Final Report
Taylor Lumber and Treating
Superfund Site
Final Construction Report
Prepared for
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Task Order Number 036-RD-RD-10F1
EPA Contract Number 68-S7-04-01
March 2009
Prepared by
CH2MHILL
1
-------
Printed on
Recycled and
Recyclable
Paper
-------
Contents
Section Page
1 Introduction 1-1
1.1 Background 1-1
1.1.1 Remediation Area Descriptions 1-2
1.1.2 Remedial Action Objectives 1-5
1.2 Design Documents 1-5
1.3 Remedial Action Construction Overview 1-6
1.4 FCR Organization and Content 1-6
2 Summary of Remedial Action Construction Activities 2-1
2.1 Chronology of Events 2-1
2.2 Mobilization and Site Preparation 2-1
2.2.1 Preconstruction Submittals and Work Plans 2-1
2.2.2 Mobilization 2-2
2.2.3 Site Preparation 2-2
2.3 Excavation 2-2
2.3.1 Subtitle D Excavation 2-2
2.3.2 Subtitle C Excavation 2-3
2.3.3 Excavation Quantities 2-5
2.3.4 Water Management During Excavation 2-5
2.4 Confirmational Sampling 2-5
2.4.1 XRF Screening 2-5
2.4.2 Confirmational Sampling 2-6
2.5 Soil Screening 2-7
2.6 Offsite Disposal 2-8
2.6.1 Subtitle D Disposal 2-8
2.6.2 Subtitle C Disposal 2-8
2.7 Backfill 2-9
2.7.1 Backfill Materials 2-9
2.7.2 Quality Control Testing 2-9
2.7.3 TPS-1, TPS-2, and WPS Areas 2-10
2.7.4 Ditches and Gullies 2-11
2.7.5 Soil Screening and Stockpile Area 2-12
2.7.6 Soil Storage Cells 2-13
2.8 Well Abandonment and Alteration 2-14
2.9 Low Permeability Asphalt Cap 2-14
2.9.1 Existing Pavement Repair and Reconstruction 2-15
2.9.2 Low Permeability Asphalt 2-16
2.9.3 Low Permeability Asphalt Deficiencies 2-18
2.9.4 Drainage Modifications 2-21
CVO\081210188 III
-------
CONTENTS CONTINUED
2.10 Site Restoration and Demobilization 2-23
2.10.1 Erosion Protection 2-23
2.10.2 Hydroseeding 2-23
2.10.3 Site Access Road Repair 2-23
2.10.4 Demobilization 2-24
2.11 Air Monitoring 2-24
2.12 Correction of Incomplete and Deficient Work 2-25
3 Deviations from Design Drawings and Specifications 3-1
3.1 Change Orders 3-1
3.2 Trench Drain 3-1
3.3 Soil Screening 3-1
3.4 Rock Creek Gully Limits 3-2
3.4.1 TPS-2 Drainage Modification 3-2
3.4.2 WPS Area Grading Modification 3-3
3.4.3 HWYD Backfill 3-3
3.5 RCRD Contamination Area 3-4
3.6 Miscellaneous Tasks 3-5
4 Remedial Construction Documentation 4-1
4.1 Daily Reports 4-1
4.2 Weekly Progress Meetings 4-1
4.3 Submittals 4-1
4.4 Requests for Information 4-1
4.5 Preliminary Assessment of Incomplete Work 4-2
4.6 Pre-Final Inspection 4-3
4.7 Final Inspection 4-3
4.8 Record Drawings 4-4
4.9 As-Built Survey 4-4
4.10 As-Built Drawings 4-5
4.11 Alternative Dispute Resolution 4-5
4.12 Preliminary Close Out Report 4-6
5 References 5-1
Appendix A: 2008 ERRS Summary Report
Tables
2-1 Excavation Quantities
2-2 Preliminary XRF Study Data
2-3 Confirmation Sampling Summary
2-4 Confirmation Sampling Composite Node Locations
2-5 Soil Screening Quantities
2-6 Offsite Disposal Quantities
2-7 Well Abandonment and Alteration Summary
2-8 Asphalt Pavement Permeability and Thickness
IV
CVO\081210188
-------
CONTENTS CONTINUED
3-1 Change Order Summary
4-1 Contractor Requests for Information
Figures
1-1 Site Vicinity Map
1-2 Site Photo, Prior to Remedial Action
1-3 Barrier Wall Protective Cap Detail
1-4 Key Elements of Completed Remedial Action
2-1 As-Built Construction Schedule
2-2 Confirmation Sampling Locations
2-3 Low Permeability Asphalt Pavement Overview
v
-------
-------
Acronyms and Abbreviations
AC
ADR
BMP
CERCLA
cm/ sec
CQAP
CRABS
DBR
DNAPL
ECM
EPA
ERRS
ESAT
ESCP
FCR
ftp
GES
HDPE
HSP
HWYD
lb/ft3
mg/kg
mm
NAPL
NMFS
NOAA
NPDES
NPL
asphalt concrete
alternative dispute resolution
best management practice
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act
centimeters per second
Construction Quality Assurance Plan
Cement Recycled Asphalt Base Stabilization
Design Basis Report
dense non-aqueous phase liquid
erosion control mat
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Emergency and Rapid Response Service
Environmental Services Assistance Team
Erosion and Stormwater Control Plan
Final Construction Report
File transfer protocol
Guardian Environmental Services
high-density polyethylene
Health and Safety Plan
Highway Ditch
pounds per cubic foot
milligrams per kilogram
millimeter
non-aqueous phase liquids
National Marine Fisheries Service
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
National Priorities List
CVO\081210188
VII
-------
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
ODOT Oregon Department of Transportation
PCP pentachlorophenol
PWPO Pacific Wood Preserving of Oregon
QAPP Quality Assurance Project Plan
RA remedial action
RCG Rock Creek Gully
RCP Reinforced Concrete Pipe
RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
RCRD Rock Creek Road Ditch
RFI Request for Information
RPM Remedial Project Manager
RRD-E East Railroad Ditch
RRD-W West Railroad Ditch
SARA Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act
SSAP Soil Sampling and Analysis Plan
SWTS stormwater treatment system
SYRG South Yamhill River Gully
TLT Taylor Lumber and Treating
TP Area Treatment Plant Area
TPS Area Treated Pole Storage Area
WPS Area White Pole Storage Area
XRF x-ray fluorescence
yd3 cubic yard
VIII
CVO\081210188
-------
1.0 Introduction
-------
-------
SECTION 1
Introduction
The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), under the authority of the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980
(CERCLA), as amended by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986
(SARA), initiated remedial action (RA) construction activities for the Taylor Lumber and
Treating (TLT) Superfund site to address potential risks to human health and the
environment posed by site conditions. This Draft Final Construction Report (FCR), prepared
by CH2M HILL under EPA Contract Number 68-S7-04-01 as set forth in Task Order
Number 036-RX-BF-105G, communicates in a narrative format, CH2M HILL's
understanding of the project and its requirements. This document will serve as an
informational resource to summarize RA construction activities completed through
December 2008.
1.1 Background
The TLT Superfund site is located in Yamhill County, Sheridan, Oregon (Figure 1-1). The
site was listed on EPA's National Priorities List (NPL) on June 14, 2001. The EPA
identification number for the site is ORD009042532.
TLT operated a sawmill and wood treating facility at the site from 1946 to 2001. Wood-
treating operations commenced in 1966 in the western portion of the facility, and
predominantly consisted of the treatment of Douglas fir logs for utility poles and pilings.
The primary wood-treating chemicals used by TLT included creosote, pentachlorophenol
(PCP), and Chemonite (a solution of arsenic, copper, zinc and ammonia). All operations
ceased when TLT filed for bankruptcy in 2001. Pacific Wood Preserving of Oregon (PWPO)
entered into a Prospective Purchaser Agreement with EPA and purchased the wood-
treating portion of the facility (approximately 37 acres). PWPO began wood-treating
operations in June 2002. Other entities purchased the remaining portion of the former TLT
holdings.
PWPO currently performs wood-treating operations using copper- and borate-based
treating solutions. In general, PWPO conducts wood-treating operations and stores poles on
the same portions of the property where these activities were conducted by TLT. Wood
treatment is conducted in the eastern portion of the facility, and untreated wood is handled
and stored on the western portion of the facility. Since 2002, new structures have been
constructed and certain areas were covered with asphalt or gravel.
The remedial action at TLT is focused on the wood-treating portion of the facility currently
owned by PWPO. The portion of the site being addressed by the remedial action
encompasses approximately 37 acres located west of Rock Creek Road, and is divided into
the Treatment Plant (TP) Area, White Pole Storage (WPS) Area, and Treated Pole Storage
(TPS) Areas. The designations of these areas reflect general property usage by the former
TLT (Figure 1-2).
CVO\081210188
1-1
-------
TAYLOR LUMBER AND TREATING SUPERFUND SITE FINAL CONSTRUCTION REPORT
As described in the Design Basis Report, the primary areas of contamination and their
sources at the TLT site include:
Subsurface groundwater contamination, including dense non-aqueous phase liquid
(DN APL), in the vicinity of the TP Area resulting from past drips, spills, and leaks of
wood-treating chemicals from above ground chemical storage tanks, drip pads, and tank
farms.
Surface soil contamination in the vicinity of the TP Area and areas of former treated pole
storage (TPS) areas resulting from spills, drippage, and storage of wood-treating
chemicals.
Surface soil contamination in roadside ditches that abut the facility (contamination
resulted from surface water runoff, spills associated with wood-treating operations, and
deposition of contaminated dust).
Contaminated soils from interim and removal measures conducted at the site are
consolidated in the Soil Storage Cells located in the northwest corner of the facility.
1.1.1 Remediation Area Descriptions
Remediation areas consist of areas that were addressed or created as part of past interim
actions at the site and contaminated in-place soil that has not been addressed through prior
activities. Previous cleanup efforts at the site included paving part of the TPS Area,
removing areas of arsenic contamination from the roadside ditches, and installing a barrier
wall (bentonite slurry) to contain non-aqueous phase liquids (NAPL) present beneath the TP
Area. The ground surface enclosed by the barrier wall was paved, and a groundwater
extraction system constructed within the barrier wall to maintain an inward hydraulic
gradient. Contaminated soil from various pre-existing stockpiles, in addition to soil
resulting from interim action activities, was consolidated and moved in 2000 to Soil Storage
Cells located in the northwest corner of the site. Relatively small amounts of soil have been
added to these cells since 2000.
These remediation areas are described in greater detail in the following subsections.
Barrier Wall
The barrier wall system, completed in 2000, consists of a number of components that work
together to meet the RA objectives for the area as a whole.
The soil-bentonite barrier wall is 2,040 feet long and encompasses an area of 6.05 acres. The
depth of the barrier wall between the ground surface and the top of the siltstone ranges
from 14 to 20 feet. The siltstone beneath the TLT site functions as an aquitard. The barrier
wall is keyed into the siltstone to minimize seepage along the bottom of the wall. The depth
of the key is 2 feet into the siltstone or to the point of refusal. The barrier wall was designed
to be between 30 and 36 inches wide (E&E, 2001). Contractor submittals dated August 23,
2000 (Geo-Con) indicated that the wall would be constructed to a minimum width of
30 inches, which was confirmed by the EPA on-scene coordinator, Mike Sibley. The backfill
soil consisted of a mixture of bentonite and clean offsite soil such that the permeability of
the wall was designed to be less than 1 x 10-7 centimeters per second (cm/sec).
1-2
CVO\081210188
-------
SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION
Protective Cap
A protective cap was installed over the top of the barrier wall to protect the wall from heavy
equipment traffic. Figure 1-3 provides a detail of the barrier wall protective cap. The cap
consists of base aggregate a minimum of 30 inches thick by 8.5 feet wide. An additional
2.5 feet of width were added to the as-built cap with a 1:1 slope on the side walls, for a total
minimum cap width of 13.5 feet. The base and walls of the cap trench were covered with a
low permeability (specified at 4 x lO12 cm/ sec) geosynthetic clay liner that was overlain by a
subgrade stabilization geotextile, which in turn was overlain by the compacted base
aggregate. The asphalt cap was constructed over this protective cap.
Asphalt Cap
The asphalt pavement placed in 2000 extended slightly beyond the barrier wall and
protective cap, covering a total of 6.75 acres. Of that area, existing structures cover
approximately 1.44 acres, and 0.21-acres is concrete (CH2M HILL, 2006a). The asphalt cap
served to impede the infiltration of stormwater into the groundwater beneath the area
encompassed by the barrier wall and protect people from direct contact with contaminated
soils. However, the cap is centrally located in the PWPO facility and is frequently driven
over by heavy equipment. Therefore, to remain intact and serve its primary purpose, the cap
must be designed to successfully sustain active use without damage. The existing cap
design consisted of a 2-inch-thick base course and a 2-inch-thick wearing course, and the
design indicated that the wearing course would be over a minimum gravel base of
18 inches. Pavement testing conducted to confirm the specifications of the existing cap
(CH2M HILL, 2006d) indicated that the existing asphalt thickness ranged from 3.6 to 6.0
inches (average of 4.8 inches), with aggregate base thickness ranging from 1 to 14 inches
(average of 8.8 inches). The variable thickness of aggregate base could have contributed to
numerous locations where the asphalt cap has failed since it was installed in 2000.
Groundwater Extraction System
Four 6-inch-diameter groundwater extraction wells with pneumatic pumps were installed
within the barrier wall to induce an inward hydraulic gradient and to prevent the water
level from rising above the protective cap. PWPO estimates that the total groundwater
recovery rate can be as high as 360 gallons per day, depending on the season. The
groundwater discharge pipes and air supply pipes are routed underground (24-inch
minimum depth) to the closest wastewater receiving tanks or sumps and air supply outlets
at the site, where it is conveyed to the existing stormwater treatment system (SWTS)
operated by PWPO.
Control of the groundwater elevation within the barrier wall is important to ensure the
structural stability of the asphalt cap, and must be regularly monitored. If the groundwater
elevation rises too close to the surface (for example, because of a leaking water line or a
malfunctioning extraction pump), the weight-bearing capacity of the surface diminishes and
the asphalt cap could fail under the heavy loads used in the area.
Stockpiled Soil
Stockpiled soil in the northwest corner of the facility consisted of three lined storage cells.
The cells were constructed in July - October 2000 and included a perimeter berm for
CVO\081210188
1-3
-------
TAYLOR LUMBER AND TREATING SUPERFUND SITE FINAL CONSTRUCTION REPORT
containment, a high-density polyethylene (HDPE) bottom liner, and an HDPE cover. The
documentation in the RA report (E&E, 2001) described the Cell 1 berm as 2.5 feet high and
the Cells 2 and 3 berms as 5 feet high, with a slope of 1 (vertical) to 2 (horizontal) on both
sides and lined with a 20-mil HDPE liner. The liner was anchored by approximately 2 feet of
clean soil on top of the berm. A gravel access road was constructed lengthwise across Cells 1
and 2.
In July 2005, EPA conducted an interim action excavating approximately 140 cubic yards
(yd3) of soil from ditches on the east side of Rock Creek Road. An access ramp was
constructed on the south side of Cell 2, and the soil from the ditch excavation was placed on
top of a small portion of Cell 2. The pile was then covered with a plastic liner and anchored
with weights.
Surface Soil
In-place contaminated surface soil addressed as part of this RA was located in the following
areas:
Contaminated soil in the 2.67-acre Treated Pole Storage Area 1 (TPS-1) and the 1.61-acre
Treated Pole Storage Area 2 (TPS-2) contaminated with arsenic concentrations greater
than 159 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg).
Contaminated soil in the 0.4-acre White Pole Storage (WPS) Area.
Within TPS-1, a 2.04-acre asphalt concrete (AC) cap had been installed in October 2000. The
cap was installed as an interim action to prevent exposure to arsenic-contaminated surface
soil. The sub-base for the AC pavement consisted of 25-millimeter (mm) - 0-mm base
aggregate over the previously existing ground surface. The area was graded with a
0.5 percent slope toward the south to an existing drainage ditch, where it was conveyed to
the SWTS conveyance system. The AC paving consisted of a 2-inch base course and a 2-inch
wear course for an overall depth of 4 inches.
Ditches
Approximately 3,890 linear feet of in-place contaminated ditch soil were addressed as part
of this RA. Most of the ditch length is adjacent to the site and included the following areas:
Railroad Ditch-West (RRD-W): Located at the northwest corner of the site, along the
southern edge of the Willamette Pacific Railroad (WPRR) track.
Railroad Ditch-East (RRD-E): Located at the northeast corner of the site, along the
northern edge of the WPRR track.
Rock Creek Road Ditch (RCRD): Located along the west side of Rock Creek Road from
the northeast corner to the southeast corner of the site.
Highway Ditch (HWYD): Located from the southwest corner of the site along the
northern edge of Highway 18B to the southeast corner of the site at the intersection of
Hwy 18B and Rock Creek Road.
Sediment was also removed from three culverts underneath Highway 18B, and ten culverts
located within the HWYD and RCRD alignments. An area extending 10 feet down-slope
1-4
CVO\081210188
-------
SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION
from each of the three culvert outlets underneath Highway 18B was planned for excavation
as noted below.
Gullies
The culvert outlets of the two gullies, one leading south from the site to Rock Creek (RCG)
and one to the South Yamhill River (SYRG), were planned for excavation from each of the
culvert outlets to 10 feet down-slope of the culvert. The remainder of the RCG (10 feet
down-slope of the outlet to Rock Creek) was also planned for excavation. The remainder of
the SYRG (10 feet down-slope of the outlet to the South Yamhill River) was not originally
planned for excavation based on the results of soil characterization, but based on
observations during excavation at the culvert outlet and data collected during that effort in
2007, the SYRG soils downstream from the culvert were excavated in 2007 and 2008 under a
separate EPA contract from the RA construction.
1.1.2 Remedial Action Objectives
Consistent with the Final Record of Decision, Taylor Lumber and Treating Superfund Site,
Sheridan, Oregon (EPA, 2005) the remedy at TLT was designed and constructed to achieve
the following RAOs:
1. Prevent migration of the DNAPL and contaminated groundwater beyond the barrier
wall.
2. Reduce or eliminate human exposure through direct contact (incidental soil ingestion,
skin contact with soil, and inhalation of dust) with contaminated soils that exceed
protective regulatory levels.
3. Reduce or eliminate risks to ecological receptors from contaminated soils in ditches.
4. Restrict human exposure to groundwater with contaminant concentrations that exceed
federal drinking water standards both inside and outside the barrier wall.
5. Minimize future migration of contaminated groundwater to adjacent surface waters
(Rock Creek, South Yamhill River) to protect ecological receptors.
The remedial construction described in this report addresses the first three RAOs listed
above. As set forth in the ROD, surface soils with concentrations of arsenic greater than 159
parts per million (ppm) arsenic will be addressed.
1.2 Design Documents
The Remedial Design included preparation of the following submittals:
Final Design and Design Basis Report. This report contains a final Design Basis Report
(DBR), Construction Quality Assurance Plan (CQAP), Soil Sampling and Analysis Plan
(SSAP), and construction schedule (CH2M HILL, 2006a), submitted to EPA on
December 2, 2006.
Final Design Drawings (CH2M HILL, 2006b), submitted to EPA on December 2, 2006.
CVO\081210188
1-5
-------
TAYLOR LUMBER AND TREATING SUPERFUND SITE FINAL CONSTRUCTION REPORT
Final Design Specifications (CH2M HILL, 2006c), submitted to EPA on December 2, 2006;
contains the final contract specifications.
1.3 Remedial Action Construction Overview
The EPA awarded the Remedial Action Construction contract EP-R7-07-08 to Guardian
Environmental Services (GES) of Bear, Delaware on March 30, 2007. RA construction
activities included the following:
Mobilization and site preparation activities
Erosion control
Air monitoring
Abandonment of groundwater monitoring wells
Excavation of non-hazardous and hazardous soils
Screening of non-hazardous and hazardous soils
Offsite disposal of non-hazardous and hazardous soils
Backfill and grading of excavations
Repair and reconstruction of existing asphalt pavement within the barrier wall area
Drainage modifications within the existing paved area within the barrier wall area
Installation of a low permeability asphalt cap over the existing paved area
Site restoration
Figure 1-4 provides an overview of key elements of work completed during the RA
construction. A detailed summary of RA construction activities is provided in Section 2 of
this FCR. In addition to the scope of work defined in the remedial design drawings and
specifications, additional scope was added under separate EPA contracts based on field
observations during RA construction. These items are discussed in Section 3 of this FCR.
1.4 FCR Organization and Content
The content of the FCR, is organized as follows:
Section 1 Introduction: contains general information about the TLT RA construction.
Section 2Summary of Remedial Action Construction Activities: presents a description
of the key elements of the RA construction, a chronology of construction activities, and a
summary of excavation, screening, and offsite disposal quantities.
Section 3 Deviation from Design Material and Specifications: presents a summary of
deviations from contract design drawings and specifications.
Section 4 Remedial Construction Documentation: provides a listing and brief
description of key documentation from the RA construction.
Throughout the FCR the roles and responsibilities of EPA, the remedial action contractor
(Contractor), the remedial action oversight contractor (Engineer), and the facility owner
(PWPO or Owner) are defined and discussed.
1-6
CVO\081210188
-------
2.0 Summary of Remedial
Construction Activities
-------
-------
SECTION 2
Summary of Remedial Action
Construction Activities
This chapter of the FCR provides a chronology of RA construction activities and a summary
of major work elements performed during the RA construction.
2.1 Chronology of Events
The RA construction contract was awarded to GES on March 30, 2007. The preconstruction
meeting was held onsite on May 10, 2007. Onsite activities commenced in mid May 2007 and
continued through late October 2007. A Prefinal Inspection was conducted on September 17
and 18, 2007, with the Final Inspection on October 15, 2007. Unresolved items including
non-accepted work were subject to continued negotiations between EPA and GES and its
subcontractors. Figure 2-1 provides a detailed As-Built Schedule for RA construction
activities performed by GES in 2007, with additions for work performed in 2008 by the
ERRS Contractor. This schedule was compiled by CH2M HILL based on information
provided by GES and the ERRS Contractor to EPA, and observations by CH2M HILL
inspectors. CH2M HILL provided a critical path analysis of the RA construction schedule in
a memorandum dated November 25, 2008 (CH2M HILL, 2008f).
2.2 Mobilization and Site Preparation
Contractor mobilization and site preparation activities included preparation and submittal
of site-specific work plans, setup of temporary controls and construction facilities, and
mobilization of equipment and materials.
2.2.1 Preconstruction Submittals and Work Plans
Site-specific plans prepared by the Contractor included the following submittals:
Site Management Plan
Construction Health and Safety Plan (HSP)
Erosion and Stormwater Control Plan (ESCP)
Air Quality Monitoring Plan
Soil Excavation, Grading, and Backfill Plan
Soil Screening Plan
Soil Disposal and Transportation Plan
Asphalt Pavement Plan
Quality Assurance Project Plan
CVO\081210188
2-1
-------
TAYLOR LUMBER AND TREATING SUPERFUND SITE FINAL CONSTRUCTION REPORT
2.2.2 Mobilization
Mobilization activities included site access improvements, setup of the material staging and
screening area, installation of temporary construction facilities including decontamination
areas and temporary office trailers, and delivery of construction equipment and materials to
the TLT site.
Prior to initiating the work, the Contractor was required to conduct a video survey to
document the condition of existing facilities on the PWPO property, adjacent properties, and
roadways. This preconstruction video was then submitted to EPA.
Two site trailers were installed just west of the main entrance to the PWPO facility off of
Highway 18B to provide office space for the Contractor, EPA, and Engineer personnel on
site. Temporary electric, phone, internet, sewer, and potable water connections were made
to service the trailers.
A soil screening and stockpile area was set up in the WPS Area just south of Soil Storage
Cells 2 and 3. Silt fence was installed around the perimeter of the area, which measured
approximately 180 feet x 220 feet (see Figure 1-4).
2.2.3 Site Preparation
Site preparation activities included implementation of stormwater best management
practices (BMPs) (for example, silt fence and check dams), vegetation removal and disposal,
removing the existing liners over the Soil Storage Cells, and coordination with PWPO for
moving stored lumber or equipment from work areas.
Prior to initiation of onsite work, EPA obtained access agreements from Bob Harris for
property south of Highway 18B (Tax Lot 5633-700), and from WPRR for right-of-way that
abuts the north property line of PWPO. EPA also reached a "no effect" conclusion for
species listed under the Endangered Species Act and thus there was no requirement for
Section 7 Consultation (EPA, 2007a). The EPA RPM discussed this conclusion with the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), and no issues were identified that would change this conclusion.
2.3 Excavation
2.3.1 Subtitle D Excavation
Excavation activities included removal of non-hazardous soils for offsite disposal at a
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Subtitle D disposal facility. Non-
hazardous soils were removed from the following onsite areas (see Figure 1-4):
Soil Storage Cell 1
Soil Storage Cell 2
Soil Storage Cell 3
Excavation activities included removal of the HDPE cover over the cells, mixing of the wet
soils and bentonite mixture in Cell 2 with dry soils from Cells 1 and 3, removal of the HDPE
2-2
CVO\081210188
-------
SECTION 2 SUMMARY OF REMEDIAL ACTION CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES
liner beneath the cells, and excavation of an additional 6 inches of underlying soils to
remove chemicals that may have penetrated the bottom liner.
After excavation was complete, EPA's Environmental Services Assistance Team (ESAT)
contractor performed screening analysis of arsenic concentrations in the berm soils, as well
as in the soils remaining after the excavation of 6 inches of underlying soils, using a hand-
held X-ray fluorescence (XRF) analyzer. Several areas of elevated arsenic concentrations
were identified and subsequently excavated for Subtitle D disposal.
Excavation activities included removal of clean berm soil from Soil Storage Cells 1, 2, and 3
for use as clean backfill.
2.3.2 Subtitle C Excavation
Excavation activities included removal of hazardous soils for offsite
Subtitle C disposal facility. Hazardous soils were removed from the
(see Figure 1-4):
Treated Pole Storage Area 1 (TPS-1)
Treated Pole Storage Area 2 (TPS-2)
White Pole Storage Area (WPS)
Railroad Ditch East (RRD-E)
Railroad Ditch West (RRD-W)
Rock Creek Road Ditch (RCRD)
Highway Ditch (HWYD)
Rock Creek Gully (RCG)
South Yamhill River Gully (SYRG)
TPS-1, TPS-2, and WPS Excavation
Excavation activities included removal and stockpiling of asphalt and clean aggregate
(onsite gravel) from the TPS-1 area for use as clean backfill.
The excavation approach defined in the design documents for TPS-1, TPS-2, and WPS
consisted of excavating soils from surface soil contamination areas in 1-foot lifts (or an
alternative thickness as allowed by the Engineer) in each excavation cell. After a lift of soil
was excavated from an entire cell, XRF screening was used to predict whether the arsenic
cleanup goal had been met for that cell. XRF results were used to indicate whether
additional soil removal was required. At the conclusion of soil removal work, final soil
confirmation samples were collected from each cell and analyzed in a laboratory for total
arsenic to confirm attainment of the soil cleanup level (159 ppm arsenic). This approach is
described further in subsection 2.4, Confirmational Sampling.
In portions of TPS-1 and TPS-2, areas of staining from wood treating chemicals were
identified in the excavation. In these areas, excavation proceeded based on visual
observations by the Engineer. In general, areas of visual staining extended to the native clay
underlying these areas, allowing excavation to full depth in one pass (for example, 2- to
3-foot lift) rather than by 1-foot lifts.
During the excavation of TPS-2, a layer of peeler wood fragments was identified in one cell,
and a second area was discovered with large pieces of creosote-saturated wood. Analyses
disposal at a RCRA
following onsite areas
CVO\081210188
2-3
-------
TAYLOR LUMBER AND TREATING SUPERFUND SITE FINAL CONSTRUCTION REPORT
confirmed that the peeler wood fragments were not contaminated with pentachlorophenol,
PAHs, or arsenic, and that PAHs were detected in the larger pieces of wood (CH2M HILL,
2007b). Five bagged samples of peeler fragments were also tested using the XRF, and all
results were below the arsenic cleanup level. The larger pieces of creosoted wood were
recycled by PWPO.
In July 2007, Chemical Waste Management (CWM) notified the GES that two RI/FS soil
samples (submitted as part of the waste profile) from within the boundaries of TPS-2 had
dioxin/furan concentrations that exceeded the allowable concentrations for Subtitle C
disposal. On July 13, the Contractor provided a procedure to address these soils separately
from other soils in TPS-2. The Contractor marked these two areas in TPS-2, and
subsequently excavated these soils to a depth of 2 feet and stockpiled them within the soil
staging area, for a total of approximately 11.6 cubic yards (estimated at 16.69 tons). On
August 3, 2007, the Contractor collected samples from the stockpile for dioxin/furan
analysis. The Contractor did not notify EPA that the samples were being collected;
subsequently, EPA determined that the Contractor had placed soil in Mason jars that had
been purchased from a local grocery outlet. Results for several dioxin/furan congeners were
above concentrations allowed for direct Subtitle C disposal (Krening, M., September 10,
2007, email correspondence to Karen Keeley, EPA), and were ultimately disposed of in
summer 2008 at CWM under a site-specific variance from land disposal restriction (LDR)
treatment standards (ODEQ, 2008).
Ditches and Gully Excavation
The excavation methodology in the ditches was based on field observations of sediment
depth in the ditches, with XRF screening and confirmation sampling occurring after
excavation was completed. Sediments deposited in the ditches were removed down to
firmer underlying soil, with the deepest excavation along the flowline of the ditch.
Excavation depth on the side slopes of the ditches was shallower to minimize impacts to the
adjacent roadways or railroad tracks. In general, excavation depths at the bottom of the
ditches ranged from a foot or less (particularly at the upstream end of the ditches) to near
2 feet at the downstream end of RCRD and HWYD where they converge at the culvert
leading to the SRYG.
For the RRD-W, EPA and the Engineer placed flags to mark the excavation area. At the
western end of the RRD-W, the EPA ESAT contractor used the XRF on the southern side of
the RRD-W to confirm that no elevated arsenic concentrations existed in the depressions
(apparently from ponded water) that were visible among the trees.
A GES lower tier subcontractor removed sediment from culverts in RCRD, HWYD, and
three culverts underneath Highway 18B. The sediments were removed using a vacuum
truck. Sediments removed from the culverts were deposited in the soil screening and
stockpile area on site where they were mixed with hazardous soils prior to offsite disposal.
The vacuum truck had to be remobilized twice to complete all of the removal of sediments
after Engineer inspections revealed that not all of the sediment had been removed.
Excavation was also conducted at three culvert outlets along the south side of Highway 18B.
Two of these culverts discharged to the SYRG and RCG, respectively, and the third (located
approximately 300 feet west of the PWPO entrance on Highway 18B) discharged to an
2-4
CVO\081210188
-------
SECTION 2 SUMMARY OF REMEDIAL ACTION CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES
undefined drainage area. Excavation at RCG encompassed the area from the culvert outlet
to the downstream extent of the gully where it discharges to Rock Creek. At the SYRG and
the remaining culvert outlet, an area approximately 10 feet downstream of the culvert was
excavated 1 foot deep to the lateral extent of the definable flow channel.
2.3.3 Excavation Quantities
Table 2-1 provides a summary of excavation quantities, including surface area and
approximate depth of excavation.
2.3.4 Water Management During Excavation
The 2007 RA construction activities were performed in dry conditions, and all excavation
activities outside of the barrier wall were above the water table. GES employed dry
decontamination techniques for equipment, with the exception of minor wet
decontamination of excavator buckets and personal protective equipment. These wet
decontamination activities were collected in small plastic pools and allowed to evaporate.
Due to the dry conditions, excavation above the water table, and minor wet
decontamination activities, there was no need to pump water out of the excavations and
discharge it to the onsite SWTS.
During the 2007 RA construction of the trench drains within the barrier wall, and again in
2008, during the replacement of those trench drains, groundwater seeped into the trenches,
as did stormwater runoff from the adjacent paved areas. During the 2007 RA construction,
temporary pumps were used to convey stormwater and groundwater to the adjacent
conveyance to PWPO's NPDES-permitted stormwater treatment system. Since the
temporary pumps were not fitted with flow meters, no estimate of flow volume conveyed to
the SWTS can be made. In 2008, approximately 40,000 gallons of groundwater and
stormwater runoff were collected in a temporary storage tank prior to transfer and
discharge to the SWTS.
Also, during the excavations performed by the removal program in 2008, water present in
the RCRD/Highway 18B culvert was temporarily stored in a Baker Tank. After the removal,
approximately 4,000 gallons of water was transferred to a truck and then pumped into the
evaporator operated by PWPO (EPA, 2008b).
2.4 Confirmational Sampling
2.4.1 XRF Screening
Prior to initiation of soil excavation at the site, the EPA Region 10 Laboratory staff, which
includes ESAT contractors, provided support to conduct a site-specific study to compare
field XRF (Innov-X Systems Inc. 4000a SL) results to fixed laboratory (EPA Method 200.2
and 200.7) results (EPA, 2008a). On-site samples were analyzed for arsenic by field XRF with
a subset of the samples shipped to the Region 10 Laboratory for confirmation. The purpose
was to determine whether the field XRF results would meet the required precision and
accuracy for the project. Four possible preparation techniques were examined: in situ,
homogenization, sieving and oven drying and grinding. Results are tabulated in Table 2-2
and depicted in Figure 2-2. Samples that were only bagged and homogenized prior to being
CVO\081210188
2-5
-------
TAYLOR LUMBER AND TREATING SUPERFUND SITE FINAL CONSTRUCTION REPORT
analyzed by field XRF produced values most consistent with the laboratory ICP-AES values.
Onsite field XRF analysis was performed both in situ and on homogenized samples.
During excavation, a hand-held XRF analyzer was used to provide near real-time analysis of
the arsenic concentration in soil. After each excavation cell was completed by the
Contractor, EPA's ESAT contractor laid out a grid of sample locations based on the
approach outlined in the Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) (CH2M HILL, 2007a) and
used the XRF to predict whether the excavation had met the cleanup objective of 159 mg/kg
of arsenic in soil. The QAPP was developed consistent with the Soil Sampling and Analysis
Plan (Appendix C to the Final Design and Design Basis Report, CH2M HILL 2006a).
Based on the results of the XRF readings, the Remedial Project Manager (RPM) made
technical decisions to excavate additional soils or to cease excavation in that cell. The RPM
would then directly communicate the direction to the Contractor's site superintendent, or to
the Engineer's field representative.
The Engineer would also take part in onsite discussions with the Contractor's site
superintendent, equipment operators, and ESAT technicians to interpret results and
implement the RPM's direction in the field. This often required the Engineer's field
representative to mark excavation limits with flagging or marking paint and provide
guidance to the Contractor based on the RPM's direction. For example, the RPM may
communicate to the Engineer that all soils in areas where the XRF analysis indicated soil
arsenic concentrations higher than 159 mg/kg should be excavated an additional foot of
soil. The Engineer's representative would then assist the ESAT technician in delineating the
areas in the field where the XRF indicated arsenic concentrations that were higher than
159 mg/kg and communicating to the Contractor where an additional foot of excavation
was to occur.
In general, excavation proceeded until the XRF screening indicated that arsenic
concentrations were below the 159 mg/kg cleanup goal. Based on XRF field observations,
soils were found to be either contaminated with arsenic above 159 mg/kg, or were far below
159 mg/kg (for example, in the range of 20 mg/kg arsenic, which is close to background).
Also, most excavation areas were underlain with clay (for example, at a depth of
approximately 3 to 4 ft bgs) and soils above the clay layer were contaminated, while the clay
layer consistently tested undetected or at background concentrations for arsenic.
The XRF and visual observation were both used to determine the horizontal limits of
excavation in TPS-1 and TPS-2. Where elevated soil arsenic concentrations were identified in
the sidewall of the excavation, the limits of excavation were extended. Test pits outside of
the excavation were used to delineate the extent of elevated arsenic concentrations outside
of the proposed design limits of excavation. Excavation proceeded laterally until the visual
indications of wood-treating chemical staining were removed, and the XRF screening
indicated that soil arsenic concentrations in the excavation sidewall were below the cleanup
level.
2.4.2 Confirmational Sampling
After excavation was completed, and XRF screening analysis confirmed that there was
reasonable likelihood that the cleanup goal had been met, soil samples were collected in the
excavation areas according to the QAPP.
2-6
CVO\081210188
-------
SECTION 2 SUMMARY OF REMEDIAL ACTION CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES
Figure 2-3 depicts the approximate location of the confirmation sample locations and
Table 2-3 provides a summary of confirmation sample results and Table 2-4 provides a
description of the composite node locations for samples collected in each excavation area.
As shown by the confirmational sampling results, soils remaining after excavation were far
below 159 mg/kg, and were much closer to background concentrations of arsenic. Only one
of 42 samples exceeded 63 mg/kg (140 mg/kg in Cell A of TPS-2). The average arsenic
concentrations for confirmation samples in the ditches (RRD-E, RRD-VV, RCRD and HWYD)
and RCG was 14.4 mg/kg.
2.5 Soil Screening
An onsite soil screening plant was used to screen the coarse rock fraction of soils from fine-
grained soil particles in the following areas:
TPS-2
WPS
RCRD
RRD-E
RRD-W
Non-hazardous soils stored in Soil Storage Cell 3 were scheduled for screening; however,
because of higher than anticipated clay and moisture content, Cell 3 soils were deemed
unsuitable for screening after initial tests using the screening equipment (GES, 2007a). A
portion of soils from TPS-1, not originally scheduled for screening, were deemed suitable for
screening during construction. As anticipated in the design, only a portion of the soils in
RRD-E, RRD-W, and RCRD were suitable for screening.
Fine-grained soil particles passing the screening plant were stockpiled for offsite disposal at
a RCRA Subtitle C disposal facility. The coarse rock fraction retained on the screens was
stockpiled onsite for later reuse as clean backfill. Quality control testing was conducted on
the course rock fraction to determine that no greater than 5 percent by weight passed a
number 200 sieve (by ASTM C117) to ensure that only a minimal amount of fine-grained soil
remained on the coarse rock fraction to be re-used as onsite backfill.
Table 2-5 provides a summary of estimated soil screening quantities as provided by GES. As
reported by GES, the quantities were estimated based on truck counts assuming 17 cubic
yards per truck load for off-road dump trucks and 10 cubic yards per truck for highway
trucks. Based on site-specific observations, EPA believes that these estimates are biased
high.
CVO\081210188
2-7
-------
TAYLOR LUMBER AND TREATING SUPERFUND SITE FINAL CONSTRUCTION REPORT
2.6 Offsite Disposal
2.6.1 Subtitle D Disposal
All non-hazardous soils excavated from Cells 1, 2, and 3 were direct-loaded into highway
trucks for offsite disposal at the Riverbend Landfill (13469 SW Highway 18) in McMinnville,
Oregon, a RCRA Subtitle D permitted disposal facility. Soils were disposed at Riverbend
Landfill pursuant to Permit Number 1003270R, under a Contained-In Determination made
by EPA Region 10 (EPA, 2006). Subtitle D disposal was conducted between June 11, 2007
and July 6, 2007.
In 2008, all non-hazardous construction debris from the demolition of the rejected trench
drains (estimated at 40 cy) was disposed at the Riverbend Landfill. An additional 140 cy of
concrete from the demolition of the trench drains was recycled at Valley Concrete.
2.6.2 Subtitle C Disposal
Hazardous soils excavated from the TLT site were transported via off-road dump truck to
an onsite stockpile prior to loading into highway trucks for transport to the Chemical Waste
Management (CWM) of the Northwest Landfill in Arlington, Oregon, a RCRA Subtitle C
permitted disposal facility. In isolated cases, some hazardous soils were direct-loaded from
the excavation into highway trucks for offsite transport.
Two waste profiles were completed (OR100161 and OR100169) for the remedial work.
Subtitle C disposal activities commenced on June 19, 2007 and were completed on
September 20, 2007. In 2007, 2,196.90 tons (OR100169; F035) and 25,356.51 tons (OR100161;
F032/F034/F035), for a total of 27,553.41 tons (5,5107,950 pounds), of soils were disposed at
Arlington. An additional 16.69 tons from TPS-2 were generated in 2007 (referred to as the
'dioxin hot spot' soils), but were not disposed of at Arlington due to concentrations of
dioxin congeners in the soils. These 16.69 tons were disposed of at Arlington in 2008, after a
site-specific variance from land disposal restriction (LDR) treatment standards was granted
by the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ, 2008) per CWM's petition to
ODEQ (May 14, 2008). This material was loaded into trucks and disposed of by the EPA
ERRS contractor, along with the hazardous soils generated and disposed of by the removal
program for the Highway 18B culvert and SYRG excavation work.
Table 2-6 provides a summary of offsite disposal quantities. These quantities are based on
weight tickets for each truck provided at the disposal facility.
In 2008,1,233.89 tons of hazardous soils were transported via highway trucks to CWM.
These soils were comprised of:
16.69 tons of TPS-2 soil from the RA work in 2007
64 tons (approximately 94 cy) of soil and gravel sub-base from work to demolish and
replace the north-south and east-west trench drains
4 tons (approximately 3 cy) of material (primarily CRABS) from the north-south trench
drain (below the asphalt cap and outside the CDF)
2-8
CVO\081210188
-------
SECTION 2 SUMMARY OF REMEDIAL ACTION CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES
1,149.2 tons of soil from the Highway 18B culvert work by the removal program (soils
were excavated from the South Yamhill River Gulley, Highway 18B culvert area,
Highway 18B ditch (east-west), and Rock Creek Road Ditch (north-south).
2.7 Backfill
Backfill and grading operations included subgrade preparation, proof rolling, backfilling
and compaction in lifts, quality control testing with a nuclear density gauge, production
quality control testing, and finish grading and culvert installation.
2.7.1 Backfill Materials
Backfill operations were conducted to fill the excavations to bring the elevation back to
grade and enhance drainage at the site. A variety of backfill materials were used for backfill
onsite, including:
Clean berm soil from the perimeter berms around Cells 1, 2, and 3
Crushed asphalt removed from the TPS-1 area prior to excavation
Clean onsite gravel removed from beneath the asphalt cover over the TPS-1 area
Screened rock material retained in the onsite screening plant
Imported granular fill (3/4 inch-minus gravel)
Imported Class 50 riprap for erosion protection in ditches
Class 200 riprap blended onsite from imported Class 50 Riprap and larger rock available
onsite
Imported topsoil for areas in the roadside ditches to be seeded.
After initial attempts by the excavation subcontractor to reduce the size of the asphalt
removed from the TPS-1 area with a sheep's foot roller failed, the Contractor mobilized a
crushing plant to the site to reduce the broken asphalt to 4 inches or smaller.
Screened rock material was blended with clean berm soil, onsite gravel, crushed asphalt, or
imported granular fill to create a suitable backfill product by mixing finer-grained soil
particles with the coarse-grained rock retained by the screening plant.
Compaction was achieved using 8-inch lifts for all backfill operations, with the exception of
the final lift of imported granular fill, which was placed in a 6-inch lift.
2.7.2 Quality Control Testing
Compaction of backfill materials was monitored with a nuclear density gauge to verify that
compaction met project specifications. For the imported 3/4 inch-minus granular fill,
95 percent relative compaction was determined based on a standard Proctor curve for the
lower lifts of material placed, while 95 percent relative compaction for the top 6-inch lift of
imported granular fill was determined using a modified Proctor curve. The modified
Proctor curve was used for the top lift to ensure that compaction met a higher standard on
the final lift in order to provide a suitable working surface for PWPO traffic.
CVO\081210188
2-9
-------
TAYLOR LUMBER AND TREATING SUPERFUND SITE FINAL CONSTRUCTION REPORT
In the case of the berm soils, crushed asphalt, screened rock, and onsite gravel that
contained a high fraction of large rock, a reliable Proctor curve could not be established and
a rolling pattern was established to verify that suitable compaction was met. The method of
using a roller pattern consisted of measuring the density of the compacted surface at several
locations within a compaction area after each pass with the roller. The density after each
pass was then compared to the density after the previous roller pass to determine the
increase in density. The field technician would then instruct the roller operator to continue
making passes until the difference in density between passes was less than 0.5-pound per
cubic foot (lb/ft3). The method was employed for each lift of backfill for each backfill
material in a backfill area. The Contractor ensured that the number of compaction tests per
8 inch lift met or exceeded the frequency requirements set forth in the specifications.
Final density testing on the upper-most lift of gravel surfacing in TPS-1 and TPS-2 was
performed by the Contractor without notification to the Engineer or EPA and, as such, these
tests were not witnessed. EPA repeatedly asked the Contractor to provide a map of the
density test locations, which they did not provide. During the Pre-Final Inspection, the
Engineer and representatives of the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACOE)
noted areas where compaction appeared to be deficient.
At EPA's request, the Engineer procured a subcontractor, FEI Inc., Corvallis, OR, to perform
independent Quality Assurance testing to verify whether adequate compaction had been
achieved in the TPS-1, TPS-2, and WPS areas. Retesting was performed by FEI on October 2,
2007 while co-located tests were performed by a GES testing firm (Carlson Testing) and
witnessed by CH2M HILL and GES staff. Test results from both testing firms indicated areas
that did not meet compaction standards in TPS-1 and TPS-2. These issues led to rework of
compaction in the areas where individual test locations indicated that the required density
had not been met. These included areas of TPS-1 and TPS-2. In WPS, the material used was
a heterogeneous mixture of imported 3/4-inch minus aggregate and clean gravel removed
from TPS-1. Because the TPS-1 gravels were larger in size, and the mixture of materials was
heterogeneous, the Engineer and Contractor did not reach agreement on a representative
Proctor curve to use as a basis for density testing. As such, the Contractor agreed to re-roll
the WPS area to ensure that relative compaction was improved. The compaction efforts in
TPS-1, TPS-2, and WPS were completed on October, 5, 2007.
2.7.3 TPS-1, TPS-2, and WPS Areas
TPS-1
The TPS-1 area was excavated and subsequently backfilled in two phases. The first phase
included only the western half of the TPS-1 area, excluding the existing haul road at the
southern edge of the area. Backfill operations in the western half of TPS-1 were conducted
between July 6 and July 31, 2007. Backfill materials consisted of clean berm soil, onsite
gravel, screened rock and imported granular fill.
The second phase included the eastern half of the TPS-1 area and the existing haul road at
the southern edge of the TPS-1 area. Backfill operations in the second phase of TPS-1 were
conducted between August 15 and September 12, 2007. Backfill materials consisted of clean
berm soil, onsite gravel, screened rock, crushed asphalt, and imported granular fill.
2-10
CVO\081210188
-------
SECTION 2 SUMMARY OF REMEDIAL ACTION CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES
TPS-2
Excavation and backfill of the TPS-2 area was completed in three phases. The first consisted
of the northern two-thirds of the area west of the PWPO dryer structure, the second
consisted of the southern one-third west of the dryer structure, and the third included all
areas east of the dryer structure.
Backfill materials in TPS-2 consisted of imported granular fill (3/4 inch-minus gravel).
WPS
The WPS Area was excavated in two phases, the first consisting of the area along the fence
line at the southern edge, and the second consisting of the remaining areas within the active
PWPO pole storage area.
Backfill material consisted of onsite gravel removed from beneath the asphalt at TPS-1, and
imported granular fill (3/4 inch-minus gravel).
Completion Dates
Based on resolution of compaction issues in TPS-1, TPS-2, and WPS, EPA and the Engineer
concluded that TPS-1 and TPS-2 met compaction on October 11, 2007 and that WPS met
compaction on October 12; this was confirmed on October 15, 2007 after a visual inspection
and review of survey data.
2.7.4 Ditches and Gullies
RRD-E and RRD-W
Backfill materials in the RRD-E and RRD-W areas consisted of imported Class 50 riprap
placed in the ditches to a uniform flowline and cross-section.
RCRD
Backfill materials used in the RCRD consisted of Class 50 riprap placed within the
excavation to restore a uniform flowline and cross-section. The rock was extended up the
ditch side slopes to cover exposed soil per the design details. In isolated areas where the
side slopes were too steep to place rock backfill, erosion control mat (ECM) was placed to
cover the exposed soil and prevent erosion. After placement of ECM, hydroseed was
applied as discussed in Section 2.10.2 below.
HWYD
The HWYD was scheduled to be backfilled with Class 50 riprap. During construction, the
backfill was changed to imported granular fill (3/4 inch-minus gravel) based on comments
received from the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT). The Contractor placed
and compacted the aggregate in the bottom of the ditch to restore the flowline elevation to a
uniform slope matching the existing culvert elevations, and placed ECM along exposed soil
slopes steeper than 3:1 to prevent erosion. This backfill approach constituted a change of
materials from the design drawings and specifications, and is discussed further in Section 3.
After placement of ECM, hydroseed was applied as discussed in Section 2.10.2 below.
CVO\081210188
2-11
-------
TAYLOR LUMBER AND TREATING SUPERFUND SITE FINAL CONSTRUCTION REPORT
RCG
Class 50 riprap was placed over the excavated channel cross-section on the steeper slopes
immediately downhill from the culvert outlet. Imported topsoil backfill was placed in the
flatter sections of the channel. After placement of topsoil, hydroseed was applied as
discussed in Section 2.10.2 below..
Culvert Outlets
Riprap was placed to backfill the excavation at the outlet of two culverts located along the
southern shoulder of Hwy 18B.
The first culvert is located approximately 300 feet west of the PWPO entrance on Hwy 18B.
This culvert collects a relatively small drainage area with low anticipated flows. Class 50
riprap was used for erosion protection at the culvert outlet.
The second culvert is located at the intersection of Highway 18B and Rock Creek Road and
collects all of the water collected in the HWYD and RCRD, as well as the discharge from
PWPO's stormwater treatment system. Class 200 riprap was used to armor the channel at
the outlet to this culvert.
2.7.5 Soil Screening and Stockpile Area
After completion of the screening operations and offsite disposal of stockpiled RCRA
Subtitle C soils, the screening and stockpile area was surveyed to compare the elevation to
the original grade of the area prior to construction. Survey stakes were placed to indicate a
3-inch-deep cut from the original ground elevation.
Soils were then excavated from the footprint of the screening and stockpile area to bring the
cut elevation to a minimum of 3 inches below the original grade across the area to ensure
that all stockpiled soils had been removed. The Contractor performed this work without
oversight, and based on survey data submitted by the Contractor in November, 2007, closer
to 6 inches on average was removed from the area. Because the area was uneven, it may
have been easier for the Contractor to make a deeper uniform cut across the area rather than
follow the contours to ensure that a minimum of 3 inches was removed.
During screening and stockpile operations, the Contractor used an earthen ramp for dump
trucks to back up and dump their loads into the area. An excavator located in the stockpile
area then sorted the soils into separate piles for screening or as stockpile for loading into
highway trucks for direct transport to the disposal facility. During the course of these
operations, the area where the trucks dumped their loads was excavated well below the
depth of the original ground surface in the area. In an email correspondence to EPA on
October 11, 2008 (GES, 2007d) the Contractor confirmed that the hole was excavated over
the course of stockpiling operations. EPA requested that the Contractor survey this hole to
determine how much of the underlying soil had been removed and transported to the
landfill. Based on the as-built survey data provided by the Contractor's surveyor, the
Engineer used In-Roads software to create a 3-D CADD model of the area to calculate the
volume of material excavated from this hole. The Engineer's analysis compared the original
surveyed surface to the surveyed surface of the bottom of the excavation, and determined
that than an estimated 87 cubic yards of material was removed from the hole.
2-12
CVO\081210188
-------
SECTION 2 SUMMARY OF REMEDIAL ACTION CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES
On September 27, 2007, the Contractor backfilled this hole in the following manner (GES,
2007c):
The subgrade was leveled and a piece of geotextile was placed in the bottom to reinforce
the subgrade
A one-foot lift of surplus class 50 erosion protection rock (left over from ditch backfill
activities) was placed over the geotextile.
A layer of % inch minus aggregate was then placed as a keystone layer.
The remainder of the hole was filled with % inch minus aggregate placed in 8-inch lifts
and compacted with the steel drum roller.
The final 6-inch lift of backfill was % inch minus aggregate compacted to a higher
compaction standard according to the design specifications for surface gravel.
The imported % inch minus aggregate placed as backfill in this hole was not charged to the
EPA contract (GES, 2007d).
After the excavation was completed, EPA's ESAT contractor performed XRF screening
analysis of the remaining soil to verify that soils containing elevated arsenic concentrations
had been removed.
Initially, XRF data were collected at 12 locations throughout the entire area, with more
stations sampled in areas where contaminated soils had been stockpiled and loaded into
trucks. The average arsenic concentration was 59 ppm, but a few areas had concentrations
of arsenic above 100 ppm (maximum of 173 ppm arsenic). The Contractor removed
additional soils from areas with arsenic concentrations above 30 ppm arsenic (based on
distribution of data). On September 18, 2007, five additional XRF samples were collected
from within the area (range of <15 ppm to 30 ppm), and the average arsenic concentration
for the area was 15 ppm.
After the XRF analysis was completed, the subgrade was prepared and imported granular
fill was placed to restore the area to the original grade.
2.7.6 Soil Storage Cells
The Soil Storage Cell 1, 2, and 3 areas were re-graded after removal of clean soil from the
perimeter berms for use as backfill in TPS-1. During clean berm soil excavation and re-
grading of the area within the footprint of the cells, the underlying soils were found to
contain woody debris, concrete, and large rocks that were unsuitable for use as backfill in
TPS-1. The large rocks and concrete debris were segregated from the suitable backfill
materials, transported to TPS-1, and buried within the former footprint of Cell 3.
As a result of the discovery of these unsuitable backfill materials, the original cut elevations
proposed in the design were not achieved, leaving the Cell 1, 2, and 3 areas slightly higher
than designed. The grading plan was field adjusted by the excavation subcontractor to
balance cut/fill with the remaining material and to promote positive drainage across the
area.
CVO\081210188
2-13
-------
TAYLOR LUMBER AND TREATING SUPERFUND SITE FINAL CONSTRUCTION REPORT
After completion of the grading work, the area was surveyed. The Engineer noted a low
spot in the grade in the former Cell 3 area after a rainfall event in September left ponded
water.
PWPO planned to add additional aggregate backfill to this area to improve it for heavy
traffic immediately after the completion of RA construction. Because of this plan, EPA
allowed the low spot identified in Cell 3 to remain. PWPO subsequently improved the entire
Cell 1, 2, and 3 area by installing a separation geotextile and additional aggregate backfill.
2.8 Well Abandonment and Alteration
The scope of work of the RA construction included abandonment of a number of wells that
were no longer needed for monitoring at the site, or wells that had been previously
damaged. Several wells were also scheduled for alteration to bring flush mount monuments
up to the grade of the new low permeability asphalt overlay.
Documentation for well abandonment and alteration to EPA was delayed by the Contractor.
Well closure logs were not provided until October 5, 2007. The Engineer documented
missing, incomplete, and inadequate documentation in a technical memorandum dated
October 25, 2007 (CH2M HILL, 2007e). Revised well abandonment and alteration records
were submitted by the Contractor on January 10, 2008. The Engineer again reviewed the
submittal and documented missing, incomplete, and inadequate documentation in a
memorandum dated February 2, 2008 (CH2M HILL, 2008c). On March 5, 2008, the
Contractor provided final well abandonment and alteration records that were adequate.
Table 2-7 lists each of the monitor wells or extraction wells, along with the disposition
(abandonment or alteration) of each. A total of 17 monitor wells were abandoned A total of
4 monitor wells were altered by installing a 4-inch riser to bring the vault to the new
pavement elevation. A total of 3 extraction well vaults were altered (PW-01, PW-02, and
PW-03). The fourth extraction well vault (PW-04) was scheduled to be raised 4 inches;
however, the Contractor did not complete this item of work. Well abandonment and
alteration forms were submitted to the Oregon Water Resources Department by the
subcontracted driller.
During construction, the well vault cover and riser for PW-02 was damaged. Based on the
Contractor's fabrication method used for the risers, and the mode of failure of the cover, the
well vault risers installed in PW-01 and PW-03 could also fail in a similar manner, and were
recommended for replacement by the Engineer.
The vault riser and cover for PW-01, PW-02, and PW-03 were replaced under a separate
EPA ERRS contract in 2008.
2.9 Low Permeability Asphalt Cap
Installation of a low permeability asphalt cap included the following activities:
Pavement patching and repair of isolated areas of existing pavement to repair cracking
and damage prior to being overlain by the low permeability asphalt cap
2-14
CVO\081210188
-------
SECTION 2 SUMMARY OF REMEDIAL ACTION CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES
Reconstruction of pavement and subbase in areas where the existing pavement was
extensively damaged, indicating unsuitable base materials. The existing asphalt and
base material were pulverized and mixed with Portland cement in a process known as
Cement Recycled Asphalt Base Stabilization (CRABS). These areas were then finish-
graded and compacted prior to placement of low permeability asphalt
Drainage modifications to replace existing open swales within the barrier wall area with
concrete trench drains
Other modifications, including monitor well abandonment and alteration of monitor
well monuments and extraction well vaults to raise the surface completions to match the
grade of the new paving work
Placement of a 4-inch-thick layer of proprietary low permeability asphalt to achieve a
permeability of lxlO8 cm/sec
2.9.1 Existing Pavement Repair and Reconstruction
Pavement Patch and Repair
A total of 10 areas of significant cracking and pavement damage were identified and
delineated within the area not scheduled for pavement reconstruction. Pavement patching
and repair consisted of saw cutting the existing pavement outside the limits of the damaged
pavement, then excavating the damaged pavement and 12 inches of underlying aggregate
and subgrade material, followed by placement and compaction of aggregate backfill in
6-inch lifts prior to re-paving with heavy-duty asphalt. The 10 patched areas totaled
approximately 3,979 square feet. Figure 2-4 provides the location of the patches.
Quality control testing included testing the compaction of both the base aggregate and
newly placed asphalt with a nuclear density gauge to verify that compaction standards were
met. During the compaction testing, the paving subcontractor initially reported that all test
results met compaction requirements. The Engineer discovered that the paving
subcontractor had compared nuclear density readings against a Standard Proctor Curve
(ASTM D698), whereas the specifications required that compaction be met using a Modified
Proctor Curve (ASTM D1157). Based on the corrected comparison, 4 of the 10 patches
(patches #1, #3, #4, and #5) were found to not have met compaction requirements on at
least one lift. As a corrective measure, the paving subcontractor provided a 5-year warranty
(from July 1, 2007) against failure of the patches to EPA in lieu of removing and replacing
the work. The Baker Rock Resources Warranty Agreement was finalized January 2, 2008.
Pavement Reconstruction
An approximate area of 3.2 acres was identified in the design drawings for pavement
reconstruction or CRABS (see Figure 2-4). The paving subcontractor divided the CRABS
areas into a total of 5 areas. The design drawings provided control points for the limits of
the CRABS areas within the barrier wall, with the limits extending to the edge of the existing
pavement outside of the barrier wall.
Prior to the start of pulverizing the existing pavement with a grinding machine, the interior
limits were surveyed and marked on the pavement. However, the limits of the existing
CVO\081210188
2-15
-------
TAYLOR LUMBER AND TREATING SUPERFUND SITE FINAL CONSTRUCTION REPORT
pavement outside of the barrier wall were not surveyed by the Contractor or its
subcontractors.
Several minor changes in the limits of the CRABs areas were proposed by the Contractor or
its subcontractors to facilitate ease of construction or allow for minor changes to promote
better drainage. The extent of these changes were noted with general references or
approximate measurements on the Record Drawings, but were not surveyed prior to
placement of the low permeability asphalt cover.
The CRABs operation was complete using two passes of the grinding machine. The first
pass was used to pulverize the existing asphalt. After the first pass, portland cement was
added to the pulverized asphalt surface. For the second pass, the grinding machine was set
to a 12-inch depth and water was added to achieve a uniform mixture with the pulverized
asphalt, portland cement, and subgrade soil and aggregate. The application rate of portland
cement and mix depth was monitored by a subcontractor field technician, and were
submitted to EPA.
After mixing operations were complete, a road grader was used to re-grade the CRABS
material prior to compaction with a vibratory roller. During the compaction effort, the
density technician monitored the compaction effort with nuclear density gauge readings
after each pass of the roller to establish a roller pattern for each area. Roller passes were
continued until the density readings showed no more than 0.5-lb/ft3 increase between
passes.
A water truck was used to keep the CRABs surface damp until low permeability pavement
was applied.
2.9.2 Low Permeability Asphalt
Placement of the low permeability overlay included the following work activities:
Removing all stored lumber and equipment
Cleaning the existing pavement surface by sweeping
Application of tack coat to the existing pavement and CRABS surface
Placement of a 4-inch-thick layer of proprietary low permeability asphalt to achieve a
permeability no greater than lxlO8 cm/sec
A total area of 5.4 acres (measured from As-Built Survey) was paved with the low
permeability asphalt pavement. The paving operations were scheduled for two phases. The
first phase included the following areas:
Area 1: alleyway between the PWPO maintenance shop, treatment buildings, boiler and
spray pond
Area 2: north of the retort loading pad and treatment building and east of the rail spur
Area 3: north of the retort unloading pad and west of the rail spur
Area 4: beneath the dry shed canopy east to the PWPO maintenance shop
2-16
CVO\081210188
-------
SECTION 2 SUMMARY OF REMEDIAL ACTION CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES
Area 5: east of the PWPO spray pond and treatment buildings and south of the retort
loading pad
The second phase included the following areas:
Area 6: south of the dry shed canopy and west to the north-south trench drain
Area 7: east of the north-south trench drain extending south and east to the limits of
paving outside of the barrier wall
These areas are described further in the Contractor's paving plan submittals, and were
developed by the paving subcontractor and Wilder Construction (manufacturer of the
proprietary MatCon low permeability asphalt mix). Paving issues and concerns were
discussed onsite on July 2, 2007.
Phase 1 paving was conducted between July 5 and 9, 2007. At the completion of the first
phase of paving, PWPO was scheduled to have 3 days to move materials stored on the
southern half of the paved area (areas 6 and 7) to the northern half (areas 2, 3, 4 and 5),
which had just been paved.
After the first phase of paving was completed, the asphalt mix remained very soft. Some
areas in Area # 1 were soft enough that foot traffic would leave indentations in the surface
when the asphalt temperatures were increased as a result of increased solar radiation in the
afternoon.
The first meeting on this issue was held July 9, 2007 (GES, 2007b). During a meeting held on
July 11, Wilder Construction recommended that the low permeability asphalt be given
10 days to firm up. The first phase of paving occurred during a period of high ambient
temperatures, and Wilder's contention was that the high temperatures needed to subside to
help the asphalt harden. On July 16, the Engineer inspected the first phase of paving and
summarized the assessment and concerns about the paving in a technical memorandum to
EPA on July 19, 2007 (CH2M HILL, 2007c). The second phase of paving was shifted to
July 26 to 28, 2007. Wilder released the Phase 2 pavement (areas 6 and 7) for unrestricted use
on August 1, 2007.
The Contractor applied the stripe to delineate the barrier wall centerline in late August.
When the line was laid out at the western edge of the pavement (west of the retort
unloading pad), it was evident that the low permeability pavement did not extend beyond
the centerline of the barrier wall and to the limits of the existing pavement, as required by
the design drawings.
The Contractor remobilized to extend the limits of low permeability pavement in this area
on September 18, 2007. This additional pavement failed quality control requirements
because of low binder content. This pavement was removed and replaced on October 5,
2007.
Quality Control Testing
Quality control testing for the low permeability asphalt overly was performed to meet
manufacturer specifications and overseen by Abatech Consulting Engineers, a lower-tier
subcontractor to Wilder Construction.
CVO\081210188
2-17
-------
TAYLOR LUMBER AND TREATING SUPERFUND SITE FINAL CONSTRUCTION REPORT
A comprehensive quality control program was implemented at both the hot mix plant and
at the site during placement of the low permeability asphalt. MatCon quality control forms
(Forms 1 through 10, dated May through October 2007), as well as binder certification and
aggregate test results, are maintained in the EPA site file.
Figure 2-4 shows the location of asphalt cores collected to measure both thickness and
permeability. Table 2-8 summarizes the results. The Taylor Lumber and Treating Superfund
Site, Quality Control Report, MatCon Cover, Revision 3 (Abatech, 2008) provides a detailed
summary of quality control activities.
Based on the testing, only one of the core locations (location 4-1) did not meet the specified
lx 10'8 cm/sec permeability criteria. Two core locations were found to be significantly
thinner than the 4- inch thickness required by the specifications.
2.9.3 Low Permeability Asphalt Deficiencies
After completion of paving operations, several issues of concern with the low permeability
paving were identified by the Engineer and EPA, and in an independent review by the
USACE, Seattle District (November 26, 2007). These issues include:
Permeability in hand work areas that did not meet the specified requirement (noted
above)
Softness and rutting under traffic loads and material storage
Thickness of the pavement in select locations that did not meet the specified requirement
Warranty language that precluded coverage of normal site usage
Surface smoothness that did not meet specified tolerances that manifested areas of
ponded water referred to as "bird baths"
In February 2008, during an Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) meeting held in
McMinnville, Oregon, EPA reached agreements with the Contractor and their
Subcontractors to resolve these issues. Each of these issues is discussed in the section below,
and their resolutions are discussed further in section 4.11.
Permeability in Hand Work Areas
After concerns were raised by the Engineer and EPA about permeability in areas close to
buildings and other tight areas where the paving rollers could not reach, an additional
4-inch-diameter core was collected from a representative location to determine if
permeability was met in the "hand work areas."
A nuclear density gauge was then used to measure the density of the asphalt at that core
location, as well as 12 selected locations representative of the hand work areas. The density
readings from the nuclear density gauge were then compared to the laboratory test results
for the asphalt core, to provide a correlation between the nuclear density gauge readings
and the laboratory results. This correlation was to estimate the percent voids and
permeability of the asphalt in the hand work areas based on the density of the asphalt from
the nuclear density gauge readings.
2-18
CVO\081210188
-------
SECTION 2 SUMMARY OF REMEDIAL ACTION CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES
The results of this evaluation showed that the low permeability asphalt did not meet the
specified lx 108 cm/sec permeability criteria.
Softness and Rutting
An area of low permeability pavement east of the PWPO spray pond in paving area #5 has
exhibited a higher tendency for rutting from wheel loads and dunnage under stored lumber.
The severity of the rutting has raised issues with PWPO for safe and efficient movement of
traffic, and for ponding water in the wheel ruts that become a safety concern under freezing
conditions.
The resolution of this deficiency is discussed further under subsection 4.11, Alternative
Dispute Resolution.
Thickness of Pavement
As noted above, two asphalt core locations were identified with thicknesses significantly
below the 4 inch requirement specified. The reduced thickness raises concern about the
pavements long term ability to withstand traffic loads without rutting or cracking and
premature failure.
The resolution of this issue is discussed in subsection 4.11.
Surface Smoothness Tolerances
Several areas of low permeability pavement were identified that did not meet the specified
surface smoothness tolerances; subsequently, these areas pond water after rainfall events.
The Engineer raised concerns that these areas of ponded water, referred to as "bird baths,"
present a safety concern for equipment and pedestrian traffic under freezing conditions.
This concern was later confirmed by PWPO.
The resolution of this deficiency is discussed further under subsection 4.11.
Warranty Language
The first version of the MatCon 5-year material and workmanship warranty submitted to
EPA (Wilder, 2007) included limitations that excluded coverage from damage caused by
traffic loads and material storage activities at the site.
This concern was raised to the Contractor by the Engineer and EPA. The resolution of this
deficiency is discussed further under subsection 4.11.
Operation and Maintenance
As part of the MatCon warranty, annual inspections are required to document the condition
of the pavement. The final approved Operation and Maintenance (O&M) Plan (Wilder,
2008) describes the requirements for maintenance of the MatCon pavement along with the
requirements for the annual inspections. The O&M plan requires that the inspection
document notable features and surface uses, note locations and types of distresses, take
photographs, and locate distresses to ascertain the condition of the MatCon cap. An
inspection report is to follow summarizing findings, ratings, and recommendations.
CVO\081210188
2-19
-------
TAYLOR LUMBER AND TREATING SUPERFUND SITE FINAL CONSTRUCTION REPORT
The first annual inspection of the MatCon pavement was conducted on August 11, 2008. The
inspection was attended by the EPA RPM and representatives from both Wilder
Construction and the Engineer. The Engineer's observations were summarized in a memo to
EPA dated August 11, 2008 (CH2M HILL, 2008d). Wilder also submitted a summary report
documenting the annual inspection and subsequent O&M activities performed as a result of
the inspection.
The findings of the inspection and subsequent activities are described as follows:
Areas located east of the PWPO spray pond and retort loading areas were rolled with a
pneumatic roller to smooth out rutting from dunnage and fork truck traffic. The areas
targeted for rolling were based on areas of softness and rutting identified in 2007. The
rolling resulted in some improvement in smoothness, but for the most part the ruts and
indentations remain. In accordance with the approved O&M plan, the Engineer
suggested that additional rolling be carried out on an annual basis.
A total of six areas were identified north of the PWPO dry shed where the MatCon
pavement appeared to be raised with surface cracking. An approximately one square
foot area of the MatCon pavement was saw cut and removed to observe the underlying
conditions, which revealed water trapped between the MatCon pavement and the
underlying asphalt. During the inspection, it was discussed that a possible source of the
water could be from infiltration along the joint between the MatCon surface and an
adjacent concrete area. It was speculated that water could potentially infiltrate through
this joint and then travel laterally between the MatCon pavement and underlying
asphalt. The resolution was to saw cut along the edge of the joint to straighten it out,
then apply a Crafco sealant to prevent further infiltration.
Additional areas of pavement distress were identified along the joints between the
MatCon and adjacent concrete near the retort unloading pad west of PWPO's treatment
plant. Approximately 192 LF along the east/west edge and 54 LF along the north/ south
edge were noted and scheduled for saw cutting and sealing.
The white pavement striping delineating the barrier wall centerline has largely worn off.
A second coat of paint was recommended.
An area of MatCon at the far western end of the paved area where traffic enters the
pavement from the white pole storage yards was noted as having indentations from
gravel being tracked onto the pavement. This area was rolled to try and reduce the
indentations.
A stained area from an hydraulic oil spill onto the MatCon surface was noted. PWPO
indicated that this was a single spill event that was cleaned up promptly. Wilder noted
that PWPO should continue to clean up spills promptly to avoid prolonged exposure
and possible degradation of the MatCon pavement from spills. No damage was noted to
the MatCon, and no further action was required.
All follow-up work to the annual inspection was completed by Wilder by October 6, 2008.
The results of the annual inspection will also be summarized in an annual inspection report
to be submitted to EPA by Wilder in December 2008.
2-20
CVO\081210188
-------
SECTION 2 SUMMARY OF REMEDIAL ACTION CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES
2.9.4 Drainage Modifications
Trench Drains
Prior to RA construction, portions of PWPO's stormwater conveyance system flowed
through an existing concrete trench drain and two paved open channels within the barrier
wall south of the PWPO treatment plant area. The Remedial Design specified replacement of
the existing concrete trench drain and open channels with a pre-cast trench drain insert with
a minimum encasement with 4 inches of concrete.
During the submittal process, the RA Contractor proposed substituting the pre-cast trench
drain with a cast-in-place concrete trench drain with cast iron grates and frames and
reinforcing steel. The Engineer deemed this to be functionally equivalent in terms of
performance, and recommended approval of the submittal.
The Contractor's initial schedule proposed completion of drainage modifications prior to
installation of the low permeability pavement. Later the Contractor submitted Request for
Information (RFI) #07 requesting to install a temporary pipe within the open channels and
placement of temporary granular backfill in the channels and installation of pavement prior
to completing the trench drains. After completion of paving, the Contractor proposed to saw
cut the pavement, excavate the temporary pipe and granular backfill, and use the walls of
the excavation as forms for the new cast-in-place trench drain. It was also proposed to leave
the existing concrete trench drain in place because of an unforeseen utility crossing that was
embedded in the existing trench drain walls.
The Engineer expressed concerns about the sidewalls sloughing off and undermining the
new pavement. The Contractor rescinded RFI #07 and replaced it with RFI #08 with minor
modifications. The Engineer's response reiterated the concern about undermining of the
pavement and the need to ensure the alignment of the trench and positive drainage into the
trench as expressed in the RFI #08 response, and recommended that a wider reinforced
concrete apron be incorporated to mitigate the concern for undermining the new pavement.
The Contractor proceeded to install the temporary pipe, backfill, and low permeability
pavement. The Contractor then saw cut the new pavement, and excavated the temporary
backfill, and temporary pipe from the two trench drain alignments. As feared, some of the
excavation walls sloughed and undermined the new pavement. The Contractor was
required to saw cut the undermined areas wider and install a wider concrete apron in those
areas.
The subgrade was then prepared and compacted, and the reinforcing steel was tied and set
in place. When it was brought to the attention of the Engineer that the trench drains would
be completed in two separate pours, further information was requested of the Contractor
regarding water stopping and the Contractor's plans for quality control testing for the
concrete, the trench cross-section, and the transition at the existing trench drain. RFIs #12
through #12c pertain to these issues and provide the agreed-upon resolution.
After the two trench drains were poured and the forms were stripped, areas of severe
honeycombing and unconsolidated concrete and exposed reinforcing steel were observed in
the north-south trench drain. Areas of poor consolidation were also noted around the grate
frames in the east-west trench drain. Further inspection by the Engineer's structural
CVO\081210188
2-21
-------
TAYLOR LUMBER AND TREATING SUPERFUND SITE FINAL CONSTRUCTION REPORT
engineer identified several other key issues relating to the workmanship of the trench drains
and the safety for traffic loads. The grate frames as installed were not plumb and level and
were installed outside of manufacturer's tolerances for the gap between grate and frame.
This led to concerns about inadequate bearing support and potential failure of the grate and
frame system under traffic loads. These concerns were documented in a technical
memorandum from the Engineer to EPA on September 12, 2007 (CH2M HILL, 2007d). The
EPA subsequently sent notice to the Contractor that the trench drains were rejected on the
basis of poor workmanship.
Several rounds of responses and rebuttals between EPA and the Contractor were
unsuccessful in resolving the trench drain issues. In February 2008, during the ADR
meetings, EPA reached agreements with the Contractor and their Subcontractors to resolve
these issues with the trench drains through a deductive change order (see Section 4.11).
After completion of the initial RA work by GES in October 2008, PWPO hired SUMCO to
replace the existing unlined drainage swale, downstream of the barrier wall, with a buried
pipe culvert. A water-tight connection was made with the outlet of the East-West Trench
drain and the new section of pipe installed to complete a piped connection for stormwater
conveyance from the trench drains to the SWTS.
Subsequent to the agreement with GES for the deductive change, EPA hired EQM Inc., an
EPA ERRS Contractor, to design and install replacement trench drains in 2008. EQM's scope
of work included removal of the deficient trench drains installed by GES, preparation of
subgrade, and pouring new cast-in-place concrete trench drains using new grate rails and
re-using the cast-iron grates from the deficient trench drains.
EQM mobilized to the site on July 25, 2008 and started trench drain replacement work on
July 26. Initial work on the trench drains was completed on August 29, 2008. CH2M HILL
provided construction oversight during the work, and performed an inspection of the
replacement trench drains on September 5, 2008. The results of this inspection were
transmitted to EPA on September 9, 2008 (CH2M HILL, 2008e). EQM submitted a corrective
action plan to EPA on November 20, 2008 for resolution of issues identified in the
September 9, 2008 memorandum. CH2M HILL provided responses to EQM's corrective
action plan on December 1, 2008. Final resolution of Pre-Final Inspection items and
completion of field work are pending.
Work on the well vaults was conducted between October 15 and October 17, 2008. EPA did
not request the Engineer to be present at the site for oversight of this work.
Catch Basins
As part of the preparation for placement of the low permeability asphalt, two catch basins
were raised 4 inches to match the finished paving elevation. An additional three catch
basins scheduled to be raised were left at the original elevation by the Contractor, who
modified the grades of the CRABS areas or pavement transition to match the new pavement
elevation to the existing catch basin elevation.
2-22
CVO\081210188
-------
SECTION 2 SUMMARY OF REMEDIAL ACTION CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES
2.10 Site Restoration and Demobilization
Site restoration activities included removal of all temporary construction facilities and
equipment, repair of site access roads, placement of erosion control mat and hydroseeding
of areas where topsoil and/ or erosion control mat (ECM) was placed, and maintenance of
stormwater BMPs.
2.10.1 Erosion Protection
Site restoration activities included installation and maintenance of temporary stormwater
BMPs, including check dams and silt fence, which are to be maintained until a suitable
stand of grass is established. ECM was also placed on ditch slopes and embankments 3:1 or
steeper in the RCRD, HWYD, and RCG to prevent erosion. Check dams and silt fencing that
remained onsite after October 15, 2007 were removed by GES on May 9, 2008. Check dams
and silt fencing were left at the RCRD/HWYD intersection for work to be performed in
summer 2008 by the ERRS contractor. Check dams remain at this intersection while
vegetation recovers.
2.10.2 Hydroseeding
Areas of exposed soil and vegetation disturbed during construction activities, and areas of
backfilled topsoil were hydroseeded. These areas included portions of the following
locations:
RCRD
HWYD
Topsoil area between HWYD and WPS Area
3:1 slope adjacent to RCG
Lower extent of the RCG channel
The Contractor originally submitted a plan to broadcast seed the areas (allowed under the
specifications for areas flatter than 3:1), but because of the impending close of the growing
season and fall rains, hydroseeding was required to establish vegetation.
The hydroseed was placed by Earthworks Hydroseeding LLC, a lower-tier subcontractor to
GES.
2.10.3 Site Access Road Repair
Site restoration work includes the restoration of gravel site access roads to preconstruction
condition or better. The majority of construction traffic used access roads leading from the
new site entrance from the service road leading from Highway 18 B to the screening and
stockpile area, the roads circumnavigating the screening and stockpile area, and the main
east-west access road leading from the WPS yard through the southern edge of TPS-1. At
the start of construction, 6 inches of gravel was added to these roads to improve them for
construction traffic. At the completion of construction these roads were regraded and rolled
to fix potholes and rutting. PWPO also identified several intersections in the WPS yard
where construction traffic had caused rutting when turning sharp corners. These areas were
restored by adding gravel, grading, and rolling.
CVO\081210188
2-23
-------
TAYLOR LUMBER AND TREATING SUPERFUND SITE FINAL CONSTRUCTION REPORT
2.10.4 Demobilization
Demobilization consisted of the following activities:
Decontaminating construction equipment (decontamination was completed on
September 17, 2007 for all equipment, except for one 345B Caterpillar excavator, which
was subsequently decontaminated on September 19, 2007.
Hauling equipment offsite
Removing all temporary construction facilities (for example, site trailers)
Performing a post-construction video survey
Repairing any damage done during construction (for example, re-setting a "No Trucks"
sign along the entrance road into the WPS yard).
Demobilization was completed in mid-December with the removal of the site trailers, which
were required to remain on site for a minimum of 30 days after completion of site work.
2.11 Air Monitoring
The contract documents required that the Contractor submit a plan for air monitoring. The
Contractor's Air Quality Monitoring Plan was approved by EPA on June 4, 2007. Air
monitoring was conducted by Environmental Quality Management, Inc. as a subcontractor
to GES.
A meteorological station was set up approximately 0.6 miles east of the site, and three high-
volume samplers were set up around the site, with one backup sampler. One high-volume
sampler and the backup were set up just west of the PWPO property line on the Bowman
property. A second high-volume sampler was set up at the former truck shop located just
north of the current PWPO property, and one high-volume samplers was located at
residential locations east of the PWPO property along Rock Creek Road.
The meteorological station was installed and started up on May 30, 2007. Air monitoring
using the high-volume samplers was conducted from June 4 to September 20, 2007. Daily
wind rose data were appended to the Contractor's daily reports. Wind rose data indicated
that the samplers were placed at locations that were representative of conditions that are
likely to be affected by the site remediation activities.
The results of the air monitoring were summarized in weekly reports, and in monthly
reports (June, July, August/September) submitted by the Contractor to EPA. Throughout
the project, 253 samples were collected. Analytical turn around time was generally 7 days.
The measured and average arsenic and PMio ambient air concentrations were always far less
than the allowable amounts. Between July 31 and September 20, 2007, which was the most
active remediation phase at the site, the measured arsenic ambient air concentration was
always less than 18.9 percent of the allowable amount (0.066 ug/M3). The average arsenic
ambient air concentration (0.0022 ug/M3) was less than 3.4 percent of the allowable amount.
The measured PMio ambient air concentration was always less than 22.8 percent of the
allowable amount (150 ug/ M3). The average PMio ambient air concentration (15.4 ug/M3) is
less than 10.3 percent of the allowable amount.
2-24
CVO\081210188
-------
SECTION 2 SUMMARY OF REMEDIAL ACTION CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES
2.12 Correction of Incomplete and Deficient Work
Several items of incomplete or otherwise deficient work that were not resolved in 2007 were
scheduled for completion in 2008 by GES and its subcontractors, as well as under separate
contracts issued by EPA at a later date. These items are discussed below.
Trench Drains
During the 2007 RA construction activities, the trench drains installed by the Contractor
were rejected on the basis of safety, material workmanship, and performance concerns. In
February 2008, during an Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) meeting held in
McMinnville, Oregon, EPA and GES agreed to a deductive change order for the anticipated
replacement cost of the trench drains. This work was completed under the EPA ERRS
contract in 2008. Appendix A provides a summary report detailing this work.
Well Vaults and Risers
During the 2007 RA construction activities, the well vault cover, frame, and riser of
extraction well PW-02 was damaged. Because of similar materials and fabrication methods
employed for the risers at extraction wells PW-01 and PW-03, the risers for all three
extraction wells were deemed to be deficient and recommended for replacement.
This work was completed in 2008 under the EPA ERRS contract. A summary of this work is
provided in Appendix A.
CVO\081210188
2-25
-------
-------
3.0 Deviations from Design Drawings
and Specifications
-------
-------
SECTION 3
Deviations from Design Drawings
and Specifications
This section presents a summary of deviations from the design drawings and specifications
during the RA construction.
3.1 Change Orders
Changes to the scope of the project were documented in change orders. The majority of
these changes related to quantity variation in excavation, screening, and backfill materials.
Table 3-1 summarizes project costs including each of the change orders.
3.2 Trench Drain
As noted in subsection 2.9.4, the Contractor proposed a cast-in-place concrete trench drain
as opposed to the pre-cast trench drain specified in the design documents. Subsections 2.9.4
and 2.12 provide a detailed summary of the changes to the trench drain.
In 2008, EPA tasked the ERRS contractor (EP-R7-07-02; Task Order 18; 4-22-08) to perform
the following work to correct deficiencies in the RA work performed by GES:
Removal and replacement of the two trench drains originally installed by GES, which
were determined by EPA to be structurally and functionally inadequate. The trench
drains are located within the asphalt pavement that covers the Treatment Plant area;
Repair of one damaged well vault (extraction well PW-2), and repair/ extension of three
well vault risers (extraction wells PW-1, PW-2, and PW-3), which is necessary to ensure
the vaults match the elevation and grade of the new asphalt surface.
In addition to the trench drain and well vault riser construction, the ERRS contractor also
applied a sealant to the joints at the perimeter of the trench drains and well vault covers.
The sealant application was consistent with Wilder recommendations. A Crafco EZ-100
Melter/Applicator was used to apply the Crafco Parking Lot Sealant, consistent with the
Product Data Sheet, Part No. 34200, dated January 2008.
Appendix A provides a detailed summary of the ERRS Contractor's trench drain and well
vault work in 2008.
3.3 Soil Screening
As discussed in subsection 2.6, several changes were made to the scope of soil screening
activities. Primary changes included deletion of screening of Cell 3 soils, and addition of
screening of selected soils from TPS-1.
CVO\081210188
3-1
-------
TAYLOR LUMBER AND TREATING SUPERFUND SITE FINAL CONSTRUCTION REPORT
3.4 Rock Creek Gully Limits
The design documents included provisions for the Contractor and Engineer to coordinate in
the field to identify the limits of the RCG channel. During the design, the limits of the
channel in its downstream reach were difficult to define because the grade flattened and the
flow appeared to fan out into a dense area of blackberries and brush.
The Contractor cleared out the vegetation and discharged approximately 1,000 gallons of
clean water from a water truck into the lower reaches of the channel to trace its flow path.
Because of the dry summer soil conditions and extensive shrinkage cracking in the soil, the
water discharged to the channel was quickly absorbed and it was not feasible to trace its
flow path to the downstream limits of the channel. Further vegetation clearing was required
to discover the full extent of the channel, which was ultimately traced further to the
southeast than was assumed in the design.
3.4.1 TPS-2 Drainage Modification
During the excavation of the TPS-2 area, the Engineer's representative observed PWPO
traffic patterns in the area south of TPS-2 to be different than those assumed in the design.
Two culverts were proposed in the design to allow PWPO traffic to cross the drainage swale
leading from TPS-2 to an existing catch basin south of the TPS-2 area. These two culverts
were designed to allow PWPO traffic to access the rail tracks south of the PWPO dryer for
loading of materials, and to allow PWPO pole lifters to access the TPS-2 area. In discussion
with PWPO personnel, the Engineer's representative determined that the southernmost
culvert would interfere with PWPO traffic south of the TPS-2 area where a log skid is used
to rotate poles prior to loading them into the retorts.
Because of this conflict, the Engineer proposed a no cost/no schedule impact solution to
alter the culvert alignment and to allow the water from the culvert to flow in an open
channel to the catch basin approximately 40 feet to the south. The channel was graded with
gentle slopes to allow PWPO traffic to cross the open channel. This solution was based on
the premise that the depth of rock backfill observed in the excavation of TPS-2 to the north
(on the order of 18 to 24 inches deep) would support PWPO traffic loads and the small
amount of open channel flow collected by the drainage swale in TPS-2.
The EPA accepted this proposal, and gave the Contractor technical direction as a no cost or
schedule change.
After completion of the work and following the first rains of the fall, PWPO observed that
their traffic was creating ruts in the open channel between the culvert and catch basin. In
February 2008, the EPA RPM and Engineer met with SUMCO, a small local excavation
contractor in Sheridan, Oregon, to discuss a solution to be completed under a separate
contract.
A solution was devised to use the leftover 12-inch-diameter reinforced concrete pipe
culverts (from the WPS culvert deletion) to make a direct connection from the culvert outlet
to the catch basin.
In September 2008, EPA tasked SUMCO (Purchase Order EP-08-0000186) to complete this
work. SUMCO installed approximately 50 lineal feet of 12-inch reinforced concrete pipe
3-2
CVO\081210188
-------
SECTION 3 DEVIATIONS FROM DESIGN DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS
(RCP) (surplus from the 2007 RA work) to connect the southern end of the existing TPS-2
drainage culvert to an existing catch basin that flows to the onsite stormwater treatment
system.
SUMCO installed 9 feet of RCP extending from the outlet of the TPS-2 culvert to a 30-degree
elbow and an additional 42 feet of RCP connecting to the catch basin. The catch basin wall
was penetrated to make the connection, which was aligned with the center line of the catch
basin rim, and grout was used to seal the pipe at the penetration to the catch basin wall. The
piping was placed at a uniform slope from the existing culvert to the catch basin. The 12-
inch RCP was placed on % inch minus crushed aggregate bedding. Backfill in the pipe zone
and above the pipe consisted of I-V2 inch minus aggregate. The backfill was graded to match
the surrounding grade.
3.4.2 WPS Area Grading Modification
During observation of the excavation and backfill activities of the WPS area, the Engineer's
representative proposed to delete the culvert designed to drain water from the WPS Area
and revise the grading plan to allow water to sheet flow to open channels. The culvert
deletion and grading plan changes were proposed to allow water to drain underneath the
perimeter fence south of the WPS Area into the HWYD through existing open channels, to
eliminate a concentrated point discharge and minimize the backfill quantity required. The
EPA accepted this proposal, and gave the Contractor technical direction as a no cost or
schedule change.
3.4.3 HWYD Backfill
The Contractor submitted a traffic control plan to ODOT for permits to close lanes of traffic
along Highway 18B during construction activities. The permit reviewer's response to the
Contractor's plan, ODOT commented that they did not want to use Class 50 riprap for
erosion control in the HWYD. The Contractor and ODOT came to agreement that 3/4 inch-
minus aggregate would be acceptable backfill for the HWYD and this proposal was passed
along to EPA in RFI #11. Based on the Engineer's review, EPA agreed that the 3/4 inch-
minus aggregate was acceptable for use as backfill in the HWYD, and noted that the
aggregate should be placed to the same limits on the ditch slopes.
Subsequently, the Contractor placed and compacted the aggregate in the bottom of the ditch
but did not extend the aggregate up the slopes, leaving exposed soil susceptible to erosion.
This condition was noted in the Preliminary Assessment of Incomplete Work and Prefinal
Inspection documents.
The EPA then contacted ODOT's representative to discuss the condition of the HWYD, and
scheduled a meeting for September 21, 2007 between ODOT, Engineer, and Contractor
representatives. Prior to the meeting, the contractor extended the aggregate backfill further
up the ditch side slopes between the intersection of HWY 18B and the PWPO entrance
driveway along Highway 18B. Subsequent to the meeting with ODOT, the Contractor
agreed to place ECM along exposed soil slopes steeper than 3:1 and to hydroseed all
exposed soil and ECM along the highway ditch.
CVO\081210188
3-3
-------
TAYLOR LUMBER AND TREATING SUPERFUND SITE FINAL CONSTRUCTION REPORT
3.5 RCRD Contamination Area
During excavation of the southern portion of the RCRD, an area of wood-treating chemical
contamination was found in the ditch bottom between the PWPO truck entrance on Rock
Creek Road and the intersection of Rock Creek Road and Highway 18B.
The wood-treating chemicals observed consisted of a 3- to 4-inch-thick layer of black tar-
like substance, underlain by sand, gravel, and rounded cobbles heavily stained with liquid
wood-treating chemicals.
The lens of stained soil was at a depth where excavation could potentially jeopardize the
slope stability of the embankment supporting Rock Creek Road and Highway 18B. As a
result of this concern, and the unforeseen conditions, excavation was halted and temporary
cover was placed over the stained soils. Subsequent to this discovery, the Contractor
excavated the culvert outlet on the south side of Highway 18B, where the RCRD and HWYD
discharge to the South Yamhill River through the SYRG. Further pockets of similar wood-
treating chemicals were observed during this work.
The Engineer's representative used a shovel to dig a small hole in the channel bottom
further downstream from the limits of the excavation at the culvert outlet and determined
that the wood-treating chemicals extended further downstream beneath the channel bottom
toward the South Yamhill River.
Based on the immediate threat of release, and the potential delays to completion of the
overall RA construction, EPA mobilized an ERRS contractor (EQM) to further investigate
the contamination and stabilize the situation.
The RA contractor was then asked to place a temporary cover of bentonite powder and
geotextile overlain by riprap to temporarily seal off the pockets of wood-treating chemicals.
EPA tasked the ERRS contractor (EP-R7-07-02; Task Order 13) to perform the following
work under Superfund removal authority (EPA, 2007d):
Soil sampling and excavation and offsite disposal of contaminated soils in and around
the culvert buried under Highway 18B, including areas at the intersection of Highway
18B and Rock Creek Road, west up the HWYD, north up the RCRD, under Highway
18B, and downstream of the culvert to the South Yamhill River Gully (SYRG).
This work was initiated on August 21, 2007, and completed during dry weather conditions
in August 2008. The ERRS contractor demobilized from the site on August 29, 2008.
Specific work performed by the ERRS contractor is summarized below:
Contaminated soils were excavated from the SYRG on the south side of Highway 18B,
the Rock Creek Road Ditch on the north side of Highway 18B, a small portion of the
Highway 18B Ditch on the northwest portion of the Highway, and the culvert
underneath Highway 18B.
Highway 18B was closed on August 1, 2008 so that contaminated soils could be
excavated and the under-roadway culvert could be replaced. Oregon DOT provided the
culvert pipe, which they indicated needed to be replaced due to its deteriorated
3-4
CVO\081210188
-------
SECTION 3 DEVIATIONS FROM DESIGN DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS
condition. The ERRS contractor cut and removed the asphalt road surface along the
culvert alignment and excavated down to a depth of approximately 9 feet to remove the
failed culvert and contaminated material encountered. The material excavated from the
trench was stockpiled for later offsite transportation and disposal at Chemical Waste
Management (CWM) in Arlington, OR.
A new 36-inch-diameter high-density polyethylene (HDPE) culvert with exterior
corrugations and a smooth interior was then installed at the bottom of the trench at a
sufficient slope for proper water flow. The trench was then backfilled with the Oregon
DOT-approved % inch minus, and the material was compacted in lifts during backfill.
Contaminated soils were stockpiled nearby on plastic sheeting at the adjacent property
at 1504 W Main Street, owned by Kelly Zobrist (Tax Lots 2100, 2200 and 2201). Plastic
sheeting was also used to cover the stockpile to prevent erosion and run-off. The
contaminated soil was transported to the CWM Subtitle C facility in Arlington, OR. Soil
samples were collected beneath the area where stockpiling occurred, and soil
contamination was identified as being below residential Preliminary Remediation Goals.
Six inches of clean fill was placed over the area and it was seeded.
The ditch on the south side of Highway 18B was reshaped and stabilized by placing
rocks, rip rap, and logs to divert water flow and to prevent bank erosion during times of
high water flow.
The ERRS contractor's final report on this work is scheduled to be completed and submitted
to EPA in December 2008.
3.6 Miscellaneous Tasks
EPA issued two additional purchase orders for small tasks performed in support of the
Remedial Action:
In 2007, EPA tasked SUMCO (Purchase Order EP-07-0000117) to perform storm drain
work in an area where failing asphalt was identified prior to placement of the new low
permeability asphalt pavement (north of retort loading area). EPA identified that a
storm drain pipe and catch basin serviced this area, but the pipe dead-ended and was
not connected through the slurry wall to piping leading to a catch basin outside of the
barrier wall. This piping connection should have been constructed to direct stormwater
flow to the onsite stormwater treatment system. In June 2007, SUMCO connected the
existing pipe and catch basin with a new 8-inch drain pipe through the protective cap
above the slurry wall into an existing catch basin and storm drain line on the outside of
the wall to complete the connection. Both ends of the pipe in the protective cap above
the slurry wall were plugged with bentonite. The new pipe was installed 16 to 18 inches
bgs.
In 2008, EPA tasked SUMCO (Purchase Order EP-08-0000098) to perform minor work in
the north end of the North-South trench drain within the Treatment Plant Area. EPA
had observed soils, which appeared to be contaminated with wood-treating product,
leaking from the annular space around a concrete pipe that entered the upstream end of
North-South trench drain. SUMCO cleaned out the contaminated soil and eliminated the
CVO\081210188
3-5
-------
TAYLOR LUMBER AND TREATING SUPERFUND SITE FINAL CONSTRUCTION REPORT
potential for soil discharging into the trench drain by filling the annular space with
oakum fibers soaked in polyurethane grout (specifically HYDRO ACTIVE Sealfoam NF).
This work was consistent with CH2M HILL's (January 10, 2007) recommendations.
Work was completed July 3, 2008. In addition to the EPA work, Wilder Construction
hired Roger Langeliers Construction Company to assist Wilder with routing and sealing
the concrete pad on the west side of the site as identified during the August 11, 2008
inspection. The asphalt blocks that were removed to evaluate the blistering and cracking
were also resealed. This work was completed on October 6, 2008, and will be described
in the Annual Inspection Report by Wilder.
3-6
CVO\081210188
-------
4.0 Remedial Action Construction
Documentation
-------
-------
SECTION 4
Remedial Construction Documentation
This section of the FCR provides a listing and brief description of key documentation that
was produced by the Contractor, Engineer, and EPA during the RA construction.
4.1 Daily Reports
Daily construction reports were produced by both the RA contractor and the Engineer. The
Contractor's daily reports were submitted via email along with wind rose data from the
meteorological station.
The Contractor submitted daily reports via email to EPA for the period of May 15 to
October 15, 2007. The Engineer submitted daily reports from May 29 to September 21, 2008
for the period in which Engineer representatives were on site full-time. The Engineer's daily
reports were compiled on CD and transmitted to EPA in draft format in December 2007,
with final edited versions (for format and grammar) submitted to EPA in January 2008 via a
secure file transfer protocol (FTP) site. The Engineer's photographs of oversight activities
were also transmitted to EPA on CD.
4.2 Weekly Progress Meetings
Weekly progress meetings were held at the site and by conference call during the
construction period. Weekly meeting minutes were compiled by the Engineer and
forwarded to EPA for review.
4.3 Submittals
RA construction submittals required in the specifications were submitted to the EPA and
Engineer for review and approval. The Contractor submitted a total of 76 submittals and
20 re-submittals to EPA via email. Submittal review comments were provided to EPA via
email. Review comments or final submittal approval were then provided to the Contractor
by EPA. A complete record of Contractor submittal documents and Engineer responses was
compiled by the Engineer and submitted to EPA in electronic format as a separate
transmittal.
4.4 Requests for Information
A total of 14 RFIs were submitted to the EPA and Engineer by the Contractor during
construction. Table 4-1 provides a summary of construction RFIs, including the RFI number,
title, and a brief description of the subject matter. A complete record of RFI documents and
Engineer responses was compiled by the Engineer and submitted to EPA in electronic
format as a separate transmittal.
CVO\081210188
4-1
-------
TAYLOR LUMBER AND TREATING SUPERFUND SITE FINAL CONSTRUCTION REPORT
4.5 Preliminary Assessment of Incomplete Work
On August 31, 2008, the EPA and Engineer performed a Preliminary Assessment of
Incomplete Work to document major aspects of the construction work that had not been
completed as of the required Phase 1 completion date of August 31, 2007 specified in the
contract. The assessment listed incomplete work items with photo documentation (EPA,
2007b).
Work that was not completed per the contract-required date of August 31, included the
following:
Rock Creek Gully - Grading of rock and topsoil and verification of proper ditch drainage
was incomplete.
Highway 18B Ditches - Rock placement on side slopes, grading, placement of erosion
control matting, verification of proper ditch drainage, and density test results for backfill
were incomplete.
Rock Creek Road Ditches - Rock placement on side slopes and bottom, placement of erosion
control matting, and verification of proper ditch drainage was incomplete. Materials
appeared to deviate from approved gradation.
WPS - Backfilling, grading and compacting of backfilling, and perimeter transition areas
were incomplete. The wearing surface did not appear to be a compact wearing surface.
TPS-1 - Backfilling, grading and compacting of backfilling, and installation of drainage
culvert and French drain was incomplete.
TPS-2 - Backfilling, grading and compacting of backfilling, installation of drainage culvert
and French drain, fence re-installation, and submittal of dioxin soil data was incomplete.
Offsite disposal of Subtitle C soils - Incomplete.
Trench Drains - Incomplete.
Low Permeability Overlay - Incomplete. The overlay was not placed to specified limits; well
vaults and covers were incomplete; QC concerns were identified for bird bathing, soft
pavement, transition areas, and other punchlist items.
Baker Rock Warranty - Not provided.
Well Abandonment - Well abandonment logs not provided.
Survey Records and Drawings - Incomplete.
Overall - Survey data to confirm excavation limits for hazardous soils were not available. A
complete record of QC results was not available, which adversely affected the ability of the
EPA and Engineer to inspect the work.
4-2
CVO\081210188
-------
SECTION 4 REMEDIAL CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTATION
4.6 Pre-Final Inspection
On September 17 and 18, 2007, the EPA and Engineer conducted a pre-final inspection of the
RA construction work completed by the Contractor. The pre-final inspection listed several
work items and documentation (for example, record drawings and as-built survey) that
were incomplete or deficient. The pre-final inspection document was sent to the Contractor
on September 19, 2007 (EPA, 2007c).
Incomplete and inadequate work identified included the following:
RRD-E, RRD-W - Placement of erosion and sediment controls and restoration of side
slopes was incomplete.
HWYD - Placement of erosion and sediment controls and restoration of side slopes was
incomplete; written releases from ODOT regarding right-of-way; topsoil was not
applied per specification.
RCRD - Placement of erosion and sediment controls and restoration of side slopes was
incomplete; topsoil was not applied per specification; excessive fines were noted in
erosion protection rock; verification that the ditch drained properly was incomplete.
RCG - Placement of erosion and sediment controls was incomplete; topsoil was not
applied per specification; woody debris was not removed from work areas.
TPS-1; TPS-2; WPS - Lines and grades were not confirmed (survey of finished elevations
not provided); compaction not achieved per specifications and plans; production QC
data for backfill gradation was not provided; field reports for compacted densities were
missing; survey data for planned excavations were not provided.
Staging Area - Incomplete removal of Subtitle C soils; survey and volume estimate for
"large hole" dug by Contractor was not provided; verification that a minimum of 3
inches of soil was removed from the staging area was not provided; verification of
equipment decontamination was not provided; access roads were not restored.
Cells 1, 2, and 3 - Inadequate grading was noted; punchlist items.
Trench Drains - Rejected by EPA as nonconforming work.
CRABS - QC data were not provided.
Low permeability Overlay - See Section 2.9 of this FCR.
Survey and QC Data - Missing and incomplete.
Record Drawings - Specification requirements not met.
4.7 Final Inspection
On October 15, 2007, the EPA and Engineer conducted a final inspection of the Phase 1 and
Phase 2 RA construction work completed by the Contractor. The final inspection
documented work items that had been completed since the final inspection. Several minor
work items (for example, minor access road repairs) were documented that the Contractor
CVO\081210188
4-3
-------
TAYLOR LUMBER AND TREATING SUPERFUND SITE FINAL CONSTRUCTION REPORT
promptly completed. Several other items, including completion of record drawings and as-
built survey documentation, as well as deficient work, were identified in the final inspection
document that were subject to subsequent negotiations between EPA and the Contractor
and its subcontractors. The final inspection document was sent to the Contractor on October
16, 2007 (EPA, 2007e).
The final inspection stated the following:
Overall, physical construction work at the site is complete, and minor punchlist items and
site restoration have been completed. Unresolved issues include the trench drains, asphalt overlay,
and risers/vaults for the extraction wells. Administrative and project documentation, including but
not limited to survey information, record drawings, the as built topographic survey, and cost
documentation, have not been completed for this project. Site demobilization has not yet occurred.
With regards to physical construction work, the most important item for GES to verify is that
proper drainage (e.g., flowlines, invert elevations for culverts) has been achieved in the three areas
that were excavated and backfilled (see specifics below). If drainage is not acceptable, additional field
work would need to occur in the short term.
4.8 Record Drawings
Record drawings consist of a full-size set of design drawings that the Contractor is
responsible for marking up as construction progresses to document any departures from the
design related to change orders or RFIs. The specifications require that the documents are
kept up to date and accurate through the duration of construction. The record drawings,
along with the as-built survey, provide a basis for completion of as-built drawings.
The record drawings were inspected by EPA and the Engineer on multiple occasions
throughout the project, including formal inspections during the Preliminary Assessment of
Incomplete Work, the Pre-Final Inspection, and Final Inspection. Numerous deficiencies in
the accuracy and completeness of the Contractor's record drawings were noted by the
Engineer after these inspections and these were provided in the corresponding
documentation submitted to the Contractor. The Contractor submitted the final record
drawings in November 2007. The Engineer provided additional review and noted many of
the same deficiencies previously identified, as well as additional items. The Engineer
submitted a technical memorandum on January 9, 2008 (CH2M HILL, 2008a) documenting
deficiencies in the record drawings, which was promptly forwarded to the Contractor by
EPA. Because of the inaccuracy and incompleteness of the record drawings, EPA negotiated
a deductive change order with the Contractor during the ADR meetings in February 2008.
4.9 As-Built Survey
As required in the contract, the Contractor was responsible for providing an as-built
topographic survey. Throughout the project, the EPA repeatedly requested survey data
from the Contractor to allow for evaluation of completed site work, and in the majority of
cases the Contractor did not provide survey data to EPA. Frequently, the Contractor stated
that survey data would be provided only at project completion. After the Contractor had
demobilized from the site, the Contractor and their subcontracted surveyor submitted
4-4
CVO\081210188
-------
SECTION 4 REMEDIAL CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTATION
AutoCAD files and text files containing survey notes on November 20, 2008. The Engineer
noted several deficiencies in the as-built survey that were summarized in a technical
memorandum to EPA on January 9, 2008 (CH2M HILL, 2008b), which EPA then submitted
to the Contractor.
Because of the inaccuracy and incompleteness of the record drawings, EPA negotiated a
deductive change order with the Contractor during the ADR meetings in February 2008.
4.10 As-Built Drawings
The as-built drawings consist of as-built topographic survey and record drawing
information compiled into a complete set of engineering drawings that document the work
completed during the RA construction. The as-built drawings were to be submitted to EPA
in December 2008 by the Engineer under separate cover.
4.11 Alternative Dispute Resolution
After negotiations between EPA and the Contractor failed to produce acceptable
agreements, the EPA and Contractor agreed to participate in an ADR process through the
Civilian Board of Contract Appeals.
A site walk-through was conducted on February 5, 2008 as a first step in the ADR process.
The site walk was attended by an administrative law judge, EPA, Engineer, Contractor, and
subcontractor personnel. The purpose of the site walk was to provide a project overview to
the administrative law judge presiding over the ADR process. A non-binding ADR meeting
was held in McMinnville, Oregon, on the afternoon of February 5, 2008, and all day on
February 6, 2008. The purpose of the ADR meetings was to provide an open forum for EPA
and the Contractor to discuss the Contractor's claims and EPA's concerns regarding
incomplete or deficient work.
As a result of the meetings, several issues were resolved, including the following:
A deductive change order was negotiated for trench drain and well vault riser
replacement
A deductive change order was negotiated for deficient record drawings
The Contractor agreed to work with EPA to resolve issues related to the as-built survey
Wilder Construction agreed to modify the warranty language to allow coverage of
damage by normal equipment and material storage activities at the site and to cover any
pavement failure in areas identified where pavement thickness did not meet the
required 4 inches. The final MatCon Material and Workmanship Warranty is dated
March 3, 2008, and was signed by James Price, EPA CO, on May 29, 2008.
Wilder Construction agreed to address softness and rutting issues with rolling and/or
diamond grinding the rutted areas east of the PWPO spray pond and treatment area.
This work occurred under the Warranty on August 11, 2008 (CH2M HILL, 2008d).
CVO\081210188
4-5
-------
TAYLOR LUMBER AND TREATING SUPERFUND SITE FINAL CONSTRUCTION REPORT
Wilder Construction agreed to provide interpretation of asphalt stiffness testing results
previously provided, and agreed to change wording in the MatCon operations and
maintenance plan and warranty to address actual traffic loads and usage at the site.
Wilder also agreed to meet with PWPO to discuss the dunnage issue and will assist the
site operator in finding alternatives to the current operations that will impose lower
surface contact pressures while minimizing impact to the efficiencies of the current
operating procedures. The final MatCon Operation and Maintenance Plan (OMP) is
dated March 3, 2008.
Baker Rock Resources (paving subcontractor) agreed to address three major "bird bath"
areas by diamond grinding the areas to improve drainage. This work was completed on
May 7, 2008. After the work, PWPO indicated that the drainage was not improved.
EPA and the Contractor agreed to meet to discuss negotiation of the outstanding change
orders.
Subsequent to the meeting, the Contractor documented the agreements reached in the
meeting with a technical proposal to EPA dated February 13, 2008. The Engineer and EPA
reviewed the technical proposal and provided a detailed response on February 26, 2008. The
Contractor provided a revised proposal to EPA dated March 5, 2008, correcting deficiencies
with the proposal. The EPA responded on March 11, 2008, accepting the proposal.
4.12 Preliminary Close Out Report
The EPA completed the Preliminary Close Out Report (PCOR) on September 30, 2008. The
PCOR documents that construction activities have been completed at the site, in accordance
with Close Out Procedures for National Priorities List Sites (OSWER Directive 9320.09A-P,
January 2000).
4-6
CVO\081210188
-------
5.0 References
-------
-------
SECTION 5
References
Abatech. 2008. Taylor Lumber and Treating Superfund Site, Quality Control Report, MatCon
Cover, Revision 3. Abatech Consulting Engineers. Blooming Glen, Pennsylvania.
February 7, 2008.
CH2M HILL. 2006a. Taylor Lumber and Treating Superfund Site: Final Design Basis Report.
CH2M HILL, Corvallis, Oregon. December 2006.
CH2M HILL. 2006b. Taylor Lumber and Treating Superfund Site: Final Design Drawing.,
CH2M HILL, Corvallis, Oregon. December 2006.
CH2M HILL. 2006c. Taylor Lumber and Treating Superfund Site: Final Design Specifications.
CH2M HILL, Corvallis, Oregon. December 2006.
CH2M HILL. 2006d. Technical Memorandum: TLT Pavement Testing - July 28 to August 3,
2006, Taylor Lumber and Treating Superfund Site, August 10, 2006. CH2M HILL,
Corvallis, Oregon.CH2M HILL. 2007a. Quality Assurance Project Plan, Taylor Lumber
and Treating Superfund Site Remedial Action, Sheridan, Oregon. CH2M HILL, Corvallis,
Oregon. May 2007.
CH2M HILL. 2007b. Laboratory Report, July 19, 2007. CH2M HILL, Corvallis, Oregon.
CH2M HILL. 2007c. Technical Memorandum: Low Permeability Asphalt Paving, July 19, 2007.
CH2M HILL, Corvallis, Oregon.
CH2M HILL. 2007d. Technical Memorandum: Trench Drain Observations September 12, 2007.
CH2M HILL, Corvallis, Oregon.
CH2M HILL. 2007e. Technical Memorandum: Review of Taylor Lumber and Treating Superfund
Site Monitor Well Abandonment and Alteration Records, October 25, 2007. CH2M HILL,
Corvallis, Oregon.
CH2M HILL. 2008a. Technical Memorandum: Record Drawing Review Summary. CH2M HILL,
Corvallis, Oregon. January 9, 2008.
CH2M HILL. 2008b. Technical Memorandum: As-Built Survey Review Summary. CH2M HILL,
Corvallis, Oregon. January 9, 2008.
CH2M HILL. 2008c. Technical Memorandum: Second Review of Taylor Lumber and Treating
Superfund Site Monitor Well Abandonment and Alteration Records. February 12, 2008
CH2M HILL, Corvallis, Oregon.
CH2M HILL. 2008d. Memorandum: Taylor Lumber and Treating Site Visit - Asphalt. August 11,
2008 CH2M HILL, Corvallis, Oregon.
CH2M HILL. 2008e. Technical Memorandum: Final Inspection for the Taylor Lumber Re-
Work. CH2M HILL, Corvallis, Oregon. September 09, 2008.
CVO\081210188
5-1
-------
TAYLOR LUMBER AND TREATING SUPERFUND SITE FINAL CONSTRUCTION REPORT
CH2M HILL. 2008f. Taylor Lumber and Treating: Critical Path Schedule Summary. CH2M HILL,
Corvallis, Oregon. November 25, 2008.
E&E, 2001. Removal Action Report: Taylor Lumber and Treating. Ecology and Environment,
Inc., Portland, Oregon.
Guardian Environmental Services (GES), 2007a Email Correspondence from Tom Dalton to
Karen Keeley, June 13, 2007. Guardian Environmental Services, Bear, Delaware.
Guardian Environmental Services (GES), 2007b Email Correspondence from Tom Dalton to
Karen Keeley, July 9, 2007. Guardian Environmental Services, Bear, Delaware.
Guardian Environmental Services (GES), 2007c Email Correspondence from Tom Dalton to
Karen Keeley, October 11, 2007. Guardian Environmental Services, Bear, Delaware.
Guardian Environmental Services (GES), 2007d Email Correspondence from Tom Dalton to
Karen Keeley, September 27, 2007. Guardian Environmental Services, Bear, Delaware.
Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ); Letter: Chemical Waste Management of
the Northwest, Inc. RCRA Part B Permit #ORD 089 452 353; Petition for site-specific
variance from treatment standards. Oregon Department of Environmental Quality,
Eastern Region, Pendleton OR. July 18, 2008
United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2005. Final Record of Decision, Taylor
Lumber and Treating Superjund Site, Sheridan, Oregon. EPA, Region 10, Seattle,
Washington. September 30, 2005.
United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2006. Memorandum: Taylor Lumber
and Treating Superfund Site - Soil Storage Cell Contained In Determination. EPA,
Region 10, Seattle, Washington. November 28, 2006.
United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2007a. Memorandum: Taylor Lumber
and Treating Superfund Site - Endangered Species Act - "No Effect" Determination for
Remedial Action Construction Activities at the Taylor Lumber and Treating Superfund Site,
Sheridan, OR. EPA, Region 10, Seattle, Washington. April 19, 2007.
United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2007b. Preliminary Assessment of
Incomplete Work, Taylor Lumber and Treating Superfund Site, Sheridan, Oregon. EPA,
Region 10, Seattle, Washington. August 30, 2007.United States Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA). 2007b. Pre-Final Inspection, Taylor Lumber and Treating
Superfund Site, Sheridan, Oregon. EPA, Region 10, Seattle, Washington. September 18,
2007.
United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2007c. Pre-Final Inspection, Taylor
Lumber and Treating Superfund Site, Sheridan, Oregon. EPA, Region 10, Seattle,
Washington. September 19, 2007.
United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2007d. Action Memorandum, Request
for a Removal Action at the Taylor Lumber site in Yamhill County, Sheridan, Oregon.
Prepared by Marc Callaghan, On-Scene Coordinator. EPA, Region 10, Seattle,
Washington. September 21, 2007.
5-2
CVO\081210188
-------
SECTION 5 REFERENCES
United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2007e. Final Inspection, Taylor Lumber
and Treating Superjund Site, Sheridan, Oregon. EPA, Region 10, Seattle, Washington.
October 15, 2007.
United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2007g. Final results for arsenic soil
analyses, confirmational sample results, Remedial Action, Taylor Lumber and Treating
Superfund site. Data Release and Quality Assurance Memoranda for May 24 through
July 9, 2007; July 18 through July 27, 2007; and August 8 through 24, 2007. Gerald
Dodo (EPA Region 10 Laboratory) to Karen Keeley (EPA Region 10 Superfund),
Seattle, Washington.
United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2008a. Handout for RPM Meeting on
January 15, 2008, Arsenic and XRF, Taylor Lumber and Treating Superfund Site. Prepared
by Chris Pace, EPA, Region 10, Seattle, Washington. January 15, 2008.
United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2008b. August 22, 2008 Letter from
Dan Heister to Sheldon Stewart at PWPO. EPA, Region 10, Seattle, Washington.
August 22, 2008
CVO\081210188
5-3
-------
-------
Tables
-------
-------
TABLES
TABLE 2-1
Excavation Quantities
Taylor Lumber and Treating Superfund Site
Soil Excavation
Area
Excavation Area
(acres)1
Average Excavation
Depth (feet)2
Excavation Volume
(cubic yards)3
TPS-1
2.67
2.4
10,492
TPS-2
1.61
1.8
4,578
WPS
0.4
1.0
654
Total
4.68
15,724
Notes:
1 Excavation area calculated based on as-built survey of excavation limits. Original remedial design estimate
was 2.36 acres for TPS-1, 1.57 acres for TPS-2 , and 0.4 acres for WPS for a total of 4.33 acres.
2 Average excavation depth based on as-built survey of limits of excavation and estimated volume of removal.
3 Quantity shown is based on as-built survey volume estimate provided by RA Contractor's surveyor initially
submitted November 20, 2007and re-submitted on March 5, 2008 . RA Contractor estimated 15,701 cy in
progress payment documentation submitted to EPA, as follows: 10,472 cy for TPS-1, 4575 for TPS-2, and
654 for WPS.
CVO\081210191
1
-------
TAYLOR LUMBER AND TREATING SUPERFUND SITE FINAL CONSTRUCTION REPORT
TABLE 2-2
Preliminary XRF Study Data
Taylor Lumber and Treating Superfund Site
Laboratory
In-Situ XRF Measurements Results
GPS Coordinates (mg/kg) (mg/kg) Concentration
Location
Sample
ID
Sample Date
Nฐ
wฐ
1
+/-
2
+/-
3
+/-
Avg
(EPA Method
6010)
Range
(Low, Med, Hi)
TL-SS-001
7214000
5/24/2007
45.09794
123.42722
209
6
442
10
321
7
324
178
Hi
TL-SS-002
7214001
5/24/2007
45.09813
123.42766
550
10
363
7
351
8
421
436
Hi
TL-SS-003
7214002
5/24/2007
45.09809
123.42782
60
3
189
6
112
4
120
105
Med
TL-SS-004
7214003
5/24/2007
45.09832
123.42763
272
7
222
7
357
7
284
299
Hi
TL-SS-005
7214004
5/24/2007
45.09871
123.42779
11
3
13
3
13
3
12
14
Low
TL-SS-006
7214005
5/24/2007
45.09867
123.42800
126
5
105
4
100
4
110
97
Med
TL-SS-007
7214006
5/24/2007
45.09879
123.42761
58
3
50
3
63
4
57
66
Low
TL-SS-008
7214007
5/24/2007
45.09902
123.43044
591
8
526
8
665
10
594
450
Hi
TL-SS-009
7214008
5/24/2007
45.09904
123.42915
24
2
38
3
45
3
36
70
Low
TL-SS-010
7214009
5/24/2007
45.09897
123.43040
111
4
83
3
164
4
119
248
Med
TL-SS-011
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
TL-SS-012
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Notes:
1. Samples at locations TL-SS-011 and TL-SS-012 not collected.
2
CVO\081210191
-------
TABLES
TABLE 2-3
Confirmation Sampling Results
Taylor Lumber and Treating Superfund Site
Sample Location
Sample Date
ID Collected Sample Description
Result1
(mg/kg)
TPS-1
TPSI- CELL A 7
CELL B COMPOSITE 9.2
TPS1- CELL C 7.9
TPS1-D COMP 6.7
TPS1-CELL E 8.5
CELL F COMPOSITE 15
TPS1- CELL G 8.8
TPSI-H COMP 10
TPSI CELL I COMPOSITE 12
TPSI CELL J 34.6
TPSI-K COMP 13
TPSI-L COMP 17
TPSI CELL M COMPOSITE 62.2
TPSI CELL N 9
TPS1-"0" COMPOSITE 7.1
TPS-I-P-COMP 11
TPSI-Q COMPOSITE 7.9
TPS-2
TPS-2 Cell A
7294155
7/20/2007
TPS2-CELL A COMPOSITE
140
TPS-2 Cell B
7294152
7/18/2007
TPS2-CELL B COMPOSITE
13
TPS-2 Cell C
7334150
8/13/2007
TPS-2-C- COMP
10
TPS-2 Cell D
7294154
7/20/2007
TPS2-CELL D COMPOSITE
14
TPS-2 Cell E
7294151
7/18/2007
TPS2-CELL E COMPOSITE
16
TPS-2 Cell F
7334151
8/13/2007
TPS-2-F- COMP
21
TPS-2 Cell G
7294156
7/20/2007
TPS2-CELL G COMPOSITE
33.2
TPS-2 Cell H
7294153
7/19/2007
TPS2-CELL H COMPOSITE
16
TPS-2 Cell I
7294150
7/18/2007
TPS2-CELL I COMPOSITE
14
TPS-2 Cell J
7334152
8/13/2007
TPS-2-J- COMP
62.3
TPS-2 Cell K
7334153
8/13/2007
TPS-2-K- COMP
13
TPS-2 Cell L
7334154
8/14/2007
TP2S-L COMP
4.8
TPS-1
Cell
A
7264151
6/25/2007
TPS-1
Cell
B
7264153
6/29/2007
TPS-1
Cell
C
7272003
7/6/2007
TPS-1
Cell
D
7284100
7/9/2007
TPS-1
Cell
E
7264152
6/25/2007
TPS-1
Cell
F
7264154
6/29/2007
TPS-1
Cell
G
7272004
7/6/2007
TPS-1
Cell
H
7334161
8/18/2007
TPS-1
Cell
I
7324150
8/8/2007
TPS-1
Cell
J
7324154
8/9/2007
TPS-1
Cell
K
7334158
8/15/2007
TPS-1
Cell
L
7334160
8/18/2007
TPS-1
Cell
M
7324151
8/8/2007
TPS-1
Cell
N
7324155
8/9/2007
TPS-1
Cell
O
7344152
8/24/2007
TPS-1
Cell
P
7324156
8/10/2007
TPS-1
Cell
Q
7344150
8/21/2007
CVO\081210191
3
-------
TAYLOR LUMBER AND TREATING SUPERFUND SITE FINAL CONSTRUCTION REPORT
TABLE 2-3
Confirmation Sampling Results
Taylor Lumber and Treating Superfund Site
Sample Location
Sample
ID
Date
Collected
Sample Description
Result1
(mg/kg)
TPS-2 Cell L
7304154
7/27/2007
TPS2-L CONF
8.3
TPS-2 Cell M
7304153
7/27/2007
TPS2-M CONF
17
TPS-2 Fenceline (East
of PWPO Dryer)
7344153
8/24/2007
TPS2- G-K FENCE COMPOSITE
61.5
WPS
WPS Cell A
7324157
8/11/2007
WPS-A- COMP
15
WPS Cell B
7324158
8/11/2007
WPS-B- COMP
11
WPS Cell C
7324159
8/11/2007
WPS-C- COMP
6.1
RRD-E
RRD-E (All)
7334157
8/15/2007
RAIL DITCH E
5.4
RRD-W
RRD-W (All)
7334159
8/16/2007
RAIL DITCH-W
8.7
RCRD
RCRD North Half
7334155
8/14/2007
RCRD-N
7.6
RCRD South Half
7334156
8/14/2007
RCRD-S
7.8
RCG
RCG (All)
7344151
8/22/2007
RCG COMPOSITE
48.6
HWYD
HWYD (East Half)
7324152
8/8/2007
HWY DITCH 1A-E COMPOSITE
8.4
HWYD (West Half)
7324153
8/8/2007
HWY DITCH 2A-E COMPOSITE
14
Notes:
1. Reference: Final results for arsenic soil analyses, confirmational sample results, Remedial Action, Taylor
Lumber and Treating Superfund site. Data Release and Quality Assurance Memoranda for May 24 through
July 9, 2007; July 18 through July 27, 2007; and August 8 through 24, 2007. Gerald Dodo (EPA Region 10
Laboratory) to Karen Keeley (EPA Region 10 Superfund), Seattle, Washington (EPA, 2007g)
2. Sample locations are shown in Table 2-4 and Figure 2-2.
4
CVO\081210191
-------
TABLES
TABLE 2-4
Confirmation Sampling Composite Node Locations
Taylor Lumber and Treating Superfund Site
Location
Sample ID
Distance From Cell Corner
(feet)
TPS1 - Cell A
Loc 1
Loc 2
Loc 3
Loc 4
TPS1 - Cell B
Loc 1
Loc 2
Loc 3
Loc 4
TPS1 - Cell C
Loc 1
Loc 2
Loc 3
Loc 4
TPS1 - Cell D
Loc 1
Loc 2
Loc 3
Loc 4
TPS1 - Cell E
Loc 1
Loc 2
Loc 3
Loc 4
TPS1 - Cell F
Loc 1
Loc 2
Loc 3
Loc 4
TPS1 - Cell G
7264151
7264153
7272003
7284100
7264152
7264154
7272004
E of NW cell corner
42
52
35
23
E of NW cell corner
39
62
8
75
E of NW cell corner
56
17
16
27
E of NW cell corner
107
129
61
129
E of NW cell corner
21
11
20
64
E of NW cell corner
43
34
68
14
E of NW cell corner
S of NW cell corner
8
66
11
64
S of NW cell corner
12
71
48
25
S of NW cell corner
80
9
17
72
S of NW cell corner
0
24
7
6
S of NW cell corner
40
75
21
17
S of NW cell corner
61
15
59
3
S of NW cell corner
CVO\081210191
5
-------
TAYLOR LUMBER AND TREATING SUPERFUND SITE FINAL CONSTRUCTION REPORT
TABLE 2-4
Confirmation Sampling Composite Node Locations
Taylor Lumber and Treating Superfund Site
Location
Sample ID
Distance From Cell Corner
(feet)
Loc 1
Loc 2
Loc 3
Loc 4
TPS1 - Cell H
Loc 1
Loc 2
Loc 3
Loc 4
TPS1 - Cell I
Loc 1
Loc 2
Loc 3
Loc 4
TPS1 - Cell J
Loc 1
Loc 2
Loc 3
Loc 4
TPS1 - Cell K
Loc 1
Loc 2
Loc 3
Loc 4
TPS1 - Cell L
Loc 1
Loc 2
Loc 3
Loc 4
TPS1 - Cell M
Loc 1
7334161
7324150
7324154
7334158
7334160
7324151
29
66
63
63
E of NW cell corner
61
19
111
131
E of NW cell corner
51
19
65
50
E of NW cell corner
13
54
70
38
E of NW cell corner
48
75
50
48
E of NW cell corner
47
28
47
77
E of NW cell corner
60
34
32
49
66
S of NW cell corner
27
16
11
25
S of NW cell corner
16
70
40
60
S of NW cell corner
36
11
50
74
S of NW cell corner
44
16
18
69
S of NW cell corner
20
11
16
70
S of NW cell corner
13
CVO\081210191
-------
TABLES
TABLE 2-4
Confirmation Sampling Composite Node Locations
Taylor Lumber and Treating Superfund Site
Location
Sample ID
Distance From Cell Corner
(feet)
Loc 2
Loc 3
Loc 4
TPS1 - Cell N
Loc 1
Loc 2
Loc 3
Loc 4
TPS1 - Cell O
Loc 1
Loc 2
Loc 3
Loc 4
TPS1 - Cell P
Loc 1
Loc 2
Loc 3
Loc 4
TPS1 - Cell Q
Loc 1
Loc 2
Loc 3
Loc 4
TPS2 - Cell A
Loc 1
Loc 2
Loc 3
Loc 4
TPS2 - Cell B
Loc 1
Loc 2
7324155
7344152
7324156
7344150
7294155
7294152
2
50
50
E of NW cell corner
20
70
25
66
E of NW cell corner
57
60
38
46
E of NW cell corner
8
21
19
31
E of NW cell corner
11
60
18
34
E of NW cell corner
63
50
8
43
E of NW cell corner
16
76
73
30
65
S of NW cell corner
60
62
25
15
S of NW cell corner
25
55
20
42
S of NW cell corner
83
56
121
15
S of NW cell corner
33
48
66
28
S of NW cell corner
44
29
80
15
S of NW cell corner
2
4
CVO\081210191
7
-------
TAYLOR LUMBER AND TREATING SUPERFUND SITE FINAL CONSTRUCTION REPORT
TABLE 2-4
Confirmation Sampling Composite Node Locations
Taylor Lumber and Treating Superfund Site
Location
Sample ID
Distance From Cell Corner
(feet)
Loc 3
Loc 4
TPS2 - Cell C
Loc 1
Loc 2
Loc 3
Loc 4
TPS2 - Cell D
Loc 1
Loc 2
Loc 3
Loc 4
TPS2 - Cell E
Loc 1
Loc 2
Loc 3
Loc 4
TPS2 - Cell F
Loc 1
Loc 2
Loc 3
Loc 4
TPS2 - Cell G
Loc 1
Loc 2
Loc 3
Loc 4
TPS2 - Cell H
Loc 1
Loc 2
Loc 3
7334150
7294154
7294151
7334151
7294156
7294153
54
66
E of NW cell corner
17
52
18
27
E of NW cell corner
71
37
64
27
E of NW cell corner
12
29
65
22
E of NW cell corner
50
2
46
77
W of SE cell corner
48
16
70
118
E of NW cell corner
0
39
72
56
78
S of NW cell corner
25
19
39
2
S of NW cell corner
79
34
56
74
S of NW cell corner
44
49
9
49
S of NW cell corner
50
74
46
41
N of SE cell corner
3
67
12
16
S of NW cell corner
71
9
64
CVO\081210191
-------
TABLES
TABLE 2-4
Confirmation Sampling Composite Node Locations
Taylor Lumber and Treating Superfund Site
Location
Sample ID
Distance From Cell Corner
(feet)
Loc 4
TPS2 - Cell I
Loc 1
Loc 2
Loc 3
Loc 4
TPS2 - Cell J
Loc 1
Loc 2
Loc 3
Loc 4
TPS2 - Cell K
Loc 1
Loc 2
Loc 3
Loc 4
TPS2 - Cell L
Loc 1
Loc 2
Loc 3
Loc 4
TPS2 - Cell L
Loc 1
Loc 2
Loc 3
Loc 4
TPS2 - Cell M
Loc 1
Loc 2
Loc 3
Loc 4
7294150
7334152
7334153
7334154
7304154
7304153
34
E of NW cell corner
61
74
60
70
E of NW cell corner
52
23
E of NW cell corner
33
75
13
56
E of NW cell corner
12
54
6
52
E of NW cell corner
2
80
8
1
E of NW cell corner
33
64
35
68
16
S of NW cell corner
35
28
23
15
S of NW cell corner
25
52
57
36
S of NW cell corner
17
35
43
40
S of NW cell corner
1
62
19
12
S of NW cell corner
2
44
56
16
S of NW cell corner
59
29
70
34
CVO\081210191
9
-------
TAYLOR LUMBER AND TREATING SUPERFUND SITE FINAL CONSTRUCTION REPORT
TABLE 2-4
Confirmation Sampling Composite Node Locations
Taylor Lumber and Treating Superfund Site
Location
Sample ID
Distance From Cell Corner
(feet)
WPS - Cell A
Loc 1
Loc 2
Loc 3
Loc 4
WPS - Cell B
Loc 1
Loc 2
Loc 3
Loc 4
WPS - Cell C
Loc 1
Loc 2
Loc 3
Loc 4
7324157
7324158
7324159
E of NW cell corner
87
73
55
76
E of NW cell corner
32
67
35
72
E of NW cell corner
44
60
66
14
S of NW cell corner
23
27
14
18
S of NW cell corner
52
9
26
35
S of NW cell corner
30
38
39
11
10
CVO\081210191
-------
TABLE 2-5
Soil Screening Quantities
Taylor Lumber and Treating Superfund Site
Screening Volume
Soil Excavation Area
(cubic yards)1
TPS-1
4,386
TPS-2
2,125
WPS
654
Excavation Volume
Ditches and Gullies
(cubic yards)
RRD-W
240
RCRD
220
Total
7,625
Notes:
1. Soil screening estimates based on Contractor's truck counts estimating
17 cubic yards per truckload for TPS-1, TPS-2, and WPS, and 10 cubic
yards/load for RRD-W, RCRD. EPA believes that these estimates are
biased high based on field observations and inspections.
2. Final Quantity Estimates are Subject to change based on Claims
negotiation with GES.
CVO\081210191
-------
TAYLOR LUMBER AND TREATING SUPERFUND SITE CONSTRUCTION REPORT
TABLE 2-6
Offsite Disposal Quantities
Taylor Lumber and Treating Superfund Site
Disposal Quantity
Subtitle D Disposal
(Tons)
Soil Storage Cells 1, 2 and 3(2007)1
26,351
Trench Drain Demolition Debris Disposal (2008)2
See Note 3
Total Subtitle D Disposal Quantity
See Note 3
Disposal Quantity
Subtitle C Disposal
(Tons)
TPS-1, TPS-2, WPS, RCG, RRD-E, RRD-W, RCRD, HWYD,
27,553
Screening and Staging Area (2007)1
TPS-2 dioxin containing soils (2008)1
16.69
Soils from replacement trench drain construction (2008)
64
Cement Recycled Asphalt Base Material excavated during
4
replacement trench drain construction (2008)
Soils excavated during the Highway 18B culvert excavation (2008)
1149.2
Total Subtitle C Soil Disposal Quantity
28,784
Notes:
1. Quantity estimates from Contractor's Final Progress Payment Request dated 11-28-07.
2. Demolition of the rejected trench drains was conducted by an EPA ERRS contractor in 2008. An estimated 40
cy of demolition debris was disposed of at Riverbend Landfill, and 140 cy of concrete debris was recycled at
Valley Concrete.
3. Demolition debris for trench drain demolition is estimated at 150 cubic yards of concrete (recycled) and 20 cubic
yards of low-permeability asphalt debris disposed of at Riverbend Landfill (Subtitle D). The ERRS contractor did
not provide an estimate of tonnage of demolition debris.
12
CVO\081210191
-------
TABLES
TABLE 2-7
Well Abandonment and Alteration Summary
Taylor Lumber and Treating Superfund Site
Well
Abandonment
Alteration
Comment
MW-2S
X
MW-2D
X
MW-4S
X
MW-4D
X
MW-7S
X
MW-7D
X
MW-18S
X
MW-21S
X
MW-23S
X
N-1S
X
N-1D
X
N-2S
X
N-2D
X
N-3S
X
N-3D
X
T-2
NA
NA
This well could not be located in the field.
T-4
X
Previously abandoned in place. Surface monument
removed.
T-5
NA
NA
This well could not be located in the field.
T-6
X
PW-1
X
Vault cover raised 4 inches.
PW-2
X
Vault cover raised 4 inches.
PW-3
X
Vault cover raised 4 inches.
PW-4
NA
NA
Alteration was not performed.
MW-14S
X
Surface monument raised 4 inches.
MW-101S
X
Surface monument raised 4 inches.
MW-102S
X
Surface monument raised 4 inches.
MW-104S
X
Surface monument raised 4 inches.
CVO\081210191
13
-------
TAYLOR LUMBER AND TREATING SUPERFUND SITE FINAL CONSTRUCTION REPORT
TABLE 2-8
Asphalt Pavement Permeability and Thickness
Taylor Lumber and Treating Superfund Site
Asphalt Core
Thickness (inches)
Permeability (cm/sec)
1-1 4.0
<1x10"8
2-1 4.4
<1x10"8
2-2 5.1
<1x10"8
2-3
3.9
<1x10"8
3-1
3.8
<1x10"8
3-2 4.9
<1x10"8
4-1 4.0
<7.9x10"8
4-2 4.0
<1x10"8
5-1 4.1
<1x10"8
6-1
3.7
<1x10"8
6-2
3.2
<1x10"8
7-1 4.4
<1x10"8
7-2 4.1
<1x10"8
7-3
3.3
<1x10"8
Notes:
Bold values indicate values that did not meet contract specifications
14
CVO\081210191
-------
TABLES
TABLE 3-1
Construction Cost Summary
Taylor Lumber and Treating Superfund Site
No.
Description
Qty
Unit
Unit Cost
Contract Value
% or Qty
Complete
Total Value1'2
Original Contract
1
Mobilization
1
LS
145,000.00
145,000.00
100%
145,000.00
2
Site Access Modifications
1
LS
115,000.00
115,000.00
100%
115,000.00
3
Site Preparation
1
LS
45,000.00
45,000.00
100%
45,000.00
4
Utility Location, Protection,
and Abandonment
1
LS
30,000.00
30,000.00
100%
30,000.00
5
Stormwater Management
1
LS
55,000.00
55,000.00
100%
55,000.00
6
Air Quality Monitoring
1
LS
130,000.00
130,000.00
100%
130,000.00
7
Excavation of Soil Storage
Cells
1
LS
140,000.00
140,000.00
100%
140,000.00
8
Excavation of Ditches and
Gullies
1
LS
90,000.00
90,000.00
100%
90,000.00
9
Drainage Modifications
1
LS
140,000.00
140,000.00
100%
140,000.00
10
Site Backfill and Grading
1
LS
100,000.00
100,000.00
100%
100,000.00
11
Backfill and Erosion
Protection in Ditches
1
LS
140,000.00
140,000.00
100%
140,000.00
12
Asphalt Paving (repair and
reconstruction)
1
LS
300,000.00
300,000.00
100%
300,000.00
13
Asphalt Paving (low
permeability overlay)
1
LS
1,275,000.00
1,275,000.00
100%
1,275,000.00
14
Monitor Well Abandonment
and Alteration
1
LS
40,000.00
40,000.00
100%
40,000.00
15
Site Restoration
1
LS
50,000.00
50,000.00
100%
50,000.00
16
Surveying
1
LS
55,000.00
55,000.00
100%
55,000.00
17
Quality Control Testing
1
LS
100,000.00
100,000.00
100%
100,000.00
18
Record Drawings
1
LS
15,000.00
15,000.00
100%
15,000.00
19
Bonding and Insurance
Premiums
1
LS
235,000.00
235,000.00
100%
235,000.00
20
Demobilization
1
LS
30,000.00
30,000.00
100%
30,000.00
Totals
3,230,000.00
3,230,000.00
Unit Price Bid Schedule
21
Excavation of Treated Pole
Storage Area 1
7,694
CY
6.00
46,164.00
7694
46,164.00
22
Excavation of Treated Pole
Storage Area 2
5,130
CY
9.00
46,170.00
4575
41,175.00
23
Excavation of White Pole
Storage Area
1,330
CY
9.00
11,970.00
654
5,886.00
24
Screening of Soils from TPS-
2
5,130
CY
9.00
46,170.00
3944
35,496.00
25
Screening of Soils from WPS
1,330
CY
9.00
11,970.00
654
5,886.00
CVO\081210191
15
-------
TAYLOR LUMBER AND TREATING SUPERFUND SITE FINAL CONSTRUCTION REPORT
TABLE 3-1
Construction Cost Summary
Taylor Lumber and Treating Superfund Site
No.
Description
Qty
Unit
Unit Cost
Contract Value
% or Qty
Complete
Total Value1'2
26
Screening of Soils from Rock
Creek Ditch
200
CY
9.00
1,800.00
220
1,980.00
27
Screening of Soils from
Railroad Ditch-East
151
CY
9.00
1,359.00
0
0.00
28
Screening of Soils from
Railroad Ditch-West
732
CY
9.00
6,588.00
240
2,160.00
29
Screening of Soils from Ditch
Soil Stockpile
140
CY
9.00
1,260.00
0
0.00
30
Screening of Soils from Soil
Storage Cell 3
6,040
CY
9.00
54,360.00
20
180.00
31
RCRA Subtitle D Soil
Transport and Disposal
18,685
TN
32.00
597,920.00
18685
597,920.00
32
RCRA Subtitle C Soil
Transport and Disposal
21,809
TN
82.00
1,788,338.00
21809
1,788,338.00
33
Onsite Reuse of Granular Fill
6,492
CY
13.00
84,396.00
2880
37,440.00
34
Imported Granular Fill
3,865
CY
13.00
50,245.00
3533
45,929.00
Totals
2,748,710.00
2,608,554.00
Contract Modifications
MOD7
Trench Drain-Deduction
1
LS
(125,000.00)
(125,000.00)
-125,000.00
MOD7
Well Vaults/Risers-
Deduction
1
LS
(4,500.00)
(4,500.00)
-4,500.00
MOD7
Record Drawings -
Deduction
1
LS
(5,000.00)
(5,000.00)
-5,000.00
Bonding and Insurance
Premiums (added by GES
after contract award)
1
LS
822.00
822.00
822.00
Revised Contract Value
5,845,032.00
Revised Total Value
5,704,876.00
Change Orders (Contract Modification #9)
1-R3
Additional Asphalt Pavement
Repair
100%
19,926.00
2-R
Cell 3 Test Pits
100%
1,785.00
3-R
Additional RCRA Subtitle D
Soil Trans & Disposal
100%
245,309.12
4-1
Add RCRA Subtitle C Soil
T&D (3271)
100%
268,222.00
4-R
Add RCRA Subtitle C Soil
T&D > 115%
100%
202,876.20
5
Backfill Material (6480 tons)
100%
87,480.00
5-1
Backfill Material (7,715 tons)
100%
94,993.29
7-R
Asphalt Cap Remobilization
Costs
100%
0.00
8
Fence Relocation
100%
0.00
9
Screen Soils TPS-1
100%
10,036.80
16
CVO\081210191
-------
TABLES
TABLE 3-1
Construction Cost Summary
Taylor Lumber and Treating Superfund Site
No.
Description
Qty
Unit
Unit Cost
Contract Value
% or Qty
Complete
Total Value1'2
10
Additional Backfill Placement
100%
5,882.00
11
Screen Plant Idle
100%
0.00
12
Additional TPS-2 Soil -
Outside Footprint
100%
0.00
13
Additional TPS-1 Soil
Excavation
100%
6,924.00
14
TPS-1 Soil Excavation >
115%
100%
630.00
15
TPS-1 Soil Excavation -
Outside Footprint
100%
9,114.00
16
Additional MatCon Placement
100%
0.00
17
Additional Air Monitoring
100%
0.00
18
Extended Site Management
100%
0.00
19
Final Contract Value Bonding
and Associated G&A and
Profit
0.00
Change Order Subtotal
953,178.41
Total Value
$ 6,658,054.41
Notes:
1. Final Construction costs are not yet available. Costs presented in this table are estimates from
Contract Modification #9 dated January 12, 2009 and are provided for information only.
2. Final costs will be determined pending resolution of issues before the Civilian Board of Contract
Appeals.
CVO\081210191
17
-------
TAYLOR LUMBER AND TREATING SUPERFUND SITE FINAL CONSTRUCTION REPORT
TABLE 4-1
Contractor Requests for Information
Taylor Lumber and Treating Superfund Site
RFI #
Title
Description/Comments
1
Screening Area
Requested changes to proposed layout of screening area
2
Clarification to the preliminary air
monitoring setup.
Requested clarification for 1 week requirement for meteorological
data prior to start of air monitoring and excavation.
3
Screen Plant
Requested a change to the location of the screening plant for Cell
3 screening.
4
Access to RRD-W
Requested variance to proposed access route to/from RRD-W
5
Proposed Soil Screening and
Handling Area
Requested changes to the layout of the soil screening and
material handling area including revisions to traffic patterns and
decontamination areas.
6
Placement of MatCon Asphalt
Binder
Requested clarification of proposed paving at several locations
based on results of site walks with PWPO.
7
Trench Drain Installation Issues
Superseded and resubmitted as RFI # 8
8
Trench Drain Installation Issues
Requested a change of approach for construction of trench drain
after installation of low permeability asphalt.
9
Finish Grades
Requested additional layout information on grading in TPS-1.
10
TPS-1 Backfill
Requested clarification of subgrade preparation and backfill
materials used in TPS-1.
11
Typical Road Ditch Backfill
Requested change to backfill of HWYD from Class 50 riprap to
imported granular fill based on ODOT comments.
12
Train Drain Detail
Provided Contractor's proposed sketch of concrete work at
existing trench drain.
12
Train Drain Detail
Superseded and resubmitted as RFI # 12b
12b
Trench Drain Detail
Provided revised contractor sketch of concrete work at existing
trench drain based on discussions between Engineer's
representatives and Contractor and subcontractor.
13
Trench Drain Detail
Provided final contractor sketch of concrete work at existing
trench drain and proposed use of 4,000 psi concrete and
frequency of casting concrete cylinders for compressive strength
testing.
14
Finish Grade Elevation For Cell Q
of TPS-1
Requested design grade elevations for portions of TPS-1 outside
of design footprint of TPS-1.
18
CVO\081210191
-------
Figures
-------
Figures are provided under separate cover.
-------
Appendix A
2008 ERRS Summary Report
-------
Appendix A is provided under separate cover.
-------
-------
TREATED POLE
STORAGE
AREA 1 (TPS-1)
WHITE POLE
STORAGE AREA
TREATMENT PLANT
AREA (TP)
CONTAMINATED SOIL
STORAGE CELLS -
TREATED POLE
STORAGE
AREA 2 (TPS-2)
FIGURE 1-2
SITE PHOTO - PRIOR
TO REMEDIAL ACTION
TAYLOR LUMBER AND TREATING SUPERFUND SITE
NOTE:
PHOTO TAKEN MARCH 27, 2006
STORMWATER TREATMENT
SYSTEM (SWTS)
AB-Fig1-2_342790.scr.dgn 12/24/2008
CH2MHILL
-------
-------
N
0
Scale In Feet
LEGEND
EXCAVATION AREAS, DESIGN LIMITS
DITCH EXCAVATION AREAS
EXCAVATION AREAS, AS-BUILT LIMITS
ABANDONED MONITORING WELL
ALTERED MONITOR WELL AND EXTRACTION
WELL VAULTS WERE RAISED TO MATCH
FINISHED GRADE OF LOW PERMEABILITY
ASPHALT OVERLAY. EXTRACTION WELL
PW-1, PW-2 AND PW-3 COVERS WERE
REPLACED.
AB-Fig1-4_342790.dgn 12/24/2008
CH2MHILL
AS-BUILT EXCAVATION
LIMITS -i
REMOVED ASPHALT PRIOR
TO EXCAVATION USED
AS BACKFILL IN TPS-1 v
STOCKPILED SOIL STORAGE AREA,
DISPOSED OFFSITE (SUBTITLE D)
EXCAVATED STOCKPILED SOIL
AND 6" OF SOIL BENEATH BOTTOM
LINER, GRADED TO DRAIN. 6" OF
ROCK SURFACING ADDED BY PWPO
DESIGN EXCAVATION
LIMITS ^
NEW 12" RCP
CULVERT
MW-18S (ABDN)
T-6
(ABDN)
ฎ PW-04
ASPHALT CAP AREA
N-3S (ABDN)
T-4
(ABDN) O
N-1D 4
(ABDN)
MW-4S (ABDN)
\ ซ
MW-4D^(ABDN)
MW-2S (ABDN)
MW-2D (ABDN)
PW-2
(ALTERED) $ $
SEDIMENT REMOVED
FROM HWY 18B CULVERTS
MW-14S (ALTERED)
ROCK CREEK GULLY (RCG),
EXCAVATED 1-FOOT
SURFACE SOIL, DISPOSED
OFFSITE (SUBTITLE C),
RESTORED GULLY ^
MW-104S (ALTERED)
\PW-1Q v
(ALTERED)
HIGHWAY DITCH (HWYD), EXCAVATED
SEDIMENT FROM DITCH, DISPOSED
OFFSITE (SUBTITLE C), BACKFILLED AND
RESTORED DITCH WITH EROSION CONTROL
MATTING AND HYDROSEED
FIGURE 1-4
KEY ELEMENTS OF COMPLETED REMEDIAL ACTION
TAYLOR LUMBER AND TREATING SUPERFUND SITE
RAILROAD DITCH-WEST (RRD-W),
EXCAVATED 1-FOOT SEDIMENT,
DISPOSED OFFSITE (SUBTITLE C),
BACKFILLED DITCH WITH EROSION
PROTECTION ROCK
/
MONITOR WELL MW-21S
(ABDN)
N 536591.26
E 7447129.86
RAILROAD DITCH EAST (RRD-E),
EXCAVATED 1-FOOT SEDIMENT,
DISPOSED OFFSITE (SUBTITLE C),
BACKFILLED DITCH WITH EROSION
PROTECTION ROCK -x
ฎ MW-7S (ABDN)
MW-7D (ABDN)
EXCAVATED CONTAMINATED
SOIL AVERAGE 2.4 FEET,
DISPOSED OFFSITE (SUBTHLEC)
BACKFILLED AND-GRAI5ED
EXCAVATED CONTAMINATED
SOIL AVERAGE 1.8 FEET,
DISPOSED OFFSITE (SUBTITLE C)
BACKFILLED AND GRADED
NEW 12" RCP
CULVERT
CONNECTED STORM DRAIN
ACROSS BARRIER WALL
ROCK CREEK ROAD DITCH (RCRD),
EXCAVATED SEDIMENT, DISPOSED
OFFSITE (SUBTITLE C), BACKFILLED
DITCH WITH EROSION PROTECTION
ROCK
BARRIER WALL
RCRD-EAST, PLACED EROSION
PROTECTION ROCK
MONITOR WELL MW-23S -
(ABDN)
N 535227.18
E 7447426.17
REPLACED ASPHALT CAP
WITH APPROX 5.37 ACRES
LOW PERMEABILITY
ASPHALT CAP
REPLACED OPEN SWALES
WITH CONCRETE TRENCH
DRAINS
SEDIMENT REMOVED
FROM HWY 18B CULVERT
ERRS CONTRACTOR REPLACED
CULVERT AND EXCAVATED
CONTAMINATED SOIL FROM DITCH
AND GULLY
EXCAVATED CONTAMINATED
SOIL AVERAGE 1-FOOT, DISPOSED
OFFSITE (SUBTITLE C). BACKFILLED
AND GRADED
SOIL SCREENING AND STOCKPILE
AREA, EXCAVATED MIN 3" SOIL
AFTER STOCKPILE SOIL WAS
REMOVED AND DISPOSED OFFSITE
(SUBTITLE C). GRAVEL BACKFILL
PLACED TO RESTORE AREA TO
ORIGINAL GRADE.
-------
ID
Task Name
Duration
Start
Finish
1
Contract Award
0 days
Fri 3/30/07
Fri 3/30/07
2
Plans and Submittals
126 days
Fri 4/6/07
Tue 9/25/07
3
Preparation of Plans & Submittals (Spec. Section 1010)
61 days
Fri 4/6/07
Mon 7/2/07
4
Review of Plans & Submittals (Spec. Section 1010)
46 days
Fri 4/27/07
Mon 7/2/07
5
Preparation of Submittals (Spec. Sections 1025 - 2920)
126 days
Fri 4/6/07
Tue 9/25/07
6
Review of Submittals (Spec. Sections 1025 - 2920)
116 days
Fri 4/20/07
Tue 9/25/07
7
Pre-Construction Meeting
1 day
Thu 5/10/07
Thu 5/10/07
8
Site Operations
112 days
Wed 5/16/07
Mon 10/15/07
y
Site Operations
112 days
Wed 5/16/07
Mon 10/15/07
10
Storm water Management
103 days
Wed 5/30/07
Mon 10/15/07
11
Air Quality Monitoring
85 days
Wed 5/30/07
Wed 9/19/07
12
Surveying
103 days
Wed 5/30/07
Mon 10/15/07
13
Quality Control Testing
80 days
Wed 6/27/07
Wed 10/10/07
14
Mobilization & Site Preparation
19 days
Wed 5/16/07
Tue 6/12/07
15
Personnel & Equipment Mobilization
11 days
Wed 5/16/07
Thu 5/31/07
16
Site Preparation
10 days
Wed 5/30/07
Tue 6/12/07
17
Soil Excavation
65.5 days
Mon 6/11/07
Wed 9/5/07
18
Excavate Soil in Cell 3 Non Haz
14 days
Mon 6/18/07
Fri 7/6/07
19
Excavate Soil in Cell 2 Non Haz
19 days
Mon 6/11/07
Fri 7/6/07
20
Excavate Soil in Cell 1 Non Haz
19 days
Mon 6/11/07
Fri 7/6/07
21
Excavate Soil in TPS 1 Haz
62.5 days
Thu 6/14/07
Wed 9/5/07
22
TPS-1 West 1/2
15 days
Thu 6/14/07
Thu 7/5/07
23
TPS-1 East 1/2
20 days
Wed 8/1/07
Thu 8/23/07
24
TPS-1 Cell Q South
0.5 days
Wed 9/5/07
Wed 9/5/07
25
Excavate Soil in TPS 2 Haz
38 days
Tue 7/10/07
Fri 8/24/07
26
TPS-2 North 2/3
13 days
Tue 7/10/07
Thu 7/26/07
27
TPS-2 South 1/3
8 days
Sat 8/4/07
Mon 8/13/07
28
TPS-2 (East of Dryer)
4 days
Tue 8/21/07
Fri 8/24/07
29
Excavate Soils in WPS Area Haz
16.5 days
Tue 7/24/07
Sat 8/11/07
30
WPS - Along Fenceline
1 day
Tue 7/24/07
Tue 7/24/07
31
WPS - Pole Area
0.5 days
Sat 8/11/07
Sat 8/11/07
32
Excavate Rail Road Ditch East Haz
1 day
Tue 8/14/07
Tue 8/14/07
33
Excavate Rail Road Ditch West Haz
2 days
Wed 8/15/07
Thu 8/16/07
34
Excavate Rock Creek Road Ditch Haz
5 days
Wed 8/8/07
Mon 8/13/07
35
Excavate Highway Ditch Haz
3 days
Mon 8/6/07
Wed 8/8/07
36
Excavate Rock Creek Gully Haz
5 days
Fri 8/17/07
Wed 8/22/07
37
Screening of Soils
53 days
Tue 6/12/07
Sat 8/18/07
38
Soil from Cell 3 - Non Haz
1 day
Tue 6/12/07
Tue 6/12/07
39
Soil from TPS 2 Area Haz
17 days
Thu 7/12/07
Thu 8/2/07
40
Soil from WPS Area Haz
3 days
Tue 7/24/07
Sat 8/11/07
41
Soil from Ditches & Gully
7 days
Fri 8/10/07
Fri 8/17/07
42
Soil from TPS-1 Area Haz
9 days
Thu 8/9/07
Sat 8/18/07
43
Backfill
54 days
Fri 7/6/07
Wed 9/12/07
44
Backfill TPS-1
54 days
Fri 7/6/07
Wed 9/12/07
45
West Half
19 days
Fri 7/6/07
Mon 7/30/07
46
East Half
22 days
Wed 8/15/07
Wed 9/12/07
47
Backfill TPS-2
38 days
Fri 7/27/07
Wed 9/12/07
48
North 2/3
6 days
Fri 7/27/07
Thu 8/2/07
49
South 1/3
18 days
Mon 8/20/07
Wed 9/12/07
50
Backfill WPS Area
20 days
Tue 8/14/07
Sat 9/8/07
51
Asphalt Crushing
11 days
Mon 8/13/07
Fri 8/24/07
52
Transportation & Disposal
78 days
Mon 6/11/07
Thu 9/20/07
53
Disposal at Subtitle C Facility
72 days
Tue 6/19/07
Thu 9/20/07
54
Disposal at Subtitle D Facility
19 days
Mon 6/11/07
Fri 7/6/07
55
Monitoring Well Abandonment and Alteration
48 days
Tue 6/26/07
Fri 8/24/07
56
Monitoring Well Abandonment and Alteration
6 days
Tue 6/26/07
Fri 8/24/07
57
Paving
84 days
Mon 6/18/07
Fri 10/5/07
58
Drainage Modifications (Trench Drain)
20 days
Tue 6/26/07
Mon 9/10/07
59
Pavement Patch & Repair
7 days
Mon 6/18/07
Tue 6/26/07
60
Paving Reconstruction
17 days
Thu 7/5/07
Thu 7/26/07
61
Phase 1
3 days
Thu 7/5/07
Sat 7/7/07
62
Phase 2
2 days
Wed 7/25/07
Thu 7/26/07
63
Low Permeability Pavement Overlay
72 days
Thu 7/5/07
Fri 10/5/07
64
Phase 1
4 days
Thu 7/5/07
Mon 7/9/07
65
Phase 2
3 days
Thu 7/26/07
Sat 7/28/07
66
400 SF Area
2 days
Tue 9/18/07
Fri 10/5/07
67
Site Restoration
30 days
Mon 8/20/07
Fri 9/28/07
68
Restoration of Ditches & Gully
30 days
Mon 8/20/07
Fri 9/28/07
69
Fence Installation
14 days
Tue 9/4/07
Thu 9/20/07
70
Inspections and Punch List Completion
32 days
Fri 8/31/07
Mon 10/15/07
71
EPA Preliminary Assessment of Incomplete Work
1 day
Fri 8/31/07
Fri 8/31/07
72
Prefinal Inspection
1 day
Mon 9/17/07
Mon 9/17/07
73
Punch List Items
18 days
Tue 9/18/07
Thu 10/11/07
74
Final Inspection
1 day
Mon 10/15/07
Mon 10/15/07
75
Demobilization
70 days
Mon 9/10/07
Fri 12/14/07
76
Remove Site Facilities & Equipment
70 days
Mon 9/10/07
Fri 12/14/07
77
2008 Activities
185 days
Tue 2/5/08
Fri 10/17/08
78
Alternative Dispute Resolution Meetings
2 days
Tue 2/5/08
Wed 2/6/08
79
Asphalt Bird Bath Correction
1 day
Wed 5/7/08
Wed 5/7/08
80
Contracting Officers Final Decision
0 days
Wed 10/15/08
Wed 10/15/08
81
1 st Annual Low-Permeability Asphalt Inspection
1 day
Mon 8/11/08
Mon 8/11/08
82
2008 ERRS Work
61 days
Sat 7/26/08
Fri 10/17/08
83
HWY 18B Culvert Replacement
21 days
Fri 8/1/08
Fri 8/29/08
84
Trench Drain Construction
26 days
Sat 7/26/08
Fri 8/29/08
85
Trench Drain Final Inspection
1 day
Fri 9/5/08
Fri 9/5/08
86
ERRS Well Vault Riser Reconstruction
3 days
Wed 10/15/08
Fri 10/17/08
I 2^
I 8 I 15 I 22 I 29 I 6 I 13 I 20 I 27 I 3 I 10 I 17 I 24 I
Iv2007 I August 2007 I September"
I 15 I 22 I 29 I 5 M2 I 19 I 26 I 2 I 9 I 1
December 2007
I February 2008 T
I September 2008 I
I 23 130 I 7 I 14 I 21 I 28 I 4 111 I 18 I 25 I 2 I 9 I 16 I 23 I 30 I 6 I 13 I 20 I 27 I 3 I 10 I 17 I 24 I 2 I 9 I 16 I 23 I 30 I 6 113 I 20 I 27 I 4 111 I 18 I 25 I 1 I 8 I 15 I 22 I 29 I 6 I 13 I 20 I 27 I 3 I 10 I 17 I 24 131 I 7 I 14 I 21 I 28 I 5 I 12 I 19 I 26 I 2
EMI
1
US
Ennnm
v
no
onn
, i
^ 10/15
Figure 2-1
As-Built Construction Schedule
Taylor Lumber and Treating Superfund Site
-------
PWPO DRYER AND
TRACKS (NO EXCAVATION)
TPS-1 EXCAVATION AREA (2.67 ACRES1)
SCREENED WITH XRF AND WERE BELOW ARSENIC
CLEANUP LEVEL. THESE SOILS WERE NOT EXCAVATED
TPS-2 EXCAVATION AREA M .59 ACRES1)
LEGEND
LYJ
CELL TPS-1-L
AS-BUILT EXCAVATION LIMITS
EXCAVATION CELL AND
COMPOSITE SAMPLE AREA
CONFIRMATION SAMPLE
COMPOSITE NODE LOCATIONS
WPS EXCAVATION AREA (0.4 ACRES)
FIGURE 2-2
CONFIRMATION SAMPLING LOCATIONS
TAYLOR LUMBER AND TREATING SUPERFUND SITE
ab-fig2-2_342790.dgn
24-DEC-2008
CH2MHILL
-------
N
ฉ
Scale In Feet
& ASPHALT CORE LOCATIONS
ฎ MONITOR WELL
$ EXTRACTION WELL
/yy% PAVEMENT RECONSTRUCTION AND OVERLAY
PAVEMENT REPAIR AND OVERLAY
1 9 I PATCHES TO EXISTING PAVEMENT
_1iฐl BARRIER WALL CENTERLINE
NOTES:
1. ASPHALT PATCHES #1, #2, #3 AND #5 FAILED SUBGRADE COMPACTION REQUIREMENTS
AND ARE COVERED BY A 5-YEAR SUPPLEMENTAL WARRANTY (DATED JAN 2. 2008) FROM
BAKER ROCK RESOURCES.
2. LOW PERMEABILITY ASPHALT OVERLAY MEASURES APPROXIMATELY 5.37 ACRES.
(EXCLUDING EXISTING BUILDINGS). OUTER LIMITS OF LOW PERMEABILITY ASPHALT CAP
MEASURES APPROXIMATELY 6.75 ACRES (INCLUDING BUILDING ACRES).
3. A 1,455 SF AREA OF LOW PERMEABILITY ASPHALT WAS ADDED AFTER COMPLETION OF
PAVING OPERATIONS. THIS AREA WAS ADDED BECAUSE THE ORIGINAL PAVING LIMITS
DID NOT EXTEND OUTSIDE OF THE BARRIER WALL CENTERLINE TO THE LIMITS SHOWN
IN THE DESIGN DRAWINGS.
TAYLOR LUMBER AND TREATING SUPERFUND SITE
AS-BUILT LIMITS OF
LOW PERMEABILITY
PAVEMENT PLACED
IN 2007
GENERAL LIMITS OF EXST PAVEMENT
PRIOR TO REMEDIAL ACTION
MAINTENANCE SHED
CATCH BASIN
ADDITIONAL LOW-PERMEABILITY
ASPHALT AREA, SEE NOTE 3 ^
EXST CONC
2 (APPROX)
CANOPY BLDG
DRY SHED
RETORT
BUILDING
EXST CONC
BARRIER WALL
ENTRANCE
DRY SHED PWPO
CANOPY WITH AC
PVMT BENEATH -
SHOP
TRENCH DRAIN
CLEANOUT
TRENCH DRAIN
TRENCH DRAIN
FIGURE 2-3
LOW PERMEABILITY ASPHALT
PAVEMENT OVERVIEW
AB-Fig2-3_342790.dgn
12/24/2008
CH2MHILL
------- |