PB99-96430S
                              EPA541-R99-075
                              1999
EPA Superfund
      Record of Decision:
      57th and North Broadway Streets Site OU 1
      Wichita Heights, KS
      9/29/1999

-------

-------
    RECORD  OF DECISION
  57TH & N.  BROADWAY  SITE
      OPERABLE UNIT 1
WICHITA-PARK CITY,  KANSAS
      SEPTEMBER 1999

-------

-------
RECORD OF DECISION
DECLARATION

SITE NAME AND LOCATION

57th & N. Broadway*site, Operable Unit 1  (OU1), Wichita-Park
City,  Kansas

STATEMENT OF BASIS AND PURPOSE

This decision document presents the selected remedy for the 57th
& N. Broadway site OU 1,  in Park City - Wichita,  Kansas, chosen
in accordance with the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980  (CERCLA),  as amended by
the 'Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986  (SARA) ,
and to the extent practicable, the National Oil and Hazardous
Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP).   This decision is
based on the Administrative Record for this site.   The state of
Kansas concurs on the selected remedy.

ASSESSMENT OF THE SITE

Actual or threatened releases of hazardous substances at and from
this site, if not addressed by implementation of the response
action selected in this Record of Decision (ROD),  may present an
imminent and substantial endangerment to public health, welfare,
or the environment.

DESCRIPTION OF THE SELECTED REMEDY

This decision document is for the second and final action for the
site.   A ground water plume split into two parts has been
discovered at the site, the northern plume and the southern,
Riverview, plume.  This action will address contaminated ground
water and soils.  An in-well treatment system will be designed
for the northern plume to contain and treat the plume to the
point that contaminant levels fall below Maximum Contaminant
Levels (MCLs).   Additional in-well strippers may be added to the
Riverview plume to complete the treatment of the southern plume
to MCLs.   In addition,  in-situ vapor extraction will be utilized

-------
 to treat contaminated soils at the former Wilko Paint facility.
 Additional soil sampling will take place on the Midland Refinery
 and Wilko properties to determine if in-situ vapor extraction
 will be necessary to treat soils which could constitute a source
 for ground water contamination at these locations.  This remedy
 also includes ground water monitoring to determine the
 effectiveness of the treatment system and institutional controls
 to prevent exposure to contaminated ground water.

 The major components of the selected remedy will include the
 following actions.

 •    Design and install a system of in-situ vapor  extraction
      wells to prevent the migration of contaminated ground water
      for the northern plume,  while treating the plume to reduce
      contaminants  to levels below the MCLs.   If necessary,
      additional in-situ vapor extraction wells  will be added to
      the system in  the  Riverview plume to prevent  migration of
      ground water contamination  and to treat ground water
      contamination  to MCLs.

 •     An  in-situ vapor extraction  system will be installed to
      treat  the  contaminated soils at  the  former Wilko Paint
      facility.

      Soil sampling will  take place  to ensure that  no  source  areas
      of  soil  contamination  remain on  the  Midland Refinery or
      Wilko Paint properties.   If  source areas are  discovered,
      they will be treated with in-situ vapor extraction.

      Ground water monitoring will be  conducted  to  determine  the
      effectiveness of the treatment system.

•     Institutional controls will be implemented  to prevent
     exposure to contaminated ground water.

STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS

The selected remedy is protective of human health and the
environment,  complies with federal and state requirements that
are applicable or relevant and appropriate to the remedial
action,  and is cost-effective.   This remedy utilizes

-------
permanent  solutions  and alternative treatment technologies  to  the
maximum extent practicable  and  satisfies the statutory preference
for  remedies that employ treatment that reduces toxicity,
mobility,  or volume  as  a principal element.

Because this remedy  may result  in hazardous substances,
pollutants,  or contaminants above health-based levels remaining
on site for  up to ten years,  a  five-year review will be  conducted
to ensure  that the remedy continues to provide adequate
protection of human  health  and  the environment.

ROD  DATA CERTIFICATION  CHECKLIST

The  following information is included in the Decision Summary
Section of this Record  of Decision  (ROD).  Additional information
can  be  found in the  Administrative Record  file for this  site.

•     Chemicals of concern and their respective concentrations .
•     Baseline risk represented  by the chemicals of concern.
-•     Clean-up levels established for chemicals of concern and  the
      basis for these levels.
•     How source materials constituting principal threats are
      addressed.
•     Current and reasonably anticipated future land use
      assumptions and current and potential future beneficial uses
      of ground water used in the baseline  risk assessment and
      ROD.
•     Potential land  and ground  water use that will be available
      at the  site as  a result of the selected remedy.
•     Estimated capital,  annual  operation and maintenance (O&M),
      and total present  worth costs, discount rate, and the  number
      of years over which the remedy cost estimates are projected.
•     Key factor(s)that  led  to selecting the remedy.
 Mibhaei J.( Sanderson,  Director           Date
 Superfund Division

-------

-------
    RECORD OF DECISION
     DECISION SUMMARY
  57™ & N. BROADWAY  SITE
     OPERABLE  UNIT 1
WICHITA-PARK CITY,  KANSAS
      SEPTEMBER  1999

-------
4»

-------
                        TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0   SITE NAME, LOCATION, AND DESCRIPTION  ...


2.0   SITE HISTORY AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES


3.0   COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION ACTIVITIES  ....


4.0   SCOPE AND ROLE  OF  RESPONSE ACTION  	
5 .0   SUMMARY OF  SITE  CHARACTERISTICS  	   6

      5.1   Physical  Characteristics  	   6

      5.2   Nature And  Extent  of  Contamination 	   8


            5.2.1  Delineation of areas and volumes of
                  Contaminated Ground  Water 	   10

            5.2.2  Delineation of Areas and Volumes of
                  Contaminated Soils 	   10


6.0   CURRENT AND POTENTIAL FUTURE SITE AND RESOURCE USES  13

      6 .1   Current  On-site Land  Use	   13

      6 .2   Current  Adjacent. Land Use 	   13

      6.3   Anticipated Future Use AND Basis for
            Assumptions 	   13

      6.4   Current  Ground Water Use	  13

       6.5   Future Ground Water Use and Basis for
             Assumptions
                                                             14
       6.6  Time frame of Projected Future Drinking
            Water Use 	•	   14

       6.7  Current or Potential Future Natural
            Resource Use	   15

-------
                        TABLE OF CONTENTS



7. 0    SUMMARY OF SITE  RISKS  	   15

       7 .1   Human Health  Risk . .	   15

            7.1.1  Chemicals  of  Concern	   15

            7.1.2  Exposure,. Assessment 	   16

            7.1.3  Toxicity Assessment 	   21

            7.1.4  Risk Characterization 	   22

            7.1.5  Conclusions  	     22

       7 . 2   Ecological Risks	   24
8.0
REMEDIAL ACTION OBJECTIVES 	  24
9.0   DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES  	  25

      9.1 Ground Water Alternatives                        26

           9.1.1    Alt. 1: No Action 	  26

           9.1.2    Alt. 2: Natural Attenuation 	  26

           9.1.3    Alt. 3: Containment/Air Stripping
                            with Tray Aeration 	  28
           9.1.4    Alt. 4: Containment/In situ (in
                            place)  Vapor Extraction 	  29
           9.1.5    Alt. 5: Active Restoration/Air
                            Stripping with Tray Aeration
                            Water Monitoring 	  31

           9.1.6    Alt. 6: Active Restoration/In Situ
                            Vapor Extraction 	  32

           9.1.7    Alt. 7: Active Restoration/In Situ
                            Chemical  Oxidation and In
                            Situ Vapor Extraction 	  33
                              11

-------
                        TABLE OF CONTENTS
       9.2  Soil  Remedial Action  Alternatives  . . .	   35

            9.2.1 Alt.  1: No Action	    35

            9.2.2 Alt.  2: Containment	    35

            9.2.3 Alt.  3: Excavation and Off-site
                         Treatment  	    36

            9.2.4 Alt.  4: Excavation and Off-site Disposal   36

            9.2.5 Alt.  5: In Situ Soil Vapor Extraction
                         (SVE)  	   37

10 . 0  COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES 	   38

      10.1   EVALUATION OF GROUND WATER ALTERNATIVES	   39

           10.1.1   Overall Protection of Human Health
                    and the Environment 	    3g

           10.1.2   Compliance with ARARs  	   41

           10.1.3   Long Term Effectiveness and
                    Permanence 	      42

           10.1.4   Reduction of Toxicity,  Mobility,  or
                    Volume  Through  Treatment  	   43

           10.1.5    Short-term Effectiveness   	   43
           10.1.6    Implementability 	    44
           10.1.7    Cost  	•. .	            46

           10.1.8    State Acceptance	  47

           10.1.9    Community  Acceptance  	  47

      10.2   EVALUATION OF  THE SOIL REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES  47

           10.2.1    Overall Protection of Human Health
                    and the Environment  	   47
                             111

-------
                       TABLE OF CONTENTS
           10.2.2   Compliance with ARARs  	  48

           10.2.3   Long Term Effectiveness and
                    Permanence 	  49

           10.2.4   Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, or
                    Volume Through Treatment  	  49

           10.2.5   Short-term Effectiveness   	  50

           10.2.6   Implementability  	  51

           10.2.7   Cost 	  52

           10.2.8   State Acceptance	  52

           10.2.9   Community Acceptance  	 	  52


11.0  SUMMARY OF SELECTED REMEDY  	  53

12 . 0  STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS	  56

      12.1  Protection of Human Health &  the  Environment   57

      12.2  Compliance with ARARs   	  57

      12 . 3  Cost Effectiveness	  59

      12.4  Utilization of Permanent  Solutions  and
            Alternative Treatment Technologies  to the
            Maximum Extent Practicable  	  59

      12.5  Preference for Treatment  as a Principal
            Element 	  59

      12.6  Five-Year Review Requirements 	  60
Responsiveness Summary                               Appendix A
Risk Assessment Data                                 Appendix B
Cost Data                                            Appendix C
                               IV

-------
                        RECORD OF DECISION

                         DECISION SUMMARY

             1.0 SITE NAME, LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION

The 57th  &  N. Broadway site  (KSD981710247)  is  located  in  and near
the northern portion of the city of Wichita, Kansas  (see Figure
1).  The actual location of the site lies on a diagonal  that  runs
from the extension of West 58ch Street north and Broadway Avenue
to the southwest to approximately West 46th Street north  and
Armstrong  Drive. The United States Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is the lead agency while the state of Kansas serves
in the role of support agency.  This Record of Decision  (ROD)  is
written in anticipation of negotiating a settlement with the
Potentially Responsible Parties  (PRPs)  for the site to conduct
the remedy.  A split contaminated ground water plume extends
beneath this residential, commercial, and industrial area.
Nearly .all domestic water in the site was obtained from private
wells in the contaminated aquifer.  Currently, ground water above
Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) is not being used for domestic
consumption.  However,  contaminated wells may be being used for
non-consumptive purposes; and water.from that contaminated
aquifer which does not exceed MCLs is being used for private
residential consumption.  To the south of the site is the Little
Arkansas River.

The apparent source of the ground water contamination is from
several facilities located near 57th and N. Broadway.  Ground
water exceeding drinking water standards for volatile organic
compounds  (VOCs)  including  1,1-dichloroethene (DCE),
trichloroethene (TCE),  tetrachloroethene (PCE),  and vinyl
chloride is found at the site.  One area of contaminated soil
will require remediation.  It is located on the former Wilko
Paint property.

           2.0  SITE HISTORY AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES

The site includes established residential neighborhoods,
commercial, municipal,  and industrial institutions.  Parts of  the
site are in Park City,  the city of Wichita, and unincorporated

-------
         57th & N. Broadway Site
               Figure 1
Site Boundary

-------
     " Li CREASON Pi
         CORRUGATING
   RAYMOND
   SUPPLY
                                           CLEARWATER
    WORLDWIDE  CAR
    SALVAGE;"
SINCLAIR
                    CLAY • I i
                    WORKS—"
                                  TOMS  TIRE
                                 •0-B-224
               _BROADWAY	

                   r~: I '.  !  ! : i
           FINA     -     WIUKO PAINTS
        ~j±A     r7Br209iAAuHr3lfl,   - —-^
      CAR ''  '—'
      LOT i
   ":   PARK PLACE
                        a :
                        o •
                        O ':
                        o
                 !>_ TANKS-^MIDLAND
                           REFINERY
             Ct U. d :  ;: •.
             UJ —H- j  ',
             a _j to l—
       • B2-28  WICHITA
       .-•.A.   HEIGHTS

   B-210^   LUMBER
    VE-2
   B229
VE-3
                                                                    ; MAYFLOWER
                                                                     CONTRACT
                                                            W1TCHITA INSURANCE
               B240


             MH-113

               SVE-1
APPROXIMATE LIMIT
OF EXCAVATION

SOIL BORING

MONITORING HELL

PROPOSED SOIL VAPOR
EXTRACTION HELL
                                                    FIGURE  2,
                                                    SOIL  ALTERNATIVE 5
                                                    SITE  PLAN  - IN  SITU
                                                    SOIL  VAPOR EXTRACTION
                                                    57TH AND NORTH BROADWAY  SITE

-------
Sedgwick County, Kansas.  Much of the total area and all of the
area which is underlain by the contaminated plume exceeding
drinking water standards is now served by public water.

The contamination found in the Riverview Operable Unit  (OU), or
the Riverview plume, is an extension of a volatile organic
contaminant ground water plume originating from near 57ch & N.-
Broadway.  The Kansas Department of Health and Environment  (KDHE)
completed a site investigation of the site in 1989.  The site
investigation identified ground water contamination and several
potential sources of contamination of a variety of compounds
which were detected in the ground water.  Further work on the
site resulted in its being placed on the National Priorities List
in 1992.

The EPA performed a removal action from August 1990 until May of
1992 which provided bottled water to the residences and
businesses in the then known affected area of the 57th  & N.
Broadway site.  That area is now served by Park City's public
water supply system.

The EPA and KDHE facilitated the formation of a local group to
sponsor the installation of a public water supply to the area.
This resulted in the construction of a public water supply, owned
by Park City,  Kansas,, which was capable of providing public water
to the known affected area.  The public water system for the area
was completed in 1992.

There have been several enforcement activities at the 57th  & N.
Broadway Superfund site.  In 1985,  the state of Kansas issued an
Administrative Order to Midland Refining Company  (Midland), which
required Midland to develop a plan to investigate ground water
contamination around the Midland facility.  Midland complied with
the order and completed a report of the investigation in July
1985.

Three Administrative Orders have been issued by EPA for the 57th
& N. Broadway site.   The first two orders were issued
concurrently on October 4,  1993, along with a notice of liability
to four parties: Coastal Refining and Marketing, Inc.; Farmland
Industries, Inc. (Farmland); Midland Refining Company; and Wilko
Paint, Inc. (Wilko).  The first order was an Emergency
Administrative Order issued along with a Finding of Imminent and

-------
Substantial Endangerment to the Health of Humans under Section
1431 of the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA),  to provide a potable
water source to all persons who may be effected by contaminated
ground water from the site.  The second order was a draft Consent
Order issued along with a Statement of Work under Sections 104,
122 (a) and 122(d) (3) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) and Section 1431(a) of
the SDWA, for an investigation of the site.

On October 13,  1993, Coastal Refining and Marketing, Inc., filed
a petition for review with the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals of
the Finding of Imminent and Substantial Endangerment to the
Health of Persons and Emergency Administrative Order.  A similar
petition was filed by Wilko and Farmland on November 10 and
November 12,  1993,  respectively.  Since several of the issues
involved were of first impression and due to changing policy
considerations, the EPA did not wish to litigate the issues on
appeal.  Additionally,  because of pre-enforcement review under
the SDWA, the EPA did not want to incur potential long delays
before being able to provide water to those people in need.
Therefore,  the SDWA Order was withdrawn by EPA as to all four
parties on December 23,  1993; and the negotiations for actions
under a Consent Order ended.

The third order issued -at the site was a Unilateral
Administrative  Order issued pursuant to Section 106(a)  of CERCLA
to Midland and Wilko on June 6, 1994.   Midland and Wilko were
ordered to provide  hookups to a public water supply to those
residents within the site,  designated by EPA, who wanted to be
hooked up and had potential exposure to contaminated ground
water.  It was  further ordered that Midland and Wilko would
perform sampling and analysis of drinking water wells down
gradient of the known contamination and provide hookups to those
people with contaminated water who wished to be added to the
public water supply.  Midland and Wilko complied with the order,
and all physical work was completed in 1995.  In July 1996, the
order was amended  to include a payment schedule for reimbursement
of oversight  costs.   Midland and Wilko reimbursed EPA for
$17,891.30 in oversight  costs,  and all activities under the order
were completed  by  February 1997.

-------
In July 1997, the EPA issued general notice letters to six
parties associated with the 57th & N. Broadway Superfund site:
Midland; Wilko; Farmland; Clearwater Truck Company, Inc.; Koch
Industries,  Inc.; and Lewis Williams Jr.  The EPA entered tolling
agreements with these six parties in August 1997 to toll the
statute of limitations with regard to the removal action
completed in 1992.

In late 1997 while completing the remedial investigation for the
site, the EPA discovered ground water contamination further down
gradient from the initially identified sources than was expected.
The ground water had crossed what was originally thought to be a
ground water divide.  The contamination was located in the
neighborhood community of Riverview.  Because people in this
neighborhood were drinking contaminated water, the EPA had to act
quickly.  The EPA identified the Riverview area as a separate
operable unit  (OU 2) and performed a focused feasibility study
and signed a ROD for this OU in June 1998.  The remedial action
for Riverview was initiated as fund-lead in June 1998 to attach
those people drinking contaminated water to the Wichita public
water supply.  An additional component of the remedy was in-situ
treatment of contaminated ground water to prevent any further
migration of the contamination.  The people in the Riverview area
have been attached to public,water,  and the remaining response
actions are  ongoing.

In a February 1998 letter, the EPA notified the six PRPs of the
need for action in the Riverview area and offered them the
opportunity  to perform the work.  All six parties declined.  The
EPA did not  negotiate with the PRPs for performance of the work
because the  work needed to be initiated immediately, and the EPA
believed it  would take months to develop an agreement that would
satisfy the  interests of all parties.

3.0 COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION ACTIVITIES

A Community  Action Group  (CAG), intended to serve as a conduit
for information between the community and EPA, was formed early
on in the remedial investigation process of the 57th & N.
Broadway site.  A community relations plan which included
community interviews was prepared early in the site activities.
Meetings to  exchange information with the CAG have been conducted
since 1996.  The CAG has held monthly meetings nearly every month

-------
during  this period, and EPA has attended all meetings which  they
received a request to attend.  A community-wide meeting was  held
on February 11,  1998, to explain EPA's anticipated response
actions for the  Riverview OU.  Many of the planning documents
leading to the development of this ROD were provided to the  GAG
as drafts to  solicit community comment.

The city of Wichita sponsored a meeting which was held in  the
City Council  Chambers on February 25, 1998.  The EPA attended  and
responded to  questions concerning the Riverview OU.  On March  2,
1998, a Kansas State Legislative Subcommittee sponsored a  public
hearing on the site at which EPA was requested to be available to
answer  questions from the subcommittee and attending citizens on
the Riverview OU.

The announcement of the Proposed Plan for this OU was published
in two  local  papers on July 14,and 15, 1999; and the public
comment period was initiated on July 14,1999.  A request for an
extension was made by the CAG and granted by EPA.  The public
comment period ended on September 13, 1999.  A copy of the
remedial investigation was provided for the Administrative Record
and CAG review on July 9,  1999.   A public hearing was held on
July 29, 1999.  Announcements of the public hearing and copies of
the Proposed  Plan were mailed to those on the EPA mailing  list
for the site.   Upon the completion of the public comment period
on September  13,  1999,  a Responsiveness Summary addressing all
comments and questions pertaining to the Proposed Plan was
prepared and appears as Appendix A to this ROD.

              4 . 0 SCOPE AND ROLE OF RESPONSE ACTION

The problems at the 57th & N. Broadway site are complex.  As  a
result,  the EPA has organized the work into two OUs:

     •    OU 1 is the site-wide  ground water and soil
          contamination,  which includes all actions within the
          entire  site;  and

     •    OU 2 addresses only the ground water contamination in
          the  Riverview neighborhood.

The EPA has already selected the remedy for OU 2 in the Record of
Decision signed on June 5,  1998.

-------
The remediation portion of the Riverview OU will be taken over by
the actions detailed in this ROD.  The actions at the Riverview
OU have three components.  First, providing an alternate water
supply to residents by hooking them to the public water supply.
The second was the treatment of the contaminated ground water
plume in the Riverview neighborhood, and the third is the ongoing
monitoring of the plume.

The response action selected in this- ROD will address
contamination at the entire site.  In addition, it will take over
the activity of the second and third elements of the Riverview
OU.  This response action involves the control and treatment of
the ground water contaminant plumes, both the northern plume and
the Riverview plume and the treatment of contaminated soils that
may present a hazard for direct contact and serve as source areas
for further contamination of ground water.  Also involved will be
the determination of potential soil contamination at the Midland
Refinery and former Wilko Paint properties and if necessary the
treatment of those soils.

The ground water containment/treatment system is to be designed
to contain the plumes as well as treating both the northern plume
and the Riverview plume.  All actions identified in this ROD will
be completed under remedial authorities.

               5.0 SUMMARY OF SITE CHARACTERISTICS

This section of the ROD presents the results, conclusions, and
recommendations of the Remedial Investigation Report for the 57th
& N. Broadway site.  Further details of the characterization of
the Riverview plume in the Riverview OU may be found in the June
1998 ROD for that OU.

5.1 Physical Characteristics

The 57th & N. Broadway site is a residential/commercial/
agricultural area covering portions of Park City, unincorporated
Sedgwick County,  and the city of Wichita, all in Sedgwick County,
Kansas, as shown on Figure 1.  The site is located in and
adjacent to Park City and Wichita, Kansas.

The geology in the Wichita area consists primarily of sedimentary
rock overlain by alluvium, colluvium,  and loess.  The 57th & N.

-------
Broadway site lies within the eastern portion of the Arkansas
River flood plain and terrace complex.   The geology of the
Arkansas River valley beneath the site consists of two distinct
sediment types: a fine grained zone;  and a sandy zone with minor
amounts of gravel.  Beneath the topsoil lies a brown to light
brown layer of silty clay and silt approximately 10 to 15 feet
thick.  The clayey zone is continuous across the site and has a
low plasticity.  The clayey zone grades into a fine to coarse
grained sand zone near the water table.  The sand zone may
contain significant amounts of silt in the upper 10 feet of the
sand zone.  The sand grades into coarser sand toward the bottom
of the alluvium where the sand may contain some gravel.   The
sandy zone is approximately 30 feet thick and lies unconformably
on the blue to gray shale of the Wellington Formation.  The shale
is blocky to finely laminated and can appear as a clay where it
is intensely weathered.

The alluvial aquifer is the principal aquifer at the site and
consists of unconsplidated Pliocene,  Pleistocene,  and Holocene
sediments found in the Arkansas River valley.  This aquifer is
the principal source of water for the city of Wichita and the
surrounding areas, supplying 70 percent of the city's public
drinking water supply.  The portion of the alluvial aquifer that
supplies the city's water is located northwest of Wichita within
a triangular-shaped area roughly delineated by the cities of
Hutchinson, Newton,  and Wichita,  Kansas.  The 57th & N. Broadway
site lies within this triangle.  This region of the aquifer is
locally called the Equus Beds Aquifer.

The alluvial aquifer is an unconfined system that flows  to the
south-southwest at a gradient of approximately 0.001 feet/foot.
Depth to the water table ranges from 8 to 20 feet below ground
surface (bgs).   Slug tests were performed on ten shallow and ten
deep monitoring wells.  Because of the high hydraulic
conductivity of the aquifer,  the results of the slug tests were
inconclusive;  therefore,  the hydraulic conductivity data were
estimated using historic pump test data.  Results of the pump
test indicate that the hydraulic conductivity at the site ranges
from 50 feet/day to 400 feet/day.  The ground water velocity
ranges from 0.51 feet/day to 1.6 feet/day across the site.
No federally listed threatened or endangered wildlife species are
known to inhabit the vicinity of the  site.

-------
                                                                            I
5.2 Nature and Extent  of  Contamination

	c	_,  	
are PCE and  the breakdown components of PCE and/or TCE,  1,1-DCE,
cis-l,2-DCE, and vinyl chloride.   In addition, 1,1-DCA has also
been detected  in ground water samples from the area.   The ground
water contamination  has migrated from the northeast portion of
the 57ch & N. Broadway site to the southwest to the  Riverview
area.  The contaminant plume is split forming a northern plume
and a southern plume (the Riverview plume).  The  Chisom Creek
Floodway  is  the division  between the two plumes.  The  northern
plume terminates at  approximately the northern edge of the
floodway  and the Riverview plume begins approximately  1,200 feet
southwest of the southern edge of the floodway.

The northern plume is  oriented from the northeast near the
extension of 58th  Street and N. Broadway to the  southwest
terminating  approximately at 53rd Street on the  south and the
Chisom Creek Floodway on  the west and just prior  to their
intersection on the  southwest.  The plume  is  approximately 2,600
feet long and  ranges from 800 to 1,600 feet in width.
From the  currently available information,  it  appears  that the
ground water contaminant  plume in the Riverview residential area
is narrow, approximately  400 feet across  at its widest point and
approximately  2,600  feet  long.  The approximate location of the
Riverview plume is from the intersection  of West  50th Street
north and Arkansas Avenue on the north to beyond  the intersection
of West 46ch  Street north and Armstrong Drive  on the south  as
shown on  Figure 1.  The alignment of the  plume  follows the
direction of the  ground water flow  in this area.

The concentrations of TCE and vinyl chloride  in  the ground water
of the Riverview  plume indicate the contaminants  are in a
dissolved form rather than in a pure phase in the ground water1.
The concentrations of most contaminants in the  northern plume  are
      1Generally, if the concentration of a compound in ground water is
 greater than or  equal to 1 percent of the solubility limit of the compound in
 water,  then a pure phase of compound may be present in the ground water.  The
 concentrations of these chemicals in the ground water in  the Riverview plume
 were at least two orders of magnitude less than these solubility limits in the
 ground water samples collected at the site.

-------
5.2 Nature  and Extent of Contamination

The primary contaminants present in;the ground water  at  the site
are PCE  and the breakdown components of PCE and/or  TCE,  1,1-DCE,
cis-l,2-DCE,  and vinyl chloride.  In addition, 1,1-DCA has also
been detected in ground water samples from the area.   The ground
water contamination has migrated from the northeast portion of
the 57th  & N.  Broadway site to the southwest to the  Riverview
area.  The  contaminant plume is split forming a northern plume
and a southern plume (the Riverview plume).  The Chisom  Creek
Floodway is the division between the two plumes.  The northern
plume terminates at approximately the northern edge of the
floodway and  the Riverview plume begins approximately 1,200 feet
southwest of  the southern edge of the floodway.

The northern  plume  is oriented from the northeast near the
extension of  58th Street and N. Broadway to the southwest
terminating approximately at 53rd Street on the south  and the
Chisom Creek  Floodway on the west and just prior to their
intersection  on the southwest.  The plume is approximately 2,600
feet long and ranges from 800 to 1,600 feet in width.
From the currently  available information,  it appears  that the
ground water  contaminant plume in the Riverview residential area
is narrow,  approximately 400 feet across at its widest'point and
approximately 2,600 feet long.  The approximate location of the
Riverview plume is  from the intersection of West 50th  Street
north and Arkansas  Avenue on the north to beyond the  intersection
of West  46th Street  north and Armstrong Drive on the south as
shown on Figure 1.   The alignment of the plume follows the
direction of  the ground water flow in this area.

The concentrations  of TCE and vinyl chloride in the ground water
of the Riverview plume  indicate the contaminants are  in  a
dissolved form rather than in a pure phase in the ground water1.
The concentrations  of most contaminants in the northern  plume are
     Generally, if the concentration of a compound in ground water is
greater than or equal to 1 percent of the solubility limit of the compound in
water, then a pure phase of compound may be present in the ground water.  The
concentrations of these chemicals in the ground water in the Riverview plume
were at least two orders of magnitude less than these solubility limits in the
ground water samples collected at the site.

-------
about two orders of magnitude greater than those in the Riverview
plume; and therefore, it is more difficult to determine if pure
phase contaminants exist in the northern plume.  Concentrations
of contaminants of concern are summarized in Tables 7-1 and 7-2.

5.2.1  Delineation of Areas and Volumes of Contaminated Ground
       Water

Information concerning the nature and extent of contamination in
ground water was used to estimate the volume of contaminated
ground water that will need to be remediated at the 57th &'N.
Broadway site.  Ground water that is contaminated at
concentrations 'exceeding those proposed for remedial actions
(i.e., MCLs) for the site will be considered the portion of the
contaminant plume that will require response actions.  The MCLs
for the contaminants of concern are presented in Table 5-1.

In the Riverview plume the area of ground water containing vinyl
chloride above MCLs is the largest and encompasses the areas of
the remaining contaminants exceeding MCLs.  Therefore, vinyl
chloride was the contaminant used to estimate the volume of
contaminated ground water in the Riverview OU of the site.  The
MCL for vinyl chloride is two micrograms per liter (/ug/L)  .  The
areal extent of contaminated ground water in the Riverview OU
requiring remediation is shown on Figure 1.   Based on this
information, the areal extent of contamination of the Riverview
plume is estimated to be approximately 800,000 square feet (ft2) .
For estimation purposes,  the areal extent of vinyl chloride will
be considered to be evenly spread vertically in the aquifer.   The
approximate saturated thickness of the aquifer ranges from 15 to
35 feet.  The approximate total contaminated ground water plume
in the Riverview OU will be 30 million gallons, assuming an
average saturated thickness of 25 feet and an effective pore
volume of 20 percent.

Similar calculations were used for the volumetric measurements of
the northern plume.  The contaminants of concern in the northern
plume are primarily PCE,  TCE,  and their breakdown components 1,2
-DCE, chloroethene, and vinyl chloride.  The plume extends
approximately from the Midland Refinery area at 57th and North
Broadway 2600 feet southwest to the Chisolm Creek Floodway.  The
northern plume is approximately five million square feet in area.
                               10

-------
                          Table 5-1
Chemical-Specific ARARs and Other Criteria and Standards, or
   Guidance to be Considered for Compounds in Ground water
Contaminant
1,1-
Dichloroethane
1,1-
Dichloroethene
cis-1,2-
Dichloroethene
Tetrachloroethene
Trichloroethene
Vinyl chloride
Maximum
Concentration
Detected in the 57lh
& N. Broadway area
G*g/L)
99
16
59
3.8
6.9
34
— -
MCL1
(Mg/L)
-
7
70
5
5
2
=
MCLG2
(^g/L)
-
7
70
0
0
0
=====
1-Day
Child3
G*g/L)
-
2,000
4,000
2

3,000
=
10-Day
Child4
G"g/L)
-
1,000
3,000
2

3,000
"'!!.. in i -L-_ _ 	
	 ' ' ' ' =^~g?— '" ' .—...,.
USEPA Health Advisories5
Longer-Term
Child5
fcg/L)
-
1,000
3,000
1

10
Longer-Term
Adult5
0"g/L)
-
4,000
11,000
5

50
Lifetime6
G*g/L)
-
7
70



Notes:
Blanks indicate no value is available.
1 Maximum contaminant level (MCL). 40 CFR Part 141, the maximum permissible level of a contaminant in water which is delivered to any user of a oublic
water system.. fuum.
2 Maximum contaminant level goal (MCLG), 40 CFR Part 14 1 , a non-enforceable concentration of a drinking water contaminant that is protective of adverse
human health effect and allow an adequate margin of safety.
3 The concentration of a chemical in drinking water that is not expected to cause any adverse noncarcinogenic effects for up to 5 consecutive days of exposure
4 The concentration of a chemical in drinking water that is not expected to cause any adverse noncarcinogenic effects for up to 14 consecutive days of exposure
5 The concentration of a chemical in drinking water that is not expected to cause any adverse noncarcinogenic effects for up to approximately 7 consecutive: days
or exposure
6 The concentration of a chemical in drinking water that is not expected to cause any adverse noncarcinogenic effects over a lifetime of exposure.
                             11

-------
                                                       Tabled
                                           Chemical-Specifc ARARs for Soil
Contaminant
Acetone
Arsenic
Benzene
Benzene, 1,3,5-trimethyl-
Benzene, l-ethyl-2-methyl-
Benzene, l-ethyl-3-methyl-
Bcnzene, (1-methylethyl)-
Benzene, propyl-
Benzene, 1,2,3-trimethyl
2-Butanone
n-Butylbenzene
sec-Butylbenzene
tert-Butylbenzene
Cadmium
Chlorobenzene
KDHE Interim Remedial
Guidelines1
(mg/kg)
Residential
1,300
7
1










12
55
Non-Residential
1,975
100
2










170
90
Soil Screening Levels2
(mg/kg)
Migration to
Groundwater5
16
29
0.03










8
1
Ingestion
7,800
0.4
22










78
1,600
USEPA Region III Risk-Based
Criteria3
(mg/kg)
Industrial
Exposure
200,000
3.8"
200








20,000
20,000
1,000

Residential
Exposure
7,800
0.43 4
22








780
780
39

FUHoport
August 1988
R«v. 1
Page 1 of 3
                                                                                                             S7lh & North Bioadway
                                                                                                                  46100.109-01

-------
                                              Table/-2 (Continued)
                                        Chemical-Specific ARARs for Soil
___._=— _==============
Contaminant
Cyclohexane, 1,2,4-trimethyl
Cyclohexane, ethyl-
Decane
1,1-Dichloroethene
Ethylbeozcne
2-Hexanone
Isopropylbenzene
Lead
4-Methyl-2-pentanone
Naphthalene
n-Propylbenzene
Toluene
Trichloroethene
Trichlorofluoromethane
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
	 	
KDHE Interim Remedial
Guidelines'
(rag/kg)
Residential



0.02
1,980


400
1,170
500

980
6


Non-Residential



0.035
1,980


1000
17,000
500

1,500
11


=============================
Soil Screening Levels2
(mg/kg)
Migration to
Groundwater5



0.06
13



84


12
0.06


Ingestion



1
7,800


400
5,100


16,000
58

	 . 	
===== 	
USEPA Region HI Risk-Based
Criteria3
(mg/kg)
Industrial
Exposure



9.5
200,000



160,000
82,000

410,000
520
610,000
100,000
Residential
Exposure



1.1
7,800



6,300
3,100
16,000
58
23,000
3,900
HI R«port
August 199B
Rev. 1
                                                                                                        57lh & North Bloadw«y
                                                                                                              48100.109-01
Page 2 of 3

-------
                                              Tablejf-2  (Continued)
                                        Chemical-Specific ARARs for Soil
r— =================:
Contaminant
1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene
m/p-Xylene
o-Xylene
Xylene (total)
.
KDHE Interim Remedial
Guidelines1
(mg/kg)
Residential



630
Non-Residential



630
Soil Screening Levels2
(rag/kg)
Migration to
Groundwater5

210
190

Ingestion

160,000
160,000

• I.II..J.II..M..... ---•""-'... "" - 	 - 	 '' " 	 "
USEPA Region III Risk-Based
Criteria3
(rag/kg)
Industrial
Exposure
100,000
1,000,000
1,000,000
1,000,000
Residential
Exposure
3,900
160,000
160,000
160,000
Notes:
Blanks indicate no value is available.
1 KDHE Interim Remedial Guidelines for Contaminated Soil, October 1995.
2 Soil Screening Guidance, USEPA 1996.
3 USEPA Region III Risk-Based Concentration for Soil Ingeslion, April 1996.
4 Arsenic as a carcinogenic compound.
5 Based on DAF (dilution and attenuation factor) of 20. 	 —
Rl Report
Auguil 1998
Rev. 1
Page 3 of 3
                                                                                                           57th & North Bro«dv»ay
                                                                                                                48100.109-01

-------
      6.0  CURRENT AND  POTENTIAL FUTURE SITE AND RESOURCE  USES

 6.1   Current  On-Site  Land Use

.The  57th & N.  Broadway site  consists of  residential neighborhoods
 comprised of  single  family  dwellings, municipal,  commercial,  and
 industrial facilities as well as  some open  land,  part of which is
 used for  agriculture.

 6.2   Current  Adjacent Land  Use

 The  area  immediately adjacent to  the site  currently consists  of
 single family residential homes,  business,  and industrial
 facilities.   The  area to the south of the  site is predominantly
 agricultural  and  open space adjacent to the Little Arkansas
 River.

 6.3   Anticipated  Future Land Use

 The  Riverview OU  and adjacent area is a well established
 residential neighborhood with a few small  businesses, religious
 institutions, and farming.  The  area of  the northern plume
 contains a variety of business,  municipal  facilities, and
 industries as well as some  residences and  farm and open land.  It
 is not anticipated that significant changes will be made in the
 land use of either area in the near future.  With the
 availability of city water, there is some  additional opportunity
 for additional business or commercial interests to locate  in  the
 area, especially where there are currently open spaces.

 6.4   Current Ground Water Use

 The ground water was previously the sole source of domestic water
 for the  majority of the site.  Residences and businesses in the
 area  previously relied upon private wells to supply  ground water
 as  the only  source of water.  The Park City water  system and  the
 city  of  Wichita water system currently supply a majority of the
 residences in the general  area with domestic water.   Some
 residences within the site boundaries  continue to  use ground
 water for domestic drinking water use.  None  of  these residences
 are known to have ground water contaminated at levels greater
                                 13

-------
 than^the MCLs.  In addition, ground water is used for watering,
 filling swimming pools, and other uses associated with
 residential neighborhoods.

 6.5  Potential Future Ground Water Use

 It is anticipated that even with the availability of public water
 supplies the ground water will continue to be used as a source of
 domestic water at many residences.   There is a public water
 supply available,  as well,  for those who are not affected by the
 volatile organic contamination.   There is a concern with the
 general quality of the ground water in the area.  The general
 satisfaction of some residents in the general quality of the
 ground water seems to have  diminished over the last several
 years.   Therefore,  it is not known  how many residents will take
 advantage  of the new public water system and how many will
 continue to use their private wells.   There seems to be a general
 consensus  that many of those who elect to connect to public water
 will retain the use of their private  wells for lawn and garden
 use.   Another  factor  that may affect  the future use of ground
 water  is^the unavailability of sanitary sewers in the area.   Much
 of the  site and the surrounding  area  use septic tanks for
 domestic sewage treatment,  although Park City is currently
 actively installing sewer lines  within its city limits.

 6.6  Time Frame of  Projected Future Drinking Water Use

 This action is  intended  to  restore  the  aquifer in the 57th & N.
 Broadway site.   It  is  anticipated that  it  will  take  ten  years "for
 the treatment to restore the  aquifer.   It  is  assumed that  not
 every residence  in the vicinity  of the  site  will  take advantage
 of the availability of the public water  supply and that  ground
 water will  continue to be used for domestic  supplies.  Many  of
 those residents that do take advantage of  the  availability of the
 public water supply will likely  continue to use ground water for
 some purpose.  Some of the public water supply  comes  from  the Bel
Aire well field which is located cross gradient to the
 contaminant plume.   At some future time if the plume  is  not
treated and the Bel Aire wells are pumped at high  capacity,  there
 is the potential that the plume may be drawn towards  the Bel Aire
well field.
                               14

-------
6.7  Current or Potential Future Natural Resource Use

The ground water, gardening,  and small-scale farming are the
present, and likely, the only future use anticipated for the
natural resources at the site.

                    7.0 SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS

The baseline risk assessment estimates what risks the site poses
if no action was taken.  It provides the basis for taking action
and identifies the contaminants and exposure pathways that need
to be addressed by the remedial action.  This section of the ROD
summarizes the results of the baseline risk assessment for this
site.

The site's risk are two fold.  The first is a risk to the health
of the residents who are currently using ground water as their
domestic water supply, and the second is to workers who may come
into contact with contaminated soils or ground water.  VOCs at
concentrations above the MCLs have been found in the wells of the
residents, and additional ground water monitoring has delineated
a plume of contamination which contains a variety of VOCs in
excess of the MCLs.  The area of concern has been defined as that
which is currently known or suspected to have contaminated ground
water above the MCLs.  The response action selected in this ROD
is necessary to protect the public health or welfare of the
environment from actual or threatened releases of hazardous
substances into the environment.

7 .1  Human Health Risk

Several contaminants detected in the ground water were found to
exceed MCLs.  They  include PCE, 1,1-DCE, TCE, and vinyl chloride.
Of these, vinyl chloride presents the greatest risk and is the
most prevalent in the Riverview plume, but almost absent in the
northern plume where levels of the other contaminants are
significantly higher than in the Riverview plume.  In addition,
the presence of  levels of 4-methyl-2-pentanone,  ethylbenzene, and
toluene in soils on the  former Wilko Paint facility presents
direct  contact concern for the soils there.
                                15

-------
At this time, the exposure of the population to ground water
above MCLs and soils exceeding health-based levels is sufficient
to establish risk.  The actions proposed in this ROD will remove
the contamination from the ground water and soils so the risk to
the exposed population will be reduced to acceptable levels.  It
is anticipated that the measures will prevent future migration of
the plume from the site while treating the plumes until they are
below MCLs.  The treatment of the soils will reduce the
contaminant concentrations to below health-based levels of
concern.  The results of the risk assessment indicate that,  based
on current data, there are risks to workers through exposure to
soil.  The primary risk is from dermal contact to surface soil
containing high levels of 4-methyl-2pentanone,  ethylbenzene, and
toluene on the former Wilko Paint property.

7.1.1     Chemicals of Concern

The following tables are comprehensive listings of the
contaminants found at the site.  The contaminants listed in the
tables were used to identify the risks at the site.
                               16

-------
TaJble 7-1 Summary of Chemicals of Concern and
Medium-Specific Exposure Point Concentrations
Scenario Time Frame : Current
Medium: Ground Water
Exposure Medium Ground Water
Exposure
Point
Ground
Water on-
site-
Ingestion
Chemical of
Concern
1 , 1 -Dichloroethane
1 , 1 -Dichloroethene
1,1, 1-Trichloroethane
1, 2 -Dichloroethane
Cis-1,2-
Dichlorotthene
1,2,4-
Trimethylbenzene
Acetone
Benzene
Chloroethane
Ethyl Benzene
Concentration
Detected
Min
0.61
0.59
0.53
1.2
0.7
0.67
8
0.52
1.3
5
Max
54
4.9
13
1.2
64
4.6 •
10
15
120
120
Units
PPB
PPB
PPB
PPB
PPB
PPB
PPB
PPB
PPB
PPB
Frequency
of
Detection
18/47
07/47
08/47
01/47
19/47
02/47
03/47
10/47
08/478
03/47
Exposure Point
Concentration
54
4.9
13
1.2
64
4.6
10
15
120
120
17

-------
Table 7-1 Summary of Chemicals of Concern and
Medium-Specific Exposure Point Concentrations
Scenario Time Frame: Current
Medium: Ground Water
Exposure Medium Ground Water
Exposure Point
Ground Water
on-site -
Ingest ion
Chemical of Concern
Isopropylbenzene
Methylene Chloride
Naphtalene
Tetrachloroethene
Toluene
Trichloroethene
Vinyl Chloride
Xylene (total)
Concentration
Detected
Min
2.2
0.51
1
0.55
4
0.65
7.2

Max
10
0.57
1
3.8
53
7.1
8.7

Units
PPB
PPB
PPB
PPB
PPB
PPB
PPB

Frequency of
Detection
02/47
02/47
01/47
04/47
02/47
14/47
02/47

Exposure Point
Concentration
10
0.57
1
3.8
53
7.1
8.7

18

-------
                       Table  7-1 Summary of Chemicals of  Concern and
                         Medium-Specific Exposure Point Concentrations
Scenario Time Frame:
Medium:
Exposure Medium
Current
Ground Water
Ground Water
Key
ppm: Parts per billion
MAX: Maximum Concentration

The table presents  the chemicals of  concern and exposure point concentrations  for each of the chemicals  of
concern detected in ground water (i.e., the concentrations that will be used to estimate the exposure risk
from each chemical  of concern in the ground water).   The table includes the ranges of concentrations
detected for each chemical of concern,  as well as the frequency of detection  (i.e., the number of times
the chemical was detected in the samples collected at the site),  the exposure  point concentration (EPC),
and how the EPC was derived.  The table indicates that cis-l,2-Dichloroethene  is the most frequently
detected chemical of concern in ground  water at the site.
                                                  19

-------
                       TABLE  7-2  Summary of Chemicals  of Concern and
                         Medium-Specific Exposure Point Concentrations
Scenario Time Frame:  Current
Medium:                 Soil
Exposure Medium        Soil
Exposure
Point
Soil on-
site-
Direct
Contact
Chemical of
Concern
4 -methyl- 2 -pentone
Ethylbenzene
Toluene
Concentration
Detected
Min
160
320
13
Max
160
600
330
Units
ppm
ppm
ppm
Frequency
of
Detection
01/10
02/10
6/10
Exposure Point
Concentration
160
600
330
Statistical
Measure
MAX
MAX
MAX
Key
ppm: Parts per million
MAX: Maximum Concentration
The table presents  the chemicals of concern and exposure point concentrations  for each of the chemicals  of
concern detected  in soil  (i.e.,  the concentrations that will be used to estimate the exposure risk from
each chemical  of  concern in the soil).  The table includes the ranges of concentrations detected for each
chemical of concern, as well as the frequency of detection  (i.e., the number of times the chemical was
detected in the samples collected at the site),  the exposure point concentration  (EPC),  and how the EPC
was derived.   The table indicates that  Toluene is the most frequently detected chemical of concern in soil
at the site.
                                                  20

-------
7.1.2 Exposure Assessment

There are three distinct steps for the exposure assessment
process:  (1) characterizing the exposure setting,-  (2) identifying
exposure pathways; and  (3) quantifying exposure.  The exposure
setting is characterized by describing the site's physical
features as well as identifying potentially exposed populations.
Potentially exposed populations include those individuals
potentially exposed under current or future land use.

The exposure pathway for the site consists of four elements:  (1)
a source and mechanism of contaminant release;  (2) a retention or
transport medium;  (3)  a point of potential human contact with the
contaminated medium (i.e., the exposure point) ,- and  (4) an
exposure route  (i . e. ,ingestion, inhalation, and dermal contact)
at the contact point.   If all four elements are present, the
exposure pathway is considered "complete".  Points of potential
human contact and exposure routes are evaluated under both
current and future land-use scenarios.  Exposure routes represent
the means of contact between the potentially exposed population
and a medium such as soil or ground water.  This would include
human contact by ingestion or dermal absorption  (skin contact) .
The last step involves the calculation of the data using approved
formulas for determining exposure.

The maximum detected concentration for each contaminant in  the
ground water was used as the reasonable maximum exposure  (RME) in
the risk calculations.  The maximum was used to conservatively
predict the risk from a point source of contamination such  as a
residential well.  To arrive at an appropriately conservative
estimate of exposure to contaminated soil, the  95th percent  upper
one-sided confidence limit  (95th UCL) on the log normally
transformed data were used to calculate a RME.   If the data
contained less than ten samples or the 95th UCL  exceeded the
maximum detected concentrations, the maximum concentration  was
used.

7.1.3     Toxicity Assessment

The toxicity data were obtained from the EPA's  1997  Integrated
Risk  Information System  (IRIS) database.  When  data  were not
available in IRIS, supplemental sources of information were used,
                                21

-------
such as values from the Health Effects Assessment Summary Tables
or interim values used by the agency.  Tables found in Appendix B
provide a summary of the carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic
toxicity data used to calculate the risk of each chemical of
concern.

7.1.4     Risk Characterization

The information generated by the toxicity assessment is combined
with information from the site-specific exposure assessment to
quantify the carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic effects associated
with the chemicals of potential concern.

Carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic effects are calculated for each
pathway of exposure and each chemical of potential concern.
Carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic values, respectively, are added
for all chemicals in an exposure pathway (e.g.,  incidental
ingestion of soil).   The totals for all exposure pathways in a
given population  (e.g., current :on-site resident) are added to
give an estimate of the population risks.  These values may be
found in the tables located in Appendix B.

7.1.5     Conclusions                                                jjfa

Both current and future risks to all evaluated populations are
above acceptable levels.  These values indicate concern for both
non-carcinogens and carcinogens for the current and future
populations expected to occur at the 57ch & N. Broadway site.

The potential for non-carcinogenic effects is evaluated by
comparing an exposure level over a specified time period  (e.g.,
lifetime) with a reference dose (RfD) derived for a similar
exposure period.  A RfD represents a level that an individual may
be exposed to that is not expected to cause any deleterious
effect.  The ratio of exposure to toxicity is called a hazard
quotient (HQ).  A HQ of less than 1 indicates that a receptor's
dose of a single contaminant is less than the RfD, and that toxic
non-carcinogenic effects from that chemical are unlikely.  The
Hazard Index (HI) is generated by adding the HQs for all
chemical(s) of concern that affect the same target organ  (e.g.,
liver) or that through the same mechanism of action within a
medium or across all media to which a given individual may
                                22

-------
reasonably be exposed.  A HI greater than 1 indicates that, based
on the sum of all HQ's from different contaminants and exposure
routes, toxic non-carcinogenic effects from all contaminants are
unlikely.  A HI greater than 1 indicates that site-related
exposures may present a risk to human health.  The population
hazard index for current and future residents is 5.38, which is
above the acceptable hazard index of 1.0.  The primary non-
carcinogenic risk is from incidental ingestion of ground water
containing arsenic, which is present in the industrial portion of
the site.  For carcinogens, risks are generally expressed as the
incremental probability of an individual's developing cancer over
a lifetime as a result of exposure to the carcinogen.  These
risks are probabilities that usually are expressed in scientific
notation  (e.g., IxlO'6) .  An excess lifetime cancer risk  of  IxlO'6
indicates that an individual experiencing the reasonable maximum
exposure estimate has a 1 in 1,000,000 chance of developing
cancer as the result of site-related exposure.  This is referred
to as an  "excess lifetime cancer risk" because it would be  in
addition to the risks of cancer individuals face from other
causes.  The EPA's generally acceptable risk range for site-
related exposures is 10'4 to 10'6.  The population  risk for current
and future residents is 1.2 x 10'3, which  is above the acceptable
risk range of 1 x 10"6  to 1 x  lO'4.   This  carcinogenic risk is
primarily due to the incidental ingestion of ground water
containing vinyl chloride.

The population hazard  index for current workers is 1.85, which is
above the acceptable hazard index of  1.0.  The primary non-
carcinogenic risk is from dermal contact with surface soil
containing 4-methyl-2-pentanone, ethylbenzene, and toluene.  The
population, risk for a  current worker  is 2.87 x 10"4,  which  is
above the acceptable risk range of Ix 10'6  to  1 x  10~4.   This
carcinogenic risk is primarily due to the incidental  ingestion,of
ground water containing vinyl chloride.  The population  hazard
index  for current workers is 1.85, above the acceptable  hazard
index of  1.0.  The primary non-carcinogenic risk  is  from dermal
contact with soil containing 4-methyl-2-pentanone, ethylbenzene,
and toluene.  The population risk for future workers  is  2.88 x
10'4,  which  is  above  the  acceptable  risk range  of  1 x lO'6 to 1 x
10'4.   This  carcinogenic  risk  is primarily due  to  the incidental
ingestion of ground water containing vinyl chloride.
                                23

-------
 In  conclusion,  the  57ch & N.  Broadway  site  represents both non-
 carcinogenic  and  carcinogenic risks to both  current  and future
 on-site  residents and worker populations.

 7.2   Ecological Risks

 An  ecological characterization was completed for  the site and
 presented  in  a technical  memorandum,  "Ecological  Site
 Characterization".  The ecological assessment of  the site was
 performed  to  determine the ecological resources present and their
 general  condition.  Data  were obtained through a  review of
 existing literature and observations made  during  the
 reconnaissance  site visit on March 31 and  April 1, 1997.   The
 assessment included an evaluation of wetlands, demographics,
 wildlife,  and available habitat at the site.

 There is no designated critical habitat for  threatened  or
 endangered wildlife species  within the site.  Off site,
 threatened and  endangered species were identified within  a four-
 mile radius of  the site.  In addition, wetlands were identified
 within 15 miles downstream of the site.

 The majority  of contamination identified at  the site included
 VOCs detected in the ground water.  The floodways on site act as
 a recharge to the ground water.   Therefore,  ecological  exposure
 to contaminants at the site  is not expected.

                  8.0  REMEDIAL ACTION  OBJECTIVES

 This section presents the remedial action objectives  developed to
 address the ground water and soil contamination at the  57th & N.
 Broadway site.  CERCLA, as amended by Section 121(b)   of SARA,  42
 USC § 9621(b), requires selection of remedial actions to  attain a
 degree of clean up that ensures  protection of human  health and
 the environment, is cost-effective,  and uses permanent  solutions
 and alternative treatment technologies or resource technologies
 to the maximum extent practicable.

To satisfy CERCLA requirements,  remedial action objectives were
developed for the  57ch  & N. Broadway site.  Remedial  action
objectives were used to develop  remedial action alternatives.
                               24

-------
Remedial action objectives developed- for contaminated ground
water and soils include the following:

     •    Prevent ingestion, inhalation, or direct contact with
          ground water having vinyl chloride, PCE, TCE, or
          1,1-DCE at concentrations in excess of current federal
          and state regulatory drinking water standards.  Current
          regulatory drinking water standards include MCLs, which
          are maximum permissible levels as established by the
          SDWA,  [42 U.S. C.§ 300(f) et seq.1  for a contaminant in
          water that is delivered to any user of a public water
          system;

     •    Prevent further migration of contaminants to prevent
          degradation of natural resources and the potential
          contamination of additional water supply wells; and

     •    Treat soils above health-based levels to prevent direct
          contact or subsequent  contamination of ground water.

                 9.0 DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES

This section presents the remedial action  alternatives developed
to address the ground water and  soil  contamination in  the 57th  &
N. Broadway site.  These alternatives have been developed to
determine the appropriate remedial action  necessary for the site.
Seven remedial action alternatives have been developed to address
the ground water contamination at  the site. Five  remedial action
alternatives have been developed to address the soil
contamination at the site.

                    Ground Water Alternatives

     Alternative 1 - No Action
     Alternative 2 - Natural Attenuation
     Alternative 3 - Containment/Air  Stripping w/Tray  Aeration
     Alternative 4 - Containment/In Situ Vapor Extraction
     Alternative 5 - Active Restoration/Air  Stripping  w/Tray
                     Aeration
     Alternative 6 - Active Restoration/In Situ Vapor  Extraction
     Alternative 7 - Active Restoration/In Situ Chemical
                     Oxidation and In Situ Vapor  Extraction
                                25

-------
                        Soil Alternatives

     Alternative 1 - No Action
     Alternative 2 - Containment/Slurry Wall & Cap
     Alternative 3 - Excavation and Off-site Incineration
     Alternative 4 - Excavation and Off-site Landfill Disposal
     Alternative 5 - In Situ Soil Vapor Extraction

9.1 Ground Water Alternatives

9.1.1  Alternative 1:  No Action

The Superfund Program requires that the "no action" alternative
be evaluated at every site to establish a baseline for
comparison.  Under this alternative,  EPA will take no further
actions and the site is left "as is."  No funds will be expended
for monitoring, control, or clean up of the contaminated ground
water.  Operation and Maintenance  (O&M) is the average annual
cost for five-year reviews.  Cost estimates for this remedy are
found in Appendix C.  The time for the contaminants to degrade
below MCLs is unknown.  Thirty years have been used for
estimating purposes.

Capital Cost: $0
Annual O&M: $1,390
Present Worth: $41,700  (using a 5 percent discount rate)
Months to Implement:  None

9.1.2      Alternative 2: Natural Attenuation

Alternative 2 would consist of a focused ground water monitoring
program and the use of institutional controls.  Focused ground
water modeling arid aquifer screening models would be used to
determine if natural attenuation is occurring.  The institutional
controls would consist of access and use restrictions, public
education, voluntary deed restrictions, and permits.  A detailed
sampling and quality assurance plan would be written to perform
the ground water monitoring.  The  sampling and quality assurance
plans would include sample locations, sample frequency, sample
procedures, sample analysis methods, and sample documentation.
For the purpose of developing this alternative, it was assumed
that four new monitoring well nests would be installed.  Because
                                26

-------
contaminants  have  been  found at the  top  and  bottom of  the
aquifer, each well nest would  consist  of two wells,  one screened
at the top  of the  ground water table and a second  screened at  the
bottom of the aquifer.  The design of  the monitoring system and
procedures  and installation of the new wells is  estimated  to take
about two months.   Detailed cost  estimates are in  Appendix C.

Description of Remedy Components

•    Natural  attenuation - the ability of .the subsurface to
     naturally treat the contaminants, via biodegradation,
     chemical reactions, dispersion  and  dilution,  sorption,  and
     volatilization.

     •    Both the northern and the  Riverview plumes will  be
          treated  using natural attenuation.

     •    Contaminant levels have decreased  several orders of
          magnitude in the last ten  years; this  indicates  the
          potential for natural attenuation  to achieve clean-up
          levels.

     •    If  it is determined  that natural attenuation is  not
          successful, an alternative remedy  will be selected to
          complete the clean up.

•    Monitoring System - a system of monitoring  wells to monitor
     the plumes and to determine  if  the  natural  processes  are  in
     fact continuing to clean  up  the contaminants.

•    Voluntary deed restrictions such as  easements or  covenants and
     permits would  restrict the use  of  contaminated  ground water for
     drinking  purposes. Local government  would be responsible to
     implement and maintain the restrictions and permits.

Capital Cost:   $10,600
Annual O&M  Costs:  $11,200 to $49,100
Present Worth: $333,900  (using a 5  percent  discount rate)
Estimated Implementation Time:     2 months  to implement and an
                                   estimated 30-year total
                                   duration
                                27

-------
 9.1.3 Alternative 3:  Containment/Air  Stripping  with  Tray  Aeration

 Alternative 3 includes the  extraction of  ground water  at  a  rate
 to contain the contaminant  plume.   It is  estimated that three
 extraction wells, pumping at  a  rate of approximately 100  gallons
 per minute (gpm)  each,  for  a  combined capacity  of 300  gpm would
 be necessary to contain the plume.  Extracted ground water  would
 be piped from each well and treated by air  stripping with tray
 aeration at a single  air stripper.  The treated ground water
 would then be discharged to the nearby Chisholm Creek  Floodway.
 The alternative also  includes ground  water  monitoring  to
 determine the effectiveness of  the  treatment system  and
 institutional controls  to prevent exposure  to the ground  water
 until  remediation goals are achieved.  It  is estimated  that  the
 time  required to  achieve clean-up goals would be in  excess  of 30
 years; for cost purposes, 30 years  have been used.   Detailed cost
 figures  are in Appendix C.  It is estimated that the engineering
 design will take  approximately eight  months to  complete;  then it
 will  require  an additional  eight months to  obtain the  required
 equipment,  install monitoring and extraction wells.  Actual
 construction  and  startup of the ground water treatment system
 will take  an  additional  eight months.    It is estimated that the
 time for  the  notice to proceed with the design  to limited startup
 would be  approximately  fifteen to twenty-four months.

 Description of Remedy Components

 •    Ground water will be extracted via three extraction wells,
     each extracting ground water at the rate of 100 gpm from the
     northern plume.

 •    No additional treatment of the Riverview plume is necessary
     as that is being contained and treated under the OU 2
     action.

•    The  rate of pumping is  sufficient to contain and treat the
     ground water in the northern  plume.

•    Treated water will be discharged  to the Chisom Creek
     Floodway.
                               28

-------
•    The pumped ground water will be treated via tray aeration
     air stripping.

•    As treatment decreases the size of the plume,  pumping rates
     will be adjusted to address smaller plume size as
     appropriate.

•    Ground water monitoring would continue for a period of time
     once clean-up levels are reached to ensure effectiveness of
     treatment.

•    Voluntary deed restrictions such as easements or covenants
     and permits would restrict the use of contaminated ground
     water for drinking purposes.  Local government would be
     responsible to implement and maintain the restrictions and
     permits.

Capital Cost:  $630,800
Annual O&M Costs:1st year $114,800; thereafter $59,800 to $83,700
Present Worth:  $1,680,900    (using a 5 percent discount rate)
Estimated Implementation Time:      24 months to implement and an
                                   estimated 30-year total
                                   duration.

9.1.4 Alternative 4:  Containment/In Situ (in place) Vapor
      Extraction

Ground Water Alternative 4 includes in situ treatment of
contaminated ground water through use of a series of in situ
vapor stripping  wells to contain the ground water contaminant
plume.  The contaminants would  be transferred from the ground
water to the air by creating a  circulation zone of aerated water.
The vapors are extracted by using a blower and discharged to the
atmosphere.  The alternative also includes ground water
monitoring to determine the effectiveness of the treatment system
and institutional controls to prevent contact with ground water
until remediation goals are achieved.  The cost estimate is based
upon ten wells,  the actual number required will be determined
during the design of the remedy.  Details on the cost estimate
are in Appendix  C.  The time required to achieve clean-up goals
is estimated to  be greater than 30 years.  The time to actually
                               29

-------
 construct the alternative would require about eight months for
 the^engineering design and another eight months for obtaining the
 equipment necessary and installation of the in-situ vapor
 extraction wells and monitoring wells.  Some of these tasks could
 be conducted concurrently with equipment lead time.  It is
 estimated that the time from the notice to proceed with the
 design to limited startup would be approximately twelve months.

 Description of Remedy Components

 •     Ground water will be treated via a series of in-well
      strippers designed to contain the plume as it is treated.

      No additional treatment  of the Riverview plume is necessary
      as that plume is  being contained and treated under OU 2
      remedial action.

 •     Continuous  evaluations will  be made  to determine if one  or
      more  of the  in-well  strippers may be  turned  off  once the
      plume is reduced  by  the  treatment system.

 •     Ground  water  monitoring  would continue  for a  period of time
      once  clean-up  levels  are reached to  ensure effectiveness of
      treatment.

 •     Voluntary use  restrictions such  as easements  or  covenants
      and permits will be required  to  prohibit  the  use  of  the
      ground water for drinking purposes.  Local government will
     be responsible to implement and  maintain  the  voluntary use
     restrictions and permits.

Capital Cost: $356,200
Annual O&M Costs:1" year $104,300;  thereafter  $49,300  to  $73  200
Present Worth:  $1,244,900    (using a 5 percent discount rate)
Estimated Implementation Time:     12 months to implement and an
                                   estimated 30-year total
                                   duration.
                               30

-------
9.1.5 Alternative 5:  Active Restoration/Air Stripping with Tray
      Aeration                                            ,

Alternative 5 includes the extraction of  ground water at a rate
to actively restore the aquifer.   Six extraction wells,  pumping
at a rate of approximately 75 gpm each,  for a combined capacity
of 450 gpm, would be necessary to actively restore the plume.
Extracted ground water would be treated by air stripping with
tray aeration.  The treated ground water would then be discharged
to the nearby Chisholm Creek Floodway.  The alternative also
includes ground water monitoring to determine the effectiveness
of the treatment system and institutional controls to prevent
exposure to the ground water until remediation goals are
achieved.  The time required to achieve clean-up goals is
estimated to be 20 years.  The estimate for initiation of the
project includes eight months for engineering design, eight
months for obtaining the necessary equipment and installation of
monitoring and extraction wells,  and eight months for
construction and startup of the ground water treatment facility.
Some of these tasks could be performed concurrently.  It  is
conservatively estimated that the time from the notice to proceed
with design to limited startup would be fifteen to twenty-four
months.  Details of the cost estimate are  in Appendix C.

Description of the Remedy Components

•    Ground Water will be extracted via six extraction wells,
     each  extracting ground water at  the rate of 75  gpm.

•    The rate of pumping is sufficient to  treat the  ground water
     in  the northern plume and the Riverview plume will be
     treated  as  it is  contained.

•    Treated  water will be discharged to the Chisom  Creek
     Floodway.

•    The pumped  ground water will be  treated via tray aeration
     air stripping.

 •    Upon  shrinking  the plume, pumping rates will  be adjusted to
     address  smaller plume  size  as appropriate.
                                31

-------
•    Ground water monitoring would continue  for  a  period of time
     once c'lean-up levels are reached  to  ensure  effectiveness of
     treatment.

•    Voluntary  deed restrictions such as  easements or  covenants and
     permits  would restrict the use of  contaminated ground water for
     drinking purposes.  Local government will be responsible for
     implementation and maintenance of  the voluntary deed
     restrictions and permits.

Capital Cost:  $844,000
Annual O&M Costs:lst  year $139,900  thereafter $82,600 to $104,900
Present Worth:  $1,989,700     (using a 5  percent discount rate)
Estimated Implementation Time:     12  months  to  implement and an
                                   estimated  20-year total
                                   duration.

9.1.6  Alternative 6: Active Restoration/In  Situ Vapor Extraction

Ground water Alternative 6 includes  in situ  treatment  of
contaminated ground  water through use  of  a series  of in situ
vapor stripping wells to actively restore the aquifer.   The
contaminants would be transferred from the ground  water to the
air by creating a circulation zone of  aerated water.  The vapors
are extracted by using a blower  and  discharged to  the  atmosphere.
The alternative also includes ground water monitoring  to
determine the effectiveness of the treatment  system and
institutional controls to prevent exposure to ground water until
remediation goals are achieved.  The cost estimate is  based upon
20 wells; the actual number required will be  determined during
the design of the remedy.  Detailed  cost  estimates are in
Appendix C. The time required to achieve  clean-up  goals is
estimated to be ten  years.  The  time to actually construct the
alternative is estimated to be eight months  for  engineering
design and ten months to acquire the necessary equipment and
install the in-situ  vapor extraction and  monitoring wells.   Some
of these tasks could be performed concurrently.  It is estimated
that from the time the notice to proceed  with the  design to
limited startup would be approximately fourteen  months.
                                32

-------
Description of Remedy Components

• •   Ground water will be treated via a series of in-well
     strippers designed to contain and treat the plume.

•    Additional treatment of the Riverview plume may be necessary
     to supplement the action taken under the OU 2 remedial
     action.  If so, additional wells will be added as necessary.

•    Continuous evaluations will be made to determine the
     effectiveness of the system.

•    Ground water monitoring would continue for a period of time
     once clean-up levels are reached to ensure effectiveness of
     treatment.

•    Voluntary deed restrictions such as easements or covenants
     and permits would restrict the use of contaminated ground
     water for drinking purposes.  Local government will be
     responsible for implementation and maintenance of the
     voluntary deed restrictions and permits.

Capital Cost: $658,700
Annual O&M Costs:1st year $127,300; thereafter $81,200 to $96,200
Present Worth:  $1,350,600    (using a 5 percent discount rate)
Estimated Implementation Time:     14 months to implement and an
                                   estimated 10-year total
                                   duration.

9.1.7  Alternative 7: Active Restoration/In Situ Chemical
      Oxidation and In Situ Vapor Extraction

Ground Water Alternative 7 includes the in situ treatment of
contaminated ground water through the use of in situ chemical
oxidation and in situ vapor extraction to obtain active
restoration of the aquifer in the northern plume and in situ
vapor extraction of the plume in the Riverview area as discussed
in Alternative 6.   Chemical oxidants, the most commonly used are
hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) and potassium permanganate  (KMnO4) ,  will
be injected into the ground water through temporary wells to
degrade the contaminants.  The in-situ chemical oxidization will
we used in the areas of the northern plume that have the highest
                               33

-------
concentrations, and in-situ vapor extraction will be used in the
areas where the contamination is lower.   The alternative also
includes ground water monitoring to determine the effectiveness
of the treatment system and institutional controls to prevent
exposure to ground water until remediation goals are achieved.
The cost estimate is based upon 1,000 injection points; the
actual number required will be determined during the design of
the remedy.  O&M is the average annual cost for five-year reviews
and the operation of the in-well strippers.  The time required to
achieve this remedial action alternative is estimated to be ten
years.  The in-situ chemical oxidation portion would be completed
approximately one year after installation, and the in-situ vapor
extraction portion would continue to run for ten years to
complete restoration of the aquifer.  The time to actually
construct the alternative would require eight months for
engineering design and twelve months for equipment lead time and
installation of the in-situ chemical oxidation wells, the in-situ
vapor extraction wells and the monitoring wells.  Some of the
tasks could be performed concurrently, and it is estimated that
the time from the notice to proceed with the design to limited
startup would be approximately fourteen months.  Cost estimate
details are in Appendix C.

Description of the Remedy Components

•    The northern plume will be treated through a number of
     locations.  The cost estimate is based on 1,000 injection
     points with an oxidation compound and down gradient in-well
     strippers that will treat the remainder of the plume.

•    Evaluations will be made to determine if additional in-well
     strippers will be required in the Riverview plume.

•    Voluntary deed restrictions such as easements or covenants
     and permits would restrict the use of contaminated ground
     water for drinking purposes.  Local government will be
     responsible for implementation and maintenance of the
     voluntary deed restrictions and permits.
                               34

-------
Capital Cost: $2,375,100
Annual O&M Cost: 1st year $121,100 thereafter; $72,600 to  87,600
Present Worth: $3,002,900     (using a 5 percent discount rate)
Estimated Implementation Time:     14 months to implement and an
                                   estimated 10-year total
                                   duration.

9.2 Soil Remedial Action Alternatives

9.2.1 Alternative 1: No Action

The Superfund Program requires that the "no action" alternative
be evaluated at every site to establish a baseline for
comparison.  Under this alternative, EPA will take no further
actions and the site is left "as is."  No funds will be expended
for monitoring, control, or clean up of the contaminated soil.
O&M is the average annual cost for five-year reviews..  Cost
estimates for this remedy are found in Appendix C.

Capital Cost: $0
Annual O&M Costs: $1,000
Present Worth:  $27,800  (using a 5 percent discount rate)
Estimated Implementation Time:     0 months to implement and an
                                   estimated 30-year total
                                   duration.

9.2.2 Alternative 2: Containment

This alternative includes construction of a slurry wall and cap
to contain the contaminated soil.  The slurry wall would encircle
the area of contaminated soil and be keyed into the confining
layer below the aquifer.  This wall circling the contaminated
soil would prohibit contamination from moving away from the site,
while the cap would keep rain water and other water from
infiltrating through the contaminated soil.  These two together
would keep the contaminated soil on site and prevent it from
migrating to adjacent areas while eliminating any direct contact
threat.  The cap would be constructed of asphalt or asphaltic
concrete.  The useful life of the cap is estimated to be 30
years.  The time to actually construct the alternative would be
estimated at six months for the engineering design and six months
to construct the slurry wall and the cap.   From notification to
                               35

-------
proceed to completing of the cap and wall is estimated to take
twelve months.  O&M would include the repair and inspection of
the cap.  Details of the cost estimate are contained in Appendix
C.

Capital Cost: $1,337,300
Annual O&M Costs: $3,700 to $21,300
Present Worth:  $1,457,500     (using a 5 percent discount rate)
Estimated Implementation Time:     12 months to implement and
                                   maintained for at least 30
                                   years.

9.2.3 Alternative 3: Excavation and Off-site Treatment

This alternative includes excavation of the estimated 700 cubic
yards of contaminated soil, transportation to,  and treatment at
an off-site Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
incineration facility.  The time to implement the alternative
would require three months for the engineering design and
approximately three months to excavate and transport the material
off site.  The excavation time may be dependent on the capacity
available at the off-site facility, but prior planning and
scheduling could reduce the possibility of delays. The estimated    .^a.
time from the notice to proceed to the completion of the            ••
alternative is six months.  Six months is also the total duration
of the remedy.  Details of the cost for this alternative are in
Appendix C.

Capital Cost: $2,434,200
Annual O&M Costs: 0
Present Worth:  $2,434,200     (using a 5 percent discount rate)
Estimated Implementation Time:     6 months to implement and an
                                   estimated 6-month total
                                   duration.

9.2.4  Alternative 4: Excavation-and Off-site Disposal

This alternative includes excavation of the 700 cubic yards of         *•
contaminated soil, transportation to, and disposal at an off-site
RCRA landfill.  The time to implement the alternative would
require three months for the engineering design and approximately
three months to excavate and transport the material off site.
                                36

-------
The excavation time may be dependent oh the capacity available at
the off-site facility,  but prior planning and scheduling could
reduce the possibility of delays.  The estimated time from the
notice to proceed to the completion of the alternative is six
months.  Six months is also the total duration of the remedy.
Details of the cost for this alternative are in Appendix C.

Capital Cost: $1,030,500
Annual O&M Costs: $0
Present Worth:  $1,030,500    (using a 5 percent discount rate)
Estimated Implementation Time:      6 months implementation
                                   6-month total duration.

9.2.5  Alternative 5:  In Situ Soil Vapor Extraction  (SVE)

Under Soil Alternative 5, the VOC-contaminated soils at the site
would be treated in-place using SVE.  Three SVE wells and a
series of observation wells would be installed.  The soil vapor
containing the VOC contamination would be extracted through the
extraction wells using vacuum pumps.  Due to the low volume of
contaminants that will be extracted, the extracted contaminants
will be able to be released to the atmosphere.  Treatment will
continue until the contaminant levels in the soil reach clean-up
goals as defined by the levels of contaminant vapor being
extracted; see Table 2-5 in Appendix B.  It is estimated that the
SVE system will take eight months for the engineering design,
four months to acquire the required equipment and to install the
system, and two months to fine tune the system to site
conditions.  Some concurrent actions will be taken so it is
estimated that the time from the notice to proceed until the
system is functional will be ten months.  The total time of
operation once the system is operational is estimated to be
three-hundred days.  Since the system will not be in operation
more than one year, no annual O&M cost will be incurred.'  Details
of the cost estimate for the alternative are in Appendix C.

Capital Cost: $237,950
Annual O&M Costs: $0
Present Worth:  $237,950
Estimated Implementation Time:      10 months to implement and an
                                   estimated 300-day duration.
                               37

-------
            10.0  Comparative Analysis of Alternatives

 In this  section,  the remedial  alternatives  are  evaluated with
 respect  to certain  criteria so that  the  advantages  and
 disadvantages associated with  each clean-up option  for the  57ch &
 N.  Broadway site  are clearly understood.  Each  alternative  is
 compared to each  other relative to each  of  the  nine criteria
 identified in the NCP.

 The remedial  alternative evaluation  criteria have evolved as a
 result of statutory requirements that must  be addressed in  the
 ROD.  CERCLA  requires  that  remedial  actions meet the  following
 criteria:

      •     Be  protective  of  human health  and the environment;
      •     Attain  ARARs or provide grounds for invoking a waiver,-
      •     Be  cost-effective;
      •     Use permanent  solutions and alternative treatment
           technologies or resource recovery technologies to  the
           maximum extent practicable; and
      •     Satisfy the preference for treatment  that reduces
           toxicity,  mobility,  or volume  as  a principal element or
           provide an explanation in the  ROD of  why  it  does not.      ^g^

 The NCP and the "Interim Final  Guidance  for Conducting Remedial
 Investigations and  Feasibility  Studies Under CERCLA" provide  nine
 evaluation criteria  to address  the CERCLA statutory requirements
 considerations:

      •    Overall protection of human health  and the environment;
      •    Compliance with ARARs;
      •    Long-term  effectiveness and permanence;
      •    Reduction  of toxicity, mobility,  or volume through
          treatment;
      •    Short-term effectiveness;
      •    Implementability ,-
      •    Cost;
      •    State acceptance; and                                         «
      •    Community acceptance.

The following discussion presents the primary components  of each
of the nine criteria that are used to complete the detailed
                               38

-------
evaluation of  alternatives.  The first two criteria,  overall
protection of  human  health and the environment and  compliance
with ARARs,  are  considered threshold criteria.   These criteria
must be met  for  an alternative to be considered  a remedy for  a
site.  The next  five criteria are considered  balancing criteria.
Tradeoffs are  made between the alternatives with respect to the
balancing criteria;  however, specific weighing factors are  not
used.  State acceptance  and community acceptance are  considered
modifying criteria,  and  are used to assist in identifying and/or
modifying the  selected remedy after the public comment period.

10.1  EVALUATION OF  GROUND''WATER ALTERNATIVES

10.1.1  Overall  Protection of Human Health and the  Environment

This criterion provides  an overall assessment of whether each
alternative  will adequately protect human health and  the
environment.   The overall protectiveness focuses on whether an
Alternative  will achieve adequate protection  and how  site risks
will be eliminated,  reduced, or controlled through  treatment,
engineering, or  institutional controls.  This criterion is
considered a threshold criterion; that is, overall  protection
must be provided for an  alternative to be considered  as a remedy
for the site.

Alternative  1  is not protective of human health  or  the
environment.   Because no actions will be taken under  Alternative
1, the ground  water  contaminants may continue to migrate and
contaminate  the  public supply wells and produce  a larger
contaminant  plume.   Although no active remediation  would occur in
Alternative  2, this  alternative would provide continuing
monitoring of  the contaminant plumes to determine their migration
route and to determine if natural attenuation is occurring.
Alterative 2 would be protective of human health because the
monitoring would allow detection of contaminants at unacceptable
levels if the  plumes migrate.  Some protection of the environment
would occur  by determining if the contaminant concentrations  are
decreasing.  However if  concentrations do not decrease,  the
potential for  migration  of ground water contamination is also
likely.
                                39

-------
Alternatives 3 and 4 would provide more protection of human
health and the environment than Alternatives 1 and 2.  The
containment and treatment systems in Alternatives 3 and 4 would
be effective in ensuring that further migration of contaminants
does not occur; thus, the contaminants would not come into
contact with the public supply wells.  However, protection of the
environment would take longer to occur because, although ground
water would be extracted and treated, it would not be actively
remediated.  Thus, contaminated ground water would remain for an
extended period.

Alternatives 5, 6, and 7 would be protective of human health and
the environment because all ground water with contaminant
concentrations greater than clean-up levels would be actively
remediated.  The clean-up goals would be reached earlier with
Alternatives 6 and 7 than with Alternatives 2, 3, 4, and 5.   The
technology used in Alternatives 3 and 5 (extraction and treatment
with air stripping)  is proven effective for the removal of
volatiles from ground water and has been used at numerous sites.
The technologies used in Alternatives 4, 6, and 7  (in situ vapor
extraction and in situ chemical oxidation), are also effective in
the removal of volatiles from ground water.  However, the in situ
extraction and chemical oxidation technologies are innovative
technologies that do not have as long a history of success as
does the extraction and treatment with air stripping technology.

Only minor exposure to contaminants is expected during the
installation and operation of the various treatment systems.
Workers and the public are not expected to be exposed at any time
to levels exceeding appropriate risk levels.  If it is
anticipated that workers might be exposed to contaminant levels
that are unacceptable, that exposure will be mitigated by the use
of personal protective equipment.  Although the contaminants are
released into the air during treatment in Alternatives 3, 4,  5,
6, and 7, the potential for cross-media contamination is low
because the emission concentrations are not expected to be
significant and would have to conform with allowable emissions
rates set forth in the applicable air regulations.  Alternatives
6 and 7 provide the greatest protection to human health and the
environment.  These two alternatives provide treatment in-situ.
                               40

-------
10.1.2  Compliance with Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate
        Requirements (ARARs)

This criterion, also a threshold criterion,  assesses whether an
alternative will meet all federal and state ARARs for the site,
including action-specific ARARs.  ARARs were identified for the
site in the Technical Memorandum on Identification of Applicable
or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements which was produced in
preparation for the 57th & N. Broadway site remedial
investigation/feasibility study..  Section 121 (d) of CERCLA and
the NCP § 300 (f) (l)-(ii) (B)  require that remedial actions at
CERCLA sites attain ARARs,  unless such ARARs are waived under
CERCLA Section 121(d)(4).

Applicable requirements are those clean-up standards, standards
of control, and other substantive requirements, criteria, or
limitations promulgated under federal environmental or state
environmental of facility siting laws that specifically address a
hazardous substance, pollutant,  contaminant,' remedial action,
location, or other circumstance found at a CERCLA site.  Only
those state standards that are identified by a state in a timely
manner and that are more stringent than federal requirements may
be applicable.  Relevant and appropriate requirements are those
clean-up standards, standards of control and other substantive
requirements, criteria, or limitations promulgated under federal
environmental or state environmental of facility siting laws that
while not "applicable" to a hazardous substance, pollutant,
contaminant, remedial action, location, or other circumstance
found at a CERCLA site address problems or situations
sufficiently similar to those encountered at the CERCLA site that
their use is well-suited to the particular site.  Only those
state standards that are identified by a state in a timely manner
and that are more stringent than federal requirements may be
relevant and appropriate.

Alternative 1, if implemented, would not comply with the
chemical-specific ARARs because ground water that contained
contaminants with concentrations in excess of the clean-up goals
would remain unmonitored.   Location- and action-specific ARARs
would not be applicable because no action would occur.  The
remaining alternatives would comply with all state and federal
location-, chemical-, and action-specific ARARs.
                                41

-------
 10.1.3  Long-Term Effectiveness and Permanence

 This balancing criterion assesses the residual risk that will
 remain at the site after the remedial action objectives are
 achieved.  The extent and effectiveness of the controls needed to
 manage any treatment residuals or untreated media are assessed by
 qualitatively determining the magnitude of any residual risk
 remaining at the site at the conclusion of the remedial
 activities.   Also,  the adequacy and reliability of the controls
 that are used to manage any treatment residuals or monitor
 untreated media remaining at the site are  assessed.

 Because no remedial actions would occur, a long-term risk would
 be associated with  Alternative 1 as long as clean-up goals are
 exceeded.   The possibility exists for greater volumes of
 contaminated ground water to be generated.   This  is  also true for
 Alternative  2.   However,  in Alternative 2  an active  monitoring
 program would be put in place  to determine if natural attenuation
 is occurring and to determine  the migration pathway  of the
 plumes.   For Alternative 1,  no mechanism exists  to determine  if
 concentrations  are  increasing  or decreasing.   Thus,  the  long-term
 risk is  greater with Alternative 1  than with Alternative 2.

 Alternatives 3,  4,  5,  6,  and 7  would  have  no long-term risk.   A
 long-term  risk  would not  be  associated  with the treated  ground
 water in Alternatives  3,  4,  5,  6,  and 7.   Alternatives  6 and  7
 would offer  effectiveness  and permanence earlier  than
 Alternatives  3,  4,  and  5 because  water  would be remediated at  a
 faster rate.

 Five-year  reviews would be required for all  alternatives.
 Alternatives  1  and  2 would require the  greatest number of  five-
 year  reviews because restoration would  take  the longest.   Fewer
 reviews would be required for Alternatives  6 and  7 than  for
 Alternatives 3, 4,  and 5.

 The proposed monitoring plans and/or treatment technologies in
Alternatives 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 should adequately and
permanently achieve the performance specifications established  in
 the remedial action objectives.  However, some site conditions
 including the high ground water hardness and low level of
contamination would reduce the effectiveness of the in situ
                               42

-------
chemical oxidation in Alternative 7.   Because no action would
occur in Alternative 1, there would be no mechanism to determine
if remedial action objectives are being met.

Alternatives 5, 6, and 7 would all provide long-term
effectiveness and be permanent.  Alternatives 6 and 7 would do so
more quickly.

10.1.4  Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume through
       Treatment

This balancing criterion assesses the degree to which site media
will be treated to permanently and significantly reduce the
toxicity, mobility, or volume of site contaminants through
treatment.  This is accomplished by analyzing the destruction of
toxic contaminants, the reduction of the total mass of toxic
contaminants, the irreversible reduction in contaminant, mobility,
or the reduction in total volume of contaminated material.

Alternative 1 does not include treatment as a component.
Monitoring would be performed in Alternative 2; however,  it may
take several rounds of sampling, to determine if natural
attenuation is reducing the toxicity, mobility, or volume of the
contaminants.  A reduction in toxicity, mobility, or volume of
contaminants would occur in Alternatives 3, 4, 5, 6, and  7.  The
two containment alternatives, Alternatives 3 and 4, would reduce
the mobility of the contaminants by containing the plume  and
slowly reducing the contaminant concentrations.  Alternatives 5,
6, and 7, through active restoration of the aquifer, would reduce
the toxicity, mobility, and volume of the contaminants.   The
ground water treatment would be irreversible.  No residuals would
be produced from any of the alternatives.  All the alternatives
except Alternatives 1  and 2 would meet the statutory preference
for treatment as a principal element.  Alternatives 5, 6, and 7
achieve the reduction  more effectively than Alternatives  3 and 4.

10.1.5  Short-Term Effectiveness

This balancing criterion addresses the effects of an alternative
on site surroundings during the construction and implementation
phases of the remedial action, before remedial action objectives
are achieved.  These effects  include consideration of the
                                43

-------
 protection of  workers  and  the  community  during  remedial  action
 implementation,  environmental  impacts  that might  result  from
 construction or  implementation,  and  the  length  of time until the
 remedial  action  objectives are achieved.

 The  risk  to community  and  workers would  be minimal for all
 alternatives.  None  of the risks would be uncontrollable.   Nearby
 residents may  be exposed to contaminated dusts  during
 installation of  monitoring and extraction wells.   These  risks
 would be  controlled  by the use of dust suppressants.  The risk to
 workers would  be controlled by proper  use of personal protection
 equipment and  monitoring during  site activities.   The reduction
 would take much  longer under Alternative 3 than Alternatives
 4, 5, 6,  or 7.   Alternatives 4 and 5 would take longer than
 Alternative 6  or 7 to  reach clean-up goals and  reduce the
 toxicity,  mobility,  or volume  of the contaminants.

 The  time  to achieve  clean-up levels would be greatest for
 Alternatives 2,  3, and 4:  30 years.  Alternative  5 will  take less
;time than Alternatives  2,  3, and 4, but would take a much longer
 time than Alternatives  6 and 7.  It is estimated  that the time  to
 achieve clean-up  goals  for Alternative 5 will be  20 years.   The
 time to achieve  clean-up levels  for Alternatives  6 and 7 is           ^^
 estimated to be  10 years.   Because no  monitoring  would be             ••
 performed in Alternative 1,  it would be unknown if clean-up
 levels would ever be met.

 10.1.6  Implementability

 This balancing criterion addresses the technical  and
 administrative feasibility  of  implementing an alternative and the
 availability of various services and materials  required during
 implementation.  Technical  feasibility encompasses the technical
 difficulties and unknowns  associated with the alternative, the
 reliability of the technologies,  the ease of undertaking
 additional remedial actions  if necessary, and monitoring
requirements.  Administrative feasibility includes the activities
required  for coordination with other offices and  agencies.
Availability of services and materials includes the availability
of necessary equipment and  specialists, the ability to obtain
competitive bids, and the availability of prospective                    *
technologies.
                               44

-------
Because no actions would be taken during Alternative 1, this
criterion is  not applicable.  Alternative 2 would' be the easiest
of the, alternatives to implement.  Alternative 2 requires the
installation  of only four ground water monitoring well nests and
implementing  a ground water sampling program.  Alternatives 3, 4,
5, 6,  and 7 also include installation of the four monitoring
wells  nests and a ground water sampling program, and in addition
require the installation of additional wells  (extraction or
treatment) and treatment system components.  Alternative 4 would
be easier to  implement than Alternative 3 because the large
amount of piping to a treatment facility included in Alternative
3 would not be required.  The ground water treatment system
components  (pumps, piping, trays, etc.)  in Alternative 5 would be
larger and may require more maintenance than in Alternative 3.
Alternatives  4, 6, and 7 would be the more technically
challenging of the alternatives because they involve the use of
an innovative technology and fewer contractors are available who
can install an in-situ vapor extraction system (Alternates 4 and
6) or an in situ chemical oxidation system (Alternative 7).

Alternative 2 involves natural attenuation to reduce the
concentrations of the contaminants.   It is presently uncertain to
what extent natural attenuation'will occur.  It may take several
years to determine the rate of natural attenuation.  Alternatives
3 and 5 are proven and reliable.  ' The high hardness and low
contamination levels found at the site could pose a problem with
the effectiveness of the in situ chemical oxidation used in
Alternative 7.  Fouling problems associated with the ground water
hardness would also effect Alternatives 3,  4,  5,  and 6,  but
experience has proven that they'are manageable.  The in-situ
technologies of Alternatives 4 and 6 could more easily resolve
the problem than those requiring external pumping.   The
technologies used in Alternatives 4,  6,  and 7 are innovative
technologies that have not been in use as long as the technology
in Alternatives 3 and 5,  but have been used in a number of
locations with good success.

Implementation of Alternatives 4,  6,  and 7 would be consistent
with the Riverview area remedial  action.   The in-situ treatment
system installed as part of the Riverview remedial action could
be used if either Alternative 4,  6,  or 7 was implemented.
                               45

-------
No additional remedial actions are anticipated for each of the
alternatives with the exception of Alternative 2.  Again, for
Alternative 2 it is presently uncertain if natural attenuation
would occur at a rate fast enough to prevent migration of the
contaminants into the public water supply wells.  However, if the
alternative is not effective in meeting the remedial action
objectives, additional remedial actions could be evaluated and
implemented.  All migration or exposure pathways can be monitored
adequately and easily.

The necessary equipment and personnel required to implement each
alternative are readily available.  Pilot-scale and bench-scale
tests may be required for Alternatives 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7.  More
than one vendor is available for each alternative to provide a
competitive bid.

Alternatives 2, 3,  4, 5,  6, and 7 will require some construction
activity involving at least three political subdivisions of the
state of Kansas: Sedgwick County, Park City, and the city of
Wichita.  Concern with the location of public utilities will
impact the design of each of the remedies.  Use of public and
private property will be necessary for the installation and
operation of the various systems required by the alternatives.

These concerns are not foreseen as presenting unsurmountable
obstacles,  but the greater the number of wells, etc., required by
an alternative, the greater the implementation problem in this
area.  Alternative 7 with an estimated 1,000 injection points
could result in the greatest overall burden in this area.

10.1.7  Cost

The cost criterion involves an evaluation of the capital costs,
the annual O&M costs, and a present worth analysis.  The cost
estimates are approximate estimates made without detailed
engineering data.  It is normally expected that an estimate of
this type will be accurate to +50 percent and -30 percent.  The
actual costs of the project will depend on the final scope of the
remedial action, the schedule of implementation, actual labor and
material costs at the time of implementation,  competitive market
conditions, and other variable factors that may impact the
project costs.
                               46

-------
Only O&M costs, the five-year reviews,  converted to a total
present worth would be associated with Alternative 1.  The total
present worth of Alternative 1 would be the lowest at a cost of
$41,700.  The total present worth cost of Alternative 7 would be
the greatest at a cost of $3,002,900.  The total present worth
costs of Alternatives 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 are $333,900, $1,680,900,
$1,244,900, $1,989,700, and $1,350,600, respectively.  It should
be noted that there is little significant cost difference among
four of the five treatment Alternatives - 3,  4,  5, and 6.
Because of the variables involved in the estimates of the costs,
one or all of the four alternatives could increase or decrease
significantly.  Alternative 7 is the most costly and will be
under any expected conditions.  Details of the cost estimates are
located in Appendix B.

10.1.8 State Acceptance

The state of Kansas has expressed support for the treatment
remedies which reduce the contaminant concentrations to safe
drinking water levels.

10.1.9 Community Acceptance

In general, the community is supportive of the remedies which
treat the contaminant plumes, and provide low levels of intrusion
into the residential neighborhoods.  Specific comments and
responses are found in the Responsiveness Summary, Appendix A.

10.2 EVALUATION OF THE SOIL REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES

10.2.1  Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment

This criterion provides an overall assessment of whether each
alternative will adequately protect human health and the
environment.  The overall protectiveness focuses on whether an
alternative will achieve adequate protection and how site risks
will be eliminated, reduced, or controlled through treatment,
engineering, or institutional controls.

Alternative 1 would not protect human health and the environment
from the contaminants in the soil.  Because no actions would
occur under Alternative 1, the soil contaminants may migrate to
                               47

-------
the ground water and no reduction of the direct contact threat is
achieved.  Alternative 2 would be protective by providing
containment of the contaminated soil and monitoring of the
containment system.  Alternative 2 would be protective of human
health because the threat of direct contact with contaminated
soil would be controlled as well as limiting the further
contamination of ground water. •

Alternatives 3, 4, and 5 would be protective of human health and
the environment.  Excavation of the contaminated soil under
Alternatives 3 and 4 would remove .contaminants above clean-up
criteria from the site. Soil verification sampling would be
performed to ensure that clean-up criteria are met.  Alternative
4 would result in off-site landfilling of contaminated soil.
Alternative 5 would treat the soil in situ using SVE, thereby
removing the contaminants from the soil.

10.2.2  Compliance with ARARs

This criterion, also a threshold criterion, assesses whether an
alternative will meet all federal and state ARARs for the site,
including action-specific ARARs.  ARARs were identified for the
site in the Technical Memorandum on Identification of Applicable
or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements which was produced in
preparation for the 57ch & N. Broadway site remedial
investigation/feasibility study.  Section 121(d) of CERCLA and
the NCP § 300 (f) (1) (ii) (B) require that remedial actions at
CERCLA sites attain ARARs, unless such ARARs are waived under
CERCLA Section 121(d)(4).  See Section 10.1.2 for the definition
of ARARs.

Alternative 1,  if implemented, would not comply with the
chemical-specific  'to be considered' (TBC) criteria because soils
that contain contaminants with concentrations in excess of the
clean-up goals would remain unmonitored.  Location- and action-
specific ARARs would not be applicable because no action would
occur.  The remaining alternatives would comply with all state
and federal location- and action-specific ARARs, and chemical-
specific TBCs.
                                48

-------
10.2.3  Long-Term Effectiveness and Permanence

This balancing criterion assesses the residual risk that will
remain at the site after the remedial action objectives are
achieved.  The extent and effectiveness of the controls needed to
manage any treatment residuals or untreated media are assessed by
qualitatively determining the magnitude of any residual risk
remaining at the site at the conclusion of the remedial
activities.  Also, the adequacy and reliability of the controls
that are used to manage any treatment residuals or monitor
untreated media remaining at the site are assessed.

Because no remedial actions would occur,  a long-term risk would
be associated with Alternative 1.  The possibility exists for
migration of the contaminants from the soil to the ground water
and direct contact.  Alternative 2 would contain the contaminated
soils in place.  Alternative 2 is dependent upon a long-term
maintenance and monitoring program to ensure the effectiveness
and permanence of the remedy.  Alternative 2 is not a permanent
action and would have more residual risk than Alternative 3, 4,
and 5.  The effective life of a cap is estimated at 30 years.

Alternatives 3,  4, and 5 would have less of a long-term risk than
Alternative 2.  A long-term risk would not be associated with the
treated soil in Alternatives 3 and 5.  Off-site land filling, as
in Alternative 4,  is less permanent than Alternatives 3 and 5.

Five-year reviews would be required for Alternatives 1 and 2.  No
five-year reviews would be required for Alternatives 3, 4, or 5.

The proposed treatment technologies in Alternatives 3 and 5
should adequately and permanently achieve the performance
specifications established in the remedial action objectives.
Since no action would occur in Alternative 1,  there is no way to
determine if remedial action objectives are being met.

10.2.4  Reduction of Toxicity,  Mobility,  and Volume through
        Treatment

This balancing criterion assesses the degree to which site media
will be treated to permanently and significantly reduce the
toxicity,  mobility,  or volume of site contaminants.  This is
                               49

-------
 accomplished  by analyzing the destruction of  toxic  contaminants,
 the  reduction of the  total mass of toxic contaminants,  the
 irreversible  reduction  in contaminant mobility,  or  the  reduction
 in total volume of  contaminated material.

 Alternatives  1,  2,  or 4  do not include  treatment as a component
 of the remedy.   However, Alternative 2  would  reduce the mobility
 of the contaminants by  construction of  a containment system.
 Alternative 4  would reduce the mobility of  the  contaminants by
 containment in an off-site landfill.  A reduction in toxicity,          "
 mobility, and  volume  of  VOC contaminants occurs  with
 Alternatives  3  and  5.  VOC contaminants in  the  soil would be
 destroyed at  the off-site incinerator under Alternative 3.
 Alternative 5  would remove the VOCs from the  soil.

 10.2.5  Short-Term  Effectiveness

 This balancing  criterion addresses the  effects of an alternative
 on site surroundings  during the construction  and implementation
 phases of the  remedial action, before remedial action objectives
 are achieved.   These  effects include consideration  of the
 protection of workers and the community during remedial  action
 implementation,  environmental impacts that  might  result  from         ^^
 construction or  implementation,  and the length of time  until the     ••
 remedial action  objectives are achieved.                             '^r

 The risk to community and workers would be  minimal  for  all
 alternatives other  than Alternative 1.   All of the  risks would be
 controllable.  Nearby residents may be  exposed to contaminated
 dusts during excavation activities.  These  risks would be
 controlled by the use of dust suppressants.    The risk to workers
 would be controlled by proper use of personal protection
 equipment and monitoring during site activities.  Alternatives 3
 and 4 would present risks associated with transportation.
Alternative 3 would involve incineration and  any short-term risks
 associated with  incineration.

The time to achieve clean-up goals would be greatest for                >
Alternative 2, 30 years.  Alternatives  3 and 4 would take less
 time, 6 months,  than Alternative 5, 300 days.
                               50

-------
10.2.6  Implementability

This balancing criterion addresses the technical and
administrative feasibility of implementing an alternative and the
availability of various services and materials required during
implementation.  Technical feasibility encompasses the technical
difficulties and unknowns associated with the alternative, the
reliability of the technologies, the ease of undertaking
additional remedial actions if necessary, and monitoring
requirements.  Administrative feasibility includes the activities
required for coordination with other offices.and agencies.
Availability of services and materials includes the availability
of necessary equipment and specialists, the ability to obtain
competitive bids, and the availability of prospective
technologies.

Because no actions would be taken during Alternative 1, this
criteria is not applicable.  Alternative 2 would be the most
difficult of the alternatives to implement.  Alternative 2
requires the installation of a slurry wall'and cap.  Construction
of the slurry wall may be difficult because of the depth.
Alternative 5 would be more difficult to implement than
Alternatives 3 and 4 because it involves the use of an innovative
technology, and fewer contractors are available who can install
an in-situ vapor extraction system.  Alternatives 3 and 4 would
be the easiest alternatives to implement.  Excavation and
transportation are easily implemented and contractors that
specialize in these types of work are readily available.  All the
alternatives are proven and reliable.  No additional remedial
actions are anticipated for each of the alternatives.

The necessary equipment and personnel required to implement each
alternative are readily available.  Pilot-scale and bench-scale
tests may be required for Alternative 5.  More than one vendor is
available for each alternative to provide a competitive bid.

There will be impacts with truck traffic and/or excavation
equipment with all-of the alternatives.  Alternatives 3 and 4
will create the greatest disruption with both excavation and off-
site hauling.  Alternative 2 will create less disruption due to
the location and size of the soil contaminated area; however, the
installation of the slurry wall and cap will require significant
                                51

-------
 on-site activity.  Alternative 5 will only require the ingress
 and egress of the construction equipment and the installation of
 wells and some minor above ground equipment which should not
 create a problem in implementation,  thereby being the easiest to
 implement.

 10.2.7  Cost

 The cost criterion involves an evaluation of the capital costs,
 the annual O&M costs,  and a present  worth analysis.   The cost
 estimates are approximate estimates  made without detailed
 engineering data.   It  is normally expected that  an estimate  of
 this type will be accurate to  +50 percent and -30 percent.   The
 actual costs of the project will depend  on the final  scope of the
 remedial action,  the schedule  of implementation,  actual  labor and
 material costs at  the  time of  implementation,  competitive market
 conditions,  and other  variable factors that  may  impact the
 project costs.

 Only O&M costs converted to a  total  present  worth would  be
 associated  with Alternative 1.   The  total present worth  of
 Alternative  1  which  includes only cost for five-year  reviews
 would be the  lowest  at a cost  of  $27,800.  The total  present
 worth cost of  Alternative  3 would be  the  greatest  at  a cost of
 $2,434,200.  The total present worth  costs of Alternatives 2,  4,
 and  5  are $1,457,500,  $1,030,500  and  $237,950, respectively.'

 10.2.8  State Acceptance

 The  state of Kansas supports all  alternatives which permanently
 treat or remove soil contamination from the  site.

 10.2.9  Community Acceptance

The community supports  Alternative 5.  The community appears to
be^supportive of any remedy that results  in the contaminated soil
being removed or cleaned up.  One commentor pointed out that the
limited soil sampling done on the Wilko paint property was
insufficient to definitely rule out the presence  of significant
soil sources of contamination.   In response to that comment,
                               52

-------
additional soil sampling on the former Wilko Paint property as
well as that of. the Midland Refinery will be required.   Specific
comments may be found in Appendix A.

               11.0 Summary of the Selected Remedy

The selected remedial action represents the combination of ground
water and soil remediation alternatives that EPA determines to
provide the best balance of tradeoffs with respect to the
criteria discussed in Section 10.  Ground Water Alternative 6,
active restoration through in-situ vapor extraction,  is selected
for remediation of the ground water.  Soil Alternative 5, in-situ
vapor extraction,  is selected for the remediation of the soil
contamination.  No significant change has taken place between the
presentation of the Proposed Plan and the selection of this
remedy. However,  a minor modification which requires additional
soil sampling at the former Wilko Paint property has resulted
from review of comments received during the public comment
period.

It should be noted that the soil remedy calls for investigation
for soil contamination on the Midland Refinery and former Wilko
Paint properties.   If contaminated soil or buried containers are
found, Soil Alternative 5 is to be implemented at those
locations, along with the removal of any contaminated buried
objects and associated soils.  One specific element of the soil
investigation will consist of a test well on each property.  This
well will be utilized as a Soil Vapor Extraction test well to
determine if VOC contamination is present in the subsurface.

The selected remedy will achieve substantial risk reduction
through treatment  of the contaminated ground water and soils.
The selected remedy provides equal or greater protection of human
health and the environment than any of the other alternatives and
complies with ARARs.   The long-term effectiveness and permanence
of the selected remedy is equal to or greater than any of the
alternatives.  The selected remedy reduces the toxicity,
mobility, and volume of contaminants through treatment at levels
greater than or roughly equivalent to any of the other
alternatives.  The short-term effectiveness of the selected
remedy is greater than any other alternative.  The selected
remedy is easily implementable.  The selected remedy is in the
                               53

-------
same or lesser cost range as any of the active treatment
alternatives, given the variables associated with each of the
estimates.   The state and the community support the selected
remedy.  Therefore, it is believed that the selected remedy
provides the best balance of trade-offs among alternatives with
respect to the nine criteria used to evaluate the remedial action
alternatives.  Based on information available at this time, the
EPA and the state believe that the selected alternatives will
protect human health and the environment,  attain ARARs,  be cost-
effective,  and will use permanent solutions and alternative
treatment technologies to the maximum extent practicable.

The specific number and placement of in-situ treatment wells will
be determined during the remedial design.   This will be
accomplished using data obtained from the pilot test ongoing in
the Riverview OU.  At present, the entire area of the
contaminated ground water plumes is served by public water
supplies.  Not all residents in the plume areas are currently
connected to public water,  but no resident within the site is
currently known to be drinking contaminated water. Current county
regulations are sufficient to prohibit the introduction of new
wells in the contaminated plume, and there are provisions to
prohibit the use of existing wells which become contaminated.

It is possible that a fouling problem may develop with the
treatment wells.  If that occurs, system adjustments will be
required which may include the introduction of compounds to the
system to eliminate the fouling problem.  This could result in an
increase in cost.

The following are the components of the selected remedy.

•    Ground water Remedy

     •    Ground water will be treated via a series of in-well
          strippers. The ground water clean-up level will be the
          MCL for each of the Chemicals of Concern.
     •    Add wells for the treatment of the Riverview plume if
          determined necessary from enhanced design.
     •    Design of a complete monitoring system to evaluate the
          effectiveness of the treatment system as well as
          continually evaluate the plume location.  This will
                                54

-------
         assist  in determining if the plume is being  reduced or
         is migrating.
     •    Quarterly monitoring of the monitoring  system until
         such  time definite evidence that  the plume size is
         reducing.   At  that time, the frequency  of monitoring
         will  be re-evaluated.
     •    Quarterly evaluations of the treatment  system to
         determine if modifications will produce more efficient
         treatment of the plumes.
     •    Ground  water monitoring will continue for a  period of
         time  specified in the design document after  the
         monitoring  demonstrates that remediation goals have
         been  reached.
     •    Voluntary deed restrictions such  as easements or
         covenants and  permits would restrict the use of
         contaminated ground water for  drinking  purposes.   Local
         government  will be responsible for implementation and
         maintenance of the voluntary deed restrictions and
         permits.

•    Soil Remedy

     •    Design  of in-situ soil vapor extraction system for the
         site.   The  soils will be cleaned  up to  health-based
         levels  for  the Contaminants of Concern  (Table 11-1)'.
     •    Investigation  for soil contamination on the  Midland
         Refinery and  former Wilko Paint properties.
     •    Installation  of SVE system.

The cost estimate for the selected remedy  is detailed  in Appendix
C.  Total estimated cost for the  selected  remedy  is estimated as
the summation  of  the  cost for ground water  Alternative 6,
$1,350,600,  the cost  for soil Alternative  5, $237,950, and the
cost for the soils investigation  at Midland Refinery  and the
former Wilko Paint property, estimated at  $100,000, which totals
to be $1,688,550.
                               55

-------
                            Table  11-1
                  Risk Based Soil  Cleanup  Levels
Contaminant of
Concern
2-Butanone (MEK)
4 -Methyl - 2 - Pentanone
Acetone
Benzene
Ethylbenzene
Naphtalene
Toluene
Xylene (mixed)
Non- Carcinogenic
Cleanup Level
3900 ppm
520 ppm
560 ppm
180000 ppm
11,000 ppm
850 ppm
130 ppm
220000 ppm
Carcinogenic
Cleanup
Level (Risk =lxlQ-6)
na
na
na
11 ppm
na
na
na
na
Ground Water
Protection
Level
na
84 ppm
,16ppm
na
13 ppm
na
12 ppm
210
ppm s parts per million na = not applicable
                  12.0 STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS

Under its legal authority, EPA's primary responsibility at
Superfund sites is to undertake remedial actions that achieve
protection of human health and the environment. Ground water will
be treated to bring the contaminants of concern levels to meet
the minimum standard required for public drinking water supplies.
Soil remediation will take place to reduce the risk from
contaminated soils determined to require treatment to between
10"4 and 10'6 and the  Hazard Index to below  1.  In addition,  Section
121 of CERCLA establishes several other statutory requirements
and preferences. 'These specify that when complete, the selected
remedial action for this site must comply with ARARs unless a
statutory waiver is justified.  The selected remedial action must
also be cost-effective and utilize permanent solutions and
alternative treatment technologies or resource recovery
technologies to the maximum extent practicable.  Finally,  the
statute includes a preference for remedies that employ treatments
that permanently and significantly reduce the volume, toxicity,
                               56

-------
or mobility of the hazardous waste as their principal element.
The following subsections discuss how the selected remedy for the
57th & N. Broadway site meets these statutory requirements.

12.1 -Protection of Human Health and the Environment

The selected remedy protects human health and the environment by
treating the contaminated ground water plume and preventing
movement to areas currently not contaminated.  Additionally, the
contaminated, soils at the site will be treated so as to remove
the source of potential ground water contamination and direct
contact threat.

Implementation of the selected remedy will not pose any
unacceptable short-term risks or cross-media impacts to the site,
the workers, or the community.

12.2 Compliance with Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate
     Requirements

The selected alternative for the 57th & N. Broadway site will
comply with all ARARs for the site.   The following are the
federal and state chemical-specific ARARs and TBCs that pertain
to the selected remedy.

     •    Safe Drinking Water Act.
               National Primary Drinking Water Standards;  40 CFR
               Part 141,  Subparts B & G.
               National Secondary Drinking Water Standards;  40
               CFR Part 143.
               Maximum Contaminant  Level Goals ;  40 CFR Part 141,
               Subpart F.
               USEPA Soil Screening Guidance (USEPA 1996).
               USEPA Region III Risk-Based Concentration Table
               (USEPA 1998) .'
               KDHE Interim Remedial Guidelines for Contaminated
               Soils (KDHE 1985).
     •    Clean Water Act.
               Ambient Water Quality Criteria;  40 CFR Part 131.
                               57

-------
      •    Clean Air Act.
                National Primary and Secondary Ambient Air Quality
                Standards;  40  CFR Part 50.
                National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air
                Pollutants;  40 CFR Part 61.
      •    Kansas Ambient Air  Quality Standards and Air Pollution
           Control Regulations;  KAR 28.19.
      •    Kansas Water Quality Standards;  KAR 28.16.28.
      •    Kansas Drinking  Water Rules;  KAR 28.15.

 Remedial standards for ground water remediation have been adopted
 from the National Primary Drinking Water Standards and the Kansas
 Water Quality Standards.   Discharge of the  off gases to  the
 atmosphere will be regulated  by standards  set forth in the Clean
 Air  Act  and the Kansas Ambient  Air Quality  Standards and Air
 Pollution Control Regulations.

 The  following are the  federal  and state action-specific  ARARs
 that pertain to the selected  remedy.

      •    Occupational Safety  and Health Act.

      •    Clean Water  Act.
                Ambient Water Quality  Criteria;  40  CFR Part 131.

      •    Clean Air Act.
           --  National  Ambient Air Quality Standards,-40 CFR
                Part 50
                Noise Control Act  of 1972; 42  USC Section 4901 ejt
                seq.

      •    Environmental Protection Act.
                Kansas Ambient Air Quality Standards  and  Air
                Pollution Control  Regulations,  KAR  28.19.

Off-gas discharge will be managed in accordance with  the  Clean
Air Act and the  Kansas Ambient Air Quality Standards  and Air
Pollution  Control Regulations.  The treatment wells will be
registered with  the state of Kansas.  All activities  at  the site
will comply with the Occupational Safety and Health
Administration.  This alternative will comply with ARARs by
containing and treating the plume and removing the direct  contact
                               58

-------
threat.  The ground water will be treated to levels appropriate
for public drinking water standards.  Soils will be treated to
reduce the risk range to between 1CT4  and ID'6 and reduce the
Hazard Index below 1.

12.3 Cost Effectiveness

The selected remedy is cost-effective because it has been
determined to provide overall effectiveness proportional to its
cost, estimated at a present worth  of $1,688,550.  Other remedies
have been determined to be cost-effective as well; however, for
the selected remedy, the overall permanence and  reduction  of  risk
to human health is achieved in significantly less time  for the
cost than for the other remedies.

12.4 Utilization of Permanent Solutions and Alternative Treatment
     Technologies to the Maximum Extent Practicable

The EPA believes that the selected  remedy represents the maximum
.extent to which permanent solutions and treatment technologies
can be utilized in a cost-effective manner.  Of  those
alternatives that are protective of human health and the
environment, and that comply with ARARs, EPA has determined that
this selected remedy provides the best balance of tradeoffs in
terms  of: long-term effectiveness and permanence; reduction in
toxicity, mobility, or volume achieved through treatment;  short-
term effectiveness; implementability; and cost.   The selected
remedy considers the statutory preference for treatment as a
principal element, as well as state and community input.   The
selected remedy cost effectively treats and destroys a  greater
amount of the site contaminants than  the other alternatives.  The
selected remedy reduces the toxicity, mobility,  and volume of
contaminated material at  the site through treatment.

 12.5  Preference for Treatment as a  Principal Element

By treating the contaminated soils  by SVE and the contaminated
 ground water with  in-situ vapor extraction wells, the  selected
 remedy addresses threats  posed by the site through  the  use of
 treatment  technologies.   By utilizing treatment  as  a  significant
 portion  of  the  remedy,  the statutory  preference  for remedies  that
 employ treatment as  a principal element  is satisfied.
                                59

-------
12.6.  Five-Year Review Requirements

Because this remedy will result in hazardous substances,
pollutants, or contaminants remaining on site above levels that
allow for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure,  for a period
greater than five years, a statutory review will be conducted
within five years after initiation of the remedial action to
ensure that the remedy is, or will be,  protective of human health
and the environment.
                               60

-------
APPENDIX A

-------

-------
                   RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY

This Responsiveness Summary addresses all questions pertaining to the Proposed Plan received
during the public comment period.  It is broken down into the following sections: Comments
received during the public hearing on July 29, 1999; Comments received from the general public;
Comments received from Political Subdivisions of the State of Kansas; Comments received from
Business and Industry; and Comments received from the Community Advisory Group (CAG).

COMMENTS RECEIVED DURING THE PUBLIC HEARING, JULY 29, 1999

The following questions concerning the proposed remedy were raised during the public meeting
held at the Best Western Red Coach Inn in Park City on July 29, 1999. Other questions raised
during that public meeting which did not directly concern the Proposed Plan are not included in
this Responsiveness Summary.

1.     COMMENT: The Kansas Department of Health and Environment (KDHE) is in
agreement with the Proposed Plan.  The KDHE agrees with the Environmental Protection
Agency's (EPA) decision to actively remediate the soil and groundwater at the site.

RESPONSE: None required.

2.     COMMENT: Local Resident - "How can the EPA be issuing a Proposed Plan when we
do not have adequate data from the pilot test?"

RESPONSE: The information that will be gained from the pilot test of an in-well stripper in the
Riverview Operable Unit is not to determine if the technology works, but to determine how well
and over how large an area the unit will treat groundwater in the specific environment found at
the 57th & N. Broadway site. This information will be used to determine the number and
placement of wells in the Riverview Operable Unit. This same information will be used to
determine the number and placement of wells in the northern plume and if additional wells
should be placed in the Riverview Operable Unit, to speed up the treatment process.

3.     COMMENT: Local Resident - "What will happen if EPA is not satisfied with  those
results? Then what? Another Proposed Plan?

RESPONSE: As stated in the previous response, the test well is for design purposes only,
although it may become part of the permanent treatment system. If the results demonstrated that
the technology was not effective, then we may need to look at other alternatives.  The EPA
believes this is an  effective technology that has been successful in similar situations.

-------
4.     COMMENT: Local Resident - "How will that be presented to the public?"

RESPONSE: In the event that an alternative remedy is required, it will be presented in a public
forum with an appropriate opportunity to comment. Again, EPA believes in-well stripping is an
effective technology

5.     COMMENT: Local Resident - The commentor expressed concern for potential
contamination of the Bel Aire well field, through migration of the contaminants and/or the plume
being drawn towards the well field as a result of potential increases in pumping rates.

RESPONSE: Under the present conditions, there is no expectation that either the northern or the
Riverview plume would ever impact the Bel Aire well field. If over a period of time a significant
increase in pumping of the Bel Aire well field took place, the northern plume might be drawn
towards the Bel Aire well field. This would require continuous pumping and take several years
for the plume to be drawn all the way to the well field. Treatment of the plume will commence
prior to that becoming a possibility.  In addition,  monitoring will be established to monitor both
plumes on a quarterly basis. If contamination is found to be threatening the Bel Aire well field,
measures to prevent that occurrence will be taken.

6.    COMMENT: Local Resident - The commentor was concerned with the possible effects
the remediation efforts would have on the direction of the plume migration.

RESPONSE: The nature of the proposed remedy is such that there should be no effect on the
direction of migration. Once the treatment system is operational, the plume will no longer
expand and, in fact, should begin to shrink.

7.    COMMENT: Local Resident - "Will the contamination reach the Bel Aire well field?"

RESPONSE: There is no expectation that either the northern or the Riverview plume will impact
the Bel Aire well field.

8.    COMMENT: Local Resident - The resident concurred with the soil remediation
alternative.

RESPONSE: None required.

9.    COMMENT: Local Resident - " I believe that EPA's choice of groundwater treatment is
not aggressive enough.  I believe that a combination of Alternatives 5 and 6, using 6 up in the
northern portion of the plume, would most aggressively treat the groundwater and prevent it form
migrating."
RESPONSE: The EPA believes that use of in-well strippers, Alternative 5, is as aggressive in

-------
addressing the groundwater contamination as the use of Alternative 6, a pump and treat system.
Cost estimates indicate that it would cost more than twice as much to treat the plume as
aggressively with a 'pump and treat' system as is planned for the proposed in-well stripper
system. The proposed remedy is the more aggressive treatment system of the two, considering
all factors including cost.

10.    COMMENT: Local Resident - "...aren't no action and natural attenuation the same thing,
does EPA take credit for Mother Nature too?"

RESPONSE: No action is just that no further action of any kind is taken.  Monitored natural
attenuation requires ongoing monitoring efforts to determine the location and concentrations of
the contaminant plume.  This does not result in any treatment induced by man's intervention, but
it does ensure ongoing knowledge of the plume's location and the rate of attenuation of the
contaminant plume.
11.     COMMENT: Local Resident - "I live at 53rd and Broadway to the south.  This latest map
doesn't show me within that area. Now, am I to believe now that there is no contaminated water
in that area? Is it all cleared up?"

RESPONSE: The groundwater contamination originally found in your immediate area was not
from chlorinated volatile organic chemicals, it was the result of petroleum products from other
sources.  That contamination is currently being addressed through treatment by the state of
Kansas through the state's Underground Storage Tank Program. The Superfund Program under
which this action is proposed can only address the chlorinated volatile organic contaminant
groundwater plume. The two programs together are addressing all of the contaminants in the
groundwater.

12.     COMMENT: Park City Council Member - "... on behalf of Park City, we do support the
remediation of the 57th & N. Broadway Site."

RESPONSE: None required.

13.     COMMENT: Park City Council Member -"... I think we need to do something to protect
the Bel Aire well fields. I know that they're in danger right now from petroleum products."

RESPONSE: The state's program is currently addressing the petroleum problems, and EPA has
no authority to do so under Superfund.

-------
 14.    COMMENT: Local Resident - "... on page 20 in the papers that you sent to us it says, "It
 is possible that a fouling problem may develop with the treatment wells. If that occurs, system
 adjustments will be required which may include the introduction of compounds to the system to
 eliminate the fouling problem. This could result in a significant increase in costs."  What does it
 do to those of us who are using the water?"

 RESPONSE: We have experienced some initial problem with biologic fouling of the pilot well.
 That was easily fixed by the addition of a small amount of chlorine to the well.  This addition
 was small and will only impact the area immediately surrounding the pilot well. There should be
 no impact on any private well. A second type of fouling could potentially impact the pilot well
 and that is from the iron found naturally in the groundwater.  To date, that has not been a
 problem.  If there is, it can be easily corrected by adding a small amount of acid to the well to
 slightly lower the Ph. This will clear up the iron fouling. Again, the amount of acid introduced
 to the well would be small and would only affect the area immediately surrounding the pilot
 well. There should be no impact on any private well.

 COMMENTS RECEIVED FROM THE GENERAL PUBLIC

 15.    COMMENT: Local Resident - " We have reviewed the Proposed Plan and are in
 agreement with it. Our question to you is three-fold: 1) how will this be paid for ?  2) how
 will the Responsible Parties be held accountable? 3) will any formal document or letters be sent
 to commercial property owners who are not RP's and do not have contamination or pollution on
 their property, that can be.utilized to satisfy real estate agents, lending institutions and potential
 buyers so that our property can become viable, valuable and salable?  Would appreciate a
 response at your earliest convenience."

 RESPONSE: Once a ROD is written, EPA will begin formal negotiations with the PRPs for the
 site. The expected outcome is that a formal  Consent Decree will be developed to regulate the
 PRPs' actions in executing the remedy for the site.  If that fails,  EPA has several other options,
 one of which is to implement the remedy using government funds as was done in the Riverview
 Operable Unit and seek recovery of our costs from the PRPs at a later date. No  formal
 documents will be provided to any commercial property owners who are not PRPs and do not
 have pollution on their property.  However, comfort letters can be provided under certain
 conditions to parties, upon request, to assist with the transfer of their property.

 16.    COMMENT : "A proven treatment system, with pump and treat type extraction wells,
 should be utilized for the northern plume to prevent any migration towards the Bel Aire PWS.
 The in-well vapor extraction wells will not create a cone of depression that would draw the
 contaminants in one direction.  There is also the continued concern, that if all of the wells in the
Bel Aire well field were pumping at the same time, the northern plume could be drawn towards
the well field if a pump and treat containment system is not in place."

-------
                                          5

RESPONSE: See response to Comments 5 and 9.

17.    COMMENT: The commentor expressed continued concern that adequate monitoring is
not being proposed for the entire site to ensure the protection of the Bel Aire well field.

RESPONSE: The EPA will be establishing a multi-well monitoring system prior to the initiation
of the remedial action. The EPA believes it is important that this system is in place as soon as
possible. It is anticipated that monitoring will begin in October or November and continue on a
quarterly basis until the plume is treated.

COMMENTS FROM POLITICAL SUBDIVISIONS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS

The following comment comes from Mid-Kansas Engineering Consultants, Inc., on behalf of the
city of Bel Aire.

1.8.    COMMENT: "We have reviewed the subject document on the technical behalf of the city
of Bel Aire.  The city of Bel Aire and we feel very strongly that the situation described in the
document is serious and that appropriate efforts need to be made toward final remediation and
resolution of the contamination. We support the technical recommendations made in the
Proposed Plan. We only request that they be implemented and brought to closure as
expeditiously as possible."

RESPONSE: None required.

The following comments are from Park City.

19.    COMMENT: Park City is particularly interested in the protection of the public water
supply provided by the Bel Aire well field. The city would like to see a monitoring schedule and
notification mechanism included in the ROD.

RESPONSE: The ROD includes language that will require the remedial action to include
monitoring.  The EPA will put a monitoring and notification system into effect this fall.

20.    COMMENT: Park City request "...that the ROD mentions the possibility of the future
need for a water treatment facility; and if the contamination can be proven to have come from the
responsible parties of the Superfund site contamination, that they should share in the costs."

RESPONSE: The EPA has determined that the selected remedy will treat the contaminants of
concern, chlorinated volatile organic chemicals, and reduce the contamination levels to such a
degree that they will no longer pose a threat to the public drinking water supply in the area. The
EPA will pursue the PRPs for the performance of the remedy.

-------
 21.    COMMENT: "The city feels that the site needs to be cleaned up. Our only comment in
 regard to the clean up is that it takes place. We assume that EPA will select a system that v/ill
 accomplish this task. Should additional sources of contamination be located or if the plume has
 migrated, we trust that remediation will occur."

 RESPONSE: If conditions change, EPA is prepared to evaluate the situation and take appropriate
 action.

 22.    COMMENT: "For many years stories have circulated concerning Midland Refinery
 property and allegations concerning the disposal of material on the site. Because  of the number
 of rumors that have surfaced over the years, we feel that additional sampling needs to be
 reviewed for the Midland Refinery property.

 RESPONSE: The EPA has included additional soil sampling for both the Midland Refinery and
 the former Wilko Paint properties in the selected remedy.

 23.    COMMENT: "Riverview CAG has expressed concerns for health education and
 physician training. With the type of contamination they are dealing with, and the exposure that
 has occurred, the city supports their requests for both health education and physician training.
 We feel that a continued dialog on this subject should take place."

 RESPONSE: The EPA is continuing to coordinate between ATSDR and the residents of the 57th
 & N. Broadway site concerning the residents' health concerns. Arrangements are currently
 underway to permit the residents to contact EPA and request a direct call from an  ATSDR
 physician to discuss their concerns.  The EPA does not have the authority to provide health
 education or physician training directly. However, the EPA is happy to help coordinate these
 efforts.

 24.    COMMENT: "Finally, we feel that the ROD should address some form of a schedule of
 activities with time table that all persons involved could have. The schedule should address
 implementation for clean up and monitoring."

RESPONSE: The law under which the Superfund Program is governed sets out specific
procedures, which include some time frames. Given the many unknown factors existing at the
time of the signing of the ROD, especially in regard to enforcement, it is not possible to establish
specific time tables in the ROD.  The EPA will be implementing a monitoring system this fall
and will provide wide distribution of the timing and results of the sampling efforts. Fact sheets
will be provided on a regular basis which discuss recent activities and identify planned activities.

-------
                                          7

COMMENTS FROM BUSINESS AND INDUSTRY

The following comments were provided by Integrated Solutions on behalf of Midland Refinery
and Clearwater Trucking.

25.    COMMENT: The commentor states that no sources of contaminated soils have been
identified on the Midland Refinery property based upon the soil sampling done during the
remedial investigation or since; therefore, no  additional soil sampling is warranted.

RESPONSE: Minimal soil sampling was done during the remedial investigation, and it did not
identify areas of soil contamination on the Midland Refinery property. However, previous data
sampling indicated very high contaminant levels which would lead investigators to believe that
the potential for source areas was very real. The proposal is to do sufficient sampling to assure
that no sources of soil contamination remain.

26.    COMMENT: The commentor expressed concern that there was as strong or stronger
evidence that sources of soil contamination existed at the former Wilko Paint property than exist
for the Midland Refinery property.

RESPONSE: The EPA agrees that there is not sufficient evidence to rule out the presence of
major soil contamination sources on the former Wilko Paint facility. As a response, the ROD
has been modified to include the sampling of the former Wilko Paint property as well as the
Midland Refinery property.

27.    COMMENT: The commentor was concerned with the accuracy of Figure 3-5 in the
Remedial Investigation Report.

RESPONSE: Figure 3-5 was revised by EPA. The Administrative Record will be checked to
assure it contains the most up-to-date figure.

28.    COMMENT: The commentor requested information on the cost differential between
Alternative 4 and Alternative 6.

RESPONSE: Review of the most recent Feasibility Study does not indicate that there is an
unexpected cost variance between the cost of Alternative 4 and Alternative 6. Perhaps the
commentor was not reviewing the most current copy of the Feasibility Study. The
Administrative Record will be checked to assure it contains the most up-to-date information.

-------
                                          8

COMMENTS FROM THE 57™ & N. BROADWAY COMMUNITY ADVISORY GROUP

The following comment was received via e-mail from the CAG chair. It contains nine areas of
concern. The comment letter is reproduced in its entirety below. The EPA responses are
presented in italicized print within the document.

                                    CAG Response
                                 To the Proposed Plan
                    for the 57th and North Broadway Superfund Site

                                  September 10, 1999

The CAG is pleased the EPA is moving toward active treatment and clean up at the 57th and N.
Broadway site.  The community favors use of an aggressive treatment and monitoring system.
They want assurance that public water supply wells and private wells will not become
contaminated; and that if new contamination or migration of the plume is discovered, additional
remediation will occur.  In particular, there is concern about the Bel Aire well field.

The purpose of the EPA remedial action is to protect the public health and safety. At this site,
the primary source of exposure to contamination has been from contaminated drinking water.
While the present exposure to contaminated water has been reduced or eliminated, there is a risk
of future exposure as long as some residents use private wells and public water supply wells are
used for the community water supply. The community needs to have a high level of confidence
in its water supply. This will come from monitoring the groundwater, eliminating potential
sources of groundwater pollution, and providing treatment of water to insure exposure is
prevented.

The CAG continues to have concerns about the following issues.

1.  Monitoring of plume to determine if new exposure or danger of exposure exists.

    a.  The CAG is concerned there is not an adequate number of monitoring wells planned to
       protect the Bel Aire well field. The CAG noted that in the revised Feasibility Study dated
       May  1999, Section 3.2.5 Groundwater Alternative 5, the following sentence was deleted
       from the draft. "It was assumed for the purpose of developing this alternative that two
       new nests of monitoring wells would be installed." The CAG believes that it is not
       acceptable that monitoring wells would be eliminated when we should be adding more.
       One specific suggestion by the CAG is to place one or more additional nested monitoring
       wells between the floodway and the Bel Aire well field.  One location might be near
       Borehole B263. The CAG also suggests that the Bel Aire PWS wells be sampled as part
       of the monitoring program. Although these wells are periodically tested for
       contaminants, it is not done at the frequency that would be done with quarterly
       monitoring.

-------
    The EPA is currently designing a monitoring system for the entire site, including the
    Bel Aire well field. Due to design time and other factors that will be required
    regardless of the funding mechanism used for implementation of the site-wide ROD,
    the monitoring system will be designed and implemented separately from and prior to
    the remedial action.  The monitoring system will be designed to adequately monitor the
   plume and any movement on a quarterly basis; if it is determined that monitoring of
    the Bel Aire well field is necessary to accomplish that end, then the well field will be
    included in the monitoring system.

b.   The community requests the ROD includes a clear monitoring schedule, presumably on a
    quarterly basis. The ROD should also clearly state how the community would be
    informed of the results of groundwater monitoring on a regular basis.  The CAG
    understands that the monitoring program will  proceed irrespective of the funding
    mechanism for the final clean up, so there will not be a delay in establishing the
    monitoring system and schedule.

   As stated above, the monitoring system will be established prior to implementation of
    the remedial action. However,  a statement will be included in the ROD that will
    require the continuation of the established monitoring system as a component of the
    remedial action.

c.   The CAG understands that several residential  wells in the Riverview area will continue to
    be monitored near the border of the plume.  The CAG believes residential wells on the
    both the east and the west side of the plume should be monitored.  The CAG prefers to be
    very cautious in defining the edge of the plume to prevent the potential for exposure to
    the community in the future. Even though monitoring will continue to take place, the
    frequency of monitoring and placement of monitoring points will not be sufficient to
    detect small changes in the plume and random variations  in sample results. The
    community must Jive with this uncertainty and therefore prefers that a larger buffer area
    be used.  If, for example, a residence has a reading of 0.3  of the maximum contaminant
    level (MCL) for a  compound, members of the CAG think it is likely that due to variation
    in sampling, such a residence will be above the MCL some of the time.  Members of the
    CAG feel strongly that these residences should be hooked up to the public water supply.

    The MCL is a  very conservative number. The MCLs are calculated so exposure to
    water contaminated in excess of MCLs for a period of 70 years result in a one in one
    million increase in the risk of contracting cancer. We have taken the conservative
    approach that if a residence shows contaminant levels in excess of the MCLs, we will
    connect that household. This was done under the Riverview ROD. The EPA has
    sampled households on the east and west side of the plume and found no contaminants
    in excess of the MCLs and no contaminants in the majority of the wells.  Those where
   EPA did find levels of contamination above the detection limit will be monitored in the
    quarterly monitoring currently being planned. Given the low levels of contaminants

-------
                                           10

                                  ---.,	,	r*,^,...„.JV, MpuaurK
       prior to detection, there is little to no potential for adverse health effects. Once the
       treatment system is installed, further reduction of contaminant levels is expected and
       the plume should begin to shrink.

 2.  Additional sampling required at Midland refinery.

 The CAG supports the need for additional soil sampling at the Midland Refinery to determine if
 there are still existing sources of soil and groundwater contamination. The statement of the need
 for this sampling is not detailed in the Proposed Plan.  The CAG would like to know that this
 sampling will be required on a timely basis regardless of how the final clean up is funded. The
 CAG would like the ROD to specify the requirements for the soil sampling or the process and
 schedule that will be used to determine the sampling work plan.  If additional sources of
 contamination are located, the CAG expects appropriate redemption would take place.

       The Proposed Plan requires sampling for source material at the Midland Refinery. If
       source areas are discovered, they are to be remediated using the technology prescribed.
       The specific sampling will require approval and oversight of EPA.  The Proposed Plan
       does not prescribe the exact sampling plan for the investigation; this is  better done in a
       design document that can insure that the required details are included.  The sampling
       for unknown source areas is an appropriate activity for the remedy and should be a
       part of that remedy.

3.  Action plans if monitoring shows continued spread or movement of contaminated
    groundwater.

The CAG would  like to know what specific actions would be taken if the monitoring results
show a change in the pattern of contamination. The CAG believes the following  actions should
be taken.

   a.  Bell Aire Well Field: If monitoring wells upgrading of the Bell Aire well  field have
       detectable contamination (for example, locations B263, MW307, MW313, and MW312),
       then a separate removal action and operable unit should be created to protect and treat the
       public water supply wells.

   b.  Riverview: If there is a residential well in or near the current Riverview buffer zone that
       shows detectable contamination, then the residence should be connected to the public
      water supply and the buffer zone should be expanded to include the next nondetect
      residence to prevent additional exposure potential.

-------
                                          11

      If it is determined through monitoring that additional wells are posing a public health
      risk, appropriate action will be taken.  The EPA does not agree that detection of any
      level of contaminant presents a health threat. The MCLs have been established to
      present conservative levels of contamination that represent the benchmark for public
      health concerns for public water supply. It is appropriate that they continue to be used
      in the 57th & N. Broadway site.

4.  Selected clean-up technology.

   a. The CAG would like an aggressive technology selected to clean up the contaminated
      groundwater.  Concern has been raised about whether a 'proven' pump-and-treat type
      system would be more aggressive or effective than an 'unproven' in-well vapor extraction
      system, especially in the northern plume area that is not in a residential community and
      where there are concerns about migrating contamination reaching the Bel Aire PWS.
      CAG members noted Alternative 6, In-Situ Vapor Extraction, is not a proven technology,
      especially with the hardness of this groundwater; and the Proposed Plan stated that it was
      not a proven technology (i.e., "With the exception of Alternatives 2, 4, 6, and 7, all the
      alternatives are proven and reliable."). The EPA began to address this issue at the August
      5, 1999, CAG meeting, but it would be helpful to have this discussion in the
      Responsiveness Summary.

      The remedy selected by EPA is the more aggressive of the treatment remedies
      considered, while being cost effective at the same time. Pump and treat systems
      experience significant challenges when operated under hard water conditions. The in-
      well treatment system will face similar challenges, but design  modifications can be
      made to adjust for field conditions. If the technique is viable for one area of the site,
      there is no reason that it should not be viable for another. In-well treatment systems
      are not considered unproven. They have been used many times with success. The
      concern for the use of In-Situ Vapor Extraction because it is not a proven technology
      is erroneous.  In-Situ Vapor Extraction is a proven technology; however, it has not
      been used as often as pump and treat systems. Any problems  resulting from  the
      hardness of the water can be remedied with system modifications, as has been done on
      numerous other sites.

   b. A test unit for the in-well vapor extraction system has been installed in the Riverview
      neighborhood. The CAG would like EPA to present the results from that test and explain
      how that information will be used to design a treatment system  for the whole site. CAG
      members had several specific questions and concerns regarding iron content of the
      aquifer and  the potential for screen plugging.  Will both the upper and lower screens in
      the recirculation well remain unplugged over a long period of time? How is this tested?
      How do you determine how much water is actually circulating in the system?

-------
                                          12

       We will be providing the data from the pilot test to the CAG when it is available. Design
       and operation of the in-well treatment system will include maintenance to ensure the
       system remains fully operational.  Monitoring of piezometers will provide continuing
       information on the circulation characteristics of each treatment well.

5.  Potential future need for a water treatment facility.

In the view of the community, it is difficult to separate exposure to contaminated water from the
Superfund site and all other sources of contamination in the area. The community needs to have
a high level of confidence in its water supply for present and future development. In light of the
multiple sources of present and potential future contamination, it may be prudent to build a water
treatment facility for treatment of water from the public water supply wells to reduce future
exposure risks. Although funding for such a facility would come from multiple sources, all
parties that have contributed to contamination of groundwater in the area bear some
responsibility for this need.  While the need for a water treatment facility is still under
consideration, the community would like the ROD to state that a portion of the need for this
facility would rest with the parties responsible for contamination and clean up of groundwater at
the 57th and North Broadway site.

       The need for a water treatment plant is a community decision which takes into
       consideration many factors. It is inappropriate for the EPA Superfund Program to be
       involved in this type of community decision making.   The EPA is addressing the
       contamination at the 57th & N. Broadway site to the extent allowed by law.
       Contamination from the 57"1 & N. Broadway site is not anticipated to impact the Bel
       Aire well fields if the plume treatment is initiated within the next few years. It would
       be inappropriate to make the statement requested in a ROD. This is a viable endeavor
      for the CAG to continue to purse as a non-Superfund activity.

6.  Health education/physician training.

The community has continuing concerns about the need for health education and physician
training regarding the health effects of exposure to contaminated drinking water. While ATSDR
has been involved in some physician training, the community is still not satisfied that enough
information has been properly communicated to both physicians and the local residents. While
the CAG appreciates the EPA is responding to this need, it would be helpful for the EPA to
explain what will be done to insure adequate health education is accomplished.  The residents
need to know who the trained physicians are and where they can seek answers to their questions
concerning exposures risks and health concerns in the community.

-------
                                          13
       The EPA will continue to work with A TSDR and the community to provide additional
       health information.  There are currently plans to develop a means of doing some one-
       on-one calling between A TSDR physicians and community residents and their
      physicians.  We will continue to coordinate these efforts with the CAG, the state of
       Kansas, and the city-county health department. See response to Comment 23.

7. Schedule of activity once the ROD is signed.

Please explain the sequence of events to follow the signing of the ROD.  How soon will clean up
activities begin? Will clean up begin right away or will clean up be put on hold while EPA
pursues PRP funding? The CAG understands that clean up in the Riverview area will continue
regardless of the funding of the area-wide clean up.  The CAG also expects the groundwater
monitoring program will be put in place. The community would like to see separate schedules
for monitoring, implementation of the Operable Unit 2 ROD (the Riverview area), and the
procedure for implementing the Operable Unit 1 ROD (the area-wide ROD).

       The above question is not considered to be directly commenting on the Proposed Plan,
       but it does relate to the process. Not all of the information requested is currently
       available, but the information will be conveyed to the CAG after it is available. The
       implementation of the remedial alternative selected in the ROD will be implemented by
       either the PRPsfor the site or the EPA. Once the ROD is signed, letters will be sent to
       the PRPs offering them the opportunity to negotiate a settlement for implementation of
       the remedy. There is a 120-day moratorium (which can be extended) on initiating
       action while the negotiation is ongoing. The EPA would prefer that the PRPs perform
       the clean up so as not to spend federal monies. At the end of the moratorium,
       decisions as to the future course of the project will be made.  Until that time, it is not
      possible to be more specific.  You are correct that implementation of the remedial
       action for the Riverview ROD will proceed under federal funding.  Monitoring of the
      plume will be initiated prior to the implementation of the remedial action and will be
       continued by whomever executes the remedy.  Further coordination with the CAG and
       thus the community on scheduling and reporting results will continue throughout the
      project.

-------
                                         14
The CAG appreciates the EPA has addressed some of these issues at the meeting on August 5,
1999. It would be helpful for the explanations to be available to the whole community.

Respectfully Submitted,
Beth White
Chair
57lh and North Broadway
Citizens Advisory Group
This concludes the comments that have been received. The Administrative Record will contain
copies of all comments and a copy of the Public Hearing transcript.

-------
APPENDIX B

-------

-------
                                                Table B-l
                                      Chemical-Specific Toxicity Values
                                          Soil Ingestion Exposures
                                              57th & Broadway
                                               Risk Assessment


2-Butanone (MEK)
2-Hexanone
4-Methyl-2-Pentanone
Acetone
Benzene
Ethylbenzene
Naphthalene
Toluene
Xylene (mixed)

Inorganics
Arsenic
Cadmium (food)
Lead
2.9E-002
1.5E+000
D
A
D
D
D
D
A
B1
B2
6.0E-001

8.0E-002
1.0E-001

1.0E-001
4.0E-002
2.0E-001
2.0E+000
 3.0E-004
 1.0E-003
C/!
          03/15/97

          03/15/97
          03/15/97
          03/15/97
          03/15/97
          03/15/97
          03/15/97
          03/15/97
03/15/97
03/15/97
         liver
         liver/liver

         fetotoxic
         stomach/nasal
         lung/liver,RBCs
         splenic capsule
         liver, kidney
         fetotoxic
                                                        increased BP
NOTES:
I - Integrated Risk Information System (USEPA 1997a)
H - Health Effects Assessment Summary Tables
WT OF EV = Weight of Evidence Classification for Carcinogens, refer to Section 5.4 for definitions.

-------
                                                   Table B-2
                                         Chemical-Specific ToxicUy Values
                                            Soil Inhalation Exposures
                                                 57th & Rroidnay
                                                 Risk Assessment
                                                                  V.T* tftOW
                                                     YMji

                                                     Unto

                                                     Rife
2-Butanone (MEK)
2-Hexanone
4-Methyl-2-Pentanone
Acetone
Benzene
Ethylbenzene
Naphthalene
Toluene
Xylene (mixed)

Inorganics
Arsenic
Cadmium (food)
Lead
 2.9E-002
1.51E+001
 6.3E+000
1.0E-003

8.0E-002


1.0E+000

4.0E-001
3.0E-001
2.9E-001

2.3E-002

1.7E-003
2.9E-001

1.1E-001
8.6E-002
                                            03/15/97

                                            03/15/95

                                            03/15/97
                                            03/15/97
                                            03/15/95
                                             03/15/95
CMS

liver, kidney

leukemia
CNS, eye, nose
CNS, nose, throat
                                       respiratory tract
NOTES:
I - Integrated Risk Information System (USEPA 1997a)
H - Health Effects Assessment Summary Tables
WT OF EV = Weight of Evidence Classification for Carcinogens, refer to Section 5.4 for definitions.

-------
                                          ""   Table B-3
                                    Chemical-Specific Toxicity Values
                                       Dermal Exposures to Spil
                                           57th & Broadway
                                            Risk Assessment
2-Butanone (MEK)
2-Hexanone
4-Methyl-2-Pentanone
Acetone
Benzene
Ethyibenzene
Naphthalene
Toluene
Xylene (mixed)

Inorganics
Arsenic
Cadmium (food)
Lead
  9.0E+001
  9.2E+001
Unknown

  9.2EH-001
  9.5E+001

  •1.5E+001
ATSDR, 198
ATSDR, 198
ATSDR, 198

ATSDR, 198
ATSDR, 198
ATSDR,88Adult
                                                          3.QE-002
4.0E-003
5.0E-003

9.2E-002
2.0E-003
1.0E-002
1.8E+000
2.9E-004
5.0E-005
                                    3.2E-002
                                    1.6E+000
                                                                                5.0E-003
1.1E-001
1.4E+000
6.6E-002
1.0E+000
5.5E-004
8.6E-004

1.3E-004
2.5E-001
2.5E-001
2.5E-001
2.5E-001
2.5E-001
2.5E-001
1.0E-001
2.5E-001
2.5E-001
1.0E-002
1.0E-002
1.0E-002
A - Predicted value listed in "EPA Resesarch and Development, Interim Guidance for Dermal
   Exposure Assessment," (USEPA1992?)
B - Modeled value listed in "EPA Research and Development, Interim Guidance for Dermal
   Exposure Assessment," (USEPA 1992?)
ATSDR = Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry

-------
                                           Table B--I
                                 Chemical-Specific Tmtclty Values
                                 Groundwater Ingesllon Eipmnro
                                         S7lh tc Broitlrajr
                                         Rilk Aiitiimtnl
,.
t|r%l<
'• ' CMMlMft
Volatlles
1,1-Dlchloroethane
1,1-Dichloraelhene
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
1,2-Dichloroethane
1 ,2-Dichloroethene(cis)
1 ,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
Acetone
Benzene
Chloroethana
Ethylbenzene
Isopropylbenzene
Methylene Chloride
Naphthalene
sec-Butylbenzene
tert-Butylbenzene
Tetrachloroethene
Toluene
Trichloroelhene
Trichlorofluoromethana
Vinyl Chloride
Xylene (mixed)
Inorganics
Arsenic
Lead

•".-.S&VV.
' ' ,••*•* •
ru*-
• m
«*it*»


6.0E-001

9.1E-002



2.9E-002



7.5E-003



5.2E-002

1.1E-002

1.9E+000


1.8E+000

'. »
'*$$&
, •-.*•.' e. -
";m-
•i*
t.

C
C
D
B2


0
A

D

B2
D



D
B2

A
D

A
B2
„••
% f Kf> K
ft-jfitiiiif^t
.'.!>«• '
.- <"0>
«*ii*r

1.0E-001
9.0E-003
9.0E-002

1.0E-002
5.0E-002
1.0E-001

4.0E-001
1.0E-001

6.0E-002
4.0E-002
1.0E-002
2.0E-002
1.0E-002
2.0E-001
6.0E-003
3.0E-001

2.0E+000

3.0E-004

>»*np) 	
$rV" •'
;.V- - -
" R
•
r

H
I
I
I
H
E
I
I
E
I

I
H
E
E
El
I
H
I
H
I

C/l


..-.-eVHii
'; vr. "•*{
— :
IWM f -.
DA

3/15/95
3/15/97
3/15/97
3/15/97
3/15/95
3/15/97
3/15/97
3/15/97
3/15/97
3/15/97

3/15/97
3/15/95


3/15/97
3/15/97
3/15/95
3/15/97
3/15/95
3/15/97

3/15/97

1
1
l^v";;V •.-<•;>'•.
•K'l. ?•* u - -
..- - -ifrif.
" or*
mtl+n

red blood cells
NA
liver/liver
fetotoxic
serum chemistry

fetotoxic
stomach/nasal
liver
lung/liver,RBCs

liver.kidney
splenic capsule


liver
liver, kidney
liver


fetotoxic

increased BP

I - Integrated Risk Information System (USEPA 1997a)
H - Health Effects Assessment Summary Tables (USEPA 1995b)
C - Value based on unit risk
E - Value based on EPA-ECAO Guidance
RfD = Reference Dose  RfC = Reference Concentration
WT OF EV = Weight of Evidence Classification for Carcinogens, refer to Section 5.4 for definitions.

-------
                                             Table B-5
                                   Chemical-Specific Toxicity Values
                                   Dermal Exposures to Groundwaler
                                           57lh & Broadway
                                            Risk Assessment

:--;*li;-;:©|i^'::^:^7-
IsliyiiiiS'r^- ;£
•Ji.jjJ|s^', '0«^Xr3.ii"iv''.yt'"^"."^;-"-\- -• ^v :
^P^H^^ffiM*^!;""^^
"^SrJ "r Hp ^T^ie^COfttuttolinJl *»• r^^iT^;""^^--
•^*fe.-^'''^^iss?^'?:":^t-
f'jJ^::V'^ (jj^gK ' •:;•• . ::..
Volatlles
1,1-Dichloroethane
1,1-Dichloroethene
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
1 ,2-Dichloroethane
1 ,2-Dich!oroethene(cis)
1 ,2,4-Trimethylbenzene

Chloroethane
Ethyl benzene
Isopropylbenzene
Methylene Chloride
Naphthalene
sec-Butylbenzene
tert-Butylbenzene
Tetrachloroethene
Toluene
Trichloroethene
Trichlorofluoromethane
Vinyl Chloride
Xylene (mixed)
Inorganics
Arsenic
Lead



ftr»l
.!- V •' -. -.' •
'.- v^'^'lif'V- *.- -
ElMcMncy
pttoM
Unknown
1.0E+002
Unknown
1.0E+002
Unknown

9.0E+001

9.2E+001
5.5E+001
Unknown

1.0E+002

9.8E+001

1.0E+002
9.2E+001

9.5E+001
1.5E+001


''i'"1-""'' '. „-„
• '"' -" Ont^ ""'" "'* ' '- '
.-,,., ,- -' -}- :>iiy'' .
• ;,; . . Antwpiiwn -t^'. ...
\ = rEff«l*«y- .V
Raftrtnc* . -
ATSDR, 1989
ATSDR, 1988
ATSDR, 1989
ATSDR, 1988
ATSDR, 1989

ATSDR, 1987

ATSDR, 1989
ATSDR, 1987
ATSDR, 1989

ATSDR, 1987

ATSDR, I988

ATSDR, 1988
ATSDR, 1989
(
ATSDR, 1987
ATSDR.88 Adult

. " Dinral
-':y^T<«d. ;__.
-".'; • Rifcrciw*

	 --••.-.
: • -(RID) .
1 meftgay
5.0E-003
9.0E-003
4.5E-003
5.0E-004
5.0E-003

2.0E-002
9.2E-002
3.3E-002
2.0E-003

1.0E-002
1.0E-002
5.9E-003

1.85E+000

2.9E-004


Dumii •
Extnpclttwt • ,.
Slop* •' H
' • FKlw"."' -: '•

(SF)
k0 - i ' . -"' ,';.• •"'
• -:rvM-.
lurtK...)
2.5E-001
2.5E-001
2.5E-001
2.5E-001
2.5E-001
2.5E-001
2.5E-001
2.5E-001
2.5E-001
2.5E-001
1.0E-001

2.5E-001
2.5E-001
2.5E-001

2.5E-001
2.5E-001

1.0E-002
1.0E-002




;. R ':,

*.-•
f
B
B
B
B
B

A
B
A
B
B

B
A
B

B
B

B
B
NOTES:
A - Predicted value listed in Interim Guidance for Dermal
B - Modeled value listed in Interim Guidance for Dermal
RfD= Reference Dose FfC= Reference Concentration
ATSDR = Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
Exposure Assessment (USEPA1992c)
Exposure Assessment, (USEPA 1992c)

-------
          Table B-6
Summary of Exposure Pathways
  Current & Future Land Use
     57th & N. Broadway
Expoicd t •-.' «
Popult&a
?fteitdenu
; (On Site)
1
iReifcJenu
'(On Site)
Rnidenu
(On Site}
1 Residents
(Ort Site)
Raidfrus

-------
                                                                                                             I?'
                                                   Table B-7
                                            Incidental Ingestion of Soil
                                                 Adult Worker
                                            (Current Worker Scenario)'
                                                 57th & Broadway
                                                 Risk Assessment
                                          o:
                    tP^SP
                    $*3*M
                    $::&*%&
                     -  mutton' '•
                    l^iK'if'
                    Sl^Sft
                    §i|w>l.-;,5y
                      •«n»«
                                                                -.
                                                                (nor
                                                                        ;•••.•»*~c"a;!ji*f*ls?i5t:1;:il;.^--'?5-i»:t7i.,.???S5CJUS'S.
                                                                           -' --
                                                                           iwn ..
                                                                                 lilpp'
                                                                                       *"'V,:

2-Butanone (MEK)
2-Hexanone
4-Methyl-2-Pentanone
Acetone
Benzene
Ethylbenzene
Naphthalene
Toluene
Xylene (mixed)

Inorganics
Arsenic
Cadmium (food)
Lead
8.00E+000
8.00E+000
1.60E+002
8.00E+000
8.00E+000
6.00E+002
3.30E-003
2.80E+002
5.40E+003
6.89E+000
 2.85E-001
1.32E+003
NA - Data Not Available
 # - Assumed Value
 HIF--NON-CARCINOGENIC—
 HIF-CARCINOGENIC	
4.89E-007
4.89E-007
4.89E-007
4.89E-007
4.89E-007
4.89E-007
4.89E-007
4.89E-007
4.89E-007
3.91E-006
3.91E-006
7.83E-005
3.91E-006
3.91E-006
2.94E-004
1.61E-009
1.37E-004
2.64E-003
                                                   6.00E-001  6.52E-006
B.OOE-002
1.00E-001
9.78E-004
3.91E-004
 1.00E-001  2.94E-003
 4.00E-002  4.04E-008
2.00E+001  6.85E-004
2.00E+000  1.32E-003
4.89E-007  3.00E-004  3.00E-004  1.14E-002
4.89E-007  1.00E-003  1.00E-001  1.39E-004
4.89E-007	
Total Pathway Hazard Index-—----- £j.7E-qp2
1.75E-007
1.75E-007
1.75E-007
1.75E-007
1.75E-007
1.75E-007
1.75E-007
1.75E-007
1.75E-007
                               1.75E-007
                               1.75E-007
                               1.75E-007
1.40E-006
1.40E-006
2.80E-005
 1.4E-006
 1.4E-006
1.05E-004
5.77E-010
4.89E-005
9.44E-004
                                1.22E-006
                                4.89E-008
                                2.31E-006
                               total Pathway Risk—
                                          2.90E-002 4.05E-008
                                                                         1.50E+000  1.83E-006
                     INCIDENTAL INGESTION OF SOIL
                     CS  = Concentration of chemical in soil (mg/kg)
           1.00E-006 Conversion Factor
           5.00E+001 Ingestion Rate of soil by an adult worker
           1.00E+000 Fraction of Intake from source, 100 percent
           2.50E+001 Exposure Duration for an adult worker
           2.50E+002 Exposure Frequency for an adult worker
           7.00E+001 Body weight for adult worker
           2.50E+001 Averageing Time for non-carcinogenic compounds
           7.00E+001 Averageing Time for carcinogenic compounds

        - 4.89E-007 HIF = ((CF*IR*FI*ED*EF/BW))/(ATN)(365)
        ~ 1.75E-007 H IF = ((CF ' IR' Fl' ED * EF / BW)) / (ATC)(365)
                     DAILY INTAKE = (CS * HIF)
                     RISK (non-carcinogenic) = (INTAKE / RfD)
                     RISK (carcinogenic)  = (INTAKE * SLOPE FACTOR)

-------
                                                      Table B-8
                                                Dermal Contact with Soli
                                                    Adult Worker
                                               (Current Worker Scenario)
                                                     Risk Aiinimtnt
 Volallles
 2-Butanone (MEK)
 2-Hexanone
 4-Methyl-2-Pentanone
 Acetone
 Benzene
 :thyl'benzene
 Naphthalene
 Toluene
    3.05E-005 HIF = (CF * SA * Fl * EF * ED * AF / BW)) / (ATN)(365)1
         1.09E-005 HIF = (CF* SA * F! * EF' ED * AF / BW)} / (ATC)(3S5)]
                   DAILY INTAKE = (CS * ABS * HIF)
                   RISK (non-carcinogenic) = (INTAKE / RfD)
                   RISK (carcinogenic)  = (INTAKE * SLOPE FACTOR)

-------
                                                     Table B-9
                                        Inhalation of Dust (Suspended Participate)
                                                   Adult Worker
                                              (Current Worker Scenario)
                                                  57lh & Broadway
                                                   Risk Assessment

^^^'l^^^^^^^^^^M^
•i«* • 1*^*K'"'*°-S*^yS(JywSft;:ii:f^v'' •
J'^"i^$It&cijw!j.ui^^!j^''- "^

•Ssjflfef--*. •'kfi^K^K ':•
tf w4$$«-c««^%|llk''--.' -•
Volatlles
2-Butanone (MEK)
2-Hexanone
4-Methyl-2-Pentanone
Acetone
Benzene
Ethylbenzene
Naphthalene
Toluene
Xylene (mixed)
Inoraanics
Arsenic
Cadmium (food)
Lead
til
fe^'rVi^'k"* ~
&-<=S:-Vl>V £?'•?-'
^V-^*' &W *''. . . . ; .
• "'•,ij(;r.^..yi'
. a " • {.'.'.^.•'jV'' ~^
' •'- •"••*DilV"^ '^":
,. - •: . -. .-
-' ••."!"?•'' "';.'•
:. m**0** ::.-

7.4E-008
7.4E-008
1.48E-008
7.4E-008
7.4E-008
5.55E-008
3.05E-011
2.59E-006
4.99E-005

6.45E-008
2.64E-009
1.22E-007
•''i&ZiZ*.
•.ur.i^:^?--'/ .
,}•;-• -l' *n^-'.*. '.r
•'^ ""i|iiTi ni r

•>.,.,•;.««:::.
^^•'••ttMB;

1.00E-003

8.00E-002


1.00E+000

4.00E-001
3.00E-001




Mat.,:-~. ." •' :'
. .,••.'-*;£->••.-• . ,
... ^ ;. .- - '
• ti.tntiHin • "'

,i.-...i«,<, :
s t'nftitW..

2.86E-001

2.29E-002

1.71E-003
2.86E-001

1.14E-001
8.57E-002




Total pathway Hazard Index 	 >

''**' INrart :'r
.;."...
.;?.!• m^uj^

.-f,' (Ml '
' WMOT

2.59E-007

6.47E-005

4.33E-005
1.94E-005

2.27E-005
5.83E-004




7.3E-004
u—


rm i TI^PI

(Wf)
.Hftuxr

3.30E-009
3.30E-009
3.30E-009
3.30E-009
3.30E-009
3.30E-009
3.30E-009
3.30E-009
3.30E-009

3.30E-009
3.30E-009
3.30E-009


^ f '•'MMI
•* Jf
Dt^ f^

InKM r«
mtfWHMy n*

2.64E-008
2.64E-008
5.28E-007
2.64E-008

^^ «f

»f rjitu*tUiirn

•tcr RM
ryftnt wtKtM*





2.64E-008 2.90E-002 7.66E-010
1.98E-006
1.09E-011
9.25E-007
1.78E-005






2.31E-008 1.51E+001 3.48E-007
9.41E-010 6.30E+000 5.93E-008
4.36E-008

Total pathway Risk — >| 3.5E-007
                                1.00E-006
                               3.00E+001
                                3.15E-002
                               1.00E+000
                               2.50E+002
                               2.50E+001
                               7.00E+001
                               2.50E+001
                               7.00E+001
HIF-NON-CARCINOGENIC-->
HIF-CARCINOGENIC—>
INHALATION DUE TO AIRBORNE DUST
Conversion Factor
Skin Surface Area Available for Contact, hands, arms,
Fraction of Intake from Source, 100 percent
Esposure Frequency for an adult worker (5 dys/wk for 50 wks)
Exposure Duration for an adult worker
Body Weight for adult worker
Averaging Time for Non-carcinogenic compounds
Averaging Time for carcinogenic compounds
Adherence Factor #

9.25E-009 HIF = (IR * CF * DL * Fl * EF * ED / BW) / (ATN)(365)
3.30E-009 HIF = (IR * CF * DL * Fl * EF * ED / BW) / (ATC)(365)
          INTAKE = (C' HIF)

4.29E-001 RfD = (RfC * 30 cu.cm/day / 70 kg);  (30 / 70) = 0.429
          RISK (non-carcinogenic) = (INTAKE/RfD) Note:  Not applicable to the inhalation rout
          RISK (carcinogenic)   = (INTAKE *  SLOPE FACTOR)

-------
                                                     Table B-IO
                                               Incidental Ingestton of Soli
                                                    Adult Worker
                                               (Future Worker Scenario)
                                                   57lh & Broadway
                                                    RIskAsitiiment
 Volatlles
 2-Butanone (MEK)
 2-Hexanone
 4-Methyl-2-Pentanone
 Acetone
 Benzene
 Ethylbenzene
 Naphthalene
 Toluene
 XylenB (mixed)

 norganlcs
 Arsenic
  admium (food)
 Lead
                     .•":.«*£••''
1.55E+001
1.55E+001
1.60E+002
1.55E+001
1.55E+001
6.00E+002
3.30E-003
3.30E+002
5.40E+003
6.98E+000
2.85E-001
1.32E+001

4.98E-007
4.98E-007
4.98E-007
4.98E-007
4.98E-007
4.98E-007
4.98E-007
4.98E-007
4.98E-007
           7.58E-006
           7.58E-006
           7.83E-005
           7.58E-006
           7.58E-006
           2.94E-004
           1.61E-009
           1.61E-004
           2.64E-003
 6.01E-001  1.26E-005
8.00E+002
 1.00E-001

 1.00E-001
 4.00E-002
 2.00E-001
2.00E+000
9.78E-005
7.58E-005

2.94E-003
4.04E-008
8.07E-004
1.32E-003
                               1.14E-002
                               2.79E-005
NA - Data Not Available
 # - Assumed Value
4.98E-007 3.41E-006  3.00E-004
4.98E-007 1.39E-007  5.00E-003
4.98E-007 9.46E-Op6_          .^_____
Total Pathway Hazard Index—-----I  1.8E-002
                                                      W>t>FKlW
                                                           1.75E-007  HIF = ((CF * IR * F! * ED * EF / BW)) / (ATC)(365)
                     DAILY INTAKE = (CS * HIF)
                     RISK (non-carcinogenic) = (INTAKE / RfD)
                     RISK (carcinogenic)  = (INTAKE * SLOPE FACTOR)

-------
                                                    Table B-ll
                                              Dermal Contact with Soil
                                                   Adult Worker
                                              (Future Worker Scenario)
                                                  57th & Broadway
                                                   Risk Assessment

                                           • r.(i*>S
                                           • ty*t*>/
                                                              ~.T~ j&tF&g-'^iy,.-;
                                                               • - "^ >j '• -.if: !.-, •• . .-" ! a—-:
                                                                BT** .i.ijj-

                               ojlp.
                               . • '.'- Mite.'- - •
                               •"•-"> Vi "k-.
                                 •••*>»4iir{.L;
Volatll^s
2-Butanone (MEK)
2-Hexanone
4-Methyl-2-Pentanone
Acetone
Benzene
Ethylbenzene
Naphthalene
Toluene
Xylene (mixed)

Inorganics
Arsenic
Cadmium (food)
Lead
1.55E+001
1.55E+001
1.60E+002
1.55E+001
1.55E+001
6.00E+002
3.30E-003
3.30E+002
5.40E+003
6.98E+000
2.85E-001
1.32E+001
NA - Data Not Available
# - Assumed Value
2.50E-001
2.50E-001
2.50E-001
2.50E-001
2.50E-001
2.50E-001
1.00E-001
2.50E-001
2.50E-001
1.00E-002
1.00E-002
1.00E-002
HIF-NON-CARCINOGENIC	
HIF-CARCINOGENIC—	:
3.05E-005
3.05E-005
3.05E-005
3.05E-005
3.05E-Q05
3.05E-005
3.05E-005
3.05E-005
3;05E-005
3.05E-005
3.05E-005
3.05E-005
1.18E-004
1.18E-004
1.22E-003
1.18E-004
1.18E-004
4.58E-003
1.01E-008
2.52E-003
4.12E-002
2.13E-006
8.70E-008
4.03E-006
                                          3.00E-002  3.94E-003
4.00E-003
5.00E-003

9.20E-002
2.00E-003
1.00E-002
1.84E+OOQ
2.85E-004
2.50E-004
3.05E-001
2.37E-002

4.98E-002
5.04E-006
2.52E-001
2.24E-002
7.48E-003
3.48E-004
1.09E-005
1.09E-005
1.09E-005
1.09E-005
1.09E-005
1.09E-005
1.09E-005
1.09E-005
1.09E-005
4.22E-005
4.22E-005
4.36E-004
4.22E-005
4.22E-005
1.64E-003
3.60E-009
8.99E-004
1.47E-002
3.22E-002  1.36E-006
1.09E-005  7.61E-007
1.09E-005  3.11E-008
1.09E-005  1.44E-006
          1.58E+000
           1.00E-002
           1.20E-006
           3.11E-010
                     Total Pathway Hazard Index	   6.6E:001
                                                              Total Pathway Risk—   2.6E-006
                               DERMAL CONTACT WITH SOIL
                               CS  = Concentration of chemical in soil (mg/kg)
                     1.00E-006 Conversion Factor
                     3.12E+003 Skin Surface Area Available for Contact, hands, arms,
                     1.00E+000 Fraction of Intake from Source, 100 percent
                     2.50E+002 Esposure Frequency for an adult worker (5 dys/wk for 50 wks)
                     2.50E+001 Exposure Duration for an adult worker
                     7.00E+001 Body Weight for adult worker
                     2.50E+001 Averaging Time for Non-carcinogenic compounds
                     7.00E+001 Averaging Time for carcinogenic compounds
                     1 .OOE+000 Adherence Factor #

                     3.05E-005 HIF = (CF * SA * Fl' EF * ED * AF / BW)) / (ATN)(365)]
                     1.09E-005 HIF = (CF * SA * Fl * EF * ED * AF / BW)) / (ATC)(365)]
                               DAILY INTAKE = (CS * ABS * HIF)
                               RISK (non-carcinogenic) = (INTAKE / RfD)
                               RISK (carcinogenic)    = (INTAKE * SLOPE FACTOR)

-------
                                                   Table B-12
                                       Inhalation of Dust (Suspended Parltculale)
                                                  Adult Worker
                                             (Future Worker Scenario)
                                                  57lh & Broidmy
                                                  Rlik Autsimtnt




Volatlles
2-Butanone (MEK)
2-Hexanone
4-Methyl-2-Pentanone
Acetone
Benzene
Ethylbenzene
Naphthalene
Toluene
Xylena (mixed)
Inorganics
Arsenic
Cadmium (food)
.ead
•£v'v*|«'''"
*^1"11 .,' "f^'"'.'m -"
j}*^' &f"-*X'sf*'f
*v£';* %:5?;":

Tstt.-;

1.55E+001
1.55E+001
1.60E+001
1.55E+001
1.55E+001
6.00E+002
3.30E-003
3.30E+002
5.40E+003

6.98E+000
2.85E-001
2.32E+000
- v>^.:i
.-£!$$!" •
^," \. jT-Jpip^ ,
jflpt;
"Mti,:-

9.25E-009
9.25E-009
9.25E-009
9.25E-009
9.25E-009
9.25E-009
9.25E-009
9.25E-009
9.25E-009

9.25E-009
9.25E-009
9.25E-009
...
t - r «»*•
"C'i' . - '..»•-
'*?££?!:
••*+*>

1.43E-007
1.43E-007
1.48E-008
1.43E-007
1.43E-007
5.55E-008
3.05E-011
3.05E-006
4.99E-005

6.45E-008
2.64E-009
1.22E-007
. --K4-.
*"r^f<*r*i'B
"- '• -i ••?•- • •'.*.
'Si"?
: "*.. •••



8.00E-002


1.00E+000

4.00E-001
3.00E-001




Total pathway Hazard In
# Assumed values


.,- *£•<#•
*^?,%''^
- i"- "»W rj»J>* ,"f^
^SM
, W0lht4^t

2.86E-001

2.29E-002

1.71E-003
2.86E-001

1.14E-001
8.57E-002




~r~"\ ~ T""


'-"•»' ,-•
.-*-,,.- -
{.-•§;' 1, -*
H^"-'."
••"iMMl

5.01E-007

6.47E-005

8.38E-005
1.94E-005

2.67E-005
5.83E-004




TJE^Op^
...«-.-.
'«— o-
1.
;-Si?
t * » f
<*i •'
WMn

3.30E-009
3.30E-009
3.30E-009
3.30E-009
3.30E-009
3.30E-009
3.30E-009
3.30E-009
3.30E-009

3.30E-009
3.30E-009
3.30E-009
•I'-.1 •<.••**&,''
*%*!**.•;]: %*/&
".'^ - " •£ •>* '- - >C.« *"
• '.* Mb*' • '**• •)
• •'••?»>*>*' ''!}«••
- .HUB'-* - '^'. he
• •Kltr'v fcr*

5.12E-008
5.12E-008
5.28E-007
5.12E-008
tfTs"'- -• -
!fr:- *'•-'',':*'"
>,'!j- .ti* i''"*"*i" «-'>'i
Ifil^pji
"tt,-""^ *' 't;' • '•--
ir" ,' • "«fc» 	 	
«ta> »-"~





5.12E-008 2.90E-002 1.48E-009
1.98E-006
1.09E-011
1.09E-006
1.78E-005






2.31E-008 1.51E+001 3.48E-007
9.41E-010
4.36E-008


Total pathway Risk — > 1 3.5E-007



INHALATION DUE TO AIRBORNE DUST
1.00E-006
3.00E+001
3.15E-002
1.00E+000
2.50E+002
2.50E+001
7.00E+001
Conversion Factor
Skin Surface Area Available for Contact, hands, arms,
Fraction of Intake from Source, 100 percent
Esposure Frequency for an adult worker (5 dys/wk for 50 wks)
Exposure Duration for an adult worker


Body Weight for adult worker
Averaging T me for Non-
carcinogenic compounds
2.50E+001 Averaging Time for care nogenic compounds
7.00E+001 Adherence Factor#
HIF--NON-CARCINOGENIC->
HIF-CARCINOGENIC	>
                                         9.25E-009 HIF = (IR * CF' DL * Fl * EF * ED / BW) / (ATN)(365)
                                         3.30E-009 HIF = (IR' CF * DL * Fl * EF * ED / BW) / (ATC)(365)
                                                  INTAKE = {C * HIF)

                                         4.29E-001 RfD = (RfC * 30 cu.cm/day / 70 kg); (30 / 70) = 0.429
                                                  RISK (non-carcinogenic) = (INTAKE/RfD) Note: Not applicable to the inhalation route
                                                  RISK (carcinogenic)  = (INTAKE * SLOPE FACTOR)

-------
                Table B-13
           Ingesliim ofOroumlwaler
             Onsitc Child/Adult
     (Current & Future Residential Scenario)
               57lh ic Bradmr
               Risk Assessment
; '^
Volatile*
1,1-Dichloroethane
1.1-Dichloroethene
1,1.1 -Trichloroethane
1,2-Dichloroethane
1,2-Dichloroelhene(cis)
1 ,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
Acetone
Benzene
Chloroelhane
Elhylbenzene
sopropylbenzene
Methylene Chloride
Naphthalene
sec-Butylbenzene
tert-Butylbenzene
Telrachloroethene
Toluene
Trichloroelhene
Trichlorofluoromethane
Vinyl Chloride
Xylene (mixed)
norganlcs
Arsenic
Lead
*-»
fi

5.40E-002
5.00E-003
1.30E-002
5.00E-D03
6.40E-002
4.60E-003
8.00E-003
1.50E-002
1.20E-001
1.20E-001
1.00E-002
5.00E-003
1.50E-002
2.50E-003
1.00E-003
5.00E-003
5.30E-002
7.10E-003
2.00E-003
8.70E-003
4.60E-001

3.00E-002
7.00E-003


HMM

3.74E-002
3.74E-002
3.74E-002
3.74E-002
3.74E-002
3J4E-002
3.74E-002
3.74E-002
3.74E-002
3.74E-002
3.74E-002
3.74E-002
3.74E-002
3.74E-002
3.74E-002
3.74E-002
3.74E-002
3.74E-002
3.74E-002
3.74E-002
3.74E-002

3.74E-002
3.74E-002


*** !

1.87E-003
1.74E-004
4.51E-004
1.74E-004
2.22E-003
1.60E-004
2.78E-004
5.21E-004
4.16E-003
4.16E-003
3.47E-004
1.74E-004
5.21E-004
8.68E-005
3.74E-005
1.74E-004
1.84E-003
2.46E-004
6.94E-005
3.02E-004
1.60E-002

1.04E-003
2.43E-004

»

1.00E-001
9.00E-003
9.0QE-002

1.00E-002
5.00E-002
1.00E-001

4.00E-001
1.00E-001

6.00E-002
4.00E-002
1.00E-001
2:OOE-002
1.00E-002
2.00E-002
6.00E-003
3.00E-001

2.00E+000

3.00E-004

Total Pathway Hazard Index 	 ^

MM*

1.87E-002
1.93E-002
5.01E-003

2.22E-001
3.19E-003
2.78E-003

1.04E-002
4.16E-002

2.89E-003
1.30E-002
8.68E-003
1.74E-003
1.74E-002
9.20E-003
4.11E-002
2.31E-004

7.9BE-003

3.47E+000

3.9E+000
_
"ir

1.49E-002
1.49E-002
1.49E-002
1 49E-002
1.49E-002
1.49E-002
1.49E-002
1.49E-002
1.49E-002
1.49E-002
1.49E-002
1.49E-002
1.49E-002
1.49E-002
1.49E-002
1.49E-002
1.49E-002
1.49E-002
1.49E-002
1.49E-002
1.49E-002

1.49E-002
I.49E-002

a
*?•. •*

8.03E-004
'--:•. . "-•-:- -
nf " '_•*•'-
**' "
*»" •- -(•*..•
t**a Niimi


7.44E-005 6.00E-001 4.46E-004
1.93E-004

7.44E-004 9.10E-002 6.77E-006
9.52E-004
6.84E-005
1.19E-004



2.23E-004 2.90E-002 6.47E-006
1.78E-003
1.78E-003
1.49E-004



7.44E-005 7.50E-003 5.58E-007
2.23E-004
3.72E-005
1.49E-005



7.44E-005 5.20E-002 3.87E-006
7.88E-004

1.06E-004 1.10E-002 1.16E-OQ6
2.97E-005

1.29E-004 1.90E+000 2.46E-004
6.48E-003



4.46E-004 1.75E-KIOO 7.81E-004


Total Pathway R!sk--"-i| 1.1E-OC
     INGESTION OF GROUNDWATER
     CW = Concentration of chemical in water (mg/L)
   1 IRC = 1 L/day - Ingestion Rale of water by a child (1-4 yrs.), (USEPA 1991c)
   2 IRA = 2 Uday - Ingeslion Rate of water by an adult (6-30 yrs.). (USEPA 1991c)
   6 EDO = 6 yrs - Exposure Duration for a child (0-6 yrs). (USEPA 1991c)
  24 EDA = 24 yrs - Exposure Duration for an adult (6-30 yrs). (USEPA 1991 c)
 350 EFC = 350 days/yr - Exposure Frequency for a child (0-6 yrs). (USEPA 1991c)
 350 EFA = 350 days/yr - Exposure Frequency for an adult (6-30 yrs). (USEPA 1991c)
  15 BWC= 15kg-BodyWeightforachild(1-6yrs), (USEPA 1991c)
  70 BWA = 70 kg - Body Weight for adult, (USEPA 1991 c)
  30 ATN = 30 yrs - Averaging Time for non-carcinogenic compounds, (USEPA 1991c)
  70 ATC = 70 yrs • Averaging Time for carcinogenic compounds. (USEPA 1991c)

ERR HIF = ((IRC' EFC * EDC / BWC) + (IRA ' EFA' EDA / BWA)) / (ATN)(36S)
ERR HIF = ((IRC ' EFC ' EDC / BWC) + (IRA ' EFA ' EDA / BWA)) / (ATC)(365)
     DAILY INTAKE = (CW • HIF)
     RISK (non-carcinogenic) = (INTAKE / RID)
     RISK (carcinogenic)   = (INTAKE • SLOPE FACTOR)

-------
                                                  Table B-14
                                        Derail) ("outlet nlth of Cronndnntr
                                               OnilltChlU/AduIt
                                       (Current & Future Rtitdtnllil Sctnirlo)
                                                 Wik AwMittilt
iSi
Volatile;
1.1-Dlctiloroalhana
1.1-DIchloroalhone
1 , 1 ,1 •Tiichloroelhane
1,2-Dichloroelhane
1 .2-DichIoroethene(cis)
1 ,2.4-Trimelhytbenzene
Acetone
Benzene
Chloroethane
Elhylbenzene
Isopropylbenzene
vlethylena Chloride
Naphthalene
sec-Butylbenzene
ert-Bulylbenzene
relrachloroethene
Toluene
Trichloroethene
Trichlorofluoromethane
Vinyl Chloride
Xylene (mixed)
norganlcs
Arsenic
Lead
."•• *wv:

5.40E-002
5.00E-003
130E-002
5.00E-003
640E-002
4 60E-003
8.00E-003
1.50E-002
1.20E-001
1.20E-001
1.00E-002
5.00E-003
1.50E-002
2.SOE-003
1.00E-003
5.00E-003
5.30E-002
7.10E-003
2.00E-003
8.70E-003
4.60E-001

3.00E-002
7.00E-003
•1 " '
. »— 1 °

1.30E-002
5.99E-003
1.76E-002
9.67E-003
1.68E-002
O.OOEtOOO
O.OOEtOOO
1.11E-001
901E-003
1.37E*000
O.OOEtOOO
5.12E-003
6.59&002
O.OOE+000
O.OOE+000
4.54E-002
1.01E+000
1.62E-002
O.OOE+000
832E-003
5.52E-004

B.57E-004
1.34E-004
NA - uata Not Available

• infi in>

5 83E-002
5 83E-002
5.B3E-002
5.83E-002
583E-002
5.83E-002
5.83E-002
5.83E-002
5 83E-002
5.83E-002
5.83E-002
5.83E-002
5.83E-002
5.83E-002
5.83E-002
5.83E-002
5.83E-002
5.83E-002
5.83E-002
5.83E-002
5.83E-002

5.83E-002
5.83E-002
UPt

4.09E-005
1.75E-006
1.33E-005
2.82E-OOS
6.27E-005


9.71E-005
6.30E-005
9.58E-003

1.49E-006
S.76E-005


1.32E-005
3.12E-003
6.71E-OOS

4.22E-006
1.48E+000

1.50E-002
5.47E-008
*-£">
"'•|gf

SOOE-003
900E-003
4.50E-003

5.00E-004

5.00E-003

2.00E-002
9.20E-002

3.30E-002
2.00E-003


1.00E-002
1.00E-002
5.88E-003


1.84E+000

2.85E-004

Total Pathway Hazard Index 	 >

«...'*•• V

819E-003
1.94E-004
2.98E-003

1.25E-001



3.15E-003
1.04E-001

4.52E-005
2.B8E-002


1.32E-003
3.12E-001
1.14E-003


8.05E-006

5 26E-003

5.9E-001
• *~.
**> '.
Ml "it

250E-D02
2.50E-002
2.50E-002
2.50E-002
2.50E-002
2 50E-002
2.SOE-002
2.50E-002
2.50E-002
2.50E-002
2.SOE-002
2.50E-002
2.50E-002
2.50E-002
2.50E-002
2.50E-002
2.50E-002
2.50E-002
2.50E-002
2.50E-002
2.50E-002

2.50E-002
2.50E-002
;. ..,1
' r • ^ I
W.'nl i

1 75E-005
7 48E-007
5 72E-OOB
1.21E-008
269E-005


4.16E-OOS
2.70E-005
4.11E-003

6.40E-007
2.47E-OOS


5.67E-006
1.34E-003
2J7E-006

1.81E-006
6.34E-006

6.42E-007
2.34E-008
,.'- '%
|gv


6.00E-001

9.10E-002



3.22E-002



1.36E-002



5.20E-002

1.12E-002

1.90E+000


1.84E+000

' TofaTPath'way R!S^:i|
'\
'oi'i;


4.49E-007

1.10E-007



1.34E-OOB



8.72E-009



2.95E-007

3.23E-008

3.44E-006


1.18E-006

' 6.9E-006
HIF-NON-CARCINOGENIC-
HIF-CARCINOGENIC
               DERMAL CONTACT DUE TO SHOWERING
               CW = Concentration ot chemical in water (mg/L)
          7200 SAC = 7200 sq. cm - Skin Surface Area Available for Contact. (Child). (USEPA 1989a)
         18200 SAA = 18.200 sq. cm - Skin Surface Area Available for Contact (Adult), (USEPA 1989a)
           350 EF = 350 days/year-Exposure Frequency. (USEPA 1991c)
           0.2 ET = 0.2 hours/day -Exposure Time. (USEPA 1989a)
             6 EOC = 6 years-Exposure duration for child (1-6 yrs),(OSWER 1991)
            24 EDA = 24 years - Exposure duration tor adult (6-30 yrs), (OSWER 1991)
            15 BWC = 15 kg - Body Weight tor a child (1 -6 yrs), (OSWER 1991)
            70 BWA = 70 kg - Body Weight tor adult, (OSWER 1991)
            30 ATN = 3D years - Averaging Time for non-carcinogenic compounds, (OSWER 1991)
            70 ATC = 70 years-Averaging Time for carcinogenic comounds. (OSWER 1991)
         0.001 CF = Conversion Factor, (1L /1000 cu.cm), (USEPA 1989a)
               PC = Permeability Constant (Chemical Specific)

ERR HIF = CF!((SAC • ET' EF • EOCI BWC) + (SM • ET • EF' EDA / SWA)) / 
-------
                                                    Table B-1S
                                             Inhalation of Groundwafer
                                             (Volatilized Contaminants)
                                                 Onsile Child/Adult
                                        (Current & Future Residential Scenario)
                                                  57th & Broidwiy
                                                   Risk Auesnncnl
'•';'< %VjMuii '- " '"'&"•
Volatllos
1,1-Dichloroethane
1,1-Dichtoroethene
1,1,1 -Trichloroethane
1.2-Dichloroethane
1 .2-Dichloroelhene(cis)
1 ,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
Acetone
Benzene
Chloroethane
Ethylbenzene
sopropylbenzene
vlelhylene Chloride
Naphthalene
sec-Butylbenzene
ert-Butylbenzene
Tetrachloroethene
toluena
rrichloroethene
Trichlorofluoromethane
Vinyl Chloride
Xylene (mixed)
noraanlcs
Arsenic
Lead
•!•''*%
S.40E-002
5.00E-003
1.30E-002
S.OOE-003
6.40E-002
4.60E-003
8.00E-003
1.50E-002
1.20E-001
1.20E-001
1.00E-002
5.00E-003
1.50E-002
2.50E-003
1.00E-003
5.00E-003
5.30E-002
7.10E-003
2.00E-003
8.70E-003
4.60E-001

3.00E-002
7.00E-003
> IMM
1.00E+000
1.00E+000
1.00E+000
1.00E+000
1.00E+000


in ii> 	
1.03E-001
1.03E-001
1.03E-001
1.03E-001
1.03E-001
O.OOE+000 1.03E-001
1.00E+000
1.00E+000
1.00E+000
1.00E+000
1.03E-001
1.03E-001
1.03E-001
1.03E-001
O.OOE+000 1.03E-001
1.00E+000
1.00E-001
1.03E-001
1.03E-001
O.OOE+000 1.03E-001
O.OOE+000 1.03E-001
1.00E+000
1.00E+000
1.00E+000
1.03E-001
1.03E-001
1.03E-001
O.OOE-fOOO 1.03E-001
1.00E+000
1.00E+000

1.03E-001
1.03E-001

O.OOE+000 1.03E-001
O.OOE+000 1.03E-001
::-\- =.:
':_ „>..;;:„:_"••_'• i
•••rS-^'
2.77E-003
2.57E-004
6.68E-004
2.57E-004
3.29E-003

4.11E-004
7.71E-004
6.16E-003
6.16E-003

2.57E-004
7.71E-005


2.57E-004
2.72E-003
3.65E-004

4.47E-004
2.36E-002



r^5?-'P'"
..•£-.
1.43E-001
2.86E-001
2.86E-003



1.70E-003
2.86E+000
2.86E-001

8.57E-001




1.14E-001

2.00E-001

8.57E-002



Total pathway Hazard Index 	 > |
"V>:- iJ-s
- 'KM ,~
1.94E-002
2.34E-003
8.98E-002



4.53E-001
2.16E-003
2.16E+002

3.00E-004


'.--.-
IIMIII
fclllllf 	
4.40E-002
4.40E-002
4.40E-002
4.40E-002
4.40E-002
4.40E-002
4.40E-002
4.40E-002
4.40E-002
4.40E-002
4,40E-002
4.40E-002
4.40E-002
4.40E-002
4.40E-002
•' 4.40E-002
2.38E-002



2.76E-001



8.9E-001
4.40E-002
4.40E-002
4.40E-002
4.40E-002
4.40E-002

4.40E-002
4.40E-002
^m
- _-. •• - . i -•
1.19E-002
1.10E-004
2.86E-004
1.10E-004
1.41E-003

1.76E-004
3.30E-004
2.64E-003
2.64E-003

1.10E-004
3.30E-004


1.10E-004
1.17E-003
1.56E-004

1.92E-004
1.01E-002



f\ ;t-^'v '••.-.-.--.,
\- - _ -',".,_. , , '::-. . ••; ;
'•*-** '
IHpi
1.75E-001

9.10E-002



2.90E-002



1.60E-003



1.80E-003

6.00E-003

3.00E-001


5.00E+001

"." ' TotS pathway Risk — > 1
-;uT
1.93E-005

1.00E-005



9.58E-006



1.76E-007



1.98E-007

9.38E-007

5.75E-005




~9T8E-005
 ft • Assumed Values
HIF-NON-CARCINOGENIC-
HIF-CARCINOGENIC	
          INHALATION DUE TO 'WHOLE HOUSE" ACTIVITIES
      0.5 K=  Volatilization Factor (.0005 x 1000 Ucu. m). (Andelman, 1990)
        0 VRM = Volatilization Rale (Metals = 0.0 %)#
      0.1 VRS = Volatilization Rate (Semi-Volaliles = 10.0 %)#
        1 VRV = Volatilization Rale (Volatiles = 100.0 %)#
       15 IRA = 15 cu. m/hr - Inhalation Rale, indoor activity (Adult), (USEPA 1989a
      350 EF = 350 daysf year - Exposure Frequency, (USEPA 1991c)
       30 ED = 30 years - Exposure duration for adult, (USEPA 199lc)
       70 BWA = 70 kg - Body Weight for adult, (USEPA 1991c)
       30 ATN = 30 years - Averaging Time for non-carcinogenic compounds (OSW
       70 ATC = 70 years - Averaging Time for carcinogenic compounds, (USEPA 1

1.03E-001 HIF = (K' IRA • EF ' ED / BWA|) / (ATN)(365)
4.40E-002 HIF = (K • IRA * EF ' ED / BWA) / (ATC)(365)
          RID = (RfC ' 20 cu.m/day / 70 kg)
          INTAKE = (CW • HIF)
          RISK (non-carcinogenic) = (INTAKE / RfD)
          RISK (carcinogenic)  = (INTAKE • SLOPE FACTOR)

-------
                                                  Table 8-16
                                            Ingnlton ofGrnwndHattr
                                                 Adult Worker
                                        (Current & Future Worker Scenario)
                                                 57lh & Broadiuy
                                                 Risk Aummtnl
'•rS'* "": *f.'
VolatlTes
1,1-Dichloroethane
1,1-DichloroethenB
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
1,2-Dichloroethane
1 ,2-Dlchloroethene(cis)
1 ,2.4-Trlmethylbenzene
Acetone
Benzene
Chloroelhane
Ethylbenzene
Isopropylbenzene
Methytene Chloride
Naphthalene
sec-Butylbenzene
tert-Butylbenzene
Tetrachloroethene
Toluene
Trlchloroeihene
Trichlorofluoromethane
Vinyl Chloride
Xylene (mixed)
noroanlcs
Arsenic
Lead
•:;.-£:;-I.

5.40E-002
5.00E-003
1.30E-002
5.00E-003
6.40E-002
4.60E-003
8.00E-003
1.50E-002
1.20E-001
1.20E-001
1.00E-002
5.00E-003
1.50E-002
2.50E-003
1.00E-003
5.00E-003
5.30E-002
7.10E-003
2.00E-003
8.70E-003
4.60E-001

3.00E-002
7.00E-003


' iliirmn

8.15E-003
8.15E-003
8.15E-003
8.15E-003
8.15E-003
8.15E-003
8.15E-003
8.15E-003
8.15E-003
8.15E-003
8.15E-003
8.15E-003
8.15E-003
8.15E-003
8.15E-003
8.15E-003
8.15E-003
8.15E-003
8.15E-003
8.15E-003
8.15E-003

8.15E-003
8.15E-003


!>*»

4.40E-004
4.08E-005
1.06E-004
4.08E-005
5.22E-004
3.75E-005
6.52E-005
1.22E-004
9.78E-004
9.7BE-004
8.15E-005
4.08E-005
1.22E-004
2.04E-005
8.15E-006
4.08E-005
4.32E-004
5.79E-005
1.63E-005
7.09E-005
3.75E-003

2.45E-004
5.71E-005

CM ."
ft*

1.00E-001
9.00E-003
9.00E-002

1.00E-002
5.00E-002
1.00E-001

4.00E-001
1.00E-001

6.00E-002
4.00E-002
1.00E-001
2.00E-002
1.00E-002
2.00E-001
6.00E-003
3.00E-001

2.00E+000

3.00E-004


?:." •*• •

4.40E-003
4.53E-003
1.18E-003

5.22E-002
7.50E-004
6.52E-004

2.45E-003
9.78E-003

6.79E-004
3.0BE-003
2.04E-003
4.08E-004
4.08E-003
2.16E-003
9.65E-003
5.44E-005

1.8BE-003

8.15E-001

Total Fallfway HazafoTndex 	 1 9.2E-001
Lli«inlCi  3.43E-003 KIF = (iR • EF ' ED / 6W) / (ATC)(365)
                                       DAILY INTAKE = (CW HIF)
                                       RISK (non-carcinogenic) = (INTAKE / RfD)
                                       RISK (carcinogenic)   = (INTAKE * SLOPE FACTOR)

-------
                                                  Table B-17
                                        Dermal Cimlacl with of Groumlnater
                                                 Adult Worker
                                        (Current & Future Worker Scenario)
                                                 57th & Broldwiy
                                                 Rlik Amsifflem
V
,A *i i
g^ffinmiini
•r
Volatllos
1.1-DichIoroethane
1,1-Dichloroethene
1.1,1-Trichloroethana
1,2-Qichloroethane
1,2-Dichloroethene(ds)
1 ,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
Acetone
Benzene
Chloroethanft
Elhylbenzene
Isopropylbenzene
Methylene Chloride
Naphthalene
sec-Bulylbenzene
tert-Butytbenzene
Tetrachloroethene
Toluene
Trictiloroethene
Trichlorafluoromethane
Vinyl Chloride
Xylene (mixed)
Inorganics
Arsanio
Lead
MC
CMI*
f««l
t"«l|

5.40E-002
5.00E-003
1.30E-002
500E-003
6 40E-002
4.60E-003
8.00E-003
1.50E-002
1.20E-001
1.20E-001
1.00E-002
5.00E-003
1.50E-002
2.50E-003
1.00E-003
5.00E-003
5.30E-OD2
7.10E-003
2.00E-003
8.70E-003
4.60E-001

3.00E-002
7.00E-003
*•»•••-'
H%
Cmto*
|«M

1.30E-002
5.99E-003
1.76E-002
9.67E-Q03
1 .68E-002
O.OOE+000
O.OOE+000
1.11E-001
9.01E-003
1.37E+000
O.OOE+000
5.12E-003
6.59E-002
O.OOE+000
O.OOE+000
4.54E-002
1.01E+000
1.62E-002
O.OOE+000
8.32E-003
5.52E-004

8.57E-004
1.34E-004
' ' (toiifcMiii nafrn^iCiid* ' -V
. HF) . Mfe* , - - *0 ' ^; _ - pot
nun • ta%^» r**r+n • i-*-i

2.97E-002 2.08E-005 5.00E-003 4.17E-003
2.97E-002 8.89E-007 9.00E-003 9.8BE-005
2.97E-002 6.79E-006 4.50E-003 1.51E-003
2.97E-002 1.44E-006
2.97E-002 3.19E-005 5.00E-004 6.38E-002
2.97E-002
2.97E-002 5.00E-003
2.97E-002 4.94E-005
2.97E-002 3.21E-005 2.00E-002 1.60E-003
2.97E-002 4.88E-003 9.20E-002 5.30E-002
2.97E-002
2.97E-002 7.60E-007 3.30E-002 2.30E-005
2.97E-002 2.93E-005 2.00E-003 1.47E-002
2.97E-002
2.97E-002
2.97E-002 8.74E-006 1.00E-002 6.74E-004
2.97E-002 1.59E-003 1.00E-002 1.59E-001
2.97E-002 3.41E-006 5.88E-003 5.B1E-004
2.97E-002
2.97E-002 2.15E-006
2.97E-002 7.54E-006 1.84E+000 4.10E-006

2.97E-002 7.63E-007 2.85E-004 2 68E-003
2.97E-002 2.78E-008
TJffTJaTa FJorAvailable Total Pathway Hazard Index 	 >) 3.0E-001
i
HWM ' : Hn HI .• / .
wM*PMMr (WV 6*Ml
f«) W«li« " •l|IFllll «M '

1.27E-002 3.71E-005
1.27E-002 3.18E-007 6.00E-001 1.91E-007
1.27E-002 2.51E-006
1.27E-002 3.18E-007 9.10E-002 2.B9E-008
1.27E-002 5.21E-005
1.27E-002 2.69E-007
1.27E-002 8.14E-007
1.27E-002 2.86E-006 3.22E-002 9.22E-008
1.27E-002 1.83E-004
1.27E-002 1.83E-004
1.27E-002 1.27E-006
1.27E-002 3.18E-007 1.36E-002 4.34E-009
1.27E-002 2.86E-006
I.27E-002 7.95E-008
1.27E-002 1.27E-008
1.27E-002 3.18E-007 5.20E-002 1.6SE-008
1.27E-002 3.57E-005
1.27E-002 6.41E-007 1.12E-002 7.20E-009
1.27E-002 5.09E-008
1.27E-002 9.63E-007 1.90E+000 1.83E-006
1.27E-002 2.69E-003

1.27E-002 1.14E-005 1.84E+000 2.11E-005
1.27E-002 6.23E-007
'" Total Pathway Risk-— >| " 2.3E-005
HIF-NON-CARCINOGENIC	
HIF-CARCINOOENIC--	>
                   DERMAL CONTACT DUE TO SHOWERING
                   CW = Concentration of chemical in water (mg/L)

             18200 SA = 18,200 sq. cm - Skin Surface Area Available for Contact (Adult), (USEPA 1989a)
               250 EF =250 days/year-Exposure Frequency for Adult Worker, (USEPA 1991c)
                0.2 ET = 0.2 hoursWay-Exposure Time, (USEPA 1989a)
                25 ED = 25 years - Exposure duration for adull worker, (OSWER 1991)
                70 BW = 70 kg - Body Weigh! for adult, (OSWER 1991)
                30 ATM = 30 years - Averaging Time for non-carcinogenic compounds. (OSWER 1991)
                70 ATC = 70 years - Averaging Time for carcinogenic comounds. (OSWER 1991)
             0.001 CF = Conversion Factor. (1L/1000 cu.cm), (USEPA 1989a)
                   PC = Permeability Constant (Chemical Specific)

2.97E-002 HIF = CF|(SA ' ET • EF ' ED / BW) / (ATN)(365))
1.27E-002 HIF = CF|(SA • ET • EF • ED / BW) / (ATC)(365)J
         INTAKE = (CW ' HIF 'PC)
         RISK (non-carcinogenic) = (INTAKE / RID)
         RISK (carcinogenic) = (INTAKE ' SLOPE FACTOR)

-------
           Table B-18
Summary of Non-Carcinogenic Risks
     57th and North Broadway
Population Medium " Exposure Pathway
(Current Resident Groundwater, Shallow Aquifer Incidental Ingestion
Dermal Contact
Inhalation
Total Risk:
Exposure
Table Number
5.21
5.22
5.23
, — Population Hazard Index
Hazard
Quotient
3.90E+000 •
5.90E-001 .'
8.90E-001
5.38E+000
5.38E+000
1 	 _ 	 ' ||
Current Worker Surface Soil (0-31) Incidental Ingestion
Dermal Contact
Total Risk:
Groundwater. Shallow Aquifer Incidental Ingestion
Dermal Contact
Total Risk:
5.15
5.16
5.17
5.24
5.25
	 Population Hazard Index
. 	 . 	
Future Residents Groundwater, Shallow Aquifer Ingestion
Dermal Contact
Inhalation
Total Risk:

5.21
5.22
5.23
Population Hazard Index

Future Worker Surface and Subsurface Soil (0-1 2') Incidental Ingestion
Dermal Contact
Total Hazard Index:
Groundwater. Shallow Aquifer Ingestion
Dermal Contact
Total Hazard Index:


5.18
5.19
5.20
5.24
5.25

1.70E-002
6.10E-001
7.30E-004 !'
6.28E-001
9.20E-001
3.00E-001 :
1.22E+000
1.85ED-000 l

3.90E-KJOO
5.90E-001
8.90E-001
5.38E+000
5.38E+CIQO I

1.80E-002 i
6.60E-001
7.80E-004
6.79E-001
9.20E-001
3.00E-001
1.22E+000 :


-------
                                                 Table B-19
                                     Summary of Carcinogenic Risks
                                         57th and North Broadway
Population " '• " - Medium • Exposure Pathway
Current Resident Groundwater, Shallow Aquifer Incidental Ingestion
Dermal Contact
Inhalation
Total Risk:
Exposure
Table Number
5.21
5.22
5.23
RME
Risk
1.10E-003
6.90E-006
9.80E-005
1.20E-003 '
                                                            Population Risk:
                                                                                                      1.20E-003
Current Worker
                         Surface Soil (0-3'}
Incidental Ingestion
Dermal Contact
Inhalation
Total Risk:
                         Groundwater, Shallow Aquifer
Incidental Ingestion
Dermal Contact
Total Risk:
5.15
5.16
5.17
5.24
5.25
1.90E-006  ,j
1.90E-006  li
3.50E-007  j'
4.15E-006
                                                                                                      2.87E-004
	 -••- 	
Future Resident




—

Groundwater, Shallow Aquifer






Incidental Ingestion
Dermal Contact
Inhalation
Total Risk:
Population Risk:


5.21
5.22
5.23



!
i
1.10E-003 I
6.90E-006 j
9J30E-2Q5 ! i
1.20E-003 '
1.20E-003 .
li
Future Worker Surface and Subsurface Soil (0-121) Incidental Ingestion
j Dermal Contact
1 Inhalation
1 Total Hazard Index:
Groundwater, Shallow Aquifer Ingestion
• Dermal Contact
: Total Hazard Index:
• •
! Population Risk
5.18
5.19
5.20
5.24
5.25

1.90E-006 '
2.60E-006 i
4.85E-006 i
j
2.60E-004 i,
2.83E-004
2.88E-004

-------
                                         Table 2-5
    Numerical Values of Chemical-Specific TBCs for Contaminants of Concern in Soil
Contaminant
Toluene
4-Metnyl-2-pentanone
Ethylbenzene
Xylenes
Soil Screening Levels -
Transfer from Soil to:
Groundwater
mg/kg
12

13
190**
Air
mg/kg
650

400
410**
USEPA Region III Risk-
Based Concentrations
Industrial
Exposure
mg/kg
410,000
160,000
200,000
1,000,000
Residential
Exposure
mg/kg
16,000
6,300 .
7,800
160,000
KDHE
IRGs*
mg/kg
1,500
17,000
1,980
630
Notes:
No chemical-specific ARARs were identified for the contaminants of concern in soil at the site.
Values listed are TBCs.
Blanks indicate data not available.
*KDHE "Interim Remedial Guidelines (IRGs) for Contaminated Soils," October 1995. Values listed
are for non-residential areas.
**The values listed are for o-xylene, which has the lowest soil screening values.
Feasibility Study Report
July 1998
Revtied March 1999
Page 1 of 1
571h & North Broadway Site
       46100.112-02

-------
APPENDIX  C

-------

-------
                                         Table C-l
                                Present Worth Cost Estimate
                           Groundwater Alternative 1 - No Action
I Cost Estimate Component^
I Quantity I  Units :  Unit Cost |  Capital Cost I Annual Colt
.•TOTAL CAPITAL COST
i ANNUAL O&M COSTS=
                                                                           ~$DT
• hive-Year Review
                    iu, 15, 20, 25, and 30
      Ti—CS~
$ 15,000 i
yrs
1 U i AL f KtStNT
1OIAL FKJtSbNT
j ; i
WUKTH O&M COST '

$41,700
WORTH $41,700

1
   5 percent discount rate used to calculate present worth.

-------
                                      Table C-2
                             Present Worth Cost Estimate
                         Groundwater Alternative 1 - No Action
                                      Total
; Yearly O&
Year M Cost*
Intermittent
O&M Costs
1 -| SO! $0
2 $0
3 $0
4 : $0
$0
Annual O&
M Costs
$0
$0
$0 $0
$0
, 5 $0 $15,000
6 SO' $0
7 SO $0
, 8 SO
9 $0
$0
$15,000
$0
$0
$0 $0
Intermittent O&M Costs Include:




5 yr review



$0 , $01
10 $0 $15,000 j $15,000
11 , SO SO
12 ; SOi $0
13 $0
$0
$0
$0 : $0
5 yr review



14 : $0' SO $0
| 15 $0! $15,000 $15,000
16 $0
17 ; $0
18 $0
19 $0
SO
$0
$0| $0
$0
$0
$0 ! $0
5 yr review




1 20 SO! $15,000! $15,000 Syr review
21 i
22
23 ,
24 i
25 j
$0! $0
so; so
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0|
$0
$0
$0| $0
$15,000 $15,000



5 yr review
1 27 ; $0; $0
28 $0
j 29
30
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0i $0
$o; $15,000 : $15,000
'


5 yr review
Present Worth of Annual O&M
$41,730'
  There are no yearly O&M costs tor this alternative.

-------
                                           Table C-3
                                  Present Worth Cost Estimate
                        Groundwater Alternative 2 - Natural Attenutation
 Cost Estimate Component
                                      Quantity |  Units  ;  Unit Cost   Capital Cost  . Annual Cost



Monitoring Welis (t sei
installed to depths of 25
DIUh'tTJ 'APITA! 1 VI

s ot 2, 2
and 40
vr vi IK

" f vc wells
feet)
I'l'i VI'A"! 	
1
260- VLF ( $25
1
$6,500-
!
      Permitting and Legal (5%)
     "tngmeenng uesign (8%)
! TOTAL CAPl'l AL COST
                                                                             $6,500:
Bid Contingency (15%)
~ Scope Contingency ( 1 5%)
'IV VI'A 1 — 1 \llilJl "I1 / 'A lll'l A 1 /VIL-I- 	 • 	
i SI, 000]
j $1,000"!
                                                                             $8,50(T
                                                                              $400 i
Con
NS1K
struction
UCT1UN
Serv
COJ
ices (10%) 	 	 	
$900j
515 1U1AL , $9,800 ;
                                                                             1800

_ . .3, M, z:> and 31.

)yrs

1 LS
SI 5,000

Sli.OOO
                  •ing (Analysis only)
      yearsitnroughi	

      Quarterly sampling of 20 monitoring wells
      for VOCs, DO, Nitrates, Iron (II), Suifate,
      Sulfide, Bromide, Oxidation/Reduction
      Potential, pH, Temperature, and TOC
                                                EA~
                                                           "SIOIJ
Years 6 through 30             "	

Semi-annual sampling of 20 monitoring
wells for VOCs.
                                                     ES~
                                                           "ST23"
                                                                                   "$24,000'i
                 Dnng (Labor
                                              F281—FHT
     2 Level PI persons for 2-8 hour days per
     sampling event
          1 tnrough 3 bvaluation ot Sample
                                                            ~$6TT
Year
results
Years 6 through 30
                                               HIT
                                                    HR~
2 Level PI persons for2-S
sampling event
hour days per

i
     Results
i ^reparation ot Health and isatety Plan (Year 1 	
only)
Preparation ot U&M Manual (Year I only)
1 Preparation ot (^A/Sampling flan (Year 1 only)
U&M COb 1
O I AL PKfctibN 1 WUK I H
40
SO
60


HR
HR
HR


$60
$60
$60





$323 ;3W
$J33,900
$2,400 i
$4,8001
$3,600



-------
                  Table C-4
         Present Worth Cost Estimate
Groundwater Alternative 2 - Natural Attenutation

i Yearly O&
Year M Cost*
1 SO
Intermittent
O&M Costs
$44,900
2 $0 $34,100
3 $0i $34,100
4 $0
5 $0
: 6 $0
7 . SO
$34,100
$49,100
$11,200
$11,200
8 SO: $11,200
9 ' SOi $11,200
; 10 $0
11 $0
$26,200
$11,200
12 . $0! $11,200
13 ! $0 511,200
. 14 $0i $11,200
15 $0
16 $0
1 17 , $0
$26,200
$11,200
$11,200
18 $0! $11,200.
19 $0i $11,200
20 $0
21 $0
22 $0
$26,200
$11,200
$11,2001
23 , $0 $11,200-
24 $01 $11,2001
25 $0 ! $26,200
26 $0 $11,200
27 $0
$11,200
28 $0! $11,200
29 ! $0 $1 1,200 !
30 $0 ' $26,200
Total
: Annual O&
M Costs
Intermittent O&M Costs Include-
$44,900 Year 1 (plans and gw monitoring)
! $34,100
$34,100
$34,100
$49,100
Years 1-5
Years 1-5
Years 1-5
Years 1-5 and 5 yr review
; $11, 2001 Years 6-30
$11,200
i $11,200
$11,200
$26,200
$11,200
Years 6-30
Years 6-30
Years 6-30
Years 6-30 and 5 yr review
Years 6-30
$11,2001 Years 6-30
$11,200
$11,200
$26,200
$11,200
$11,200
$11,200
$11,200
$26,200
$11,200
$11,200
Years 6-30
Years 6-30
Years 6-30 and 5 yr review
Years 6-30
Years 6-30
Years 6-30
Years 6-30 ;
Years 6-30 and 5 yr review
Years 6-30
Years 6-30 |
$11,200 Years 6-30
$11,200
$26,200
$11,200
$11,200
Years 6-30
Years 6-30 and 5 yr review
Years 6-30
Years 6-30
$11,2001 Years 6-30 j
$11, 200: Years 6-30 i
$26,200
Present Worth of Annual O&M . $323,333
Years 6-30 and 5 yr review

* 1 here are no yearly O&M costs lor this alternative. , 	 	 '

-------
                             Table C-5
                     Present Worth Cost Estimate
Groundwater Alternative 3 - Containment/Air Stripping with Tray Aeration


bxtraction Wells (3 - 8" PVC wells mtalled to depth
of 40 feet)
Submersible Pump (wire now and control devices)
i Uroundwater Collection Double Containment Piping
(includes PVC piping, bedding, and trenching)
] Cham-LinK t-encmg (6 it high)
.; Swing Gate (6 tt high, 12 It opening)
• Concrete well Vaults (bxtraction wells only)
1 Prefabricated Structure
Purchased Packaged (Air Stripper)
i Other Direct Costs tor Packaged System (includes
acid wash system)
i Discharge Piping to Drainage Ditch (includes PVC
[piping, bedding, and trenching)
Monitoring Wells (4 sets ot 2, 2" PVC wells
installed to depths of 25 and 40 feet)
1 ireatability Study
1 DIRECT CAPl 1 AL CDS T SUB TO TAL
Bid Contingency ( 1 5%)
Scope Contingency (15%)
TOTAL DlKbCT CAPITAL COST
Permitting and Legal (5%)
Construction Services ( 1 0%)
| CONSTRUCTION COSTS TOTAL
bngmeenng Design (8%;
1 0 1 AL CAPITAL COST



! 120 VLF i $60, $/,200: 	
I ' ,
3 EA ! $2,000 $6,000
67001 LF $22.50. $150,800. '
{
60 LF $13.53 S800
1 j HA $400 1 $400 ;
4j EA 1 $1,100 $4,400! :
1 EA $3,000 . $3,000
1 Lis $50,000 $50,000-

160 i LF $10; $1,600 i
J . . • , . '
260 | VLF $25 $6,500 |
i
1 * LS • $30,000 $30,000
$390,700 i ;
$58,600 .:
$5«,600
$507,900 j
$25,400 |
$50,800
$584,100
$46,700
$630,800 i
1
i Electrical Costs (8 ] 0 KWWday) * 	 	
"Groundwater Monitoring (Analysis only)
Year 1
Monthly sampling of 20 monitoring wells for
VOCs (standard turnaround)
"295700

240


KWh

EA


$0.08 i

$125 .
i

$23,700

$30,000



-------
                                            Table C-5
                                  Present Worth Cost Estimate
          Ground-water Alternative 3 - Containment/Air Stripping with Tray Aeration
cost estimate component
                                                        units  unit cost i  capital cost  i Annual cost
     Years 2 through 6
     Quarterly sampling of 20 monitoring wells for
     VOCs (standard turnaround)
                                                    80   t A       5125
     Years 7 through 30
     Semi-annual sampling of 20 monitoring wells
     for VOCs (standard turnaround)
. 401  EA  i
    I
Uroundwater Monitoring (Labor only)
     Yearl	
                                                                                            $10,0001
384 i  Hk  i
    I       i
523,0001.
     2 Level PI persons for 2-8 hour days per
     sampling event
     Years i through 6
     2 Level PI persons for 2-8 hour days per
     sampling event
                                                   128 i  HR
                                         "5777001 i

Years / through 30
2 Level PI persons for 2-8 hour days per
sampling event
'I rearment Plant tttluent Monitoring (Monthly
monitoring for VOCs, standard turnaround)
V reparation ot Health and Satety Plan (Year 1 only)
Preparation ol O&M Manual (Year 1 only)
Preparation ot yA/bampling flan (Year 1 only)
nve-Year Review @ 5, 10, 15, 20, 25 and 30 yrs
Maintenance Allowance (15% ot purchased
equipment delivered) (includes acid feed)
'! Operator Requirement (2 hour/day)
, TOTAL. PRESENT WORTH U&M COS I
1OIALPRESEN1 WOR1H

64
12
40
80
60
J
1
73U



HR
EA
HR
HR
HK
LS
LS
HR



S60
5125 '
S60.
SbO
560 •
SI 5,000 .
57,500 '
•
S25
, 2>1,05
9>1,68

$3,8001;
SI, 500'
r , •- • ^
52,400 !,
S4,«00j
$3,600
515,000
$7,500
i '
518,300
U,100
u.yoo
   5 percent discount rate used to calculate present worth.

   * Electrical costs include costs to operate 3 - 10 hp extraction well pumps and a IS hp compressor.

-------
                             Table C-6
                     Present Worth Cost Estimate
Groundwater Alternative 3 - Containment/Air Stripping with Tray Aeration
i_-osi cstiiiE
-------
                                             Table C-6
                                   Present Worth Cost Estimate
           Groundwater Alternative 3 - Containment/Air Stripping with Tray Aeration
                                             "  Quahtiiy-
                                                             ~ OrfftCosf" CapifarCost~ AhmfaTCosr'
      Years 2 tnrougn 6
      Quarterly sampling of 20 monitoring wells for
      VOCs (standard turnaround)
                                                         EA
      Years 7 througnju
      Semi-annual sampling of 20 monitoring wells
1      for VOCs (standard turnaround)
                                                    4V   EA
 Groundwater Monitoring (Labor only)
      YearT
      2 Level PI persons for 2-8 hour days per
      sampling event
      Years 2 through o
      2 Level PI persons for 2-8 hour days per
      sampling event
      Years 7 through .50
      2 Level PI persons for 2-8 hour days per
      sampling event
                                                    384!  HR        S5(r
                                                   128   HR     " ~"56Q
                                                    63HTC    '    550'
                                                                                            S23',{HJO"
 Treatment Plant bttlucnt Monitoring (Monthly
 monitoring for VOCs, standard turnaround)
                                                     12   EA
Preparation ot Health ana"SaTety"PTarr(Year I only)
                                                     40   HR
   ST1500-

   "S274UO"
'Preparation ot O&M Manual (Vear'l only)         ;      SO   FTRT
 Preparation ot QA/SampIing Flan (Year I only)           50   HFT
 Five-Year Review @ 5, 10,  15,20,25 ariaTfTyrs"	1	CS~
' Maintenance Allowance (I i"/o ot purchased                I"1  ES~~
 equipment delivered) (includes acid feed)                    '
'Operator Requirement (2 hour/day)
'TOTAL PKbSbNT WORTH U&lvTCOST"
                                                                    SCO'
                                                                    550"
                                                   730 i  HR
  -ST.500-

""S18,300'
TOTAL PRESENT WURTH
   S  percent discount rate used to calculate present worth.
   *  Electrical costs include costs to operate 3 - 10 hp extraction well pumps and a 15 hp compressor.

-------
                             Table C-6
                     Present Worth Cost Estimate
Groundwater Alternative 3 - Containment/Air Stripping with Tray Aeration
Year
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 '
9 i
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22 i
23 !
24 ;
25
26
27
28
29
30
Yearly O&
M Cost*
$51,000
$51,000
$51,000
$51,000
$51,000
$51,000
$51,000
$51,000
$51,000
$51,000
$51,000
$51,000
$51,000
$51,000
$51,000
$51,000
$51,000
$51,000
$51,000
$51,000
$51,000:
$51,000
$51,000
$51,000
$51,000
$51,000
$51,000^
$51,000
$51,000:
$51,000
Intermittent
O&M Costs
$63,800
$17,700
$17,700
$17,700
$32,700
$17,700
$8,800
$8,800
$8,800
$23,800
$8,800
$8,800
$8,800
$8,800
$23,800
$8,800
$8,800
$8,800
$8,800
$23,800
$8,800
$8,800
$8,800
$8,800
$23,800
$8,800 .
$8,800
$8,800 •
$8,800
$23,800
Present Worth of Annual O&M
Annual O& :
M Costs Intermittent O&M Costs Include: -,
$1 14,800 • Year 1 (plans, monitoring)
$68,700 Years 2-6
$68,700
$68,700
$83,700
$68,700
Years 2-6
Years 2-6
Years 2-6 and 5 yr review
Years 2-6
$59,800 Years 7-30 .
$59,800 Years 7-30 ;
$59,800 i Years 7-30 j
$74,800 Years 7-30 and 5 yr review '
$59,800 Years 7-30
$59,800 Years 7-30
$59,800 Years 7-30
$59,800 Years 7-30
$74,800 Years 7-30 and 5 yr review
$59,800 j Years 7-30
$59,800
$59,800
$59,800
$74,800
$59,800
Years 7-30
Years 7-30
Years 7-30
Years 7-30 and 5 yr review
Years 7-30 ,
$59,800 Years 7-30
$59,800 Years 7-30
$59,800 Years 7-30
$74,800 Years 7-30 and 5 yr review
$59,800 Years 7-30
$59,800
$59,800
$59,800
$74,800
$1,050,081
Years 7-30
Years 7-30
Years 7-30
Years 7-30 and 5 yr review

* Yearly O&M costs include: electricity, treatment plant effluent monitoring, maintenance, i
and operator.

-------
                                           Table C-7
                                  Present Worth Cost Estimate
                Groundwater Alternative 4 - Containment/In Situ Vapor Stripping
                                            Quantity  tJffuintfnirCos't   'Capital Cost
 TTTaitu vapor Stripping wells (10 - 8" PVC~
 installed to depth of 40 feet with 2 screened
 intervals)
                                                      VLh
                                                                            550,000"
j[ system component Piping (mcludes"pvc
 'piping, trenching, installation, bedding materials,
  and backfill)
 'Mechanical System components
 Other Direct Costs tor Mechanical System
• t Components (includes acid feed system)
                                               T700—EF"
                                                   1   LS
                                                  I 1  LS
      51S.W"
i
	$317,000 T
    S80,"000"
  rreatability study
  DIRECT CAPITAL COSTT5UBTOTATJ~'
 '     BTcTContingency (13%)
      scope Contingency (15%)
 .TO 1AL DIRECT CATTTAL COST	
 f   "Permitting and Legal (5%)  	~~
      Construction services (10%)
 "CDNSTRDC1 ION COSTS TOTATT	
                                                  1   LS
   ~S3D^)00"
      tngineenng Design (8%)'
'TOTAL CAPITAL COST	
           ' S3U700IT
        " sso.ooo,

            5307000"
           $220.600
        	S337TDO'

           S2S5~SUO"'
         —ST4730D"
            S2S7700"
           $379:8"OI)"
            $26.400'
jlblectrical Costs (432 KWh/dayy"
                                             157700  K.Wh 1
*«jroundwater Monitoring (Analysis Only)
     " Year 1     ~~~
      Monthly sampling of 20 monitoring wells
      for VOCs (standard turnaround)
                                                240 i   EA
      Years i through 6
     Quarterly sampling of 20 monitoring wells
     for VOCs (standard turnaround)
                                                      EA
~$HOS"

~$T25T


"ST25'
                                                                                        512,60011
                                                                                               'I
     Years 7 through JO
     Semi-annual sampling of 20 monitoring
     wells for VOCs (standard turnaround)
                                                                                       "510,000"
                             "ST07000"!:
                                                                                        •~55,'000~

-------
                                           Table C-7
                                 Present Worth Cost Estimate
              Groundwater Alternative 4 - Containment/In Situ Vapor Stripping
Cost Estimate Cpmponent ~ • ""Quantify" Units~^~trn'iC'Co'sT — Capital'
Urouhdwater Monitoring (Labor only)
i Year I , 384 HR S60 :
2 Level PI persons for 2-8 hour days per
sampling event
Years i through o 128! HR ; 5W~
2 Level PI persons for 2-8 hour days per '.
sampling event
Years / tnrough 3U j 64 HR $60 '
2 Level P 1 persons for 2-8 hour days per
sampling event
Preparation ot Health and Safety Plan (Year 1 ' 40 ' HR 	 " SCO"
only)
Preparation ot O&M Manual (Year 1 only) ' " — 80" "HR — 	 S60 '
\ Preparation ot (^A/Sampling Plan (Year I only) " "60~ HR ~ " " " SCO'
Hve- year Review (g 5, 10, 15,20, 257ana"3IT ' Tf LS ' 	 STTOOO 	 "
yrs '
Maintenance Allowance (12% brpiifcnased 1 	 LS" " $37600~
equipment delivered) :
Acid heed Addition Costs (includes chemical 12, HA •• S500"
costs)
Operator Requirement (2 hour/day) 730 HR 	 S25"
lUIALPKtSbNT WORTH O&M COST""" " ' 	 jg^g
1 O I AL ^KtbbN i WORTH 	 	 $T,244"
Cost Anntial Cost
	 •
• i
S7,700
i!
S378W1:
-S2T40U-
' "S4;soo
53^00"
" 	 sis^joir
S3, 6001]
56,000
SI 8,300 M
700

5 percent discount rate used to calculate present worth.

  Electrical costs include costs to operate 12 - 2 hp blowers. 24 hours per day, 365 days per year.

-------
                        Table C-8
                Present Worth Cost Estimate
Groundwater Alternative 4 - Containment/In Situ Vapor Stripping
Year
1
2
3
; 4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
" 13
14
15
, 16
; 17
18
19
20
! 21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
Present
Yearly O&
M Cost*
$40,500
$40,500
$40,500
$40,500
$40,500
$40,500
$40,500
$40,500
$40,500
$40,500
$40,500
$40,500
$40,500
$40,500
$40,500
$40,500
$40,500
$40,500
$40,500
$40,500
$40,500
$40,500
$40,500 .
$40,500 !
$40,500
$40,500
$40,500
$40,500
• $40,500 1
$40,500
Intermittent
O&M Costs
$63,800 I
! $17,700 !
1 $17,700
$17,700
$32,700
$17,700
1 $8,800
$8,800'
$8,800
$23,800 ,
$8,800 i
$8,800
$8,800
$8,800 i
$23,800 l
$8,800
$8,800
$8,800 i
$8,800 1
$23,800
$8,800
$8,800
$8,800 1
$8,800
$23,800
$8,800
$8,800 i
$8,800 I
$8,800
$23,800
Worth of Annual O&M
* Yearly O&M costs include: electricity,
Annual O& |
M Costs Intermittent O&M Costs Include:
$104,300 Year 1 (plans and monitoring)
$58,200 'Years 2-6
$58,200 Years 2-6
$58,200 Years 2-6
$73,200 Years 2-6 and 5 yr review
$58,200 | Years 2-6
$49,300 • Years 7-30
$49,300 Years 7-30
$49,300 ; Years 7-30
$64,300 Years 7-30 and 5 yr review
$49,300 Years 7-30
$49,300 Years 7-30
$49,300 . Years 7-30
$49,300 Years 7-30
$64,300 Years 7-30 and 5 yr review
$49,300 Years 7-30 :
$49,300 Years 7-30
$49,300 Years 7-30 ^^
$49,300 ' Years 7-30 ••
$64,300 Years 7-30 and 5 yr review ^"^
$49,300 , Years 7-30
$49,300 Years 7-30
$49,300 '• Years 7-30
$49,300 Years 7-30
$64,300 Years 7-30 and 5 yr review
$49,300 Years 7-30
$49,300 ! Years 7-30
$49,300 Years 7-30
$49,300 Years 7-30
$64,300 1 Years 7-30 and 5 yr review
$888,671 i
maintenance, and operator.

-------
                                 Table C-9
                        Present Worth Cost Estimate
Groundwater Alternative 5 - Active Restoration/Air Stripping with Tray Aeration
j Cost Estimate Component
Quantity I
: I CAPITAL COSTS 	 " 	 "
bxtraction Wells (o - 8" PVC wells mtalled to 240
depth of 40 feet) j
Submersible Pump (wire tlow and control 6
devices)
Uroundwater Collection Double Containment 10000
Piping (includes PVC piping, bedding, and
trenching)
Cham-Link fencing (6 it high) 60
swing Uate (6 it high, 1 2 it opening) I
1 Concrete Well Vaults (txtraction wells only) 6
Prefabricated Structure
1
Purchased Packaged (Air Stripper) 1
! Other Direct Costs lor Packaged System 1
;j (includes acid wash system)
1 Discharge Piping to Drainage Ditch (includes 400 :
PVC piping, bedding, and trenching) !
Monitoring Wells (4 sets ot 2, 2" PVC wells 260 \
installed to depths of 25 and 40 feet) ;
I reatability Study
! 1
:ffiits~ Unit Cost Capital Cost i Annual Cost

VLF ! $60 $14,400'
HA $2,500 515,000'
LF $22.50 $225,000
LF ' S13.5J $800
bA , S4UO 5400]
HA $1,100 $6,600 i
HA 55,000 ' $5,000 :
LS $60,000 $60,000
LS $155,000 $155,000
Lh S 1 0 $4,000
/LF $25 $6,500'
LS $30,000 $30,000"
DIKbC 1 CAPITAL COST SUBTOTAL $522r7D~0~
Bid Contingency ( 1 5%J
Scope Contingency (15%;
! 10IAL DIRECT CAPITAL COST
. Permitting and Legal (5%)
Construction Services
CONSTRUCTION COSTS
(10%)
101AL
Engineering Design (8%)
TOTAL CAPITAL COS T
ANNUM: O&M COSTS~


1 *
$78,400 1 i
$679,500! !
$34,000"
$68,000'
$781,500'
S62,500
$844,000

blectncal Costs (1 620 K.Wh/day) ; 5yi300 KWh $0.08 " "." 	 $37,JOOT
Uroundwater Monttonng (Analysis only)

Year I , 240 > HA $125 j S30;OU01
. Monthly sampling of 20 monitoring wells i
j for VOCs (standard turnaround) ; j
i . j
Years 2 through 6 80 1
Quarterly sampling of 20 monitoring wells
for VOCs (standard turnaround) .
Years / through M 40 i I
Semi-annual sampling of 20 monitoring
wells for VOCs (standard turnaround) i
lA $125 ! SI 0,000
iA $125 S57JOTT
i
i
Uroundwater Monitoring (Labor only) 	
Year 1
i 384 F
IK $60 1 $23,000

-------
                                           Table C-9
                                 Present Worth Cost Estimate
     Groundwater Alternative 5 - Active Restoration/Air Stripping with Tray Aeration
cost Es[imate~(~omponem quantity
~Units Unit uost ; Capital Cosi i Annuat"Cost |
2 Level P 1 persons for 2-8 hour days per
sampling event
Years 2 through 6 ; 128
2 Level PI persons for 2-8 hour days per
sampling event
: Years / through 20 64
;! 2 Level PI persons for 2-8 hour days per ''
jl sampling event
, treatment Plant bttluent Monitoring (Monthly 12
monitoring for VOCs, standard turnaround) ;
;
Preparation ot
only)
i ^reparation ot
Preparation ot
Health and Satety Flan (Year 1 40 :
U&M Manual (Year I only) 80 !
y A/sampling Plan (Year 1 only) 60
!
five- Year Review @ 5, ID, 15, and 20 yrs 1
Maintenance Allowance ( 1 5% ol purchased 1
equipment delivered) (includes acid feed)
; Operator Requirement (2 hour/day) 730 i
1 0 1 AL PkbStN 1 WOK'l H O&M COS 1
lOlALPRbSbN'l WUK'l'H
HR 560 	 S7.7UO
HR $60 S3,800|
i
tA 51 25' 51,500
HR 560 S27TOO:
HR $60: $4;8WI
HR 560! . ' 53,600 :
LS i 515,000 515,000
LS sy,ouo 59,000
HR $25 SI 8,300
51,145,700
i $1, 989,700 ; ,
5 percent discount rate used to calculate present worth.

• Electrical costs include costs to operate 6 - 10 hp extraction well pumps and a 30 hp compressor.

-------
                                Table C-10
                        Present Worth Cost Estimate
Groundwater Alternative 5 - Active Restoration/Air Stripping with Tray Aeration
                                 Total
Yearly O&
j Year M Cost*
I 1 $76,100
! 2 $76,100
3 i $76,100
4 ' $76,100
5 $76,100
6 $76,100
7 $76,100
8 $76,100
9 $76,100
j 10 $76,100
; 11 $76,100
12 $76,100
13 $76,100
14 $76,100
15 $76,100
16 $76,100
17 $76,100
18 $76,100
19 ; $76,100
20 j $76,100
Intermittent
O&M Costs
$63,800
$13,800
$13,800
$13,800
$28,800
$13,800
$6,500
$6,500
$6,500
$20,000
$6,500
$6,500
$6,500
$6,500
$20,000
$6,500 i
$6,500
$6,500
$6,500
$20,000
Present Worth of Annual O&M
Annual O&
M Costs
$139,900
$89,900
$89,900
$89,900
$104,900
$89,900
$82,600
$82,600
$82,600
$96,100
$82,600
$82,600
$82,600
$82,600
$96,100
$82,600
$82,600
$82,600
$82,600
$96,100
$1,145,673
i
Intermittent O&M Costs Include:
Year 1
Years 2-6
. Years 2-6
Years 2-6
Years 2-6 and 5 yr review ,
Years 2-6 1
Years 7-20
Years 7-20
Years 7-20
Years 7-20 and 5 yr review
Years 7-20
Years 7-20
Years 7-20
Years 7-20
Years 7-20 and 5 yr review
Years 7-20
Years 7-20
Years 7-20
Years 7-20
Years 7-20 and 5 yr review
i
!
* Yearly O&M costs include: electricity, treatment plant effluent monitoring, maintenance, '
and operator.

-------
                                            Table C-11
                                   Present Worth Cost Estimate
              Groundwater Alternative 6 - Active Restoration/In Situ Vapor Stripping
                                              Quantity"" Units "Ufifrtsif'"' "CapttarC6st~ ATTriuSt Cos"l~
  fiTSftu vapor stripping WeiIs"f20"^yTVC"""
  installed to depth of 40 feet with 2 screened
  intervals)
                                                 "SUD  VEF"
                         "STOTWOO"
  System Component PipihgTincIud'es PVC piping™
  trenching, installation, bedding materials, and
  backfill)
                                                 2UOTT" ~L~F~
               sraoo •
                                                                           ~S35,OW
 Mechanical system components"
 OtneTfDirect Costs tor iVlecnanical System"
 Components (includes acid feed system)
   i    LS    soToro'
  "1	CS"
                                                                            S67;000~
 Tfeatabiiity study
 DIREcTCAPITXL COSTSUBTOTAL
  "" ~~BTa Continge7icy~jT5%) "
      Scope' Contingency (15%)'
1 Lb 530.000 ~
.j,AL . . .... 	 _

S30OTO
S408TOOO '
551,200
                                                                            551,200"
      Permuting and Lega1T5%)"~	"
      Construction Services '(rO%7
 CONSTFCDCriON COSTS TOTAL"	
      engineering Design (8%)
:TOTSL" CAPITAL cosi		—
;!7WN!BaaHaiR5KT^-^==!^'=====^ -
'blecmcal Costs (864 KWh/day) r	
 Groundwater Monitoring (AriaTysisfOnly)
     "Year 1                             "
      Monthly sampling of 20 monitoring wells
      for VOCs (standard turnaround)
                                                                        "'5509",900"
                                                                        ~"s?s;goo"
                                               3lS400!K.Wh
                                                  240   EA
                                      "525,200"

                                       530,000'
      Years 2 through 1U                "
      Quarterly sampling of 20 monitoring wells
      for VOCs (standard turnaround)

 GroundwateFMonitorihg'pCab'bf only)    "
      "year 1
      2 Level PI persons for 2-8 hour days per
      sampling event
      Years/through 10
      2 Level PI persons for 2-8 hour days per
      sampling event
Ml
;!Preparation ot Health and SafefyPlan (Year I~~
 only)
                                                                 SCO"
                                                T2S
                                                  401" HR~
Vreparation otO&M Manual (Year 1 only)
 Preparation or QA/Sampnng flan (Year I only)"
 801
"BO
                                                       HR
                                                       mr
                                                                                       "STT/OOli
"S2V400"

" 54,800"
~ S3,6001,

-------
                            Table C-l 1
                    Present Worth Cost Estimate
Groundwater Alternative 6 - Active Restoration/In Situ Vapor Stripping
CoSrEstimate Component 	 	

Maintenance Allowance (12% or purchased
equipment delivered)
, Acid heed Addition Costs (includes chemical
"costs)
1 Operator Requirement (2 hour/day)
lOl AL r-KtStN 1 WORTH O£M COST
1 0 1 AL PKtbfcNT WORTH
5 percent discount rate used to calculate present worth.
* Electrical costs include costs to operate 24 - 2 hp blowers.
Quantity Units | Urn! Cost-
1 LS S 15,000
1 . LS S;8,040
24 j hA S500
730' HR ' •'525''


24 hours per day, 365 days per year.
                                                                       SS.'DDOl,
                                                                      512,000!
                                                         S59T,900	

-------
                                       Table C-12
                               Present Worth Cost Estimate
           Groundwater Alternative 6 - Active Restoration/In Situ Vapor Stripping
                                        Total
Year










1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Present
Yearly O&
M Cost*
$63,500
$63,500 ,
$63,500 1
$63,500 1
$63,500 i
$63,500 •
: $63,500
$63,500
$63,500
$63,500
Worth of Annual
Intermittent ; Annual O&
O&M Costs i M Costs
$63,800 '
$17,700
$17,700
$17,700
$32,700
$17,700
$17,700.
$17,700 !
$17,700 i
$32,700 !
O&M
$127,300
$81,200
$81,200
$81,200
$96,200
$81,200
$81,200
$81,200
$81,200
$96,200
$691,871
Intermittent O&M Costs Include:
Year 1 (plans and monitoring)
Years 2-10
Years 2-10
Years 2-10
Years 2-10 and 5 yr review
Years 2-10
I Years 2-10
1 Years 2- 10 i
i Years 2- 10 :
Years 2-10 and 5 yr review

* Yearly O&M costs include: electricity, treatment plant effluent monitoring, maintenance,
and operator.

-------
                                             Table C-13
                                    Present Worth Cost Estimate
            Groundwater Alternative 7 - Active Restoration/In Situ Chemical Oxidation
  Cost Estimate
\ Quantity  DmtS   Unit CosT"~~~CSpital~Cosr'  AnnuatCosn I
      11 AL, COS 1.3
II
  In Situ Chemical Oxidation System (includes
  geoprobe installation, reagent costs, etc., at each
  of 1000 locations) (assumes  10 lines of injection
  points, 1000 feet long, with 10-foot spacing
  located in the high contaminant concentration
 ;areas)
 !ln Situ Vapor Stripping Wells (12 - W PVC"
 ' installed to depth of 40 feet with 2 screened
  intervals)
      10001EA
         """"" S8W
"5800,000
      T80  VLF
          "ST25:   •"•S50TOTKT
 ' System Component Piping (includes
 piping, trenching, installation, bedding materials,
  and backfill)
      20001Lh
                       "$75^)00"
Mecnamcat System Components
Other Direct Costs tor Mechanical System
• Components (includes acid feed systems)
ij
, 1 reatability Study
UIKbCT CAPITAL COS 1 SUBTOTAL'
Bid Contingency ( 1 5%)
Scope Contingency ( i 5%)
TOTAL DIRECT CAPITAL COS T
Permitting and Legal p%)
Construction Services (10%)
CONSTRUCTION COSTS TOTAL
Engineering Design (8%)
; TOTAL CAPITAL COST
ANNUAETOS-lVTtrOSTS — '
tlectncal Costs (432 K.Wh/day) *
Uroundwater Monitoring (Analysis Only)
Year i
Monthly sampling of 20 monitoring wells
for VOCs (standard turnaround)
I; LS SI 50,000 SI 50,000
1 ' LS $375,000 5375,000 i
1 LS S50,000i 550,000
SI, 47 1,000
5220,700
5220,700
"'" 	 51,912,400'
sys.ooo
SI 91, 200:
52,199,200:
SI 75,900 :
' $2,375,100'

157700 KWh 50.08^

240 j bA . $125
i
I
                                                                                             srzrsorr
      Years 2 through 10

      Quarterly sampling of 20 monitoring wells
      for VOCs (standard turnaround)
        801  bA
                        ST25"
                                                                                             530:0001.
                                     'S10,000'.
:! Uroundwater Monitoring (Labor only)
      Year 1
      2 Level PI persons for 2-8 hour days per
      sampling event
             HR~
             'SoTT
                                                 $23,000
      Years 2 through 10
      2 Level PI persons for 2-8 hour days per
      sampling event
      T28"
"TOT
                $7,70011

-------
                                          Table C-13
                                 Present Worth Cost Estimate
        Groundwater Alternative 7 - Active Restoration/In Situ Chemical Oxidation
"CrerEsltnWirCc-rnpc-nent
Quantity Units 1 Unit Cost
Preparation ot Health and Satety Han (Year 1 80
only)
1
Preparation ot'O&M Manual (Year 1 only) ; 80 1
;, ^reparation ot yA/bampling nan (Year
•JMvc-Year Review  $18,0001
i
fciA $500
HR 525
lOIAL HRESKNT WORTH O&M COST
.; TOTAL PRESbNT WORTH


$3,6001
;
i
; SI 5,000 1
	 $18,000'
$6,000 1
	 SI 8, 300],'
$627,800 ;
S3,002,1JOO i
5 percent discount rate used to calculate present worth.
* Electrical costs include costs to operate 12 - 2 hp blowers. 24 hours per day, 365 days per year.'

-------
                             Table C-14
                     Present Worth Cost Estimate
Groundwater Alternative 7 - Active Restoration/In Situ Chemical Oxidation
i Yearly O&
: Year , MCost*
i 1 ; $54,900
! 2 : $54,900
! 3 : $54,900
| 4 ; $54,900
5 . $54,900
{ 6 $54,900
1 7 $54,900
8 $54,900
9 $54,900
10 $54,900
Intermittent
O&M Costs
$66,200
$17,700
$17,700
$17,700
$32,700
Annual O&
M Costs
$121,100
Intermittent O&M Costs Include:
Year 1 (plans and monitoring)
$72,6001 Years 2- 10
$72,600! Years 2- 10
$72,600 ! Years 2-10
$87,600 Years 2- 10 and Syr review
$17,700 i $72,600 : Years 2-10
$17,700! $72,600 Years 2- 10
$17,700 $72,600
Years 2-10
$ 1 7,700 $72,600 : Years 2- 1 0
$32,700 $87,600
Present Worth of Annual O&M $627,750
Years 2-10 and 5 yr review

* Yearly O&M costs include: electricity, treatment plant effluent monitoring, maintenance,
and operator.

-------
                                         Table C-15
                                Present Worth Cost Estimate
                                Soil Alternative 1 - No Action
X^JsTEsTiTfiaieComporienl                   j Quantity:  Units  '  Unit Cost   Capital Cost '  Annual Cosni
TOTAL CAPITAL COST	$D~
AI^IPtUAL* UdCiYl 1^
Mve-Year Review (
yrs
TOTAL FKCStNT
lUlAL hKbStNT
trsTS^-
^5, 10, 1

WORTH
WORTH




f.(\

D&M



/S


and 3U 1 , LS
TXJST



$10,000 $10,000!!
$27,800- !
527,800 :
   5  percent discount rate used to calculate present worth.

-------
        Table C-16
 Present Worth Cost Estimate
Soil Alternative 1 - No Action
          Total
Year
1
2
3
4
: 5
6
. Yearly O&
M Cost*
$0;
$0.
$0:
$o.
$0
$0i
Intermittent
O&M Costs
$0
$0
$0
$0
$10,000
$0
Annual O&
M Costs
$0
SO
$0
$0
$10,000
$0
Intermittent O&M Costs Include:




5 yr review

i 7 . $o; $o
! 8 $0! $0
9 $0 $0
10 $0
11 $0
12 $0
13 j $0
14
! 15
16
17
18
i 19
: 20
: 21
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$10,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$10,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$10,000
$0
22 $0 $0
23 $0 : $0
24 i $0 $0
25 $0 $10,000
26 $0i $0
27 : $0 $0
28 $0 $0
29 $0 $0
30 $0 $10,000
Present Worth of Annual O&M
$oi
$0

1 $0
. $10,000; Syr review
$o;
$0
$0
$0
$10,000 Syr review
$0 . .
$0

$01
$0
$10,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$10,000
$0
$0

5 yr review




5 yr review


$0!
$0
$10,000 Syr review
$27,820
* There are no yearly O&M costs for this alternative.

-------
                                          TableC-17
                                  Present Worth Cost Estimate
                                Soil Alternative 2 - Containment
cost bsiiniate Component
1 Quantity | Units |
Unit cost capital" Cost Annual cost i
, CSFI T AL CuS k a
I !
blurry wall installation
Aspnaitic cap
Monitonng Well Abandonment
Monitonng Wells (3 - 2" pvc, 40 teet deep)
sou borings
soil Sample Analysis
40000
1250
1
120
Si1 ;
St 1
LS
VL1-
1000| VL1-
40
bA
$20
$10
$300
$25
$7.50
$125
$800,000 !
;
$ 1 2,500 :
$300 ,
$3,000
$ /,500 ,
$5,000 i
— ..,,,,11 -.1... i ii
 DIRECT CAPITAL COS 1 SUBTOTAL
                          $828,300 :
Bid contingency ( 15%;
scope contingency ( 1 5%)
1 0 1 AL, DlKtCl CAPI 1 AL (JUS 1
Permitting and Legal (5%)
Construction services (10%)


$ 1 24,200
$124,200 •
$ 1 ,076, /OO !


$53,800 •
i i o /, /oo i
'CONSTRUCTION COSTS TOTAL $1,238,200 i
engineering Design (8%)
1 0 1'AL CAPITAL COS T


$yy,ioo j
SI, 337,300
"ANNUAL O&M COSTS
hive-Year Keview @ 5, 10, 15, 20,
25and30yrs I LS $15,000
(Jroundwater Monitonng (Analysis only)
• Years i tnrougn 5 12. bA $125
Quarterly sampling of 3 monitoring wells !
for VOCs
Years 0 through 30 6 bA $125
Semi-annual sampling of 3 monitoring < . !
wells for VOCs. i j
$15,0001
i
$i,500|
$800
oroundwatcr Monitonng (Labor only, includes
containment system inspection)
Years 1 through 5 64' HK ' 5601
i 2 Level PI persons for 1-8 hour day per • ' i " \
\ sampling event . i !
$3,800 .
      Years o tnrougn30
      2 Level PI persons for 1-8 hour day per
32,
                  $601
sampling event ;
Maintenance .
Preparation ot Health and Safety Plan (Year 1 .
only) !
~_. 	 	 	 ........ 	 i

1 ;
40'
i
LS
HK
$1,000
$60 ,
^Preparation ot O&M Manual (Year I only)
     HR
                  $60
i Preparation orQA/Sampling Plan (Year 1 only)
     HR
$60
                       $1,900
                                                                                        $l,000i
                                                                                        $2,400,
                       54,800
                                         $3,600.
TOTALPKtStN 1 WORTH O&M COST
                                                                         $120,200
 IU1 AL PREStN 1 WOK1H
                                                                       $1,457,500
   5 percent discount rate used to calculate present worth.

-------
         TableC-18
  Present Worth Cost Estimate
Soil Alternative 2 - Containment
          Total
Year
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
Yearly O&
M Cost*
$1,000
$1,000
$1,000
$1,000
$1,000
$1,000
$1,000
$1,000
$1,000
$1,000
$1,000
$1,000
$1,000
$1,000
$1,000
$1,000
$1,000
$1,000
$1,000
$1,000
$1,000
$1,000
$1,000
$1,000
$1,000
$1,000
$1,000
$1,000
$1,000
$1,000
Intermittent
O&M Costs
$16,100
$5,300
$5,300
$5,300
$20,300
$2,700
$2,700
$2,700
$2,700
$17,700
$2,700
$2,700
$2,700
$2,700
$17,700
$2,700
$2,700
$2,700
$2,700
$17,700
$2,700
$2,700
$2,700
$2,700
$17,700
$2,700
$2,700
$2,700
$2,700
$17,700
Present Worth of Annual O&M
* Yearly
Annual O& .
M Costs 1 Intermittent O&M Costs Include:
$17,100 | Year 1 (plans and gw monitoring)
$6,3001 Years 1-5
$6,300
$6,300
$21,300
$3,700
$3,700
$3,700
$3,700
$18,700
$3,700
Years 1-5
Years 1-5
Years 1-5 and 5 yr review
Years 6-30
Years 6-30
Years 6-30
Years 6-30
Years 6-30 and 5 yr review
Years 6-30
$3,700 ! Years 6-30
$3,700 i Years 6-30
$3,700 ! Years 6-30
$ 1 8,700 i Years 6-30 and 5 yr review
$3,700 i Years 6-30
$3,700 ! Years 6-30
$3,700 i Years 6-30
$3,700 Years 6-30
$18,700 i Years 6-30 and 5 yr review
$3,700 ! Years 6-30
$3,700 ! Years 6-30
$3,700 i Years 6-30
$3,700 I Years 6-30
$18,700
$3,700
$3,700
$3,700
$3,700
$18,700
$120,151
Years 6-30 and 5 yr review
Years 6-30
Years 6-30
Years 6-30
Years 6-30
Years 6-30 and 5 yr review

O&M costs for this alternative include maintenance.

-------
                                           Table C-19
                                  Present Worth Cost Estimate
                      Soil Alternative 3 - Excavation and Offsite Treatment

"'CSsrEStifflaie C6ffTponeht ™                  Quanfttyf Units   URtrCost i  Capital "Cost  "Annual Cost"
 Excavation                                       700 j  CY         $30 j      521,000^
 Backfill                                         7UIF]   CY          $61       $4,20TT
 Transponation (20 cy truclcs, 135 miles)              47251  LLMW!      $3.25;      515,400
i incineration
[Soil Contirrnation/ventication Samples (10
sidewall, 3 floor, VOCs)
'Site Restoration
Soil bonngs
Soil Sample Analysis
UTRKCT CAFl'l'AL COS'l' SUBTOTAL
Bid Contingency (5%)
Scope Contingency (15%)
1 U 1 AL UlKbCl CAm AL COST
i Permitting and Legal (5%)
, Construction Services ( 1 0%)
CONSTRUCTION COSTS TOTAL
bngineenng Design (8%)
1 0 1 AL CAPl'I AL CUS T
10501 ION $1,500 1 $1,575,000
13' bA $125 | $1,600
i
1 ; LS , $3,500 1 53,500
lUUOl VLF i $7.501 57,500 i
40! bA i $125 $5,000 1
$1,633,200:
$81,700j
$245,000 1
$i,y5y,yoO|
$98,000 i
S1%,OOOI
3J2,253,yOO i
5180,300! ;|
$2,434,200! - \\
 There arc no annual costs associated with this alternative.

-------
                  Table C-20
           Present Worth Cost Estimate
Soil Alternative 4 - Excavation and Offsite Disposal
| Cost Estimate Component
CAPITAL COSTS
• txcavation
; Backfill
, I ransportation {20 cy trucks, W5 miles)
Landtilling
Soil Confirmation/Verification Samples (10
sidewall, 3 floor, VOCs)
Site Restoration
, Soil Borings
;Soil Sample Analysis
DIRECT CAPITAL COST SUBTOTAL
Bid Contingency (5%)
Scope Contingency (15%)
TOTAL DIRECT CAPITAL COST
Permitting and Legal (5%)
Construction Services ( 1 0%)
•.CONSTRUCTION COSTS TOTAL
Engineering Design (8%)
1 U 1 AL CAPI 1 AL COS I
Quantity i Units Unit Cost

700 1 CY $30
700 1 CY 56
21875 LD-M1 $3.25
1050' TON $550
13 ' EA $125
1 LS $3,500
1000 VLh , $7.50
401 EA I $125









Capitat Cost ; Annual Cost •

$21,000) '
$4,200 1 ;
571,1001 i
$577,500 1 i
51,6001 !
$3,500
57,500
$5,000
$691,400
$34,600
$103,700
5829,700 '
$41,500
583,000
$954,200 ! -i
$76,300 i j
$1,030,500! 1
There are no annual costs associated with this alternative.

-------
                                        Table C-21
                                Present Worth Cost Estimate
                       Soil Alternative 5 - In Situ Soil Vapor Extraction
cost estimate Component
Tjuantnyunits i  unit cost   capital cost   Annual cost
C Ar 11 Al_i
; Site Preparation
»svt Extraction Wells (3 (g) 20 tea)
! SVb Uberscrvation Wells Points (4 @ 2o teetj
j
{Mobile txrraction system i
UAC Air scrubber j
1 i LS 53,500
3
4
1
1
f soil Probes (8) s
Soil Sample Analysis (VOCs)
Site Restoration
24
bA $1,100
KA $975
LS $57,600
LS $44,000
HA ; $600
bA , $125
1 LS •• $3,500
$3,500
$3,300
$3,900
: ' !
i
$57,600 |
$44,000 I
$4,800 i
$3,000 :
53,500 i
i rcatabiiity study i i LS j $i5,ooo $15,000
sou uonngs 500 , VLF I $7.50 $3,750
Soil sample Analysis 40 bA $125 $5,000
JjiKtCl (JAPI I AL COS'I SUB1O1AL $147,350
Bid contingency ( 15%) S22, 1 00
Scope Contingency ( 1 5%) S22, 1 00
TOTAL DIRECT CAPITAL COST $ 1 9 1 ,550
Permitting and Legal (5%) sy.ooo
Construction Services ( 1 0%; , $ 1 y ,200
CUNS 1 KULTi ION COS 1 S 1 0 1'AL $220,350
bngmeenng Design (8%) $ 1 7,600
TOTAL CAPITAL COST $237,950
There are no annual costs associated with this alternative.











i


-------

   (0
     0.0
  lio
   &"
   a)  o
   o 0:5
0 £C
§*-£
^v 0m ^^  «w
TJS«
   t.
                 Reproduced by NTIS

                 National Technical Information Service
                 Springfield, VA 22161
                          This report was printed specifically for your order
                        from nearly 3 million titles available in our collection.


                  For economy and efficiency, NTIS does not maintain stock of its vast
                  collection of technical reports.  Rather, most documents are printed for
                  each order. Documents that are not in electronic format are reproduced
                  from  master archival  copies and are the best possible reproductions
                  available. If you have any questions concerning this document or any
                  order you have placed with NTIS, please call our Customer Service
                  Department at (703) 605-6050.

                  About NTIS
                  NTIS collects scientific, technical, engineering, and business related
                  information — then organizes,  maintains, and disseminates that
                  information in a variety of formats — from microfiche to online services.
                  The NTIS collection of nearly 3 million titles includes reports describing
                  research conducted or sponsored by federal agencies and their
                  contractors; statistical and business information; U.S. military
                  publications; multimedia/training products; computer software and
                  electronic databases  developed by federal agencies; training tools; and
                  technical reports prepared by research organizations worldwide.
                  Approximately 100,000 new titles are added and indexed into the NTIS
                  collection annually.
                     For more information about NTIS products and services, call NTIS
                     at 1-800-553-NTIS (6847) or (703) 605-6000 and request the free
                      NTIS Products Catalog, PR-827LPG, or visit the NTIS Web site
                                       http://www.ntis.gov.
                                              NTIS
                        Your indispensable resource for government-sponsored
                                  information—U.S. and worldwide

-------

-------