundwater

contamination (soil hot spots) using soil vapor extraction (SVE);

• Treatment of contaminated groundwater using air sparging (AS);

• Monitoring of the upper aquifer to determine the effectiveness of the selected remedy; and,

• Maintenance of institutional controls, including access restrictions.

The groundwater AS system was to operate in conjunction with the SVE system.

The ROD also required that Mn be monitored in the groundwater in the localized areas where

elevated levels were detected during the RI. The ROD specified that, if the results of the

monitoring indicated that levels were not declining, then the need for remediation was to be

reevaluated.

Including limited groundwater extraction and treatment in addition to AS/SVE was considered as

an alternative remedy. However, AS/SVE was determined to be more cost effective than

AS/SVE plus groundwater extraction and treatment while still being protective of human health

and the environment.

The ROD specified four objectives for the remedy:

• To prevent exposure to contaminated groundwater;

• To restore the contaminated groundwater to its beneficial use (drinking water);

• To minimize movement of contaminants from soil to groundwater; and,

• To prevent exposure to the contents of the landfill.

No soil cleanup levels were identified. The cleanup levels established for groundwater in the

upper aquifer beneath the site were:

• TCE - 5 μg/L - the Federal Safe Drinking Water Act maximum contaminant level (MCL);

• VC - 1 μg/L - the Ohio State Model Toxics Control Act Method B.
SECTIONTWO Operable Unit Background

Ft. Griffey Landfill 5 OU Interim RA Report 2-2

Monitoring of Mn was required along the western border of South and Northwest LF5 to

determine any changes in concentration.

The remedial design (RD) for the AS/SVE system was completed in nine months and approved

by USEPA October 5, 1994, for implementation of the remedial action.
SECTIONTHREE Construction Activities

Ft. Griffey Landfill 5 OU Interim RA Report 3-1

The AS/SVE system was constructed between October 19 and December 29, 1994. Details of

the system’s construction are discussed below. Appendix A presents matrix characteristics and

operating parameters.

PILOT SYSTEM

The pilot system used in this application consisted of one AS well, three SVE wells, ten vadose

zone piezometer (VZP) wells, two groundwater monitoring wells, and three dissolved oxygen

sensor (DOS) wells, as well as an impermeable plastic cover for the ground surface and well

monitoring equipment. The AS and SVE wells were located near monitoring well LF5-MW8A,

from which groundwater samples with the highest recorded TCE concentrations in the project

area had been collected.

The AS well was used to inject clean air into the aquifer, using an above-ground blower, to strip

volatile contaminants from the aquifer into the soil in the subsurface at the site. Dissolved

oxygen (DO) concentrations in the aquifer were measured during AS using DOS wells. The DO

results were used to estimate the radius of influence of the AS well during the pilot test. The

SVE wells were used to extract volatile contaminants from the subsurface soil, and the VZP

wells were used to measure the radius of influence of the SVE wells.

The impermeable plastic cover was used to enhance the radius of influence for the SVE wells by

moving the air recharge boundary a greater distance from the SVE wells. The cover was

constructed of a 20-millimeter (mil) thick layer of very low density polyethylene (VLDPE) and

laid down over a cleared area. The cover had a radius of approximately 200 feet, and was

covered with 4 to 6-inches of gravel to assure tight contact with the ground surface, and to allow

for light vehicular traffic (pickup trucks) over the cover. All wells were drilled using a 4-inch

inner diameter (ID) hollow stem auger.

Operation of the pilot system consisted of a SVE pilot test and a combined AS/SVE pilot test.

FULL-SCALE SYSTEM

The full-scale system used in this application consisted of five AS wells, six SVE wells, ten VZP

wells, three groundwater monitoring wells, three DOS wells, four passive injection wells, and

associated well-monitoring equipment. The passive injection wells were positioned where

modeling results showed significant stagnation zones when two adjacent SVE wells were

operated at the same time. The full-scale system also used the same impermeable plastic cover

for the ground surface that was used in the pilot system. Two parallel systems of vapor-phase

granular activated carbon (GAC) were used in the full-scale system.

Extracted vapors were first treated using a moisture (water/vapor) separator to remove entrained

water, and then treated using activated carbon filter canisters (GAC), prior to discharge to the

atmosphere.

The AS system consisted of an inlet particulate filter, compressor, moisture separator, and flow

control valve.
SECTIONTHREE Construction Activities

Ft. Griffey Landfill 5 OU Interim RA Report 3-2

The six SVE wells were piped to two parallel treatment trains, each consisting of a moisture

separator, a blower, and two vapor-phase GAC canisters. These two parallel sets of equipment

were operated to ensure that the system’s performance would not be affected by a breakdown.

Well construction details for the full-scale system are provided below. Schematics of the SVE

and AS systems, respectively, are shown in Figures 2 and 3.

Type of Well No. of Wells Depth of Well Location of

Well Screen

Screen

Length (ft)

Screen Slot

Openings (in)

AS 5

20 ft. below static

water level (SWL);

50 ft below ground

surface (BGS)

15 to 20 ft.

below SWL 5 0.01

SVE 6 30 ft BGS

2 ft above

seasonal high

water level

(SHWL) to 12 ft

above SHWL

10 0.01

VZP 10 30 ft. BGS

2 ft. above

SHWL to 12 ft.

above SHWL

10 0.01

Groundwater

monitoring 3 40 ft. BGS

1 ft. above

SHWL to 7-8 ft.

below SHWL

10 0.01

DOS 3 40 ft. BGS

1 ft. above

SHWL to 7-8 ft.

below SHWL

10 0.01

Passive

injection 4 30 ft. BGS

2 ft. above

SHWL to 12 ft.

above SHWL

10 0.01
SECTIONTHREE Construction Activities

Ft. Griffey Landfill 5 OU Interim RA Report 3-3

FIGURE 2

SOIL VAPOR EXTRACTION SCHEMATIC FOR LANDFILL 5

FIGURE 3

AIR SPARGING SCHEMATIC FOR LANDFILL 5
SECTIONFOUR Chronology of Events

Ft. Griffey Landfill 5 OU Interim RA Report 4-1

The following table includes the dates of the most significant events in the operation of the

AS/SVE system at LF5.

Date Activity

October 15, 1993 Record of decision signed

July 13, 1994 Remedial design submitted

October 5, 1994 Remedial design approved

October 19, 1994 Construction of the AS/SVE system began

December 29, 1994 Construction of the AS/SVE system completed

January 5-15, 1995 AS/SVE pilot test conducted at LF5

April 1, 1995 AS/SVE startup activities at LF5

July 29, 1995 Preliminary closeout report signed for site construction completion

September 4, 1995 Operating Properly and Successfully determination made

December 7, 1999 Data collection for Chemical Data Report #5 completed

December 27, 1999

USEPA, DoD, OEPA, and USACE representatives participated in the contract

pre-final inspection and the Federal facilities agreement inspection, held

simultaneously

Ongoing AS/SVE full-scale operation
SECTIONFIVE Performance Standards and Construction Quality Control

Ft. Griffey Landfill 5 OU Interim RA Report 5-1

The overall performance of the AS/SVE system, as compared to the performance objectives, is

discussed below.

PERFORMANCE OBJECTIVES

The ROD specified four objectives for the remedy:

• To prevent exposure to contaminated groundwater;

• To restore the contaminated groundwater to its beneficial use (drinking water);

• To minimize movement of contaminants from soil to groundwater; and,

• To prevent exposure to the contents of the landfill.

No soil cleanup levels were identified. The cleanup levels established for groundwater in the

upper aquifer beneath the site were:

• TCE - 5 μg/L - the Federal Safe Drinking Water Act MCL

• VC - 1 μg/L - the Ohio State Model Toxics Control Act Method B

Monitoring of Mn was required along the western border of South and Northwest LF5 to

determine any changes in concentration.

A site-specific air emission threshold limit of 2.5 parts per million volume (ppmv) TCE was

calculated by USACE using Screen Model 3 and the Riverfront Air Pollution Control Agency

(RAPCA) acceptable source impact levels. The air stream between the first and second carbon

canisters is monitored every other week using a photoionization detector (PID). The PID

breakthrough action level is 1.5 ppmv total VOCs. The breakthrough action level is used to

determine when the first carbon bed needs to be removed from service.

To assess the overall performance of the system, performance monitoring is required throughout

the operation of the system. The specific requirements are detailed in the compliance monitoring

plan and include contaminant reduction monitoring to evaluate progress towards achieving the

cleanup goals, contaminant migration monitoring to confirm that the plume is being contained,

and contaminant treatment monitoring for air emissions.

TREATMENT PERFORMANCE DATA AND ASSESSMENT

The full-scale system operation began when the startup activities were completed on July 29,

1995. The full-scale system operation is currently ongoing. Performance data through

December 7, 1999 were included in Chemical Data Report #5, which was the most recent

document used in preparation of this report.

In general, the SVE system was operated between 0 and 1,290 standard cubic feet per minute

(scfm) extracted, and the air sparging system was operated at between 0 and 210 scfm injected.

The passive air injection wells initially remained closed from April 1, 1995 and July 29, 1995,
SECTIONFIVE Performance Standards and Construction Quality Control

Ft. Griffey Landfill 5 OU Interim RA Report 5-2

after which they were opened. It was determined that the passive injection wells should remain

open unless a detrimental effect could be demonstrated.

The concentration of TCE in the soil gas extracted by the SVE system generally decreased from

210 parts per billion by volume (ppbv) to 140 ppbv during the period of April 1, 1995 through

July 27, 1995. The extracted soil gas concentration then increased to a maximum of 640 ppbv

during the period of August 1, 1995 through December 27, 1999. This increase generally

corresponds to the opening of the passive injection wells after July 29, 1995, suggesting that the

use of the passive injection wells enhanced the system’s performance.

Groundwater Sampling

Twenty-two rounds of groundwater sampling have been conducted (two before the remediation

system was installed and four times per year for five years after the system’s installation). The

first round of sampling was performed during March 1994 and the last round for which data was

available was performed in December 1999.

TCE was the only contaminant in groundwater consistently identified above the cleanup levels

established for the site. In addition, monitoring for Mn was required.

The average TCE concentration in the contaminant reduction monitoring wells has decreased

from 79 to 6.4 mg/L from March 1994 to December 1999, while the average TCE concentration

in the migration monitoring wells has showed no consistent trend (average concentrations have

ranged from 3.78 to 12.03 mg/L). TCE concentrations in both areas were still above the site

cleanup level of 5 mg/L in December 1999.

The average total Mn concentration in the contaminant reduction monitoring wells has decreased

from 11,000 mg/L in March 1994 to 8.0 mg/L in December 1999, while the average Mn

concentration in the migration monitoring wells has generally decreased from 488.0 to

40.0 mg/L) during the same time period.

Vinyl chloride, the other contaminant with a cleanup level for the site, was only detected above

method detection limits on one occasion (March 1997)and was never detected above site cleanup

levels.

Air Emissions Sampling

Based upon the system performance testing of the AS/SVE system, the air effluent from the

system was determined to be several magnitudes below the RAPCA emission action levels.

Therefore, because the RAPCA emission action levels would not be exceeded during the SVE

system’s operation, additional air sampling was not required.

PERFORMANCE DATA QUALITY

According to the technical memorandum on the results of the pilot study, the required QA/QC

samples were collected. Field duplicates, field blanks, rinsate blanks, and travel blanks were
SECTIONFIVE Performance Standards and Construction Quality Control

Ft. Griffey Landfill 5 OU Interim RA Report 5-3

required in the final management plan for the LF5 pilot study for QA/QC of the field study

sampling program. Method blanks, reagent blanks, matrix spike samples, matrix spike

duplicates, duplicates, and laboratory control samples were required for laboratory QA/QC. No

exceptions to the QA/QC procedures were noted in any of the field sampling or laboratory

reports.

With the exception of DO data from the second quarter of 1996, no significant data quality

problems were identified. This DO data were determined to be unacceptable as a result of

significant fluctuations measured from the sensors. The problem did not reoccur in any of the

subsequent sampling data.
SECTIONSIX Final Inspections and Certifications

Ft. Griffey Landfill 5 OU Interim RA Report 6-1

INSPECTIONS

The pre-final and the Federal facilities agreement inspections of the AS/SVE system construction

were conducted simultaneously on December 27, 1999, in the presence of USEPA, DoD, OEPA,

and USACE representatives.

Observations, inspections, and testing during operation of the AS/SVE treatment system found

no significant operational problems affecting the performance of the remedial action.

CERTIFICATIONS

On September 4, 1995, the AS/SVE system was certified as Operating Properly and

Successfully. This determination was required under the Federal facilities agreement.

HEALTH AND SAFETY

No health and safety problems were encountered during construction or operation. Modified

Level D personal protective equipment (PPE) was required for all site personnel who entered the

site. The equipment included coveralls, safety boots, and nitrile gloves.
SECTIONSEVEN Operation and Maintenance Activities

Ft. Griffey Landfill 5 OU Interim RA Report 7-1

The quarterly groundwater monitoring program began in March 1994. TCE concentrations in

both areas were still above the site cleanup level of 5 mg/L in December 1999. The average total

Mn concentration in the contaminant reduction monitoring wells has decreased from

11,000 mg/L in March 1994 to 8.0 mg/L in December 1999, while the average Mn concentration

in the migration monitoring wells has generally decreased from 488.0 to 40.0 mg/L) during the

same time period. Vinyl chloride, the other contaminant with a cleanup level for the site, was

only detected above method detection limits on one occasion and was never detected above site

cleanup levels.

It is anticipated, based on the effectiveness of the AS/SVE system, that the site cleanup level of

5 mg/L for TCE concentrations will be attained for all monitoring wells in approximately 2002

(Year 7). As specified in the ROD, after this objective has been achieved the AS/SVE system

will continue to operate for an additional 3 months to ensure that the site has been remediated.

As specified in the ROD, the quarterly monitoring of groundwater will continue through 2009

(Year 15) to confirm that groundwater will not be adversely impacted by the land treatment

activities.
SECTIONEIGHT Summary of Project Costs

Ft. Griffey Landfill 5 OU Interim RA Report 8-1

The table below summarizes total actual project costs for the Landfill 5 operable unit RA.

Appendix B provides a breakdown of these costs incurred to-date as well as a breakdown of

projected costs.

Cost Item Adjusted

ROD Estimate Actual Cost1 Difference

Capital Costs, Year 0 (1994) $688,013 $729,294 + 6 %

O&M Costs, Years 1-5 (1995-1999) $993,522 1,102,810 + 11 %

Periodic Costs, Year 5 (1999) $20,000 20,000 0 %

Total Costs, Years 0-5 $1,701,535 $1,852,104 + 9 %

1 Costs are based on the respective years that the costs were incurred (e.g., Year 1 ended in 1995 and Year 5

ended in 1999; therefore, these costs are reported in 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, and 1999 dollars, respectively).

The ROD estimates were adjusted from 1993 dollars to the appropriate year’s dollar using ENR building cost

index factors.

Total projected costs for Years 6 through 15 are $2,111,483 with O&M costs of $2,057,839 and

periodic costs of $53,644 using 2000 as the base year of the estimate. This compares to an

adjusted ROD estimate cost of $2,006,910 for O&M (+2.5%) and $50,000 for periodic costs

(+1%) for this period.
SECTIONNINE Observations and Lessons Learned

Ft. Griffey Landfill 5 OU Interim RA Report 9-1

PERFORMANCE

During the operation of the treatment system in SVE-only mode, TCE concentrations were

reduced from initial concentrations of 235 ppb to 110 ppb. The addition of AS to the system

reduced TCE concentrations in the soil gas from initial concentrations of 110 ppb to 56 ppb.

The AS/SVE system reduced TCE concentrations in groundwater. At the three wells located near

suspected hot spots of contamination, TCE concentrations were reduced from 310 ppb to

170 ppb (DOS-1), from 220 ppb to 170 ppb (DOS-2), and from 140 ppb to 23 ppb (MW8A).

However, the concentrations remained above the cleanup goal of 5 ppb for TCE.

The results of Mn sampling before and after sparging indicated that Mn levels decreased in six of

the eleven wells samples, but increased in five of the wells.

The following observations were made in a technical memorandum summarizing the system’s

operation.

• With respect to optimal air extraction rate, an extraction rate of 110 scfm is likely to capture

all volatilized contaminants within about 200 feet of each extraction well.

• The radius of influence of an air injection well is about 20-30 feet.

• A pressure of approximately 8 psi was required to overcome resistance in the injection well.

However, at injection pressures above 8 psi, air bubbles would be more likely to occur. At

8 psi, the air injection rate into the aquifer was about 45 scfm. The 45 scfm (8 psi pressure)

was determined to be the optimal flow rate, reflecting site and conditions of injections 12 feet

below static water level. The vendor noted that changes in depth of the injection well will

affect the injection pressure and radius of influence.

• The major problem encountered during the pilot test was that the SVE vacuum pump did not

produce a vacuum sufficient to be detected by the automated sensors. Because of schedule

constraints, a larger blower could not be obtained. However, according to the vendor,

adequate data was obtained from the pilot test to design the full-scale system.

While overall TCE concentrations decreased in the groundwater, there were several instances

when TCE concentrations increased during operation. These increases may be attributed to the

new source material (from contaminated soil) infiltrating into the groundwater.

COST

The total cost for the pilot study of the AS/SVE system at LF5 was $241,000. This amount is

not included in the amounts shown in Table 8-1.

Differences between the actual costs and the adjusted ROD estimates are largely attributable to

the installation of passive injections wells, a SVE system capable of sustaining a 600 scfm

average volumetric airflow rate, and additional groundwater monitoring wells, and the increased

groundwater sampling costs associated with the additional wells. However, as shown in
SECTIONNINE Observations and Lessons Learned

Ft. Griffey Landfill 5 OU Interim RA Report 9-2

Table 8-1, the actual costs that have been incurred to this point were just 9% above the

corresponding, adjusted ROD estimate.

Subsequent to original negotiations, the contaminant concentrations in system air emissions were

determined to be significantly below the allowable air emission standards, and RAPCA agreed to

allow USACE to eliminate the need to change the carbon units from the system and to reduce air

compliance monitoring requirements. USACE is planning to reallocate money from any savings

on air compliance monitoring to increase the number of system performance air tests.

Because the system operation is ongoing, the total costs to operate the system are not known at

this time. Actual costs to date are shown in Table B-1, and projected additional cost to complete

is shown in Table B-2.

SYSTEM OPERATION

The emphasis of vapor data collection in the future should shift to the individual extraction wells

rather than the combined extracted flow. In the fifth quarter of the full-scale operation, quarterly

vapor sampling from the individual wells was initiated.

Based on the testing of the untreated and the treated condensate removed by the remediation

system, the potential life of the aqueous-phase carbon units was estimated to be in excess of ten

million gallons.

An SVE system flow rate of less than the design maximum flow rate may be more efficient for

TCE removal than continuous operation at the maximum flow rate. The vendor recommended

that the system be evaluated at moderate SVE system flow rates during the ongoing optimization

of the system.

The data supports the remedial investigation findings that numerous TCE hot spots exist at the

site, and that the presence of TCE (and/or its degradation products) at one location may or may

not be related to its presence at other locations at the site.

Studying the natural degradation of the leachate at the site may provide a more widespread

picture of the fate of contamination at the site than focusing on the natural attenuation of

chlorinated hydrocarbons alone.

Although the impact of the AS system on the degradation of TCE at the site had not been

conclusively determined, it was recommended that the AS system continued to be operated until

an impact/ benefit analysis for the system is completed.

Because one of the contaminant reduction monitoring wells upgradient of the remediation system

had maintained an elevated concentration of TCE, a TCE hot spot may be located upgradient of

this location beyond the influence of the remediation system. An additional AS/SVE well pair

could be added to this area to increase the reach of the remediation system.
SECTIONNINE Observations and Lessons Learned

Ft. Griffey Landfill 5 OU Interim RA Report 9-3

The concentrations of contaminants downgradient from the treatment system may remain above

the cleanup levels for the site, even if contaminant concentrations are reduced to below cleanup

levels in the treatment system area.
SECTIONTEN Operable Unit Contacts

Ft. Griffey Landfill 5 OU Interim RA Report 10-1

Remedial Action Contractor:

Primary Contact Name and Title: Sparky Jones, Vice President

Company Name: Remediation Enhanced Developments, Inc.

Address: 535 Red Way, Cincinnati, OH 99992

Phone Number: (555) 111-2222

RA Oversight Contractor:

Company Name: Hitchcock & Associates Contract Number: 9999-8888-7777FG

Address: 429 State Road, Columbus, OH 99993

Phone Number: (555) 555-4444

Work Assignment

Number:

Analytical Laboratory:

For the USACE:

Company Name: National Labs

Address: 101 N. 45th Ave., Front Office, Virginia 99997

Phone Number: (555) 444-6677

Project Management:

For the USACE:

Name: D. Bichet

Company Name: USACE Louisville District

Address: 401 Cardinal, Louisville, KY 99991

Phone Number: (555) 333-2222

Email: bichet@usace.army.mil

For the EPA:

Name: Jack Thomas

U.S. EPA Region: V

Address: 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, IL 60604

Phone Number: (312) 353-1212

Email: thomas@epa.gov
SECTIONELEVEN References

Ft. Griffey Landfill 5 OU Interim RA Report 11-1

1. D. Bichet, USACE. 1998. Response to questions on LF5 cost data. January 9.

2. Remediation Enhanced Developments, Inc. 1993. Final Feasibility Study Report, Landfill 5

and Solvent Refined Coal Pilot Plant, Ft. Griffey, Ohio. Prepared for USACE, Louisville

District. May.

3. Remediation Enhanced Developments, Inc. 1994. AS/SVE Remedial Design, Landfill 5

Remediation, Ft. Griffey, Ohio. For USACE Contract No. DACA99-99-Z-9999-99. July 13.

4. Remediation Enhanced Developments, Inc. 1995. Preliminary Closeout Report, Landfill 5

Remediation, Ft. Griffey, Ohio. For USACE Contract No. DACA99-99-Z-9999-99. June 1.

5. Remediation Enhanced Developments, Inc. 1995. Chemical Data Report #1, Landfill 5 Air

Sparging/Soil Vapor Extraction Remediation, Ft. Griffey, Ohio. For USACE Contract No.

DACA99-99-Z-9999-99. December 31.

6. Remediation Enhanced Developments, Inc. 1996. Chemical Data Report #2, Landfill 5 Air

Sparging/Soil Vapor Extraction Remediation, Ft. Griffey, Ohio. For USACE Contract No.

DACA99-99-Z-9999-99. December 31.

7. Remediation Enhanced Developments, Inc. 1997. Chemical Data Report #3, Landfill 5

AS/SVE Remediation, Ft. Griffey, Ohio. For USACE Contract No. DACA99-99-Z-9999-99.

December 31.

8. Remediation Enhanced Developments, Inc. 1998. Chemical Data Report #4, Landfill 5

Remediation, Ft. Griffey, Ohio. For USACE Contract No. DACA99-99-Z-9999-99.

December 31.

9. Remediation Enhanced Developments, Inc. 1999. Chemical Data Report #5, Landfill 5

Remediation, Ft. Griffey, Ohio. For USACE Contract No. DACA99-99-Z-9999-99

December 31..

10. Riverfront Air Pollution Control Agency. 1997. Letter from Scott Williamson to Peter

Harnish, USACE. December 11.

11. U.S. EPA. 1993. Record of Decision, Ft. Griffey Landfill 5 Remediation. October 15.

12. U.S. EPA. 1994. Letter regarding Approval of Remedial Design, Ft. Griffey Landfill 5

Remediation. October 5.

13. U.S. EPA. 1995. Letter regarding Signing of Preliminary Closeout Report, Ft. Griffey

Landfill 5 Remediation. July 29.

14. U.S. EPA. 1995. Letter regarding Operating Properly and Successfully Determination, Ft.

Griffey Landfill 5 Remediation. September 4.
SECTIONELEVEN References

Ft. Griffey Landfill 5 OU Interim RA Report 11-2

15. USACE, Louisville District. 1994. Final Management Plan, Pilot Study, Landfill 5, Ft.

Griffey, Ohio. June.

16. USACE, Louisville District. 1994. Government Cost Estimate for Cover Air Sparging/Soil

Vapor Extraction Pilot Test, Landfill 5, Ft. Griffey, Ohio, Department of the Army. August.

17. USACE, Louisville District. 1995. Technical Memorandum, AS/SVE Pilot LF5, Ft. Griffey.

March 28.

18. USACE, Louisville District. 1999. Inspection Results: Pre-Final and Federal Facilities

Agreement. December 30.

19. USACE, Louisville District. 1997. Letter from Sean Casey, P.E. to Jack McKeon, Riverfront

Air Pollution Control Agency. December 5.

20. USACE, Louisville District. Undated. Compliance Monitoring Plan, Ft. Griffey, LF5,

AS/SVE Final Remedial Design.

21. USACE, Louisville District. Undated. Design Analysis, Ft. Griffey, LF5, AS/SVE Final

Remedial Design.

22. USACE, Louisville District. Undated. Remedial Action Workplan, Ft. Griffey, LF5, AS/SVE

Final Remedial Design.
APPENDIXA Cost and Performance Factors

Ft. Griffey Landfill 5 OU Interim RA Report A-1

The following table details matrix characteristics that may affect cost and performance of the

AS/SVE system.

MATRIX CHARACTERISTICS

Parameter Site Condition

Soil Classification Sandy gravel to sandy silty gravel

(see Table A-3)

Particle Size Distribution Stratigraphic units range from well sorted to

unsorted (see Table A-3)

Moisture Content 9 - 12 %

Air Permeability 1.6 x 10-7

cm

2

 (calculated using field

measurements and steady state equation)

Hydraulic conductivity 232 darcies (sieve analysis)

370 darcies (computer modeling)

Effective Porosity 30%

Total Organic Carbon 580 -17,000 ppb

(as measured during the pilot study)

The following table details operating parameters of the AS/SVE system.

OPERATING PARAMETERS

Operating Parameter Value and Units

Soil Vapor Extraction System

Air flow rate 440 - 1290 scfm

Operating vacuum 5-inches mercury vacuum at blower inlet

Operating time Continuous

Temperature 85 – 155°F

Air Sparging System

Air flow rate 60 - 210 scfm

Operating pressure 7 pounds per square inch (psi) (design

value)

Operating time Cyclical
APPENDIXB Project Costs

Ft. Griffey Landfill 5 OU Interim RA Report B-1

The following tables present a summary of actual (Years 0-5) and projected (Years 6-15) costs

and calculation of technology-specific unit costs for soil vapor extraction and air sparging.

HCAS data entry sheets are attached to this appendix.

Site: Landfill 5 Description: The selected treatment technology consists of air sparging in combination

Location: Ft. Griffey, Ohio with soil vapor extraction in the source area. Capital costs were incurred

Phase: Interim RA Report in Year 0 (1994). Actual O&M costs were incurred in Years 1 (1995)

Base Year: 1994, 1995-1999, 2000 through 5 (1999). Projected O&M costs are assumed for Years 6 (2000)

Date: through 15 (2009). Periodic costs are incurred in Years 5, 10, and 15.

RA CAPITAL COSTS (Year 0):

331XX HTRW Remedial Action

.01 Mobilization and Preparatory Work

.01 Mob Construction Equipment & Facilities

.03 Submittals/Implementation Plans QAPP, SSHP, etc.

.05 Construct Temporary Utilities

SUBTOTAL

.02 Monitoring, Sampling, Testing, and Analysis

.04 Monitoring Wells Saturated zone screen interval

.11 Geotechnical Testing Screen interval soil samples

.90 Vadose Zone Piezometers Installed to water table depth

.91 Dissolved Oxygen Sensor Wells Saturated zone screen interval

SUBTOTAL

.03 Sitework

.02 Clearing and Grubbing Work area

.03 Earthwork - Stockpile Topsoil Strip 0.5'

SUBTOTAL

.13 Physical Treatment

.32 Air Sparging (37,400 MGA)

.90 AS Injection Wells Well depth = midpoint of aquifer

.91 AS Blower

.92 AS Piping Pipe, valves, fittings, etc.

.93 Electrical Hookup

.94 Startup and Testing

SUBTOTAL

.13 Physical Treatment

.23 Soil Vapor Extraction (27,800 CY)

.90 Mobilize SVE System Mobile unit

.91 Impermeable Surface Cover Low density polyethylene liner

.92 SVE Extraction Wells Installed to water table depth

.93 SVE Passive Injection Wells Installed to water table depth

.94 SVE System Mobile unit (600 scfm)

.95 GAC System

.96 SVE Piping Pipe, valves, fittings, etc.

.97 Electrical Hookup

.98 Startup and Testing

SUBTOTAL

.19 Disposal (Commercial)

.20 Container Handling Transport/disposal of drums - SWLF

.90 Wastewater Discharge/Testing POTW fee - development water

SUBTOTAL

.20 Site Restoration

.01 Earthwork - Spread/Compact Topsoil Replace topsoil

.04 Revegetation and Planting Seeding/mulch/fertilizer - work area

SUBTOTAL

.21 Demobilization

.02 Removal of Temporary Utilities

.04 Demob Construction Equipment & Facilities

.06 Submittals Post-const. reports

SUBTOTAL

SUBTOTAL

Project Management

Remedial Design

Construction Management

TOTAL RA CAPITAL COST (Year 0) 1994

$5,788

ACTUAL COSTS (1 of 2)

1 EA $546 $546

1 EA

1 EA

$1,534

2,420 Cubic Yard $1.86

125,500 SF $0.84

400

1 EA $1,059 $1,059

3.0 Acre $1,427 $4,281

1 $93,510 $93,510

$105,420

6 EA $3,725 $22,350

4 EA

2 EA $102,596 $205,192

$1,234

1 EA $5,468 $5,468

EA

EA

1

LF $5.03

2,420

1

1

April 9, 2001

34,728

CY $0.51

$8.66 $3,464

$8,783

$4,501

$4,949 $4,949

$7,393

$1,800

LF

EA

$5,468

$9,144

$1,534

EA

$2,286

$250

$39,857

EA $4,949

EA $5,468

$4,645

100

Each

200 Gallon $1.25

1

5

$5,712

AC $1,161

$1,577

3 EA

10 EA

10

1

$2,472

1 EA

EA

EA

EA $230

7 $2,965

DESCRIPTION

1

UNIT

EA $2,472

QUANTITY UNIT

$13,504

COST

$2,965

30 $60

3.0

$1,274

$13,504

$1,274

$47,724

$8,896

$2,300

$15,771

$4,717

$3,482

69,457

46,304

NOTES

$17,250

COST

$20,757

$23,225

$503

$4,949

$5,712

$451,031

$729,294

$5,788

$2,050

$578,805
APPENDIXB Project Costs

Ft. Griffey Landfill 5 OU Interim RA Report B-2

O&M COSTS (Years 1-5):

342XX HTRW O&M

.02 Monitoring, Sampling, Testing, and Analysis

.90 Performance Monitoring - SVE Vapor 1 sample/month * 6 extraction wells

.91 Performance Monitoring - SVE Emissions 1 sample/month - SVE exhaust

.92 Site Groundwater Sampling (Quarterly) Sample 8 wells/event VOCs, metals

.93 Site Groundwater Lab Analysis Analysis for above

SUBTOTAL

.13 Physical Treatment

.32 Air Sparging (37,400 MGA)

.90 Operations Labor 54 manhours per month

.91 Maintenance Labor 6 manhours per month

.92 Equipment Repair

.93 Utilities Electricity + fuel

SUBTOTAL

.13 Physical Treatment

.23 Soil Vapor Extraction (27,800 CY)

.90 Operations Labor 82 manhours per month

.91 Maintenance Labor 10 manhours per month

.92 Equipment Repair

.93 Utilities Electricity + fuel

SUBTOTAL

.18 Disposal (Other than Commercial)

.90 Wastewater Discharge/Testing Purge & knockout water

SUBTOTAL

Project Management

Technical Support

TOTAL O&M COST (Years 1-5) 1995-1999

PERIODIC COSTS (Year 5):

Five Year Review Report 1 report at end of Year 5

Interim RA Report

TOTAL PERIODIC COST (Year 5) 1999

TOTAL COST (Years 0-5)

DESCRIPTION

EA $1,000

5

5 YR $21,839

5 YR

5

$12,000 $12,000

$22,149

$17,280

$146,880

$109,195

ACTUAL COSTS (2 of 2)

NOTES

5 YR $36,399

UNIT COST

UNIT

YR $29,376

$46,268

8,000 GA $1.25 $10,000

5

1

5 YR

$9,254

1

YR

5 YR $3,456

$44,064

$5,184

$1,500

1 Each

QUANTITY

NOTES

$3,692

TOTAL

$420,395

$181,995

$18,460

$110,745

TOTAL

UNIT

COST

YR

EA

$1,102,810

$69,402

$317,142

$1,000

$8,000 $8,000

$20,000

$220,320

$25,920

$1,500

$958,965

$211,428

47,948

95,897

QUANTITY

1 Each

5 YR

UNIT

5 YR

YEAR

5

5

DESCRIPTION

$13,880

$1,852,104
APPENDIXB Project Costs

Ft. Griffey Landfill 5 OU Interim RA Report B-3

Site: Landfill 5 Description: The selected treatment technology consists of air sparging in combination

Location: Ft. Griffey, Ohio with soil vapor extraction in the source area. Capital costs were incurred

Phase: Interim RA Report in Year 0 (1994). Actual O&M costs were incurred in Years 1 (1995)

Base Year: 1994, 1995-1999, 2000 through 5 (1999). Projected O&M costs are assumed for Years 6 (2000)

Date: through 15 (2009). Periodic costs are incurred in Years 5, 10, and 15.

O&M COSTS (Years 6-15):

342XX HTRW O&M

.02 Monitoring, Sampling, Testing, and Analysis

.90 Performance Monitoring - SVE Vapor 1 sample/month * 6 extraction wells

.91 Performance Monitoring - SVE Emissions 1 sample/month - SVE exhaust

.92 Site Groundwater Sampling (Quarterly) Sample 8 wells/event VOCs, metals

.93 Site Groundwater Lab Analysis Analysis for above

SUBTOTAL

.13 Physical Treatment

.32 Air Sparging

.05 Utilities Electricity + fuel

.09 Operations Labor 54 manhours per month

.10 Maintenance Labor 6 manhours per month

.90 Equipment Repair

SUBTOTAL

.13 Physical Treatment

.23 Soil Vapor Extraction

.05 Utilities Electricity + fuel

.09 Operations Labor 82 manhours per month

.10 Maintenance Labor 10 manhours per month

.90 Equipment Repair

SUBTOTAL

.18 Disposal (Other than Commercial)

.90 Wastewater Discharge/Testing Purge & knockout water

SUBTOTAL

Contingency

SUBTOTAL

Project Management

Technical Support

TOTAL O&M COST (Years 6-15) 2000

PERIODIC COSTS (Years 10, 15):

Five Year Review Report 1 report at end of Year 10

Demob SVE System 342XX.13.23.99 Remove equipment and piping

Demob AS System 342XX.13.32.99 Remove equipment and piping

Well Abandon 342XX.02.04.20

Contingency (% of Sum) % of construction activities

Project Mgt. (% of Sum + Cont.) % of construction + contingency

Final RA Report

SUBTOTAL

TOTAL PERIODIC COST (Years 10, 15) 2000

TOTAL PROJECTED COST (Years 6-15)

15 1 Lump Sum $7,125

16,000 GA $1.25 $20,000

10 YR $13,880 $138,804

1 EA $3,000 $3,000

10 YR $5,184 $51,840

10 YR $44,064 $440,640

YR $9,254 $92,536

$422,856

$2,111,483

PROJECTED COSTS

10 YR $22,149 $221,490

10 YR $3,692 $36,920

10 YR $18,200 $182,000

5% 1,793

15 1 Each $4,000 $4,000

15%

15 28 Each $350

COST NOTES

15 1 Lump Sum $14,250

5%

10%

$14,250

10%

10 YR

10 YR

10 YR

1 EA

DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT

$9,800

1 Each

QUANTITY UNIT

4,676

$1,626,750

$1,789,425

$12,000

162,675

$2,057,839

TOTAL

$7,125

UNIT

$41,644

178,943

COST

$10,920 $109,200

$549,610

$29,376 $293,760

$3,456

TOTAL NOTES

$34,560

$2,000 $2,000

$634,284

$53,644

March 30, 2001

89,471

YEAR

10

DESCRIPTION

10

UNIT

$12,000
APPENDIXB Project Costs

Ft. Griffey Landfill 5 OU Interim RA Report B-4

SOIL VAPOR EXTRACTION

TECHNOLOGY-SPECIFIC UNIT COST CALCULATION

ACTUAL CAPITAL COSTS (Year 0):

Monitoring, Sampling, Testing, and Analysis1

Physical Treatment2

Disposal (Other than Commercial)3

SUBTOTAL

ACTUAL O&M COSTS (Years 1-5):

Monitoring, Sampling, Testing, and Analysis

4

Physical Treatment2

SUBTOTAL

PROJECTED O&M COSTS (Years 6-15):

Monitoring, Sampling, Testing, and Analysis4

Physical Treatment

2

SUBTOTAL

PROJECTED PERIODIC COSTS (Years 10, 15):

Demobilize SVE System2

Well Abandonment2

SUBTOTAL

TOTAL TECHNOLOGY-SPECIFIC COST

Soil to be Treated (Cubic Yards)

5

TECHNOLOGY-SPECIFIC UNIT COST (Per Cubic Yard)

1

 SVE vadose zone piezometers

2

 SVE system only

3

 Disposal of SVE piezometer soil cuttings

4

 SVE performance monitoring

5

 Within zone of influence

$446,347

$15,771

$451,031

$800

$467,602

$129,205

$317,142

$65.75

$1,827,893

$258,410

$634,284

$892,694

$14,250

$7,000

$21,250

27,800
APPENDIXB Project Costs

Ft. Griffey Landfill 5 OU Interim RA Report B-5

AIR SPARGING

TECHNOLOGY-SPECIFIC UNIT COST CALCULATION

ACTUAL CAPITAL COSTS (Year 0):

Monitoring, Sampling, Testing, and Analysis1

Physical Treatment2

Disposal (Other than Commercial)3

SUBTOTAL

ACTUAL O&M COSTS (Years 1-5):

Physical Treatment2

PROJECTED O&M COSTS (Years 6-15):

Physical Treatment2

PROJECTED PERIODIC COSTS (Years 10, 15):

Demobilize AS System2

Well Abandonment2

TOTAL

TOTAL TECHNOLOGY-SPECIFIC COST

Groundwater to be Treated (MGA)4

TECHNOLOGY-SPECIFIC UNIT COST (Per 1,000 Gal)

1

 AS monitoring wells (3), DOS wells (3), geotechnical testing

2

 AS system only

3

 Disposal of AS wells soil cuttings and development water

4

 Within treatment zone - includes flushed volume (MGA = 1,000 gallons)

$60,179

37,400

$211,428

$19,172

$39,857

$1,150

$18.83

$704,388

$422,856

$7,125

$2,800

$9,925
Historical Cost Analysis System (HCAS)

Project Data Entry Form (Sheet 1)

Project Information

Project Name

Project Number

Project Phase (Select one)

Studies and Design

Remedial Action  ̧

Operations and Maintenance

Project Note (Describe the project)

Soil Vapor Extraction treatment technology was utilized to remediate 27,800 cy (estimated)

of contaminated soil in conjunction with Air Sparging treatment technology, which was

utilized to remediate 37,400,000 gallons (estimated) of contaminated groundwater.

 

 

 

Contract Information

Contract Number DACA27-94-C-0300

Managing Organization U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Organization Name Louisville District

Site Owner U.S. Army

Other ID Number 

Prime Contractor Remediation Enhanced Developments, Inc. (RED)

Contract Type (Select one)

Cost + Award Fee

Cost + Base + Award Fee

Cost + Fixed Fee  ̧

Cost + Incentive Award

Fixed Price

Not Availiable

Other

Procurement Type (Select one)

 Two Step Sealed Bid

Sealed Bid (IFB)

Competitive Negotiation (RFP)  ̧

Sole Source (SSC)

Other

Landfill 5 Operable Unit
Historical Cost Analysis System (HCAS)

Project Data Entry Form (Sheet 2)

Site Information

State/Country Ohio/USA

Installation Ft. Griffey

Site Name Landfill 5

Site Number 

EPA Region V

Current Use (Select one)

Installation Operation  ̧

Industry Operation

Residential

Recreational

Wildlife Refuge

Waste Disposal

Administrative Office

Commercial

Other

Unknown

Future Use (Select one)

Installation Operation  ̧

Industry Operation

Residential

Recreational

Wildlife Refuge

Waste Disposal

Administrative Office

Commercial

Other

Unknown

Point of Contact

Data Entry Person POC#2 POC#3 

Title/Role Contractor Estimator 

Organization RED, Inc. 

Name Joe Morgan 

Address 535 Red Way 

City, State Cincinnati, OH 

Zip 99992 

Telephone 555-111-2222 

Fax 555-111-2223 

Email jmorgan@red.com 

Enter up to 3 POC's.
Historical Cost Analysis System (HCAS)

Project Data Entry Form (Sheet 3)

Profile - General Characteristics

Regulatory Class Public Concern

CERCLA  ̧ Low  ̧

RCRA High

Other Historical/Archoelogical

Unknown Yes

National Priority List No  ̧

Yes  ̧ Innovative Technology

No Yes

Wetland No  ̧

Yes Size of Exclusion Zone (Acres)

No  ̧ Size of Area (Acres)

Flood Plain

Yes

No  ̧

Profile - Contaminants/Technical Approach

Site Type Media Contaminant Technical Approach

AG Storage Tanks Air Nonhal VOC's CWM/OEW Remvl

UG Storage Tanks Equipment/Mach Halogenated VOC's Surf Water Control

Drums/Cont <250 GA Groundwater Nonhal Semi VOC's Grnd Water Control

Unauth Disposl Area Liquid Halogen Semi VOC's Air/Gas Control

Facil/Bldgs Surface Water Fuels Solids Contain

Fire Train/Open Burn Sediment Inorganics Liq/Sed/Sludge Cntrl

Firing Rnge/Open Det Sludge Low Lev Rad Waste Drums/Tanks Remvl

Pit/Trench Soil High Lev Rad Waste Biological Treatment

Surf Impnd/Lagoons Solid/Debris Low Rad Mixed Wst Chemical Treatment

Lakes/Ponds/Swamp Struct Bldg Matls TRU Waste Physical Treatment

Landfill Other CWM/OEW Thermal Treatment

Ocean Asbestos Stab/Fix/Encap

Rivers/Streams Unknown Decon & Decommish

Spill/Emerg Resp Other Disposal (Not Comm)

Waste Pile Disposal Commercial

Other Other 

Pick as many Profile combinations as necessary:

Landfill Physical Treatment

Landfill Physical Treatment

Fuels

Fuels

Soil

Groundwater
Historical Cost Analysis System (HCAS)

Project Data Entry Form (Sheet 4)

Cost

Start Date

End Date

Number of Mods 0

Reasons for Mods (Select those applicable)

Administrative

Changes for Time or Cost

Changes Requested by Government Authority

Design Deficiency

Differing Site Conditions

Funding Level Change

New Federal Regulation

Other Changes

Suspension or Termination of Work

Value Engineering Change

Variations in Estimated Quantities

Variations Not Readily Identifiable During Design

Cost

Award Amount

Actual Amount

Cost Variance

Cost Breakdown

See next sheets. 

The HCAS Cost Breakdown is structured in accordance with 

the February 1996 "HTRW Remedial Action Work Breakdown Structure

(RA WBS)" and "HTRW O&M Work Breakdown Structure (O&M WBS)".

The next sheets show the RA WBS and O&M WBS to the Third Level 

as required for the HCAS cost report portion of the "RA Report". 

The costs reported shall be "Burdened Costs", meaning that contractor 

markups, general requirements, overhead, and profit shall be included

in the costs.

The complete RA WBS and O&M WBS to the Fourth Level is at: 

http://www.FRTR.gov/cost/ec2/wbs1.html

The HCAS 3.1 software can be downloaded from:

http://www.FRTR.gov/cost/ec2/index.html

+10%

10/19/1994

9/4/1995

$2,900,000

$3,195,695
WBS Number DESCRIPTION QTY UOM UNIT 

COST 

COST $ 

33XXX HTRW CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES

331XX HTRW REMEDIAL ACTION (Capital and Operating) 

01 MOBILIZATION AND PREPARATORY WORK 

01 01 Mobilization of Construction Equipment and Facilities 1 EA 2,472 2,472

01 02 Mobilization of Personnel EA

01 03 Submittals/Implementation Plans 1 EA 13,504 13,504

01 04 Setup/Construct Temporary Facilities EA

01 05 Construct Temporary Utilities 1 EA 1,274 1,274

01 06 Temporary Relocations of Roads/Structures/Utilities EA

01 07 Construction Plant Erection EA

01 08 Institutional Controls EA

01 09 Alternate Water Supply EA

01 10 Population Relocation EA

01 9X Other (Use Numbers 90-99)

02 MONITORING, SAMPLING, TESTING, AND ANALYSIS 

02 01 Meteorological Monitoring EA

02 02 Radiation Monitoring EA

02 03 Air Monitoring and Sampling EA

02 04 Monitoring Wells 7 EA 2,965 20,755

02 05 Sampling Surface Water/Groundwater/Liquid Waste EA

02 06 Sampling Soil and Sediment EA

02 07 Sampling Asbestos EA

02 08 Sampling Radioactive Contaminated Media EA

02 09 Laboratory Chemical Analysis EA

02 10 Radioactive Waste Analysis EA

02 11 Geotechnical Testing 10 EA 230 2,300

02 12 Geotechnical Instrumentation EA

02 13 On-Site Laboratory Facilities EA

02 14 Off-Site Laboratory Facilities EA

02 9X Other (Use Numbers 90-99) 1 LS 24,667 24,667

03 SITEWORK

03 01 Demolition SY

03 02 Clearing and Grubbing 3 ACR 1,161 3,482

03 03 Earthwork 2,420 CY 0.51 1,234

03 04 Roads/Parking/Curbs/Walks SY

03 05 Fencing LF

03 06 Electrical Distribution LF

03 07 Telephone/Communication Distribution LF

03 08 Water/Sewer/Gas Distribution LF

03 09 Steam and Condensate Distribution LF

03 10 Fuel Line Distribution LF

03 11 Storm Drainage/Subdrainage LF

03 12 Permanent Cover Structure Over Containment Area SF

03 13 Development of Borrow Pit/Haul Roads ACR
WBS Number DESCRIPTION QTY UOM UNIT 

COST 

COST $ 

331XX 03 14 Fuel Storage Tanks (New) EA

03 9X Other (Use Numbers 90-99) 

04 ORDNANCE AND EXPLOSIVE - CHEMICAL WARFARE 

04 01 Ordnance Removal and Destruction ACR

04 9x Other (Use Numbers 90-99) 

05 SURFACE WATER COLLECTION AND CONTROL

05 01 Berms/Dikes LF

05 02 Floodwalls SF

05 03 Levees LF

05 04 Terraces and Benches LF

05 05 Channels/Waterways (Soil/Rock) LF

05 06 Chutes or Flumes LF

05 07 Sediment Barriers LF

05 08 Storm Drainage LF

05 09 Lagoons/Basins/Tanks/Dikes/Pump System ACR

05 10 Pumping/Draining/Collection MGA

05 11 Transport to Treatment Plant MGA

05 12 Earthwork CY

05 13 Erosion Control ACR

05 14 Development of Borrow Pit/Haul Roads ACR

05 9X Other (Use Numbers 90-99) 

06 GROUNDWATER COLLECTION AND CONTROL

06 01 Extraction and Injection Wells EA

06 02 Subsurface Drainage/Collection LF

06 03 Slurry Walls SF

06 04 Grout Curtain SF

06 05 Sheet Piling SF

06 06 Lagoons/Basins/Tanks/Dikes/Pump System ACR

06 07 Pumping/Collection MGA

06 08 Transport to Treatment Plant MGA

06 09 Development of Borrow Pit/Haul Roads ACR

06 9x Other (Use Numbers 90-99)

07 AIR POLLUTION/GAS COLLECTION AND CONTROL 

07 01 Gas/Vapor Collection Trench System LF

07 02 Gas/Vapor Collection Well System EA

07 03 Gas/Vapor Collection at Lagoon Cover SY

07 04 Fugitive Dust/Vapor/Gas Emissions Control ACR

07 9x Other (Use Numbers 90-99)

08 SOLIDS COLLECTION AND CONTAINMENT 

08 01 Contaminated Soil Collection CY

08 02 Waste Containment, Portable (Furnish/Fill) CY

08 03 Transport to Treatment Plant CY
WBS Number DESCRIPTION QTY UOM UNIT 

COST 

COST $ 

331XX 08 04 Radioactive Specific Waste Containment (Furnish/Fill) CY

08 05 Capping of Contaminated Area/Waste Pile (Soil/Asphalt ACR

08 06 Nuclear Waste Densification (Dynamic Compaction) CY

08 07 Development of Borrow Pit/Haul Roads ACR

08 9x Other (Use Numbers 90-99)

09 LIQUIDS/SEDIMENTS/SLUDGES COLLECTION AND 

09 01 Dredging/Excavating CY

09 02 Industrial Vacuuming CY

09 03 Waste Containment, Portable (Furnish/Fill) MGA

09 04 Transport to Treatment Plant MGA

09 05 Radioactive Specific Waste Containment (Furnish/Fill) MGA

09 06 Pumping/Draining/Collection MGA

09 07 Lagoons/Basins/Tanks/Pump System ACR

09 08 Development of Borrow Pit/Haul Roads ACR

09 9x Other (Use Numbers 90-99)

10 DRUMS/TANKS/STRUCTURES/MISCELLANEOUS 

10 01 Drum Removal EA

10 02 Tank Removal EA

10 03 Structure Removal SF

10 04 Asbestos Abatement SF

10 05 Piping and Pipeline Removal LF

10 06 Radioactive Specific Waste Containment (Furnish/Fill) CY

10 07 Miscellaneous Items ACR

10 08 Contaminated Paint Removal SF

10 9x Other (Use Numbers 90-99)

11 BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT 

11 01 Activated Sludge (Sequencing Batch Reactors) MGA

11 02 Rotating Biological Contactors MGA

11 03 Land Treatment/Farming (Solid Phase Biodegradation) CY

11 04 In-Situ Biodegradation/Bioreclamation CY

11 05 Trickling Filters MGA

11 06 Biological Lagoons MGA

11 07 Composting CY

11 08 Sludge Stabilization - Aerobic CY

11 09 Sludge Stabilization - Anaerobic CY

11 10 Genetically Engineered Organisms (White Rot Fungus) CY

11 11 Slurry Biodegradation CY

11 12 Bioventing SF

11 13 Bioslurping SF

11 14 Biopile (Heap Pile Remediation) CY

11 50 Construction of Permanent Plant Facility EA

11 9x Other (Use Numbers 90-99)
WBS Number DESCRIPTION QTY UOM UNIT 

COST 

COST $ 

331XX 12 CHEMICAL TREATMENT

12 01 Oxidation/Reduction (Catalytic Oxidation, UV Ozone, MGA

12 02 Solvent Extraction MGA

12 03 Chlorination MGA

12 04 Ozonation MGA

12 05 Ion Exchange MGA

12 06 Neutralization MGA

12 07 Chemical Hydrolysis MGA

12 08 Ultraviolet Photolysis MGA

12 09 Dehalogenation (Catalytic Dechlorination) CY

12 10 Alkali Metal Dechlorination CY

12 11 Alkali Metal/Polyethylene Glycol (A/PEG) CY

12 12 Base-Catalyzed Decomposition Process (BCDP) CY

12 13 Electrolysis MGA

12 14 Vapor Recovery/Reuse (Internal Combustion Engine) CF

12 50 Construction of Permanent Plant Facility EA

12 9x Other (Use Numbers 90-99)

13 PHYSICAL TREATMENT

13 01 Filtration/Ultrafiltration MGA

13 02 Sedimentation MGA

13 03 Straining MGA

13 04 Coagulation/Flocculation/Precipitation MGA

13 05 Equalization MGA

13 06 Evaporation MGA

13 07 Air Stripping MGA

13 08 Steam Stripping MGA

13 09 Soil Washing (Surfactant/Solvent) CY

13 10 Soil Flushing (Surfactant/Solvent) CY

13 11 Solids Dewatering CY

13 12 Oil/Water Separation MGA

13 13 Dissolved Air Floatation MGA

13 14 Heavy Media Separation CY

13 15 Distillation MGA

13 16 Chelation MGA

13 17 Solvent Extraction MGA

13 18 Supercritical Extraction MGA

13 19 Carbon Adsorption - Gases CF

13 20 Carbon Adsorption - Liquids MGA

13 21 Membrane Separation - Reverse Osmosis MGA

13 22 Membrane Separation - Electrodialysis MGA

13 23 Soil Vapor Extraction 27,800 CY 16.22 451,031

13 24 Shredding CY

13 25 Aeration CY

13 26 Advanced Electrical Reactor CY

13 27 Low Level Waste (LLW) Compaction CY

13 28 Agglomeration CY
WBS Number DESCRIPTION QTY UOM UNIT 

COST 

COST $ 

331XX 13 29 In-Situ Steam Extraction MGA

13 30 Filter Presses MGA

13 31 Lignin Adsorption/Sorptive Clays CY

13 32 Air Sparging 37,400 MGA 1.07 39,857

13 50 Construction of Permanent Plant Facility EA

13 9x Other (Use Numbers 90-99)

14 THERMAL TREATMENT 

14 01 Incineration CY

14 02 Low Temperature Thermal Desorption CY

14 03 Supercritical Water Oxidation MGA

14 04 Molten Salt Destruction CY

14 05 Radio Frequency Heating CY

14 06 Solar Detoxification CY

14 07 High Temperature Thermal Desorption CY

14 50 Construction of Permanent Plant Facility EA

14 9x Other (Use Numbers 90-99)

15 STABILIZATION/FIXATION/ENCAPSULATION

15 01 Molten Glass CY

15 02 In-Situ Vitrification CY

15 03 In-Situ Pozzolan Process (Lime/Portland Cement) CY

15 04 Pozzolan Process (Lime/Portland Cement) CY

15 05 Asphalt-Based Encapsulation CY

15 06 Radioactive Waste Solidification (Grouting/Other) CY

15 07 Sludge Stabilization (Aggregate/Rock/Slag) CY

15 50 Construction of Permanent Plant Facility EA

15 9x Other (Use Numbers 90-99)

16 RESERVED FOR FUTURE USE

17 DECONTAMINATION AND DECOMMISSIONING (D&D)

17 01 Pre-Decommissioning Operations SF

17 02 Facility Shutdown Activities SF

17 03 Procurement of Equipment and Material SF

17 04 Dismantling Activities SF

17 05 Research and Development (R&D) SF

17 06 Spent Fuel Handling SF

17 07 Hot Cell Cleanup SF

17 9x Other (Use Numbers 90-99)

18 DISPOSAL (OTHER THAN COMMERCIAL)

18 01 Landfill/Burial Ground/Trench/Pits CY

18 02 Above-Ground Vault CY

18 03 Underground Vault CY

18 04 Underground Mine/Shaft CY

18 05 Tanks MGA
WBS Number DESCRIPTION QTY UOM UNIT 

COST 

COST $ 

331XX 18 06 Pads (Tumulus/Retrievable Storage/Other) CY

18 07 Storage Bldgs/Protective Cvr Structures/Other Bldgs & CY 

18 08 Cribs CY

18 09 Deep Well Injection MGA

18 10 Incinerator CY

18 15 Construction of Permanent Disposal Facility EA

18 20 Container Handling EA

18 21 Transportation to Storage/Disposal Facility TON

18 22 Disposal Fees and Taxes TON

18 23 Mixed Waste Storage Fees and Taxes TON

18 9x Other (Use Numbers 90-99)

19 DISPOSAL (COMMERCIAL)

19 20 Container Handling 30 EA 60 1,800

19 21 Transportation to Storage/Disposal Facility TON

19 22 Disposal Fees and Taxes TON

19 23 Mixed Waste Storage Fees and Taxes TON

19 9x Other (Use Numbers 90-99) 1 LS 250 250

20 SITE RESTORATION

20 01 Earthwork 2,420 CY 1.86 4,501

20 02 Permanent Markers EA

20 03 Permanent Features EA

20 04 Revegetation and Planting 3 ACR 1,427 4,281

20 05 Removal of Barriers EA

20 9x Other (Use Numbers 90-99)

21 DEMOBILIZATION

21 01 Removal of Temporary Facilities EA

21 02 Removal of Temporary Utilities 1 EA 546 546

21 03 Final Decontamination EA

21 04 Demobilization of Construction Equipment and Facilities 1 EA 1,059 1,059

21 05 Demobilization of Personnel EA

21 06 Submittals 1 EA 5,788 5,788

21 07 Construction Plant Takedown EA

21 9x Other (Use Numbers 90-99)

9X OTHER (Use Numbers 90-99)

TOTAL AMOUNT $ 578,801
WBS Number DESCRIPTION QTY UOM UNIT 

COST 

COST 

$ 

34XXX HTRW POST CONSTRUCTION AND FINANCIAL 

CLOSEOUT ACTIVITIES

341XX FISCAL/FINANCIAL CLOSE ACTIVITIES

342XX HTRW OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE (POST 

CONSTRUCTION) 

02 MONITORING, SAMPLING, TESTING, AND ANALYSIS

02 01 Meteorological Monitoring EA

02 02 Radiation Monitoring EA

02 03 Air Monitoring and Sampling EA

02 04 Monitoring Wells 28 EA 350 9,800

02 05 Sampling Surface Water/Groundwater/Liquid Waste EA

02 06 Sampling Soil and Sediment EA

02 07 Sampling Asbestos EA

02 08 Sampling Radioactive Contaminated Media EA

02 09 Laboratory Chemical Analysis EA

02 10 Radioactive Waste Analysis EA

02 11 Geotechnical Testing EA

02 12 Geotechnical Instrumentation EA

02 13 On-site Laboratory Facilities EA

02 14 Off-site Laboratory Facilities EA

02 9X Other (Use Numbers 90-99) 1 LS 970,005 970,005

03 SITEWORK

03 04 Roads/Parking/Curbs/Walks SY/YR

03 05 Fencing LF/YR

03 06 Electrical Distribution LF/YR

03 07 Telephone/Communication Distribution LF/YR

03 08 Water/Sewer/Gas Distribution LF/YR

03 09 Steam and Condensate Distribution LF/YR

03 10 Fuel Line Distribution LF/YR

03 11 Storm Drainage/Subdrainage LF/YR

03 12 Permanent Cover Structure Over Contaminated Area SF/YR

03 14 Fuel Storage Tanks (New) EA/YR

03 9X Other (Use Numbers 90-99) 

05 SURFACE WATER COLLECTION AND CONTROL

05 01 Berms/Dikes LF/YR

05 02 Floodwalls SF/YR

05 03 Levees LF/YR

05 04 Terraces and Benches LF/YR

05 05 Channels/Waterways (Soil/Rock) LF/YR

05 06 Chutes or Flumes LF/YR

05 07 Sediment Barriers LF/YR
WBS Number DESCRIPTION QTY UOM UNIT 

COST 

COST 

$ 

342XX 05 08 Storm Drainage LF/YR

05 09 Lagoons/Basins/Tanks/Dikes/Pump System ACR/YR

05 10 Pumping/Draining/Collection MGA

05 11 Transport to Treatment Plant MGA

05 13 Erosion Control ACR/YR

05 9X Other (Use Numbers 90-99) 

06 GROUNDWATER COLLECTION AND CONTROL

06 01 Extraction and Injection Wells EA/YR

06 02 Subsurface Drainage/Collection LF/YR

06 03 Slurry Walls SF/YR

06 04 Grout Curtain SF/YR

06 05 Sheet Piling SF/YR

06 06 Lagoons/Basins/Tanks/Dikes/Pump System ACR/YR

06 07 Pumping/Collection MGA

06 08 Transport to Treatment Plant MGA

06 9x Other (Use Numbers 90-99)

07 AIR POLLUTION/GAS COLLECTION AND CONTROL 

07 01 Gas/Vapor Collection Trench System LF/YR

07 02 Gas/Vapor Collection Well System EA/YR

07 03 Gas/Vapor Collection at Lagoon Cover SY/YR

07 04 Fugitive Dust/Vapor/Gas Emissions Control ACR/YR

07 9x Other (Use Numbers 90-99)

08 SOLIDS COLLECTION AND CONTAINMENT 

08 01 Contaminated Soil Collection CY

08 02 Waste Containment, Portable (Furnish/Fill) CY

08 03 Transport to Treatment Plant CY

08 04 Radioactive Specific Waste Containment (Furnish/Fill) CY

08 05 Capping of Contaminated Area/Waste Pile (Soil/Asph ACR/YR

08 06 Nuclear Waste Densification (Dynamic Compaction) CY

08 9x Other (Use Numbers 90-99)

09 LIQUIDS/SEDIMENTS/SLUDGES COLLECTION AND 

CONTAINMENT 

09 01 Dredging/Excavating CY

09 02 Industrial Vacuuming CY

09 03 Waste Containment, Portable (Furnish/Fill) MGA

09 04 Transport to Treatment Plant MGA

09 05 Radioactive Specific Waste Containment (Furnish/Fill) MGA

09 06 Pumping/Draining/Collection MGA

09 07 Lagoons/Basins/Tanks/Dikes/Pump System ACR/YR
WBS Number DESCRIPTION QTY UOM UNIT 

COST 

COST 

$ 

342XX 09 9x Other (Use Numbers 90-99)

11 BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT 

11 01 Activated Sludge (Seq Batch Reactors) MGA

11 02 Rotating Biological Contactors MGA

11 03 Land Treatment/Farming (Solid Phase Biodegradation) CY

11 04 In-Situ Biodegradation/Bioreclamation CY

11 05 Trickling Filters MGA

11 06 Biological Lagoons MGA

11 07 Composting (Soil Pile Bioremediation) CY

11 08 Sludge Stabilization - Aerobic CY

11 09 Sludge Stabilization - Anaerobic CY

11 10 Genetically Engineered Organisms (White Rot Fungus) CY

11 11 Slurry Biodegradation CY

11 12 Bioventing SF

11 13 Bioslurping SF

11 14 Biopile (Heap Pile Remediation) CY 

11 50 Post Construction O&M of Permanent Plant Facility EA/YR

11 9x Other (Use Numbers 90-99)

12 CHEMICAL TREATMENT

12 01 Oxidation/Reduction (Catalytic) MGA

12 02 Solvent Extraction MGA

12 03 Chlorination MGA

12 04 Ozonation MGA

12 05 Ion Exchange MGA

12 06 Neutralization MGA

12 07 Chemical Hydrolysis MGA

12 08 Ultraviolet Photolysis (UV Oxidation) MGA

12 09 Dehalogenation (Catalytic Dechlorination) CY

12 10 Alkali Metal Dechlorination CY

12 11 Alkali Metal/Polyethylene Glycol (A/PEG) CY

12 12 Base-Catalyzed Decomposition Process CY

12 13 Electrolysis MGA

12 14 Vapor Recovery/Reuse (Internal Combustion Engine) CF

12 50 Post Construction O&M of Permanent Plant Facility EA/YR

12 9x Other (Use Numbers 90-99)

13 PHYSICAL TREATMENT

13 01 Filtration/Ultrafiltration MGA

13 02 Sedimentation MGA

13 03 Straining MGA

13 04 Coagulation/Flocculation/Precipitation MGA
WBS Number DESCRIPTION QTY UOM UNIT 

COST 

COST 

$ 

342XX 13 05 Equalization MGA

13 06 Evaporation MGA

13 07 Air Stripping MGA

13 08 Steam Stripping MGA

13 09 Soil Washing (Surfactant/Solvent) CY

13 10 Soil Flushing (Surfactant/Solvent) CY

13 11 Solids Dewatering CY

13 12 Oil/Water Separation MGA

13 13 Dissolved Air Floatation MGA

13 14 Heavy Media Separation CY

13 15 Distillation MGA

13 16 Chelation MGA

13 17 Solvent Extraction MGA

13 18 Supercritical Extraction MGA

13 19 Carbon Adsorption - Gases CF

13 20 Carbon Adsorption - Liquids MGA

13 21 Membrane Separation - Reverse Osmosis MGA

13 22 Membrane Separation - Electrodialysis MGA

13 23 Soil Vapor Extraction 27,800 CY 34.74 965,676

13 24 Shredding CY

13 25 Aeration CY

13 26 Advanced Electrical Reactor CY

13 27 Low Level Waste (LLW) Compaction CY

13 28 Agglomeration CY

13 29 In-Situ Steam Extraction MGA

13 30 Filter Presses MGA

13 31 Lignin Adsorption/Sorptive Clays CY

13 32 Air Sparging 37,400 MGA 17.15 641,409

13 50 Post Construction O&M of Permanent Plant Facility EA/YR

13 9x Other (Use Numbers 90-99)

14 THERMAL TREATMENT 

14 01 Incineration CY

14 02 Low Temperature Thermal Desorption CY

14 03 Supercritical Water Oxidation MGA

14 04 Molten Salt Destruction CY

14 05 Radio Frequency Heating CY

14 06 Solar Detoxification CY

14 07 High Temperature Thermal Desorption CY

14 50 Post Construction O&M of Permanent Plant Facility EA/YR

14 9x Other (Use Numbers 90-99)

15 STABILIZATION/FIXATION/ENCAPSULATION

15 01 Molten Glass CY
WBS Number DESCRIPTION QTY UOM UNIT 

COST 

COST $ 

342XX 15 02 In-Situ Vitrification CY

15 03 In-Situ Pozzolan Process (Lime/Portland Cement) CY

15 04 Pozzolan Process (Lime/Portland Cement) CY

15 05 Asphalt-Based Encapsulation CY

15 06 Radioactive Waste Solidification (Grouting/Other) CY

15 07 Sludge Stabilization (Aggregate/Rock/Slag) CY

15 50 Post Construction O&M of Permanent Plant Facility EA/YR

15 9x Other (Use Numbers 90-99)

18 DISPOSAL (OTHER THAN COMMERCIAL)

18 01 Landfill/Burial Ground/Trench/Pits CY

18 02 Above-Ground Vault CY

18 03 Underground Vault CY

18 04 Underground Mine/Shaft CY

18 05 Tanks MGA

18 06 Pads (Tumulus/Retrievable Storage/Other) CY

18 07 Storage Bldgs/Protective Cvr Structures/Other Bldgs & CY 

18 08 Cribs CY

18 09 Deep Well Injection MGA

18 10 Incinerator CY

18 15 Post Construction O&M of Permanent Disposal Fac EA/YR

18 20 Container Handling EA

18 21 Transportation to Storage/Disposal Facility TON

18 22 Disposal Fees & Taxes TON

18 23 Mixed Waste Storage Fees & Taxes TON

18 9x Other (Use Numbers 90-99) 1 LS 30,000.00 30,000

9X OTHER (Use Numbers 90-99)

TOTAL AMOUNT $ 2,616,890
EP 1110-1-19

30 Jun 01

D-1

APPENDIX D

COST REPORTING TEMPLATES

The following pages provide example summary sheets to report or estimate capital, O&M, and

periodic costs, either RA or post-RA, and templates for HCAS data entry using the HTRW RA

WBS for RA capital and RA operating costs that are required for input. These sheets should be

filled in with the required information and submitted (1 copy each) to the USACE HTRW Center

of Expertise and HQ USACE. Also provided is the HTRW O&M WBS shown to the third

(subsystem) level with columns for input of quantities and costs. The forms are available

electronically for downloading at http://www.environmental.usace.army.mil/info/technical/

cost/cost.html. Mailing addresses are as follows:

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

HTRW Center of Expertise (CENWO-HX-T)

12565 West Center Road

Omaha, NE 68144-3869

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Headquarters (_____________)

441 G Street, NW

Washington, D.C. 20314
Site: Description:

Location:

Phase:

Base Year:

Date:

Sheet ___ of ___

CAPITAL COST SUMMARY

QUANCOST TOTALUNIT

DESCRIPTION TITY NOTES UNIT
Site: Description:

Location:

Phase:

Base Year:

Date:

Sheet ___ of ___

O&M COST SUMMARY

TITY

QUANDESCRIPTION UNIT NOTESUNIT

COST TOTAL
Site: Description:

Location:

Phase:

Base Year:

Date:

Sheet ___ of ___

PERIODIC COST SUMMARY

DESCRIPTION UNIT NOTES COST TOTAL

QUAN- UNIT

TITY
Historical Cost Analysis System (HCAS)

Project Data Entry Form (Sheet 1)

Project Information

Project Name 

Project Number 

Project Phase (Select one)

Studies and Design

Remedial Action

Operations and Maintenance

Project Note (Describe the project)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Contract Information

Contract Number 

 Managing Organization 

Organization Name 

Site Owner 

Other ID Number 

Prime Contractor 

Contract Type (Select one)

Cost + Award Fee

Cost + Base + Award Fee

Cost + Fixed Fee

Cost + Incentive Award

Fixed Price

Not Availiable

Other

Procurement Type (Select one)

 Two Step Sealed Bid

Sealed Bid (IFB)

Competitive Negotiation (RFP)

Sole Source (SSC)

Other
Historical Cost Analysis System (HCAS)

Project Data Entry Form (Sheet 2)

Site Information

State/Country 

Installation 

Site Name 

Site Number 

EPA Region 

Current Use (Select one)

Installation Operation

Industry Operation

Residential

Recreational

Wildlife Refuge

Waste Disposal

Administrative Office

Commercial

Other

Unknown

Future Use (Select one)

Installation Operation

Industry Operation

Residential

Recreational

Wildlife Refuge

Waste Disposal

Administrative Office

Commercial

Other

Unknown

Point of Contact

Data Entry Person POC#2 POC#3 

Title/Role 

Organization 

Name 

Address 

City, State 

Zip 

Telephone 

Fax 

Email 

Enter up to 3 POC's.
Historical Cost Analysis System (HCAS)

Project Data Entry Form (Sheet 3)

Profile - General Characteristics

Regulatory Class Public Concern

CERCLA Low

RCRA High

Other Historical/Archoelogical

Unknown Yes

National Priority List No

Yes Innovative Technology

No Yes

Wetland No

Yes Size of Exclusion Zone (Acres)

No Size of Area (Acres)

Flood Plain

Yes

No

Profile - Contaminants/Technical Approach

Site Type Media Contaminant Technical Approach

AG Storage Tanks Air Nonhal VOC's CWM/OEW Remvl

UG Storage Tanks Equipment/Mach Halogenated VOC's Surf Water Control

Drums/Cont <250 GA Groundwater Nonhal Semi VOC's Grnd Water Control

Unauth Disposl Area Liquid Halogen Semi VOC's Air/Gas Control

Facil/Bldgs Surface Water Fuels Solids Contain

Fire Train/Open Burn Sediment Inorganics Liq/Sed/Sludge Cntrl

Firing Rnge/Open Det Sludge Low Lev Rad Waste Drums/Tanks Remvl

Pit/Trench Soil High Lev Rad Waste Biological Treatment

Surf Impnd/Lagoons Solid/Debris Low Rad Mixed Wst Chemical Treatment

Lakes/Ponds/Swamp Struct Bldg Matls TRU Waste Physical Treatment

Landfill Other CWM/OEW Thermal Treatment

Ocean Asbestos Stab/Fix/Encap

Rivers/Streams Unknown Decon & Decommish

Spill/Emerg Resp Other Disposal (Not Comm)

Waste Pile Disposal Commercial

Other Other 

Pick as many Profile combinations as necessary:

 
Historical Cost Analysis System (HCAS)

Project Data Entry Form (Sheet 4)

Cost

Start Date 

End Date 

Number of Mods

Reasons for Mods (Select those applicable)

Administrative

Changes for Time or Cost

Changes Requested by Government Authority

Design Deficiency

Differing Site Conditions

Funding Level Change

New Federal Regulation

Other Changes

Suspension or Termination of Work

Value Engineering Change

Variations in Estimated Quantities

Variations Not Readily Identifiable During Design

Cost

Award Amount 

Actual Amount 

Cost Variance 

Cost Breakdown

 See next sheets. 

The HCAS Cost Breakdown is structured in accordance with 

the February 1996 "HTRW Remedial Action Work Breakdown Structure

(RA WBS)" and "HTRW O&M Work Breakdown Structure (O&M WBS)".

The next sheets show the RA WBS and O&M WBS to the Third Level 

as required for the HCAS cost report portion of the "RA Report". 

The costs reported shall be "Burdened Costs", meaning that contractor 

markups, general requirements, overhead, and profit shall be included

in the costs.

The complete RA WBS and O&M WBS to the Fourth Level is at: 

http://www.FRTR.gov/cost/ec2/wbs1.html

The HCAS 3.1 software can be downloaded from:

http://www.FRTR.gov/cost/ec2/index.html
WBS Number DESCRIPTION QTY UOM UNIT 

COST 

COST 

$ 

33XXX HTRW CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES

331XX HTRW REMEDIAL ACTION (Capital and Operating) 

01 MOBILIZATION AND PREPARATORY WORK 

01 01 Mobilization of Construction Equipment and Facilities EA

01 02 Mobilization of Personnel EA

01 03 Submittals/Implementation Plans EA

01 04 Setup/Construct Temporary Facilities EA

01 05 Construct Temporary Utilities EA

01 06 Temporary Relocations of Roads/Structures/Utilities EA

01 07 Construction Plant Erection EA

01 08 Institutional Controls EA

01 09 Alternate Water Supply EA

01 10 Population Relocation EA

01 9X Other (Use Numbers 90-99)

02 MONITORING, SAMPLING, TESTING, AND ANALYSIS 

02 01 Meteorological Monitoring EA

02 02 Radiation Monitoring EA

02 03 Air Monitoring and Sampling EA

02 04 Monitoring Wells EA

02 05 Sampling Surface Water/Groundwater/Liquid Waste EA

02 06 Sampling Soil and Sediment EA

02 07 Sampling Asbestos EA

02 08 Sampling Radioactive Contaminated Media EA

02 09 Laboratory Chemical Analysis EA

02 10 Radioactive Waste Analysis EA

02 11 Geotechnical Testing EA

02 12 Geotechnical Instrumentation EA

02 13 On-Site Laboratory Facilities EA

02 14 Off-Site Laboratory Facilities EA

02 9X Other (Use Numbers 90-99)

03 SITEWORK

03 01 Demolition SY

03 02 Clearing and Grubbing ACR

03 03 Earthwork CY

03 04 Roads/Parking/Curbs/Walks SY

03 05 Fencing LF

03 06 Electrical Distribution LF

03 07 Telephone/Communication Distribution LF

03 08 Water/Sewer/Gas Distribution LF

03 09 Steam and Condensate Distribution LF

03 10 Fuel Line Distribution LF

03 11 Storm Drainage/Subdrainage LF

03 12 Permanent Cover Structure Over Containment Area SF

03 13 Development of Borrow Pit/Haul Roads ACR
WBS Number DESCRIPTION QTY UOM UNIT 

COST 

COST 

$ 

331XX 03 14 Fuel Storage Tanks (New) EA

03 9X Other (Use Numbers 90-99) 

04 ORDNANCE AND EXPLOSIVE - CHEMICAL WARFARE 

04 01 Ordnance Removal and Destruction ACR

04 9x Other (Use Numbers 90-99) 

05 SURFACE WATER COLLECTION AND CONTROL

05 01 Berms/Dikes LF

05 02 Floodwalls SF

05 03 Levees LF

05 04 Terraces and Benches LF

05 05 Channels/Waterways (Soil/Rock) LF

05 06 Chutes or Flumes LF

05 07 Sediment Barriers LF

05 08 Storm Drainage LF

05 09 Lagoons/Basins/Tanks/Dikes/Pump System ACR

05 10 Pumping/Draining/Collection MGA

05 11 Transport to Treatment Plant MGA

05 12 Earthwork CY

05 13 Erosion Control ACR

05 14 Development of Borrow Pit/Haul Roads ACR

05 9X Other (Use Numbers 90-99) 

06 GROUNDWATER COLLECTION AND CONTROL

06 01 Extraction and Injection Wells EA

06 02 Subsurface Drainage/Collection LF

06 03 Slurry Walls SF

06 04 Grout Curtain SF

06 05 Sheet Piling SF

06 06 Lagoons/Basins/Tanks/Dikes/Pump System ACR

06 07 Pumping/Collection MGA

06 08 Transport to Treatment Plant MGA

06 09 Development of Borrow Pit/Haul Roads ACR

06 9x Other (Use Numbers 90-99)

07 AIR POLLUTION/GAS COLLECTION AND CONTROL 

07 01 Gas/Vapor Collection Trench System LF

07 02 Gas/Vapor Collection Well System EA

07 03 Gas/Vapor Collection at Lagoon Cover SY

07 04 Fugitive Dust/Vapor/Gas Emissions Control ACR

07 9x Other (Use Numbers 90-99)

08 SOLIDS COLLECTION AND CONTAINMENT 

08 01 Contaminated Soil Collection CY

08 02 Waste Containment, Portable (Furnish/Fill) CY

08 03 Transport to Treatment Plant CY
WBS Number DESCRIPTION QTY UOM UNIT 

COST 

COST 

$ 

331XX 08 04 Radioactive Specific Waste Containment (Furnish/Fill) CY

08 05 Capping of Contaminated Area/Waste Pile (Soil/Asphalt ACR

08 06 Nuclear Waste Densification (Dynamic Compaction) CY

08 07 Development of Borrow Pit/Haul Roads ACR

08 9x Other (Use Numbers 90-99)

09 LIQUIDS/SEDIMENTS/SLUDGES COLLECTION AND 

09 01 Dredging/Excavating CY

09 02 Industrial Vacuuming CY

09 03 Waste Containment, Portable (Furnish/Fill) MGA

09 04 Transport to Treatment Plant MGA

09 05 Radioactive Specific Waste Containment (Furnish/Fill) MGA

09 06 Pumping/Draining/Collection MGA

09 07 Lagoons/Basins/Tanks/Pump System ACR

09 08 Development of Borrow Pit/Haul Roads ACR

09 9x Other (Use Numbers 90-99)

10 DRUMS/TANKS/STRUCTURES/MISCELLANEOUS 

10 01 Drum Removal EA

10 02 Tank Removal EA

10 03 Structure Removal SF

10 04 Asbestos Abatement SF

10 05 Piping and Pipeline Removal LF

10 06 Radioactive Specific Waste Containment (Furnish/Fill) CY

10 07 Miscellaneous Items ACR

10 08 Contaminated Paint Removal SF

10 9x Other (Use Numbers 90-99)

11 BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT 

11 01 Activated Sludge (Sequencing Batch Reactors) MGA

11 02 Rotating Biological Contactors MGA

11 03 Land Treatment/Farming (Solid Phase Biodegradation) CY

11 04 In-Situ Biodegradation/Bioreclamation CY

11 05 Trickling Filters MGA

11 06 Biological Lagoons MGA

11 07 Composting CY

11 08 Sludge Stabilization - Aerobic CY

11 09 Sludge Stabilization - Anaerobic CY

11 10 Genetically Engineered Organisms (White Rot Fungus) CY

11 11 Slurry Biodegradation CY

11 12 Bioventing SF

11 13 Bioslurping SF

11 14 Biopile (Heap Pile Remediation) CY

11 50 Construction of Permanent Plant Facility EA

11 9x Other (Use Numbers 90-99)
WBS Number DESCRIPTION QTY UOM UNIT 

COST 

COST 

$ 

331XX 12 CHEMICAL TREATMENT

12 01 Oxidation/Reduction (Catalytic Oxidation, UV Ozone, MGA

12 02 Solvent Extraction MGA

12 03 Chlorination MGA

12 04 Ozonation MGA

12 05 Ion Exchange MGA

12 06 Neutralization MGA

12 07 Chemical Hydrolysis MGA

12 08 Ultraviolet Photolysis MGA

12 09 Dehalogenation (Catalytic Dechlorination) CY

12 10 Alkali Metal Dechlorination CY

12 11 Alkali Metal/Polyethylene Glycol (A/PEG) CY

12 12 Base-Catalyzed Decomposition Process (BCDP) CY

12 13 Electrolysis MGA

12 14 Vapor Recovery/Reuse (Internal Combustion Engine) CF

12 50 Construction of Permanent Plant Facility EA

12 9x Other (Use Numbers 90-99)

13 PHYSICAL TREATMENT

13 01 Filtration/Ultrafiltration MGA

13 02 Sedimentation MGA

13 03 Straining MGA

13 04 Coagulation/Flocculation/Precipitation MGA

13 05 Equalization MGA

13 06 Evaporation MGA

13 07 Air Stripping MGA

13 08 Steam Stripping MGA

13 09 Soil Washing (Surfactant/Solvent) CY

13 10 Soil Flushing (Surfactant/Solvent) CY

13 11 Solids Dewatering CY

13 12 Oil/Water Separation MGA

13 13 Dissolved Air Floatation MGA

13 14 Heavy Media Separation CY

13 15 Distillation MGA

13 16 Chelation MGA

13 17 Solvent Extraction MGA

13 18 Supercritical Extraction MGA

13 19 Carbon Adsorption - Gases CF

13 20 Carbon Adsorption - Liquids MGA

13 21 Membrane Separation - Reverse Osmosis MGA

13 22 Membrane Separation - Electrodialysis MGA

13 23 Soil Vapor Extraction CY

13 24 Shredding CY

13 25 Aeration CY

13 26 Advanced Electrical Reactor CY

13 27 Low Level Waste (LLW) Compaction CY

13 28 Agglomeration CY
WBS Number DESCRIPTION QTY UOM UNIT 

COST 

COST 

$ 

331XX 13 29 In-Situ Steam Extraction MGA

13 30 Filter Presses MGA

13 31 Lignin Adsorption/Sorptive Clays CY

13 32 Air Sparging MGA

13 50 Construction of Permanent Plant Facility EA

13 9x Other (Use Numbers 90-99)

14 THERMAL TREATMENT 

14 01 Incineration CY

14 02 Low Temperature Thermal Desorption CY

14 03 Supercritical Water Oxidation MGA

14 04 Molten Salt Destruction CY

14 05 Radio Frequency Heating CY

14 06 Solar Detoxification CY

14 07 High Temperature Thermal Desorption CY

14 50 Construction of Permanent Plant Facility EA

14 9x Other (Use Numbers 90-99)

15 STABILIZATION/FIXATION/ENCAPSULATION

15 01 Molten Glass CY

15 02 In-Situ Vitrification CY

15 03 In-Situ Pozzolan Process (Lime/Portland Cement) CY

15 04 Pozzolan Process (Lime/Portland Cement) CY

15 05 Asphalt-Based Encapsulation CY

15 06 Radioactive Waste Solidification (Grouting/Other) CY

15 07 Sludge Stabilization (Aggregate/Rock/Slag) CY

15 50 Construction of Permanent Plant Facility EA

15 9x Other (Use Numbers 90-99)

16 RESERVED FOR FUTURE USE

17 DECONTAMINATION AND DECOMMISSIONING (D&D)

17 01 Pre-Decommissioning Operations SF

17 02 Facility Shutdown Activities SF

17 03 Procurement of Equipment and Material SF

17 04 Dismantling Activities SF

17 05 Research and Development (R&D) SF

17 06 Spent Fuel Handling SF

17 07 Hot Cell Cleanup SF

17 9x Other (Use Numbers 90-99)

18 DISPOSAL (OTHER THAN COMMERCIAL)

18 01 Landfill/Burial Ground/Trench/Pits CY

18 02 Above-Ground Vault CY

18 03 Underground Vault CY

18 04 Underground Mine/Shaft CY

18 05 Tanks MGA
WBS Number DESCRIPTION QTY UOM UNIT 

COST 

COST 

$ 

331XX 18 06 Pads (Tumulus/Retrievable Storage/Other) CY

18 07 Storage Bldgs/Protective Cvr Structures/Other Bldgs & CY 

18 08 Cribs CY

18 09 Deep Well Injection MGA

18 10 Incinerator CY

18 15 Construction of Permanent Disposal Facility EA

18 20 Container Handling EA

18 21 Transportation to Storage/Disposal Facility TON

18 22 Disposal Fees and Taxes TON

18 23 Mixed Waste Storage Fees and Taxes TON

18 9x Other (Use Numbers 90-99)

19 DISPOSAL (COMMERCIAL)

19 20 Container Handling EA

19 21 Transportation to Storage/Disposal Facility TON

19 22 Disposal Fees and Taxes TON

19 23 Mixed Waste Storage Fees and Taxes TON

19 9x Other (Use Numbers 90-99)

20 SITE RESTORATION

20 01 Earthwork CY

20 02 Permanent Markers EA

20 03 Permanent Features EA

20 04 Revegetation and Planting ACR

20 05 Removal of Barriers EA

20 9x Other (Use Numbers 90-99)

21 DEMOBILIZATION

21 01 Removal of Temporary Facilities EA

21 02 Removal of Temporary Utilities EA

21 03 Final Decontamination EA

21 04 Demobilization of Construction Equipment and Facilities EA

21 05 Demobilization of Personnel EA

21 06 Submittals EA

21 07 Construction Plant Takedown EA

21 9x Other (Use Numbers 90-99)

9X OTHER (Use Numbers 90-99)

TOTAL AMOUNT $
WBS Number DESCRIPTION QTY UOM UNIT 

COST 

COST 

$ 

34XXX HTRW POST CONSTRUCTION AND FINANCIAL 

CLOSEOUT ACTIVITIES

341XX FISCAL/FINANCIAL CLOSE ACTIVITIES

342XX HTRW OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE (POST 

CONSTRUCTION) 

02 MONITORING, SAMPLING, TESTING, AND 

02 01 Meteorological Monitoring EA

02 02 Radiation Monitoring EA

02 03 Air Monitoring and Sampling EA

02 04 Monitoring Wells EA

02 05 Sampling Surface Water/Groundwater/Liquid Waste EA

02 06 Sampling Soil and Sediment EA

02 07 Sampling Asbestos EA

02 08 Sampling Radioactive Contaminated Media EA

02 09 Laboratory Chemical Analysis EA

02 10 Radioactive Waste Analysis EA

02 11 Geotechnical Testing EA

02 12 Geotechnical Instrumentation EA

02 13 On-site Laboratory Facilities EA

02 14 Off-site Laboratory Facilities EA

02 9X Other (Use Numbers 90-99) EA

03 SITEWORK

03 04 Roads/Parking/Curbs/Walks SY/YR

03 05 Fencing LF/YR

03 06 Electrical Distribution LF/YR

03 07 Telephone/Communication Distribution LF/YR

03 08 Water/Sewer/Gas Distribution LF/YR

03 09 Steam and Condensate Distribution LF/YR

03 10 Fuel Line Distribution LF/YR

03 11 Storm Drainage/Subdrainage LF/YR

03 12 Permanent Cover Structure Over Contaminated Area SF/YR

03 14 Fuel Storage Tanks (New) EA/YR

03 9X Other (Use Numbers 90-99) 

05 SURFACE WATER COLLECTION AND CONTROL

05 01 Berms/Dikes LF/YR

05 02 Floodwalls SF/YR

05 03 Levees LF/YR

05 04 Terraces and Benches LF/YR

05 05 Channels/Waterways (Soil/Rock) LF/YR

05 06 Chutes or Flumes LF/YR

05 07 Sediment Barriers LF/YR

05 08 Storm Drainage LF/YR

05 09 Lagoons/Basins/Tanks/Dikes/Pump System ACR/YR

05 10 Pumping/Draining/Collection MGA
WBS Number DESCRIPTION QTY UOM UNIT 

COST 

COST 

$ 

342XX 05 11 Transport to Treatment Plant MGA

05 13 Erosion Control ACR/YR

05 9X Other (Use Numbers 90-99) 

06 GROUNDWATER COLLECTION AND CONTROL

06 01 Extraction and Injection Wells EA/YR

06 02 Subsurface Drainage/Collection LF/YR

06 03 Slurry Walls SF/YR

06 04 Grout Curtain SF/YR

06 05 Sheet Piling SF/YR

06 06 Lagoons/Basins/Tanks/Dikes/Pump System ACR/YR

06 07 Pumping/Collection MGA

06 08 Transport to Treatment Plant MGA

06 9x Other (Use Numbers 90-99)

07 AIR POLLUTION/GAS COLLECTION AND CONTROL 

07 01 Gas/Vapor Collection Trench System LF/YR

07 02 Gas/Vapor Collection Well System EA/YR

07 03 Gas/Vapor Collection at Lagoon Cover SY/YR

07 04 Fugitive Dust/Vapor/Gas Emissions Control ACR/YR

07 9x Other (Use Numbers 90-99)

08 SOLIDS COLLECTION AND CONTAINMENT 

08 01 Contaminated Soil Collection CY

08 02 Waste Containment, Portable (Furnish/Fill) CY

08 03 Transport to Treatment Plant CY

08 04 Radioactive Specific Waste Containment (Furnish/Fill) CY

08 05 Capping of Contaminated Area/Waste Pile (Soil/Asph ACR/YR

08 06 Nuclear Waste Densification (Dynamic Compaction) CY

08 9x Other (Use Numbers 90-99)

09 LIQUIDS/SEDIMENTS/SLUDGES COLLECTION AND 

CONTAINMENT 

09 01 Dredging/Excavating CY

09 02 Industrial Vacuuming CY

09 03 Waste Containment, Portable (Furnish/Fill) MGA

09 04 Transport to Treatment Plant MGA

09 05 Radioactive Specific Waste Containment (Furnish/Fill) MGA

09 06 Pumping/Draining/Collection MGA

09 07 Lagoons/Basins/Tanks/Dikes/Pump System ACR/YR

09 9x Other (Use Numbers 90-99)

11 BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT 

11 01 Activated Sludge (Seq Batch Reactors) MGA

11 02 Rotating Biological Contactors MGA
WBS Number DESCRIPTION QTY UOM UNIT 

COST 

COST 

$ 

342XX 11 03 Land Treatment/Farming (Solid Phase Biodegradation) CY

11 04 In-Situ Biodegradation/Bioreclamation CY

11 05 Trickling Filters MGA

11 06 Biological Lagoons MGA

11 07 Composting (Soil Pile Bioremediation) CY

11 08 Sludge Stabilization - Aerobic CY

11 09 Sludge Stabilization - Anaerobic CY

11 10 Genetically Engineered Organisms (White Rot Fungus)

CY

11 11 Slurry Biodegradation CY

11 12 Bioventing SF

11 13 Bioslurping SF

11 14 Biopile (Heap Pile Remediation) CY 

11 50 Post Construction O&M of Permanent Plant Facility EA/YR

11 9x Other (Use Numbers 90-99)

12 CHEMICAL TREATMENT

12 01 Oxidation/Reduction (Catalytic) MGA

12 02 Solvent Extraction MGA

12 03 Chlorination MGA

12 04 Ozonation MGA

12 05 Ion Exchange MGA

12 06 Neutralization MGA

12 07 Chemical Hydrolysis MGA

12 08 Ultraviolet Photolysis (UV Oxidation) MGA

12 09 Dehalogenation (Catalytic Dechlorination) CY

12 10 Alkali Metal Dechlorination CY

12 11 Alkali Metal/Polyethylene Glycol (A/PEG) CY

12 12 Base-Catalyzed Decomposition Process CY

12 13 Electrolysis MGA

12 14 Vapor Recovery/Reuse (Internal Combustion Engine) CF

12 50 Post Construction O&M of Permanent Plant Facility EA/YR

12 9x Other (Use Numbers 90-99)

13 PHYSICAL TREATMENT

13 01 Filtration/Ultrafiltration MGA

13 02 Sedimentation MGA

13 03 Straining MGA

13 04 Coagulation/Flocculation/Precipitation MGA

13 05 Equalization MGA

13 06 Evaporation MGA

13 07 Air Stripping MGA

13 08 Steam Stripping MGA

13 09 Soil Washing (Surfactant/Solvent) CY

13 10 Soil Flushing (Surfactant/Solvent) CY

13 11 Solids Dewatering CY

13 12 Oil/Water Separation MGA
WBS Number DESCRIPTION QTY UOM UNIT 

COST 

COST 

$ 

342XX 13 13 Dissolved Air Floatation MGA

13 14 Heavy Media Separation CY

13 15 Distillation MGA

13 16 Chelation MGA

13 17 Solvent Extraction MGA

13 18 Supercritical Extraction MGA

13 19 Carbon Adsorption - Gases CF

13 20 Carbon Adsorption - Liquids MGA

13 21 Membrane Separation - Reverse Osmosis MGA

13 22 Membrane Separation - Electrodialysis MGA

13 23 Soil Vapor Extraction CY

13 24 Shredding CY

13 25 Aeration CY

13 26 Advanced Electrical Reactor CY

13 27 Low Level Waste (LLW) Compaction CY

13 28 Agglomeration CY

13 29 In-Situ Steam Extraction MGA

13 30 Filter Presses MGA

13 31 Lignin Adsorption/Sorptive Clays CY

13 32 Air Sparging MGA

13 50 Post Construction O&M of Permanent Plant Facility EA/YR

13 9x Other (Use Numbers 90-99)

14 THERMAL TREATMENT 

14 01 Incineration CY

14 02 Low Temperature Thermal Desorption CY

14 03 Supercritical Water Oxidation MGA

14 04 Molten Salt Destruction CY

14 05 Radio Frequency Heating CY

14 06 Solar Detoxification CY

14 07 High Temperature Thermal Desorption CY

14 50 Post Construction O&M of Permanent Plant Facility EA/YR

14 9x Other (Use Numbers 90-99)

15 STABILIZATION/FIXATION/ENCAPSULATION

15 01 Molten Glass CY

15 02 In-Situ Vitrification CY

15 03 In-Situ Pozzolan Process (Lime/Portland Cement) CY

15 04 Pozzolan Process (Lime/Portland Cement) CY

15 05 Asphalt-Based Encapsulation CY

15 06 Radioactive Waste Solidification (Grouting/Other) CY

15 07 Sludge Stabilization (Aggregate/Rock/Slag) CY

15 50 Post Construction O&M of Permanent Plant Facility EA/YR

15 9x Other (Use Numbers 90-99)

18 DISPOSAL (OTHER THAN COMMERCIAL)

18 01 Landfill/Burial Ground/Trench/Pits CY
WBS Number DESCRIPTION QTY UOM UNIT 

COST 

COST 

$ 

18 02 Above-Ground Vault CY

18 03 Underground Vault CY

18 04 Underground Mine/Shaft CY

18 05 Tanks MGA

18 06 Pads (Tumulus/Retrievable Storage/Other) CY

18 07 Storage Bldgs/Protective Cvr Structures/Other Bldgs & CY 

18 08 Cribs CY

18 09 Deep Well Injection MGA

18 10 Incinerator CY

18 15 Post Construction O&M of Permanent Disposal Fac EA/YR

18 20 Container Handling EA

18 21 Transportation to Storage/Disposal Facility TON

18 22 Disposal Fees & Taxes TON

18 23 Mixed Waste Storage Fees & Taxes TON

18 9x Other (Use Numbers 90-99)

9X OTHER (Use Numbers 90-99)

TOTAL AMOUNT $