•: K vi
North Ridge Estates Site
Klamath County, Oregon
Feasibility Study Report
March 25,2010
FINAL
-------
Response Action Contract
for Remedial, Enforcement Oversight, and Non-Time Critical
Removal Activities at Sites of Release or Threatened Release of
Hazardous Substances
in EPA Region 8
U.S. EPA Contract No. EP-W-05-049
Final Feasibility Study Report
North Ridge Estates Site
Klamath County, Oregon
Work Assignment No. 217-RICO-lOBT
March 25, 2010
Prepared for:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 10
Seattle, Washington
Prepared by:
COM
CDM Federal Programs Corporation
Denver, Colorado
With Technical Assistance from:
Syracuse Research Corporation
Denver, Colorado
-------
Contents
Executive Summary
Section 1 Introduction
1.1 Purpose and Organization 1-1
1.2 Site Location and Description 1-3
1.3 Site Background and History 1-4
1.3.1 Site Ownership 1-4
1.3.2 Regulatory Activities 1-5
1.4 Previous Removal Actions 1-6
1.5 Summary of Study Area Investigations 1-7
1.5.1 ACM Site Investigations 1-7
1.5.2 Non-ACM Site Investigations 1-9
Section 2 Site Characteristics
2.1 Site Conceptual Model 2-1
2.1.1 Sources of ACM and Asbestos 2-1
2.1.2 Migration Routes 2-2
2.1.3 Exposure Pathways and Potential Receptors 2-2
2.2 General Site Features 2-3
2.2.1 Site Features 2-3
2.3 Summary of Physical Characteristics 2-3
2.3.1 Climate 2-3
2.3.2 Geology 2-3
2.3.3 Surface Water 2-4
2.3.4 Groundwater 2-4
2.3.5 Demography and Land Use 2-5
2.4 Summary of Nature and Extent of Contamination 2-6
2.4.1 ACM 2-6
2.4.2 Asbestos Fibers in Dust, Air, and Soil 2-8
2.4.3 Non-ACM Contamination 2-9
2.5 Summary of Sampling and Analysis Methods 2-10
2.6 Summary of Baseline Risk Assessments 2-11
2.6.1 Baseline Human Health Risk Assessment 2-11
2.6.2 Ecological Risk Assessment 2-15
2.7 Summary of Site Characteristics 2-17
Section 3 Remedial Action Objectives
3.1 Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements 3-1
3.1.1 ARAR Identification Process 3-2
3.1.2 Categories of ARARs 3-4
3.1.3 Waivers of Specific ARARs 3-5
3.1.4 ARARs for Onsite and Offsite Actions 3-5
CDM
NRE_Final FS_TOC.doc
-------
Table of Contents
3.1.5 Identification of Potential ARARs for Remedial Alternatives 3-6
3.1.6 Significant ARARs Affecting Protectiveness Determinations 3-6
3.2 Anticipated Land Uses 3-8
3.2.1 Residential Use 3-8
3.2.2 Non-Residential Use 3-9
3.3 Preliminary Remedial Action Objectives 3-9
3.4 Preliminary Remediation Goals 3-10
3.4.1 Asbestos 3-10
3.4.2 Arsenic 3-11
Section 4 Identification and Screening of General Response Actions, Remedial
Technologies, and Process Options
4.1 Overview 4-1
4.2 Contaminants and Affected Media 4-2
4.2.1 Asbestos 4-2
4.2.2 Arsenic 4-2
4.2.3 Affected Media 4-2
4.3 General Response Actions 4-3
4.4 Identification of Remedial Technologies and Process Options 4-4
4.5 Screening of Remedial Technologies and Process Options for Technical
Implementability 4-4
4.6 Evaluation of Remedial Technologies and Process Options for Effectiveness,
Implementability, and Relative Cost 4-5
4.6.1 Evaluation Criteria 4-5
4.6.2 Screening Evaluation 4-6
4.7 Retained GRAs, Remedial Technologies, and Process Options 4-7
4.7.1 Conventional Remedial Technologies and Process Options for
Contaminated Materials 4-7
4.7.2 Innovative Remedial Technologies and Process Options for
Contaminated Materials 4-8
Section 5 Development and Screening of Alternatives
5.1 Overview 5-1
5.2 Assumptions Affecting Development of Remedial Alternatives 5-1
5.3 Description of Remedial Alternatives 5-4
5.3.1 Alternative 1: No Action 5-5
5.3.2 Alternative 2: Interior Cleaning and Land Use Controls with
Monitoring 5-6
5.3.3 Alternative 3: Capping of Contaminated Materials on Private Parcels,
Partial Capping of Contaminated Materials on Receivership Parcels,
Interior Cleaning, and Land Use Controls with Monitoring 5-6
5.3.4 Alternative 4: Capping of Contaminated Materials and Land Use
Controls with Monitoring 5-7
CDM
NRE_Final FS_TOC.doc
-------
Table of Contents
5.3.5 Alternative 5a: Excavation and Onsite Consolidation/Disposal of
Contaminated Surface Materials, Future Excavation and Offsite Disposal
of Contaminated Surface Materials at Permitted Facilities, and Land Use
Controls with Monitoring 5-8
5.3.6 Alternative 5b: Excavation and Onsite Consolidation/Disposal of
Contaminated Materials, and Land Use Controls with Monitoring 5-10
5.3.7 Alternative 6: Excavation and Offsite Disposal of Contaminated Materials
at Permitted Facilities, and Land Use Controls with Monitoring 5-11
5.3.8 Alternative 7: Excavation and Offsite Thermo-Chemical Treatment of
Contaminated Materials at Permitted Facilities, Reuse of Treated
Material, and Land Use Controls with Monitoring 5-12
5.4 Screening Evaluation of Alternatives 5-13
5.4.1 Effectiveness 5-13
5.4.2 Implementability 5-14
5.4.3 Cost 5-15
5.5 Summary of Alternatives Screening 5-16
5.6 Alternatives Retained for Detailed Analysis 5-19
Section 6 Definition of Criteria Used in the Detailed Analysis of Retained
Alternatives
6.1 Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment 6-1
6.2 Compliance with ARARs 6-1
6.3 Long-Term Effectiveness and Permanence 6-2
6.4 Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume Through Treatment 6-3
6.5 Short-Term Effectiveness 6-3
6.6 Implementability 6-4
6.7 Cost 6-4
6.8 State Acceptance 6-6
6.9 Community Acceptance 6-6
6.10 Criteria Priorities 6-6
Section 7 Detailed Analysis of Retained Alternatives
7.1 Overview 7-1
7.2 Secondary Assumptions Affecting Detailed Analysis of
Remedial Alternatives 7-1
7.3 Alternative 1: No Action 7-7
7.3.1 Detailed Remedy Component Descriptions 7-7
7.3.2 Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment 7-7
7.3.3 Compliance with ARARs 7-7
7.3.4 Long-Term Effectiveness and Permanence 7-7
7.3.5 Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume through Treatment 7-8
7.3.6 Short-Term Effectiveness 7-8
7.3.7 Implementability 7-8
7.3.8 Cost 7-8
CDM
NRE_Final FS_TOC.doc
-------
Table of Contents
7.4 Alternative 3: Capping of Contaminated Materials on Private Parcels, Partial
Capping of Contaminated Materials on Receivership Parcels, Interior Cleaning,
and Land Use Controls with Monitoring 7-8
7.4.1 Detailed Remedy Component Descriptions 7-8
7.4.2 Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment 7-12
7.4.3 Compliance with ARARs 7-13
7.4.4 Long-Term Effectiveness and Permanence 7-13
7.4.5 Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume through Treatment 7-13
7.4.6 Short-Term Effectiveness 7-13
7.4.7 Implementability 7-13
7.4.8 Cost 7-13
7.5 Alternative 4: Capping of Contaminated Materials and Land Use Controls
with Monitoring 7-13
7.5.1 Detailed Remedy Component Descriptions 7-13
7.5.2 Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment 7-16
7.5.3 Compliance with ARARs 7-16
7.5.4 Long-T erm Effectiveness and Permanence 7-16
7.5.5 Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume through Treatment 7-16
7.5.6 Short-Term Effectiveness 7-16
7.5.7 Implementability 7-17
7.5.8 Cost 7-17
7.6 Alternative 5a: Excavation and Onsite Consolidation/Disposal of Contaminated
Surface Materials, Future Excavation and Offsite Disposal of Contaminated
Surface Materials at Permitted Facilities, and Land Use Controls with
Monitoring 7-17
7.6.1 Detailed Remedy Component Descriptions 7-17
7.6.2 Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment 7-22
7.6.3 Compliance with ARARs 7-22
7.6.4 Long-T erm Effectiveness and Permanence 7-23
7.6.5 Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume through Treatment 7-23
7.6.6 Short-Term Effectiveness 7-23
7.6.7 Implementability 7-23
7.6.8 Cost 7-23
7.7 Alternative 5b: Excavation and Onsite Consolidation/Disposal of Contaminated
Materials, and Land Use Controls with Monitoring 7-23
7.7.1 Detailed Remedy Component Descriptions 7-23
7.7.2 Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment 7-26
7.7.3 Compliance with ARARs 7-26
7.7.4 Long-T erm Effectiveness and Permanence 7-26
7.7.5 Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume through Treatment 7-27
7.7.6 Short-Term Effectiveness 7-27
7.7.7 Implementability 7-27
7.7.8 Cost 7-27
CDM
NRE_Final FS_TOC.doc
-------
Table of Contents
7.8 Alternative 6: Excavation and Offsite Disposal of Contaminated Materials at
Permitted Facilities, and Land Use Controls with Monitoring 7-27
7.8.1 Detailed Remedy Component Descriptions 7-27
7.8.2 Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment 7-29
7.8.3 Compliance with ARARs 7-30
7.8.4 Long-Term Effectiveness and Permanence 7-30
7.8.5 Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume through Treatment 7-30
7.8.6 Short-Term Effectiveness 7-30
7.8.7 Implementability 7-30
7.8.8 Cost 7-30
7.9 State (Support Agency) Acceptance 7-30
7.10 Community Acceptance 7-31
7.11 Comparative Analysis of Alternatives 7-31
7.11.1 Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment 7-31
7.11.2 Compliance with ARARs 7-32
7.11.3 Long-Term Effectiveness and Permanence 7-33
7.11.4 Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume through Treatment 7-33
7.11.5 Short-Term Effectiveness 7-34
7.11.6 Implementability 7-35
7.11.7 Cost 7-36
Section 8 References
Appendices
Appendix A Freeze Depth and Capping Thickness Recommendation
Appendix B Summary of Federal and State Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate
Requirements (ARARs) and To Be Considered Information (TBCs) -
North Ridge Estates (NRE) Site
Appendix C Alternative Quantity Calculations
Appendix D Screening of Alternatives
Appendix E Alternative Screening Cost Information
Appendix F Remedy Component Information for Retained Alternatives
Appendix G Detailed Analysis of Retained Alternatives
Appendix H Detailed Alternative Analysis Cost Information
CDM
NRE_Final FS_TOC.doc
V
-------
Table of Contents
Tables
4-1 Identification and Technical Implementability Screening of Potentially
Applicable Remedial Technologies/Process Options - Contaminated Materials
4-2 Screening of Potentially Applicable Remedial Technologies/Process Options
Based on Effectiveness, Implementability, and Relative Cost - Contaminated
Materials
4-3 Retained Remedial Technologies/Process Options - Contaminated Materials
5-1 Remedial Technologies/Process Options Evaluated for Assembly Into Remedial
Alternatives
7-1 Summary of Comparative Analysis of Alternatives
Figures
1-1 Site Location Map
1-2 Distribution of Contaminated Materials
1-3 Parcel Status Map
2-1 Sitewide Representation of Surficial ACM
2-2 Sitewide Representation of Contaminated Material in Burial Areas
2-3 Sitewide Representation of Surficial MAG and AirCell
2-4 Buried Steam Pipe with Asbestos Insulation
2-5 Distribution of Arsenic
7-1 Alternative 3 Conceptual Remedy Configuration
7-2 Alternative 4 Conceptual Remedy Configuration
7-3 Alternative 5a Conceptual Remedy Configuration
7-4 Alternative 5b Conceptual Remedy Configuration
7-5 Alternative 6 Conceptual Remedy Configuration
CDM
NRE_Final FS_TOC.doc
-------
Table of Contents
Exhibits
1-1 Summary of Site Ownership 1-4
1-2 Summary of Regulatory Enforcement Actions 1-5
1-3 Summary of Previous Removal Actions 1-6
1-4 Summary of Previous ACM Site Investigations by Year 1-7
1-5 Summary of Previous Non-ACM Site Investigations 1-9
2-1 Activities Influencing Migration of ACM and Asbestos 2-2
2-2 Building Material Type and Asbestos Content 2-6
2-3 Summary of RI Findings 2-7
2-4 Non-ACM Contaminants of Interest Detected Above Screening
Level Values 2-9
2-5 Current and Future Potential Cancer Risk to Residents from Asbestos 2-12
2-6 Estimated Risk to Workers under Current Site Conditions from Asbestos 2-13
2-7 Estimated Future Risks to Workers from Asbestos 2-13
3-1 Scope and Extent of ARARs 3-6
4-1 Qualitative Rating System for Screening of Remedial Technologies and
Process Options 4-6
4-2 Conventional Remedial Technologies and Process Options for
Contaminated Materials 4-8
5-1 Assumptions Affecting Development of Remedial Alternatives 5-2
5-2 Effectiveness Criteria 5-13
5-3 Effectiveness Qualitative Ratings System 5-14
5-4 Implementability Criteria 5-14
5-5 Implementability Qualitative Ratings System 5-14
5-6 Cost Qualitative Ratings System 5-16
5-7 Summary of Alternatives Screening 5-18
6-1 ARAR W aivers 6-2
6-2 Implementability Factors to be Considered during Alternative Evaluation 6-4
6-3 Criteria Priorities 6-6
7-1 Secondary Assumptions Affecting Refinement and Detailed Analysis of
Remedial Alternatives 7-2
7-2 Summary of Major Remedial Components and Associated Quantities for
Alternative 3 7-12
7-3 Summary of Major Remedial Components and Associated Quantities for
Alternative 4 7-16
7-4 Summary of Major Remedial Components and Associated Quantities for
Alternative 5a 7-22
7-5 Summary of Major Remedial Components and Associated Quantities for
Alternative 5b 7-26
7-6 Summary of Major Remedial Components and Associated Quantities for
Alternative 6 7-29
vn CDM
NRE_Final FS_TOC.doc
-------
Table of Contents
Abbreviations and Acronyms
ABS
activity-based sampling
ACBM
asbestos containing building material
ACM
asbestos containing material
AMSL
above mean sea level
AOC
Administrative Order of Consent
ARARs
applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements
ARI
ARI Technologies, Inc.
ATSDR
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
BLRA
baseline human health risk assessment
CAB
cement asbestos board
CC&Rs
covenants, conditions, and restrictions
CDM
CDM Federal Programs Corporation
CERCLA
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
CFR
Code of Federal Regulations
COC
contaminant of concern
COI
contaminant of interest
COPC
contaminant of potential concern
DCE
cis-l,2-dichloroethylene
DDE
dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene
DDT
dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane
DHS
Oregon Department of Human Services
DoD
United States Department of Defense
DOE
U.S. Department of Energy
DOT
Department of Transportation
DQO
data quality objectives
EDC
1,2-dichloroethane
E&E
Ecology and Environmental
EHAP
Oregon Environmental Health Assessment Program
EPA
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
ERA
ecological risk assessment
FR
forest/range
FRTR
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
FS
feasibility study
GCL
geosynthetic clay liner
GRA
general response action
GSA
General Services Administration
HQ
Hazard Quotient
MAG
magnesium silicate asbestos
MAO
Mutual Agreement and Order
MBK
Melvin Bercot Kenneth Partnership
MRB
marine recuperation barracks
NBEC
nitrate base explosive compound
NCP
National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan
NPL
National Priorities List
NRCS
National Resources Conservation Service
NRE
North Ridge Estates
CDM
NRE_Final FS_TOC.doc
-------
Table of Contents
O&M
OAR
OIT
Oregon DEQ
ORS
OSHA
OTI
OU
PAH
PBS
PCB
PCE
PCME
PLM
PP
PPE
PRAO
PRG
QA/QC
RA
RAC
RAO
RD
RG
RI
RL
RM
ROD
RSL
SCM
site
SLV
SRC
START-2
SVOC
TBC
TCCT
TCE
TEM
TPH
TSI
USACE
U.S.C.
USGS
UST
VAT
VOC
WWII
WWTP
CDM
operations and maintenance
Oregon Administrative Rule
Oregon Institute of Technology
Oregon Department of Environmental Quality
Oregon Revised Statutes
Occupational Safety Health Administration
Oregon Technology Institute
operable unit
polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon
PBS Engineering and Environmental
polychlorinated biphenyl
tetracholorethylene
polarized light microscopy equivalent
polarized light microscopy
proposed plan
personal protective equipment
preliminary remedial action objective
preliminary remediation goal
quality assurance/quality control
remedial action
Remedial Action Contract
remedial action objective
remedial design
remedial goal
remedial investigation
low density residential
medium density residential
record of decision
regional screening level
site conceptual model
North Ridge Estates site
screening level value
Syracuse Research Corporation
EPA Superfund Technical Assistance and Response Team 2 Contract
semi-volatile organic compound
to be considered
thermo-chemical conversion technology
trichloroethene
transmission electron microscopy
total petroleum hydrocarbon
thermal system insulation
United States Army Corps of Engineers
United States Code
United States Geological Survey
underground storage tank
vinyl asbestos tile
volatile organic compound
World War II
wastewater treatment plant
ix
NRE_Final FS_TOC.doc
-------
Table of Contents
<
less than
>
greater than
%
percent
°F
degrees Fahrenheit
bgs
below ground surface
cy
cubic yards
ft
feet
ft2
square feet
If
linear feet
mg/kg
milligrams per kilogram
mm/ year
millimeter per year
x
CDM
NRE_Final FS_TOC.doc
-------
Executive Summary
This feasibility study (FS) report for the North Ridge Estates (NRE) site (site) was
prepared for the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 10 by CDM
Federal Programs Corporation (CDM) for Work Assignment No. 217-RICO-lOBT
under EPA Remedial Action Contract (RAC) No. EP-W-05-049.
This report presents the results of the development, screening, and detailed
evaluation of remedial alternatives to address contaminated media for the site in
Klamath County, Oregon. The work performed during the FS was in accordance with
guidance developed by EPA for conducting RI/FS under the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) (EPA 1988). In
addition, the cost estimates for each alternative were developed in accordance with A
Guide to Developing and Documenting Cost Estimates during the Feasibility Study
(EPA 2000a).
The NRE site is located approximately 3 miles north of the City of Klamath Falls, in
Klamath County, Oregon, on Old Fort Road and North Ridge Drive (Figure 1-1). NRE
is sited on the former location of a Marine Recuperation Barracks (MRB) and the
Oregon Technology Institute (OTI; now Oregon Institute of Technology [OIT]). While
the City of Klamath Falls is at an elevation of 4,100 feet above mean sea level (amsl),
the site is at an elevation of 4,800 feet amsl. Peaks surrounding NRE are as high as
5,360 feet amsl to the east and 5,460 feet amsl to the west.
The site has been divided into two Operable Units (OUs) (Figure 1-1):
¦ OU1 encompasses the footprint for the former MRB and includes all areas where
contamination associated with demolition of the MRB, including asbestos
containing material (ACM) and/or asbestos, has been observed and/ or detected
with the exception of the former firing range. Portions of the Wirth (Parcel BP) and
Galpin (Parcel BQ) properties south of the former MRB are included in OUl.This
FS focuses on OU1, which is estimated to include approximately 125 acres. OU1 is
interchangeably referred to as the site in the remainder of this document.
¦ OU2 includes the area of the former firing range. It is EPA's current understanding
that the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) will be responsible for
any further actions in OU2; therefore, this FS will not address remediation of this
operable unit. OU2 is estimated to include approximately 46 acres.
The boundary of OU1 has changed since previous versions of this document to reflect
only the locations where contamination associated with MRB demolition, including
ACM and/or asbestos, has been observed and/ or detected with the exception of the
former firing range. The observations used to make the boundary changes include all
data collected by the responsible party and EPA.
CDM
NRE_Final FS_Executive Summary.doc
ES-1
-------
Executive Summary
Contaminant of Concern (COC)
The main COC at the site is asbestos. The main source of asbestos at the site is ACM
that was used in the original construction of a MRB. As was common in the 1940s, a
variety of different types of ACM was used in the construction of the barracks,
including cement asbestos board (CAB) on exterior and interior walls, asphalt-
asbestos roofing material, vinyl asbestos floor tiles (VAT), floor tile mastic, and
several different types of asbestos steam pipe insulation. When buildings containing
ACM were demolished, some of the ACM debris was consolidated into waste piles or
burial pits, and the rest of the ACM was dispersed in surface and subsurface soil in
the vicinity of the demolition. During site development most of this ACM was
covered or buried with soil, but some was left exposed.
Types of ACM and Asbestos at NRE
The types of ACM present at NRE include: CAB, VAT, floor tile mastic, roofing
material, and steam pipe wrap consisting of insulation (AirCell and magnesium
silicate asbestos [MAG]) and tar paper. CAB, VAT, floor tile mastic, roofing materials,
and tar paper found at the site contain chrysotile asbestos.
Two lesser known types of ACM used as thermal system insulation (TSI) to wrap
steam pipes are found throughout the site. One type of TSI material, AirCell, is a
corrugated asbestos paper product used as an outer coating for pipe insulation.
Another type of TSI material known as MAG, so called because the major asbestos
content in the product is a magnesium silicate, was used to insulate high temperature
utilities such as steam or condensate lines. Samples of the insulation present at the site
indicate that the AirCell contains chrysotile asbestos and the MAG contains chrysotile
and amosite asbestos.
Summary of Asbestos Contamination
ACM is present at the site as both dispersed material scattered across many areas of
the site and concentrated portions located at specific areas. The exhibit below
summarizes the findings:
CDM
NRE_Final FS_Executive Summary.doc
-------
Executive Summary
General
Location
Specific
Location
Surficial ACM
Subsurface ACM
Large Land Units
WWTP
App. 5,000 ft2 as building
debris.
None observed
Landfill
App. 311,893 ft2 as building
debris.
App. 8,890 cy in a centralized
location
Swimming Pool
App. 65,240 ft2 as building
debris.
App. 270 cy
Surface Area of
Site
Random dispersal
across site
App. 54.65 acres (2,380,637
ft ) as dispersed debris across
the site.
N/A
Burial Areas
48 discrete areas
identified in 2003
and 2006
investigations
Most, but not all, of the burial
areas are associated with
ACM observed at the surface.
Est. 39,328 cy of material,
generally shallow depth (2.6 ft
deep) but occasionally up to
10 ft deep
45 discrete areas
identified in 2005
and 2006
investigations
See the row "Surface Area of
Site" above.
Est. 36,736 cy of material
between surface and 6 inches
bgs
Buried Steam
Piping
Pipe runs across
the site
Included as surficial debris.
Est. 12,203 If of ACM-
wrapped pipe
(Kennedy/Jenks);
Est. 14,695 If of ACM
wrapped pipe (OTI Survey)
Notes: App.-approximate; Est.-estimated; bgs-below ground surface; WWTP - waste water treatment plant; ACM -
asbestos containing material; cy - cubic yards; ft2 - square feet; ft - feet; If - linear feet
Mechanisms present that could cause previously buried ACM to surface include:
migration to the ground surface as a result of "frost jacking" (also known as frost
heave); transport to the ground surface by burrowing animals; mechanical wedging
and jacking by plant roots; erosion of surficial soil; and human activities (e.g.,
recreational activities, gardening/yard work and site development).
Once ACM is exposed at the surface ACM may be subjected to the following
processes that can result in the release of free asbestos fibers to soil and/ or outdoor
air:
¦ Above-ground weathering of the ACM binders
¦ Fracturing and pulverizing of ACM binders during building demolition,
bulldozing, burial, or burning
¦ Below-ground chemical and physical weathering of the buried ACM binders
Because of the physical properties of asbestos, especially when included in a building
material matrix, it is resistant to heat, cold, and weathering. Once released from the
building material matrix, asbestos does not break down chemically into other
minerals only into smaller fibers. However these smaller fibers can persist for an
indefinite period of time. Therefore, without physical removal of ACM or eliminating
weathering of ACM asbestos will persist at the site.
CDM
NRE_Final FS_Executive Summary.doc
ES-3
-------
Executive Summary
Current or future residents at NRE may be exposed to asbestos by three main
pathways:
¦ Inhalation of fibers released during active soil disturbance activities
¦ Inhalation of fibers in indoor air
¦ Inhalation of fibers in outdoor (ambient) air
Based on the information currently available and presented in the RI the following
conclusions regarding potential risk from ACM have been drawn for the site:
¦ Current site conditions are such that MAG and AirCell containing friable amosite
and chrysotile, present a current risk to residents when soil containing this type of
ACM is disturbed by routine outdoor activities. Given the current risk and the
widespread distribution of MAG and AirCell at the site, remedial actions are
required at the site to mitigate current exposures.
¦ Due to the potential for future increased risk to residents at the site from ACM that
is yet to breakdown, remedial actions should also include alternatives that reduce
future exposures to residents and/or can prevent further emergence of ACM to the
surface that results in weathering causing the release of asbestos fibers to site soils.
¦ Currently, asbestos fibers have been observed in indoor and outdoor ambient air
below a risk level of 1E-06 that is usually considered to be negligible by EPA and
Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (Oregon DEQ); however, these
inhalation exposure pathways may be of concern in the future.
¦ Methods are not presently available to support quantitative evaluation of risks to
ecological receptors from asbestos. Based on current site conditions, it is expected
that risks are likely to be low for large home range receptors, but might be of
concern for small home range receptors, especially those that burrow into the
ground and/ or chew on ACM. Risks would be expected to increase in the future as
ACM continues to break down and release free fibers into the environment.
Other Contaminants of Interest
In addition to the ACM and asbestos concerns at the site, other contaminants of
interest (COIs) have been investigated. Based on a non-ACM soil investigation
completed in June 2006, concentrations of arsenic at the former power plant were
detected above screening level values (SLVs). Coal is known to contain low levels of
metals such as arsenic, and arsenic could have accumulated as a byproduct of coal
combustion during the operation of the former power plant.
This qualitative assessment also indicated potential risks to ecological receptors from
exposure to pesticides (dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane [DDT] and
dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene [DDE]) in debris and soil within the former
landfill. EPA has subsequently performed an evaluation that indicates ecological risks
from DDT and DDE at this location do not require further consideration in this FS.
ES-4
CDM
NRE_Final FS_Executive Summary.doc
-------
Executive Summary
Additional details regarding this issue are documented in the Administrative Record
for the site.
Summary of Non-ACM Contamination
Historical uses at the NRE site included activities associated with the release of non-
ACM COIs. The COIs that were detected from previous non-ACM investigations
above SLVs are summarized in the exhibit below:
Analyte/Location
Power Plant
Maintenance Shop
Laundry Building
Landfill
OTI Maintenance Shop
Paint Shops
Service Station
Fire Station
Rifle Range
TPH
Gasoline-Range
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Diesel-Range
X
X
NC
X
X
X
X
X
NC
Motor-Oil-Range
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Organic Contaminants
EDC
X
X
~
X
V
X
X
NC
NC
TCE
X
X
S
X
S
X
X
SVOCs
X
NC
X
X
NC
X
X
NC
NC
PCBs
X
NC
NC
X
NC
X
X
NC
NC
Pesticides
NC
NC
NC
X
NC
X
X
NC
NC
Metals
Arsenic*
~
X
NC
~
X
X
X
NC
X
Lead
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
~
Notes: X - all results are below established SLVs for the listed compound; S - at least one sample result is above
the established SLV; NC - samples for this parameter were not collected at this location; * - The summary for arsenic
concentrations only indicates locations where observed levels are above the SLV and the expected background
levels; EDC - 1,2-dichloroethane; TCE - trichloroethylene; PCB - polychlorinated biphenyl; SVOC - semi volatile
organic compounds; SLV - screening level value; VOC - volatile organic compounds; TPH - total petroleum
hydrocarbons
Based on the information currently available and presented in the RI the following
conclusions regarding non-ACM risk have been drawn the site:
¦ Non-ACM COI that exceeded SLVs in soil include: arsenic, mercury, EDC, benzene,
chloroform, DCE, PCE, and TCE. There were no contaminants whose maximum
concentration exceeded the SLV for excavation workers, and only arsenic was
above the SLV for construction workers. Therefore, only arsenic in soil at the
former power plant was retained as a COPC for the construction worker.
CDM
NRE_Final FS_Executive Summary.doc
ES-5
-------
Executive Summary
¦ Non-asbestos contaminants do not appear to be of concern to ecological receptors
except for the potential for risks from DDT and DDE in the landfill. However,
further study would be needed to reliably characterize the magnitude of these
risks. EPA has subsequently performed an evaluation that indicates ecological risks
from DDT and DDE at the landfill do not require further consideration in this FS.
Additional details regarding this issue are documented in the Administrative
Record for the site.
Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements (ARARs):
Although all ARARs must be met by a remedial alternative to be selected as a remedy,
some ARARs significantly control the scope of alternatives. For this site, two
significant ARARs affect determinations of protectiveness. These are the Oregon
Environmental Cleanup Law (ORS 465.200 through ORS 465.900) and the Oregon
Hazardous Substance Remedial Action Rules (OAR 340-122). These ARARs provide
the state's regulatory framework for the determination of removal and remedial
action necessary to assure protection of the present and future public health, safety
and welfare, and the environment in the event of a release or threat of a release of a
hazardous substance. These state laws and regulations have been identified as
"applicable" ARARs and thus compliance with the substantive requirements of these
laws and regulations is required.
The two related ARARs described above contain a significant difference from EPA
guidance with regards to determining protectiveness for remediation of the primary
carcinogen identified at the site (asbestos). In general, the EPA considers excess cancer
risks that are below 1E-06 to be so small as to be negligible, and risks above 1E-04 to
be sufficiently large that some sort of response action is desirable. Excess cancer risks
that range between 1E-04 and 1E-06 are generally considered by EPA to be acceptable,
although this is evaluated on a case by case basis. The Oregon Hazardous Substance
Remedial Action Rules define the level of acceptable risk level for exposures of
humans to a single carcinogen to be a lifetime excess cancer risk of one per one
million (1E-06) for an individual at an upper-bound exposure.
Preliminary Remedial Action Objectives (PRAOs): Based on the current and future
risks posed by site contamination and anticipated land uses for the site (current
residential use and future residential or combined residential/non-residential use),
the following PRAOs were developed for contamination at the site:
1. Mitigate the potential for inhalation and ingestion exposures by human and
ecological receptors to asbestos fibers in soil and indoor air that would result in
risks that exceed the target cancer risk specified by Oregon DEQ of 1E-06.
2. Control erosion of asbestos by wind and water to prevent the spread of
contamination from source locations to unimpacted locations and media.
3. Mitigate the potential for inhalation and ingestion exposures by human receptors
to arsenic in soil within the extent of the former Power Plant that exceed site
background concentrations of arsenic in soil and result in risks that exceed the
target cancer risk specified by Oregon DEQ of 1E-06.
ES-6
CDM
NRE_Final FS_Executive Summary.doc
-------
Executive Summary
Identification and Screening of General Response Actions (GRAs), Remedial
Technologies, and Response Actions: GRAs, remedial technologies, and process
options that are potentially useful to address the PRAOs for contaminated materials
are identified and screened in accordance with the NCP. The purpose of this
identification and screening process is to retain representative technologies and
process options that can be assembled into remedial alternatives.
GRAs are initial broad response actions considered to address the PRAOs for the
contaminated material identified at the site. To simplify FS evaluations and
alternative descriptions, the contaminated media (debris and soil contaminated with
asbestos and/or arsenic) were grouped together and defined as "contaminated
materials" to simplify FS evaluations. The GRAs identified to address contaminated
materials at the site included the following:
¦ No Action ¦ Containment
¦ Monitoring ¦ Removal, Transport, and Disposal
¦ Land Use Controls ¦ Treatment
Remedial technologies and process options were identified for each of the GRAs and
broadly evaluated using a two-step screening process. The first screening step
evaluated overall technical implementability and suitability of the technology for
treatment of sitewide contamination. Remedial technologies and process options that
are retained from the first step are further evaluated for effectiveness,
implementability, and relative cost.
The retained remedial technologies and process options were used to assemble
remedial alternatives that could comprehensively address human health and
ecological risks posed by contaminated materials.
Remedial Technology
Process Option
Physical and/or Chemical Monitoring
- Non-Intrusive Visual Inspection
(i.e., surficial inspection)
- Intrusive Visual Inspection
(i.e., inspection using excavations or boreholes)
- Sample Collection and Analysis
Institutional Controls
- Governmental Controls, Proprietary Controls, and
Informational Devices
Community Awareness Activities
- Informational and Educational Programs
Access Controls
- Posted Warnings
Surface Source Controls
- Water-Based Suppression
- Chemical-Based Suppression
- Negative Pressure Enclosure
- Soil or Rock Exposure Barrier/Cover
- Asphalt or Concrete Exposure Barrier/Cover
- Geosynthetic Multi-Layer Exposure Barrier/Cover
CDM
NRE_Final FS_Executive Summary.doc
ES-7
-------
Executive Summary
Remedial Technology
Process Option
Removal
- Mechanical Excavation
- Pneumatic Excavation (Vacuum Extraction/Pumping)
Transport
- Mechanical Transport (Hauling/Conveying)
- Pneumatic Transport (Vacuum Extraction/Pumping)
Disposal
- Onsite Disposal
- Offsite Disposal
Physical and/or Chemical Treatment
- Physical Separation/ Segregation
- Size Reduction
Thermal/Chemical Treatment
- Thermo-Chemical Treatment
Development and Screening of Alternatives: Eight remedial alternatives were
assembled by combining the retained remedial technologies and process options.
Following are the remedial alternatives that were assembled by combining the
retained remedial technologies and process options:
Alternative 1
Alternative 2
Alternative 3
Alternative 4:
Alternative 5a:
Alternative 5b:
Alternative 6:
Alternative 7:
No Action
Interior Cleaning and Land Use Controls with Monitoring
Capping of Contaminated Materials on Private Parcels, Partial
Capping of Contaminated Materials on Receivership Parcels, Interior
Cleaning, and Land Use Controls with Monitoring
Capping of Contaminated Materials and Land Use Controls with
Monitoring
Excavation and Onsite Consolidation/Disposal of Contaminated
Surface Materials, Future Excavation and Offsite Disposal of
Contaminated Surface Materials at Permitted Facilities, and Land
Use Controls with Monitoring
Excavation and Onsite Consolidation/Disposal of Contaminated
Materials, and Land Use Controls with Monitoring
Excavation and Offsite Disposal of Contaminated Materials at
Permitted Facilities, and Land Use Controls with Monitoring
Excavation and Offsite Thermo-Chemical Treatment of
Contaminated Materials at Permitted Facilities, Reuse of Treated
Material, and Land Use Controls with Monitoring
These remedial alternatives were evaluated using the three screening criteria
(effectiveness, implementability, and cost). Two alternatives (Alternative 2 and
Alternative 7) were eliminated from further consideration.
Detailed Analysis of Retained Alternatives: Six remedial alternatives retained after
the initial screening and evaluation underwent detailed analysis. Each alternative is
assessed using criteria mandated by the National Oil and Hazardous Substances
Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP).
ES-8
CDM
NRE_Final FS_Executive Summary.doc
-------
Executive Summary
Detailed analysis was performed on each of the following alternatives:
Alternative 1:
Alternative 3:
Alternative 4:
Alternative 5a:
Alternative 5b:
Alternative 6:
No Action
Capping of Contaminated Materials on Private Parcels, Partial
Capping of Contaminated Materials on Receivership Parcels, Interior
Cleaning, and Land Use Controls with Monitoring
Capping of Contaminated Materials and Land Use Controls with
Monitoring
Excavation and Onsite Consolidation/Disposal of Contaminated
Surface Materials, Future Excavation and Offsite Disposal of
Contaminated Surface Materials at Permitted Facilities, and Land
Use Controls with Monitoring
Excavation and Onsite Consolidation/Disposal of Contaminated
Materials, and Land Use Controls with Monitoring
Excavation and Offsite Disposal of Contaminated Materials at
Permitted Facilities, and Land Use Controls with Monitoring
Comparative Analysis: Each remedial alterative that underwent detailed analysis was
then compared to each other using the two threshold and five balancing evaluation
criteria as presented in Table ES-1.
After the FS is finalized, a preferred alternative for the site is presented to the public
in the proposed plan. The proposed plan briefly summarizes the RI and FS,
alternatives studied in the detailed analysis phase of the FS, and highlights the key
factors that led to identifying the preferred alternative. The proposed plan allows the
State of Oregon (represented on this project by the Oregon DEQ) and the community
to comment on the preferred alternative.
The final phase of the RI/FS process is to prepare a record of decision (ROD).
Following the receipt of public comments and any final comments from Oregon DEQ,
EPA selects and documents the remedy selection decision for the site in the ROD.
CDM
ES-9
NRE_Final FS_Executive Summary.doc
-------
Executive Summary
This Page Left Blank Intentionally
ES-10 CDM
NRE_Final FS_Executive Summary.doc
-------
Executive Summary
Table ES-1
Summary of Comparative Analysis of Alternative
Threshold Criteria
Balancing Criteria
Remedial
Alternative
Description
Overall Protection of
Human Health and
the Environment
Compliance with
ARARs
Long-Term
Effectiveness and
Permanence
Reduction of
Toxicity, Mobility,
or Volume through
Treatment
Short-Term
Effectiveness
Implementability
Present Value Cost
(Dollars)
1
No Action
© Not protective of
human health and the
environment and does
not meet PRAOs.
© Not compliant with
chemical-specific
ARARs. Specifically,
the risk standards in
the Oregon Hazardous
Substance Remedial
Action Rules for
asbestos are
exceeded because
exposure to
contamination is not
addressed.
©No additional
cleanup measures are
initiated and
contaminated materials
are left exposed.
® No treatment;
therefore, does not
reduce toxicity,
mobility, or volume of
contaminants
through treatment.
® No additional
cleanup measures
are initiated and
contaminated
materials are left
exposed. Thus there
are no short-term
effectiveness issues
for this alternative.
© No action is taken
other than 5-year site
reviews. Since no new
remedial action is
taken, this alternative
has no
implementability
issues.
$
$186,000
3
Capping of
Contaminated
Materials on Private
Parcels, Partial
Capping of
Contaminated
Materials on
Receivership
Parcels, Interior
Cleaning, and Land
Use Controls with
Monitoring
© Contaminated
materials that remain
exposed outside of
capped areas pose
human health and
ecological risks
through dispersal
across the site.
Contaminated
materials also still
remain beneath covers
across a large extent of
the site and could pose
additional risks if the
covers are
compromised.
© Addresses the
location- and action-
specific ARARs
through adherence of
the ARARs during
implementation ofthe
remedial action.
This alternative leaves
contaminated materials
exposed at the site.
Thus compliance with
the chemical-specific
ARARs is
questionable.
© Contaminated
materials that remain
exposed outside of
capped areas pose
human health and
ecological risks
through dispersal
across the site.
Contaminated
materials also still
remain beneath covers
across a large extent of
the site and could pose
additional risks if the
covers are
compromised.
© No treatment;
therefore, does not
reduce toxicity,
mobility, or volume of
contaminants
through treatment.
© Addresses short-
term risks to workers,
the community, and
the environment.
Trucks used to haul
offsite borrow are also
used to construct the
covers, which slightly
increases short-term
risks to the
community.
© Construction
resources and
materials needed to
construct covers for
this alternative should
be available.
Institutional controls
have been
implemented in a
similar manner on
other contaminated
residential sites in
Oregon. Interior
cleaning has not been
performed at this site
and would require
coordination with
affected residents, but
has been successfully
performed at similar
sites with asbestos
contamination.
$$$
$10,152,000
CDM
NRE_Final FS_Executive Summary.doc
ES-11
-------
Executive Summary
Table ES-1 (continued)
Threshold Criteria
Balancing Criteria
Remedial
Alternative
Description
Overall Protection of
Human Health and
the Environment
Compliance with
ARARs
Long-Term
Effectiveness and
Permanence
Reduction of
Toxicity, Mobility,
or Volume through
Treatment
Short-Term
Effectiveness
Implementability
Present Value Cost
(Dollars)
4
Capping of
Contaminated
Materials and Land
Use Controls with
Monitoring
© Contaminated
materials still remain
beneath covers across
a large extent of the
site and could pose
risks if the covers are
compromised.
© Addresses the
location- and action-
specific ARARs
through adherence of
the ARARs during
implementation ofthe
remedial action.
Addresses chemical-
specific ARARs by in-
place capping of
contamination.
© Contaminated
materials still remain
beneath covers across
a large extent ofthe
site and could pose
risks if the covers are
compromised. Long-
term effectiveness and
permanence is not as
certain as for remedies
that remove and
consolidate
contaminated materials
for onsite and offsite
disposal.
© No treatment;
therefore, does not
reduce toxicity,
mobility, or volume of
contaminants
through treatment.
© Similar to
Alternative 3.
However Alternative 4
involves significantly
more surface
disturbance of
contaminated
materials and larger
number of haul trucks
than Alternative 3.
© Similar to
Alternative 3. However
Alternative 4 requires
covering a larger area
ofthe site than
Alternative 3 and
requires a larger
volume of borrow from
offsite areas.
Maintenance ofthe
additional covered
areas and monitoring,
especially on privately
owned parcels, could
provide difficulties in
the future.
$$$
$12,798,000
5a
Excavation and
Onsite
Consolidation/Dispos
al of Contaminated
Surface Materials,
Future Excavation
and Offsite Disposal
of Contaminated
Surface Materials at
Permitted Facilities,
and Land Use
Controls with
Monitoring
© Contaminated
subsurface materials
also remain across a
large extent of the site
beneath covers at
disposal locations and
backfill placed in
excavations. These
materials could pose
risks if the covers or
backfill are
compromised. Upward
migration of subsurface
contaminated materials
through backfill to the
surface may occur over
time and pose
additional risks. Future
excavations may only
partially address these
risks since they would
only occur periodically.
©This alternative has
a higher potential of
future exposure at the
surface to significant
quantities of
contaminated materials
through frost heave
processes than other
alternatives. Thus
compliance with the
chemical-specific
ARARs is
questionable.
© Contaminated
materials still remain
under covers at onsite
disposal locations.
Contaminated
subsurface materials
also remain across a
large extent ofthe site
beneath backfill placed
in excavations. These
materials could pose
current and future
human health and
ecological risks if the
covers at the onsite
disposal locations are
compromised or
contaminated materials
become exposed at the
surface in backfilled
excavations.
© No treatment;
therefore, does not
reduce toxicity,
mobility, or volume of
contaminants
through treatment.
© Requires
disturbance and
consolidation of a
large amount of
contaminated
materials across the
site and large
volumes of offsite
borrow. These
activities pose
increased short-term
risks to workers and
the community than
surface disturbance
activities under
Alternative 4.
Alternative 5a
involves initial
excavation and future
excavation of
contaminated
materials over a long
period of time which
increases the risks.
© Excavation and
onsite consolidation of
contaminated materials
could be difficult in
areas of underground
utilities, trees, roads,
and near structures.
This alternative
requires less overall
offsite borrow than
Alternative 4, but
additional logistical
coordination is needed
since both
contaminated materials
and offsite borrow will
be transported
simultaneously.
Alternative 5a requires
less initial excavation
than Alternative 5b.
However, there may be
difficulties in
performing periodic
future excavations of
contaminated surface
materials.
$$$
$10,467,000
ES-12
CDM
NRE_Final FS_Executive Summary.doc
-------
Executive Summary
Table ES-1 (continued)
Threshold Criteria
Balancing Criteria
Remedial
Alternative
Description
Overall Protection of
Human Health and
the Environment
Compliance with
ARARs
Long-Term
Effectiveness and
Permanence
Reduction of
Toxicity, Mobility,
or Volume through
Treatment
Short-Term
Effectiveness
Implementability
Present Value Cost
(Dollars)
5b
Excavation and
Onsite Consolidation/
Disposal of
Contaminated
Materials, and Land
Use Controls with
Monitoring
© Since the majority
of the contaminated
materials are
excavated and
disposed of at onsite
disposal locations
protected by land use
controls, long-term
protection of human
health and the
environment is more
certain across the site
than alternatives that
leave contaminated
materials across a
larger extent of the site.
©Addresses the
location- and action-
specific ARARs
through adherence of
the ARARs during
implementation ofthe
remedial action.
Addresses chemical-
specific ARARs by
excavation of
contaminated
materials, onsite
consolidation and
disposal, and
backfilling of
excavations.
© Since the majority
ofthe contaminated
materials are
excavated and
disposed of at onsite
disposal locations
protected by land use
controls, long-term
protection of human
health and the
environment is more
certain across the site
than alternatives that
leave contaminated
materials across a
larger extent ofthe site.
© No treatment;
therefore, does not
reduce toxicity,
mobility, or volume of
contaminants
through treatment.
© Similar to
Alternative 5a. While
Alternative 5b
involves initial
excavation and
consolidation of a
larger volume of
contaminated
materials than
Alternative 5b, the
increase in initial
short-term risks
during excavation is
offset by not requiring
future excavation of
contaminated
materials as under
Alternative 5a.
© Similar to
Alternative 5a.
Alternative 5b requires
more initial excavation
than Alternative 5a, but
does not have the
difficulties in
performing future
excavations as for
Alternative 5a.
$$$
$14,028,000
6
Excavation and
Offsite Disposal of
Contaminated
Materials at
Permitted Facilities,
and Land Use
Controls with
Monitoring
© Similar to
Alternative 5b, except
that contaminated
materials are
excavated and
disposed of offsite
rather than
consolidated and
disposed of onsite.
Since the majority of
the contaminated
materials are
excavated and
disposed of offsite,
long-term protection of
human health and the
environment is more
certain than Alternative
5b.
© Addresses the
location- and action-
specific ARARs
through adherence of
the ARARs during
implementation ofthe
remedial action.
Addresses chemical-
specific ARARs by
excavation of
contaminated
materials, offsite
disposal, and
backfilling of
excavations.
© Similar to
Alternative 5b, except
offsite rather than
onsite disposal of
excavated
contaminated materials
is performed.
© No treatment;
therefore, does not
reduce toxicity,
mobility, or volume of
contaminants
through treatment.
©Similar to
Alternative 5b, offsite
rather than onsite
disposal of
excavated
contaminated
materials is
performed. Short-
term impacts to
workers and
especially the
community are
greatly increased
over alternatives that
do not require offsite
disposal due to truck
traffic to the offsite
disposal facilities.
© Similar to
Alternative 5b except
offsite rather than
onsite disposal of
excavated
contaminated materials
is performed. Offsite
disposal of large
volumes of removed
materials requires
additional coordination
with the offsite disposal
facilities. Additional
difficulties exist in
obtaining the
necessary approvals
and the logistics of
transporting large
volumes of
contaminated materials
for long distances to
offsite disposal
facilities.
$29,472,000
CDM
NRE_Final FS_Executive Summary.doc
ES-13
-------
Executive Summary
Table ES-1 (continued)
Notes:
1. The detailed analysis of retained alternatives involves a qualitative assessment of the degree to which remedial alternatives address evaluation criteria.
The numerical designations for the qualitative ratings system used in this table are not used to quantitatively assess remedial alternatives (for instance, individual rankings for an
alternative are not additive).
Legend for Qualitative Ratings System:
Threshold and Balancing Criteria (Excluding Cost) Balancing Criteria (Present Value Cost in Dollars)
O
None
O
None ($0)
o
Low
$
Low ($0 through $5M)
©
Low to moderate
$$
Low to moderate ($5M through $10M)
©
Moderate
$$$
Moderate ($10M through $15M)
o
Moderate to high
$$$$
Moderate to high ($15M through $20M)
©
High
^ ^ ^ ^ ^
High (Greater than $20M)
ES-14 CDM
NRE_Final FS_Executive Summary.doc
-------
Section 1
Introduction
1.1 Purpose and Organization
This feasibility study (FS) report for the North Ridge Estates (NRE) site (site) was
prepared for the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 10 by CDM
Federal Programs Corporation (CDM) for Work Assignment No. 217-RICO-lOBT
under EPA Remedial Action Contract (RAC) No. EP-W-05-049.
The FS is the mechanism for the identification, development, screening, and detailed
evaluation of remedial alternatives that are capable of addressing risks to human
health and the environment from contaminated media. The final remedial
investigation (RI) report for the site (CDM 2010) details the
information used to characterize site conditions, determines
the nature and extent of contamination, and summarizes risks
to human health and the environment. The RI and FS were
conducted concurrently; data collected and summarized in the
RI report influenced the development of remedial alternatives
in the FS.
When the FS is finalized, a preferred alternative for the site is
presented to the public in the proposed plan (PP). The PP
briefly summarizes the RI and FS, alternatives studied in the
detailed analysis phase of the FS, and highlights the key
factors that led to identifying the preferred alternative. The PP
allows the State of Oregon (represented on this project by the
Oregon Department of Environmental Quality [Oregon DEQ])
and the community to comment on the preferred alternative.
The final phase of the RI/FS process is to prepare a record of
decision (ROD). Following the receipt of public comments and
any final comments from Oregon DEQ, EPA selects and
documents the remedy selection decision for the site in the
ROD.
This report presents the results of the development, screening,
and detailed evaluation of remedial alternatives to address
contaminated media for the site in Klamath County, Oregon.
The work performed during the FS was in accordance with
guidance developed by EPA for conducting RI/FS under the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act (CERCLA) (EPA 1988). In addition, the cost
estimates for each alternative were developed in accordance
with A Guide to Developing and Documenting Cost Estimates during the Feasibility Study
(EPA 2000a).
1-1
NRE Final FS Section1.doc
-------
Section 1
Introduction
The progress between major process steps of the FS is graphically illustrated at the
beginning of each section. This report is organized as follows:
¦ The Executive Summary provides a brief summary of the key information and
conclusions included in the FS.
¦ Section 1 discusses the purpose of the FS report, the report organization, and site
background information (site location, site description, operational history, and
summary of previous investigations).
¦ Section 2 describes the characteristics of the site, including the site conceptual
model (SCM), site features and physical characteristics, a summary of the nature
and extent of contamination resulting from past activities at the site, and a
summary of human health risks posed by site contamination.
¦ Section 3 describes the process for identifying preliminary remedial action
objectives (PRAOs) and preliminary remediation goals (PRGs) based on the results
of the baseline human health risk assessments (BLRAs) and the ecological risk
assessment (ERA). This section also identifies potential applicable or relevant and
appropriate requirements (ARARs) and "to be considered" (TBC) information for
the site.
¦ Section 4 describes the options for general response actions (GRAs) and the
screening and evaluation of different remedial technologies and process options
used to develop remedial alternatives for the site.
¦ Section 5 identifies and describes the remedial alternatives and the screening
process followed to reduce the remedial alternatives to those considered to be most
suitable for further analysis.
¦ Section 6 describes the criteria used to evaluate the alternatives retained for further
analysis in Section 7.
¦ Section 7 presents a detailed analysis of the remedial alternatives and summarizes
the comparative analysis conducted to compare and contrast the remedial
alternatives.
¦ Section 8 lists the references and documents referred to in this FS.
¦ Appendix A provides a freeze depth and capping thickness recommendation for
the site prepared by the United States Army Cold Region Research and
Engineering Laboratory.
¦ Appendix B provides a summary of federal and state ARARs and TBCs.
¦ Appendix C provides quantity calculations for the screening and detailed analysis
of remedial alternatives.
1-2
CDM
NRE_Final FS_Section 1.doc
-------
Section 1
Introduction
¦ Appendix D documents the alternative screening evaluation.
¦ Appendix E documents the alternative screening cost information. Screening cost
estimates have an expected accuracy range between +100 percent and -50 percent of
the actual costs.
¦ Appendix F provides a summary of applicable institutional controls for the site and
the monitoring protocol for alternatives retained for detailed analysis.
¦ Appendix G provides the detailed analysis of alternatives.
¦ Appendix H provides the detailed alternative analysis cost information. Detailed
analysis cost estimates have an expected accuracy range between +50 percent and -
30 percent of the actual costs.
1.2 Site Location and Description
NRE is located approximately 3 miles north of the City of Klamath Falls, in Klamath
County, Oregon, along Old Fort Road and North Ridge Drive (Figure 1-1). NRE is the
former location of marine recuperation barracks (MRB) and the Oregon Technology
Institute (OTI; now Oregon Institute of Technology [OIT]).
The site is defined as the area where contamination associated with demolition of the
MRB, including asbestos containing material (ACM), has been observed or detected as
delineated by the site boundary in Figure 1-2. The site has been divided into two
operable units (OUs) (Figure 1-1):
¦ OU1 encompasses the footprint for the former MRB and includes all areas where
contamination associated with demolition of the MRB, including ACM and/ or
asbestos, has been observed and/ or detected with the exception of the former firing
range. Portions of the Wirth (Parcel BP) and Galpin (Parcel BQ) properties south of
the former MRB are included in OU1. This FS focuses on OU1, which is estimated
to include approximately 125 acres. OU1 is interchangeably referred to as the site in
the remainder of this document.
¦ OU2 includes the area of the former firing range. It is EPA's current understanding
that the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) will be responsible for
any further actions in OU2; therefore, this FS will not address remediation of this
OU. OU2 is estimated to include approximately 46 acres.
The boundary of OU1 has changed since previous versions of this document to reflect
only the locations where contamination associated with MRB demolition, including
ACM and/or asbestos, has been observed and/ or detected with the exception of the
former firing range. The observations used to make the boundary changes include all
data collected by the responsible party and EPA.
1-3
NRE Final FS Section1.doc
-------
Section 1
Introduction
1.3 Site Background and History
1.3.1 Site Ownership
Exhibit 1-1 provides a brief summary of the ownership of the site. This exhibit was
generated from site background and historic information from the final RI report
(CDM 2010).
Exhibit 1-1. Summary of Site Ownership
Year
Owner
Summary of Site Activities
1944 to 1946
United States Navy
United States Navy purchased approximately 745 acres of
land, including 11 acres of utility easements. The site was
used as an MRB for recovery of World War II (WWII)
veterans returning from the Pacific theater with malaria.
Building materials containing asbestos were used in the
construction of the facility. The estimated quantity of ACM
used during construction was 1,522 tons.
1947 to 1964
State of Oregon
State of Oregon acquired the property through a quit claim
deed. Oregon used the MRB facilities for a vocational
technical college.
During OTI occupation of the site, six ofthe original MRB
structures were demolished.
1964 to 1965
General Services
Administration
(GSA)
Ownership was transferred to the federal GSA when OTI left
the site. The site sat idle and was not occupied or used.
1965 to 1977
Private Ownership
A partnership of private individuals purchased the site from
GSA. At least 22 ofthe original MRB buildings were
demolished.
1977 to 2005
Melvin Bercot
Kenneth Partnership
(MBK) Ownership
MBK purchased the site and redeveloped it into a residential
subdivision.
Significant demolition occurred and much ofthe ACM building
debris was disposed of on site. As a result ofthe ACM
contamination, MBK was sued by homeowners and declared
bankruptcy in 2004.
2005 to Present
Private Ownership
and Receivership
All vacated homes were transferred to a receiver paid to
maintain the value ofthe parcels until the remedial action
(RA) for the site can be carried out. The entity responsible for
maintaining the homes is referred to as the Receivership.
The ownership of parcels within the site (either privately-owned or receiver-managed
parcels) is identified in Figure 1-3. Ownership and occupancy of the parcels can be
classified as follows:
¦ Privately-owned parcels include all parcels east of Old Fort Road and six parcels
west of Old Fort Road. In addition, two parcels south of the main NRE subdivision
are also privately owned. In total, 29 privately-owned parcels occupy the site.
¦ Receiver-managed parcels include parcels west of Old Fort Road, excluding the six
privately-owned parcels. No receiver-managed parcels are located east of Old Fort
Road. In total, 28 receiver-managed parcels occupy the site.
1-4
CDM
NRE_Final FS_Section 1.doc
-------
Section 1
Introduction
Parcel development status is based on the presence of a residence (i.e., house) for each
parcel at the site.
¦ Parcels that currently have a house are referred to as developed parcels. Each house
can be either occupied or unoccupied, depending on whether there are current
residents living in the home.
¦ All parcels without a house are referred to as undeveloped parcels, even if other
types of initial development have occurred.
Figure 1-3 shows the location of developed and undeveloped parcels; the inset table
lists the parcels that are currently occupied.
At the time of FS issuance, all developed private parcels were occupied and all
developed receivership parcels were unoccupied. Undeveloped private and
receivership parcels were unoccupied.
1.3.2 Regulatory Activities
Exhibit 1-2 summarizes the regulatory enforcement actions and investigation history
at the site. This exhibit was generated from site background and historic information
from the RI report. For additional information pertaining to the following regulatory
enforcement actions, refer to Section 2 of the final RI report (CDM 2010).
Exhibit 1-2. Summary of Regulatory Enforcement Actions
Year
Enforcing Agency
Summary of Enforcement Actions
1978
Oregon DEQ
Oregon DEQ responded to complaints about openly
accumulated asbestos. Oregon DEQ directed the
collection and onsite burial of the material.
1979
EPA
EPA issued Compliance Order No X79-08-14-113
regarding hazardous air pollutants to MBK. MBK agreed
to change demolition and disposal practices at the site.
2001
Oregon DEQ
Oregon DEQ received a complaint about asbestos pipe
insulation exposed at NRE and issued a Notice of
Noncompliance to MBK. Tomahawk Abatement removed
180 feet of piping.
2002
Oregon DEQ
MBK and Oregon DEQ entered into a Mutual Agreement
and Order (MAO). All parcels currently or previously
owned by MBK were surveyed for the presence of ACM,
and approximately 50 tons were collected and disposed
by Malot Environmental Inc.
2003
Oregon DEQ and
Oregon Department of
Human Services
(DHS).
Oregon DEQ and DHS jointly determined that friable
asbestos not removed from the site continued to pose a
hazard to public health. Oregon DEQ requested a referral
to EPA for emergency removal and assessment. MBK
entered into an Administrative Order on Consent (AOC)
with EPA.
CDM
NRE_Final FS_Section 1.doc
1-5
-------
Section 1
Introduction
Exhibit 1-2. Summary of Regulatory Enforcement Actions (continued)
Year
Enforcing Agency
Summary of Enforcement Actions
2005
EPA
A unilateral order became effective that directed MBKto
conduct RI/FS activities at the site under the oversight of
EPA.
2005
EPA
Most of the residents west of Old Fort Road at NRE
entered into a legal settlement (consent decree) with the
United States and vacated most homes within the site.
The settlement relieved MBK of further responsibilities for
the RI/FS, and EPA issued a Stop Work Notice to MBK.
All vacated homes were transferred to the NRE receiver
as a potential resource to fund future cleanup of the site.
Currently, six homes remain occupied west of Old Fort
Road and are privately owned. The RA will be conducted
under the CERCLA; however, the site is not on the
National Priorities List (NPL), so EPA does not currently
have a source of funding to complete remediation under
the Superfund program.
1.4 Previous Removal Actions
Removal and actions, such as the excavation and disposal of ACM, polychlorinated
biphenyl (PCB)-contaminated soil, and lead-contaminated soil, were performed at the
site in conjunction with site investigation activities and emergency response actions.
These actions were taken to reduce volumes of ACM and to reduce further exposure
to source material. From 2001 until 2009, several removal activities were completed
and are summarized below. Exhibit 1-3 was generated from site background and
historic information from the RI report. For additional information pertaining to the
following remedial actions, refer to Section 2 of the final RI report (CDM 2010).
Exhibit 1-3. Summary of Previous Removal Actions
Year
Material Removed
Summary of Remedial Actions
2001
Steam Pipe Insulation
Abatement contractor removed approximately 180 feet from the
site.
2002
Surface ACM
MBK removed and disposed of surface ACM from MBK parcels
as required in an MAO.
2003
Surface ACM
Cement Asbestos Board (CAB), roofing material, vinyl asbestos
tile (VAT), and AirCell were removed from the surface at 25
developed residential parcels and several MBK-owned parcels.
In addition, areas with concentrated ACM debris were removed
from nine parcels. All ACM material was disposed at the
Klamath County Landfill.
2003
Buried ACM
During burial pile exploration activities, contaminated soils were
removed from the site.
2004
Lead-Contaminated Soil
Lead-contaminated soil identified at the MBK-C property, by the
EPA Superfund Technical Assistance and Response Team 2
Contract (START-2) contractor in 2003, was removed.
1-6
CDM
NRE_Final FS_Section 1.doc
-------
Section 1
Introduction
Exhibit 1-3. Summary of Previous Removal Actions (continued)
Year
Material Removed
Summary of Remedial Actions
2005
AirCell and MAG
Large amounts of thermal system insulation (i.e., AirCell and
MAG) material had surfaced throughout the site. Much of the
material was removed or "picked-up" and was disposed.
Tackifier was sprayed on areas where MAG had been
observed.
2008
Surface and Subsurface
ACM and PCB and
Lead-Contaminated Soil
Removal
Approximately 23,000 cubic yards (cy) of ACM-contaminated
soil was removed from various properties. The soil was
consolidated in an onsite repository.
At Parcels Q and MBK-C, lead-contaminated soil was removed.
At Parcel B, PCB-contaminated soil was removed.
2009
Surface ACM and PCB-
Contaminated Soil
Removal
A follow-up removal to the 2008 activities was completed to
remove additional surface ACM and PCB-contaminated soil.
1.5 Summary of Study Area Investigations
Data from numerous sources were used in the site's final RI report (CDM 2010),
which forms the basis for this FS.
1.5.1 ACM Site Investigations
The following site investigations were performed from 2003 through 2008 to
determine the nature and extent of ACM and asbestos-contaminated soil. Sampling
activities included soil sampling, air sampling, and activity-based sampling (ABS) at
various locations at the site. The exhibit summarizes previous site investigations as
documented in the RI report. For additional information pertaining to the following
site investigations, refer to Section 2 of the final RI report (CDM 2010).
Exhibit 1-4. Summary of Previous ACM Site Investigations by Year
Type of
Investigation
Activity Lead
Summary of Site Investigations
2003
Residential Soil
Sampling
EPA
The START-2 contractor collected composite soil samples
along a grid system developed by Dr. Berman. Twenty-two
residential properties were sampled, with 10 subsamples
collected from each property to yield one targeted composite
sample per property.
Baseline and Hot
Spot Soil Sampling
MBK
MBK hired Aeolus, Inc. to develop a sampling and analysis
plan to evaluate the baseline ACM content in soils over a large
portion of the site.
Asbestos Soil
Sampling
MBK
PBS Engineering and Environmental (PBS) collected soil
samples from concentrated areas with ACM to determine if
soils from these specific areas had a larger number of fibers.
Burial Pile
Exploration
MBK
Areas with unnatural topography and areas with suspected
high concentrations of surface ACM were investigated using
test pits to determine underground sources.
Buried Steam Pipe
Investigation
MBK
A geophysical survey was conducted to determine the
locations of buried steam pipe. Due to construction activities
that have occurred at the site, it is unknown if all buried
asbestos-insulated pipe has been identified.
CDM
NRE_Final FS_Section 1.doc
1-7
-------
Section 1
Introduction
Exhibit 1-4. Summary of Previous ACM Site Investigations by Year
(continued)
Type of
Investigation
Activity Lead
Summary of Site Investigations
2003
Residential Air
Sampling
EPA
Concentrations of asbestos in indoor and outdoor air were
measured at residential parcels. Several background outdoor
air samples were also collected at remote locations off site.
Ambient Air
Sampling
EPA
High-volume air pumps were used to conduct ambient air
sampling at the site to assess levels of airborne asbestos
particles.
2004
ABS
EPA
EPA conducted ABS to assess the exposure risk associated
with the physical disturbance of asbestos-contaminated soils.
Activities included weed-trimming, tilling soil, and child play in
ACM-containing soil.
2005
Free Asbestos Fiber
Content Soil
Sampling
EPA
The START-2 contractor conducted an investigation to
determine the relationship between observed ACM and free
asbestos fibers in surface soils.
Asbestos Fiber Size
Distribution Study
EPA
Six types of ACM found at the site were collected and
submitted for a fiber size distribution study.
Ambient Air
Sampling
EPA
The START-2 contractor collected ambient air samples from
six locations to assess ambient air conditions during
excavation and surface cleanup activities.
2006
Asbestos Rl
Investigation using
Parcel Classification
System (Bins)
EPA
EPA developed a modified sampling strategy that was based
on a classification of all parcels (e.g., Bin A, Bin B, and Bin C).
In general, the following investigations were performed where
ACM debris was likely present:
Burial Pile Investigations: Estimate the vertical and lateral
extent of ACM and associated soils for the purpose of
estimating quantities requiring remediation.
Surficial Visual Inspection: Estimate the locations of the
burial areas that require investigation.
Remedial Boundary Investigations: Estimate the lateral
boundary to which RAs may be required.
Along parcels that were not within the footprint of the former
MRB and where no ACM has been observed, the following
investigations were performed:
Surficial Visual Inspection: Determine if the property was
properly classified and if ACM remediation or additional
investigations are required. If ACM was observed, the parcel
was reclassified.
Bulk Soil Sampling: Determine if free asbestos fibers are
present in areas where ACM is not observed.
ABS
EPA
The purpose of this investigation was to measure asbestos
levels in the breathing zone of individuals engaged in activities
such as yard maintenance and gardening around homes at the
site; investigate the relative importance of ACM and free
asbestos to airborne releases during active soil disturbance;
and measure indoor dust asbestos concentrations from homes
that were occupied at the site.
NRE Final FS Section1.doc
-------
Section 1
Introduction
The parcel classification system mentioned as part of the RI investigation in 2006 was
primarily used for investigational purposes and will no longer be addressed as part of
the FS evaluations discussed in this report. For additional information on the parcel
classification system, refer to the final RI report (CDM 2010).
Results from the ACM site investigations are discussed in Section 2.4 of this report.
1.5.2 Non-ACM Site Investigations
The following investigations were performed to determine the presence of other
contaminants of interest (COIs) at the site.
Exhibit 1-5. Summary of Previous Non-ACM Site Investigations
Type of
Investigation
Activity Lead
Summary of Site Investigations
2003
Lead-
Contaminated Soil
Sampling
EPA
The START-2 contractor conducted soil sampling and
analytical screening for lead to assess the extent of lead
contaminated in the site soils. Lead-containing soils above the
PRG were removed.
PCB Soil
Sampling
EPA
Soil samples were collected at a site suspected to be the
location of a PCB spill.
2004
Firing Range
Investigation
EPA
The START-2 contractor conducted a preliminary assessment
at various locations within the Kingsley Firing Range for the
presence of nitrate base explosive compounds (NBECs) and/or
metal analysis.
The firing range is not currently considered part of the site and
any required remedial actions will be addressed by the USACE
and other Department of Defense (DoD) agencies.
2006
Non-ACM RI
Investigation
EPA
The objective of the investigation was to determine the types of
suspected materials that were potentially used at the site,
whether they exist above levels of concern, and where
potential releases could have impacted site soils. Nine former
use areas were investigated for at least one of the following
COIs: volatile organic compounds (VOCs), semi-volatile
organic compounds (SVOCs), total petroleum hydrocarbons
(TPH), PCBs, metals, and pesticides.
2007
VOC Investigation
EPA
Additional investigation in 2007 was required to further
delineate the extent of VOC impacts in soil, soil gas, and
indoor air at the site at five former use areas.
Former Service
Station
Underground
Storage Tank
(UST)
Investigation
EPA
The purpose of this investigation was to determine the
orientation of a tank discovered during the 2006 investigation
and locate any additional USTs in the area. No additional USTs
were discovered in the area. Soil impacted with petroleum
products was encountered during this investigation.
CDM
NRE_Final FS_Section 1.doc
1-9
-------
Section 1
Introduction
Exhibit 1-5. Summary of Previous Non-ACM Site Investigations
(continued)
Type of
Investigation
Activity Lead
Summary of Site Investigations
2008
ABS
EPA
The purpose of this ABS sampling event was to monitor
potential exposure to asbestos during common outdoor
activities in locations where asbestos had not been previously
detected either by visual observation or bulk sample analysis.
VOC Investigation
EPA
Additional VOC samples were collected in May 2008 due to
data quality concerns with the 2007 VOC data. Since the 2007
VOC data were determined to not be usable, date gaps
remained to fully describe the nature and extent of VOCs at the
site. The 2008 VOC data were collected to fill these data gaps
and to minimize any uncertainty in the evaluation of risks from
the vapor intrusion pathway.
Results from the non-ACM site investigations are discussed in Section 2.4 of this
report.
1-10
CDM
NRE_Final FS_Section 1.doc
-------
Section 2
Site Characteristics
The RI and the BLRA reports have identified ACM and free asbestos fibers as the
primary source of contamination that contributes to human health risks at the site.
Arsenic concentrations in soil at the former power plant are the sole contributor to
human health risk from a non-ACM contaminant of potential concern (COPC). The
ERA has identified that methods are not presently available to support quantitative
evaluation of risks to ecological receptors from asbestos; however, a qualitative
assessment has been completed that determined there are potential risks to ecological
receptors from exposure to asbestos on a site-wide basis.
This qualitative assessment also indicated potential risks to ecological receptors from
exposure to pesticides (dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane [DDT] and
dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene [DDE]) in debris and soil within
the former landfill. EPA has subsequently performed an
evaluation that indicates ecological risks from DDT and DDE at
this location do not require further consideration in this FS.
Additional details regarding this issue are documented in the
Administrative Record for the site.
This section summarizes topics discussed in the RI and BLRA
(SCM, site features, physical characteristics, nature and extent of
contamination, and BLRA). This section also provides information
on the importance of remediating or managing ACM and asbestos
at the site.
For complete details of the site characteristics and the nature and
extent of contamination, please refer to the RI report (CDM 2010).
2.1 Site Conceptual Model
The SCM incorporates the primary mechanisms that lead to
release of contaminants from source materials, migration routes of
contaminants in the environment, exposure pathways, and
human/ ecological receptors. As mentioned previously, asbestos is
the predominant human health and ecological concern at the site.
2.1.1 Sources of ACM and Asbestos
ACM and asbestos are present at the site due to the demolition
and onsite disposal of asbestos containing building materials
(ACBM) at the site. The disposal practices believed to be used at
the site included burying building debris near the original
building location and/ or transporting the ACM debris to other
areas of the site for burial, with potential spillage of the material as
it was being transported.
CDM
NRE_Final FS_Section 2.doc
-------
Section 2
Site Characteristics
Due to the physical properties of asbestos, especially when included in a building
material matrix, it is resistant to physical weathering. Asbestos is an inert mineral;
once asbestos fibers are released from ACM, asbestos fibers do not breakdown
chemically into other minerals, only into smaller fibers. However, these smaller fibers
can persist in the environment for an indefinite period of time. Therefore, without
physical removal of ACM, asbestos will persist at the site.
2.1.2 Migration Routes
Observations at the site suggest that buried ACM migrates to the surface over time.
Asbestos fibers may be released into the atmosphere during the breakdown of ACM
once it is at the surface. The time required for ACM to breakdown varies, depending
on the type of ACM. CAB and VAT will breakdown slower than MAG or AirCell.
Asbestos fibers found in the surface soils can be transported across the site or to
indoor areas on clothes, shoes, and via pets as a result of contact with soils containing
fibers. Fibers may also become airborne and dispersed across the site due to wind and
ground disturbance. Surface soil erosion due to surface water movement may also
transport ACM and asbestos fibers across the site.
In general, the migration of ACM and asbestos across the site can be caused either by
anthropogenic activities or naturally occurring actions. The following list summarizes
the activities influencing migration of ACM and asbestos at the site:
Exhibit 2-1. Activities Influencing Migration of ACM and Asbestos
Human Based Activity
Naturally Occurring Actions
Soil-disturbing activities: gardening,
landscaping, recreation
Migration to the ground surface through "frost jacking"
(frost heaving)
Site development
Wind and water erosion of surface soils
Mechanical wedging and jacking by plant roots
Wind transport
Burrowing animals
2.1.3 Exposure Pathways and Potential Receptors
Human receptors at the site that are of potential concern to EPA include current and
future residents, workers, and site visitors. The exposure route of chief concern for
asbestos is by inhalation of asbestos fibers in air. Human populations at the site may
be exposed to asbestos in air by four main pathways:
¦ Inhalation of fibers released during active soil disturbance activities
¦ Inhalation of fibers in indoor air
¦ Inhalation of fibers in outdoor (ambient) air
¦ Inhalation of fibers released during direct handling of pieces of ACM
2-2
CDM
NRE_Final FS_Section 2.doc
-------
Section 2
Site Characteristics
Of these pathways, inhalation exposure resulting from active soil disturbance is
believed to be the most likely to be significant. Section 2.6 provides a summary of
human exposure and risk estimates that have been derived to date.
2.2 General Site Features
2.2.1 Site Features
The MRB buildings remaining at the site include a warehouse, the former brig
(renovated into a five-unit apartment building), and several residences on Thicket
Court (used as officers' quarters during the time the military used the property and as
faculty housing during OTI occupation), and a guard shack for the military base
shooting range.
Although the other former military base structures at the site have been demolished,
the concrete foundations for many of the buildings remain intact. Some of the roads
used during military use of the site are still present, although they are cracked and
vegetation is growing through them. At the site, Old Fort Road and North Ridge
Drive appear to follow approximately the same route they did when the base was
operating (Oregon DHS 2004).
2.3 Summary of Physical Characteristics
2.3.1 Climate
General climatic conditions at the site include cool winter temperatures with warm
and dry summers. The average daily temperature is 48.5° Fahrenheit (°F). Klamath
Falls has received an average of 13.95 inches of precipitation annually from 1971 to
2000, with most precipitation falling in January and December. Average annual
precipitation ranges from 10 to 15 inches in the valleys, 16 to 25 inches in nearby hills,
and 30 to 40 inches at the lower levels in the Cascades to the west. Snowfall accounts
for 30 percent of the moisture in the valleys and as much as 50 percent of the moisture
in the mountains. Annual snowfall averages 15 to 45 inches in the valleys, 60 to 125
inches in the foothills, and over 160 inches in some places at more than 4,500 feet
above mean sea level (AMSL). Maximum snow depths have varied from 2 to 3 feet in
the valleys and from 5 to 6 feet in the hills and mountains (National Resources
Conservation Service [NRCS] 1985).
In Klamath Falls, prevailing winds are southerly for November through February;
westerly from March through July; and northerly during August, September, and
October. Monthly wind speeds average from 4.4 miles per hour in September to
7.3 miles per hour in March (NRCS 1985).
2.3.2 Geology
The location of the site, in an area of transition between the Cascade Mountains and
the Basin and Range provinces, results in complex geology. The Klamath basin is
primarily composed of volcanic deposits with lowland fluviolacustrian deposits that
have been described as consolidated volcanic rocks consisting largely of lava;
CDM
NRE_Final FS_Section 2.doc
2-3
-------
Section 2
Site Characteristics
unconsolidated to semi-consolidated volcanic ejecta deposited around eruptive
centers; and lowland fluviolacustrian deposits consisting of dolomite, water-lain
volcanic sediment, tephra, and lava (U.S. Geological Survey [USGS] 1999b).
The Klamath basin is, in part, a composite graben formed by north and northwest
trending normal faults. Vertical displacements are generally less than 330 feet but
locally exceed 1,000 feet (USGS 1999b). The Klamath graben fault system confines the
Klamath Lake basin at the intersection of the northwestern Basin and Range and
Cascade Mountains in southern Oregon. The slip rate along this fault system is
between 0.2 and 1.0 millimeter per year (mm/year). The Klamath graben fault system
is divided into three sections: the west Klamath Lake section, the east Klamath Lake
section, and the south Klamath Lake section. Faults in the south Klamath Lake section
form composite grabens in the vicinity of Klamath Falls. To the north, large
escarpments on Miocene and Pliocene bedrock define a graben that confines Upper
Klamath Lake; fault scarps are formed on Holocene and Pleistocene talus deposits
along these escarpments. The lack of extensive alluvial fans at the mouths of canyons
that empty into Upper Klamath Lake may indicate late Quaternary subsidence along
the margins of the Upper Klamath Basin. South of Klamath Falls, the graben system
widens into a series of fault blocks and grabens (USGS 2002).
2.3.3 Surface Water
The site is located within the Upper Klamath Lake subbasin of the Upper Klamath
basin. Klamath Lake, the largest freshwater lake in Oregon and one of the largest in
the United States, is located in the Upper Klamath Lake watershed. The Upper
Klamath basin covers 5.6 million acres, with the Upper Klamath Lake subbasin
comprising nearly 500,000 acres (USGS 1999a).
In the arid to semi-arid locations of Klamath County, most precipitation-replenished
soil moisture evaporates or is transpired by vegetation. Little is left to maintain stream
flow or recharge aquifers. Precipitation that falls as snow generally does not become
runoff until spring thaws begin (USGS 1999b).
The occurrence of surface water at the site is limited to an intermittent stream that
flows north from the site, roughly following Old Fort Road. The stream ultimately
terminates at a canal for Upper Klamath Lake that is used to irrigate lands in the Lost
River basin of Oregon and California.
2.3.4 Groundwater
The primary hydrogeologic units in Klamath County were described in 1958,1970,
and 1974, as: (1) a highly permeable lower (older) basalt unit, which serves as the
principal aquifer in the area; (2) the Yonna Formation (a medial zone of stratified
lacustrine deposits consisting of tuff, agglomerate, shale, diatomite, sandstone, and
volcanic ash with some volcanic intrusives or interbeds of thin lava flows), which
primarily confines groundwater; and (3) upper, younger units (lava flow forming cap
rock in place, eruptive deposits, and alluvium), which occur above the water table or
yield small quantities of perched water (USGS 1999a).
CDM
NRE_Final FS_Section 2.doc
-------
Section 2
Site Characteristics
USGS has worked to improve the earlier descriptions of the aquifer system in
Klamath County. The USGS classifies the aquifer system underlying much of Klamath
County, including the area covered by the site, as a volcanic and sedimentary rock
aquifer. The volcanic rocks that compose the aquifers consist primarily of Pliocene
and younger basaltic rocks; unconsolidated volcanic deposits included in the aquifers
are ash and cinders. The sedimentary rocks that compose the aquifers consist
primarily of semi-consolidated sand and gravel eroded mostly from volcanic rocks. In
some places, the aquifer might consist of a single rock type; in other places, the
aquifers might consist of several inter bedded rock types (USGS 1999b).
The hydrogeologic characteristics of the volcanic and sedimentary rock aquifers are
largely unknown. Also, the subsurface extent of these aquifers is largely unknown
because of limited outcrop areas where they are shown overlaying older rocks or
because they are too deep for many wells to reach economically. In Klamath and Lake
counties, the volcanic and sedimentary rock aquifers are extremely permeable in
places, and large quantities of water are withdrawn by wells for public supply,
domestic, commercial, agricultural, and industrial purposes (USGS 1999a).
A geothermal system within the Klamath Basin is indicated by the occurrence of hot
springs and hundreds of warm water wells in the vicinity of the City of Klamath Falls
and areas to the south near Olene Gap and Klamath Hills (USGS 1999a).
Basin and range style faulting has divided the Klamath basin into a series of small
subbasins. It has been indicated that geologic structures generally impact
groundwater flow locally rather than having basin-wide impacts and that
groundwater moves freely across fault zones in most areas. In addition, it has been
found that regional, intermediate, and local groundwater flow occurs within the
Klamath Basin. Groundwater flow between subbasins has been speculated to occur,
although supporting data are limited. Earlier work has identified uplands as the
primary groundwater recharge areas for all the flow systems because of greater
precipitation and permeability. Discharge occurs locally in mountain slope springs
and nearby lowlands and regionally at the lowest basin elevations, via upward
seepage and springs (USGS 1999a).
A domestic supply well was installed in August of 2000, approximately 0.8 miles
north of the site at a residence on Old Fort Road. Groundwater was first encountered
at 518 feet below ground surface (bgs) during drilling; the static water level of this
well is 378 feet bgs.
2.3.5 Demography and Land Use
According to Klamath County tax lot records, land purchased for the NRE
subdivision includes land in tax lots of Sections 14 and 15, Township 38 South, Range
9 East, and covers approximately 422 acres. The tax lots in Section 15 comprise
approximately 250 acres and include properties along Old Fort Road, Hunter's Ridge
Drive, North Ridge Drive, and Thicket Court, as well as several parcels on Scott
Valley Road. In addition, tax parcels in Section 14 (14-500,14-600,14-700,14-800,
CDM
NRE_Final FS_Section 2.doc
2-5
-------
Section 2
Site Characteristics
14-801, and 14-900), described as "North Ridge Estates 3rd Addition/' comprise 172.44
acres of the NRE subdivision.
The developed area of the subdivision along Old Fort Road and North Ridge Drive
currently includes 23 single-family homes, 8 undeveloped vacant lots, a warehouse,
and a memorial park. Oregon DHS (2004) indicated that in 2002 there were 77
residents, including 35 children, in the developed area of the site. The developed area
east of Old Fort Road includes several homes, a five-unit apartment building (the
former MRB brig), the Thicket Court residential homes, and additional vacant lots.
According to the 2000 U.S. Census, there are 98 residents within one-half mile of the
site. Land to the west, east, and north of the site is zoned for forestry, animal
husbandry, and agriculture (CDM 2010).
Within the site boundary, only six homes remain occupied west of Old Fort Road.
These include parcels F, P, N, AQ, BS, and BR. The total number of people living full
time at these four parcels is between 12 and 14. The parcels east of Old Fort Road
remain occupied. Private ownership of parcels within the site is shown in Figure 1-3.
2.4 Summary of Nature and Extent of Contamination
This section discusses the nature and extent of contamination of ACM and asbestos
and non-ACM at the site.
2.4.1 ACM
The types of ACM present at NRE include CAB, VAT, floor tile mastic, roofing
material, and insulation (AirCell and MAG), with tar paper used in steam piping. The
types of asbestos contained in these materials are chrysotile and amosite. The asbestos
content of these materials varies from <1 percent to 55 percent, depending on the
material (Ecology and Environment [E&E] 2006). The following exhibit summarizes
the different types and concentration of asbestos observed in each type of building
material at the site:
Exhibit 2-2. Building Material Type and Asbestos Content
Material Type
Asbestos Type
Percent Asbestos
CAB
Chrysotile
3-25
Roofing Material
Chrysotile
30-45
VAT
Chrysotile
<1 -10
AirCell
Chrysotile
35-40
MAG Insulation
Chrysotile
3-40
Amosite
20-55
Tar Paper
Chrysotile
35-40
Notes: < - less than
2-6
CDM
NRE_Final FS_Section 2.doc
-------
Section 2
Site Characteristics
ACM is present at the site as both dispersed material at the surface scattered across
the site and concentrated in burial areas and as pipe insulation, shown in Figure 1-2.
The findings from the RI report are summarized below (CDM 2010):
Exhibit 2-3. Summary of RI Findings
General
Location
Specific
Location
Surficial ACM
Subsurface ACM
Large Land Units
WWTP
App. 5,000 ft2 as building
debris.
None observed
Landfill
App. 311,893 ft2 as building
debris.
App. 8,890 cy in a centralized
location
Swimming Pool
App. 65,240 ft2 as building
debris.
App. 270 cy
Surface Area of
Site
See Figure 2-1
App. 54.65 acres (2,380,637
ft ) as dispersed debris across
the site.
N/A
Burial Areas
See Figure 2-2
Most, but not all, of the burial
areas are associated with
ACM observed at the surface.
Est. 39,328 cy of material,
generally shallow depth (2.6 ft
deep) but occasionally up to
10 ft deep
See the row "Surface Area of
Site".
Est. 36,736 cy of material
between surface and 6 inches
bgs
Buried Steam
Piping
See Figure 2-4
Included as surficial debris.
Est. 12,203 If of ACM-
wrapped pipe
(Kennedy/Jenks);
Est. 14,695 If of ACM
wrapped pipe (OTI Survey)
Notes: App.-approximate; Est.-estimated; bgs-below ground surface; WWTP - waste water treatment plant; ACM -
asbestos containing material; cy - cubic yards; ft2 - square feet; ft - feet; If - linear feet
Key findings from the ACM investigation included the following:
¦ Surficial ACM, meaning visually present at the surface and observed by field
personnel, is present across 54.65 acres of the site, as shown in Figure 2-1.
¦ Discrete burial areas, at an average depth of 2.6 feet, but ranging from 4 inches to
10 feet, are present in many areas of the site, as shown in Figure 2-2. In addition
discrete surficial areas ranged from the surface to 6 inches bgs. The total amount of
buried material in discrete locations across the site has been estimated to be
approximately 76,064 cy.
¦ MAG and AirCell are randomly distributed in most general areas containing ACM,
as shown in Figure 2-3. The specific location of surficial MAG or AirCell follows no
pattern.
CDM
NRE_Final FS_Section 2.doc
2-7
-------
Section 2
Site Characteristics
¦ Buried steam pipe with asbestos insulation is present across much of the site, as
shown in Figure 2-4. It is estimated that there are 14,695 linear feet of steam pipe at
an average depth of approximately 4 feet bgs. Removal activities conducted in 2008
confirmed the presence of steam pipe in locations identified by the OTI survey;
therefore, the OTI survey data was plotted in Figure 2-4 rather than Kennedy/Jenks
data. The total estimated steam pipe length provided by Kennedy/Jenks is shown
in Exhibit 2-3.
¦ Although some of the ACM areas are near still-visible floor slabs, many of the
burial areas do not appear to be connected to any specific historic building location.
Surficial ACM is present in some, but not all, burial areas and, thus, cannot reliably
be used as an indicator of burial.
¦ There are a number of areas where neither buried ACM nor surficial ACM have
been investigated. These areas include locations where parcel access was not
granted or along steep slopes and/ or heavily vegetated areas where safe access is
not feasible. Two parcels owned by Budden (Parcel BR and BS), a parcel owned by
Newton (Parcel AV), and a parcel owned by Easley (Parcel AX) denied access for
investigation activities.
¦ Based on the findings of all investigations conducted at the site, changes to the site
boundary were made so that the boundary includes only those areas where
contamination associated with MRB demolition, including ACM and/or asbestos,
have been observed and/ or detected with the exception of the former firing range.
2.4.2 Asbestos Fibers in Dust, Air, and Soil
Key findings regarding the occurrence of free asbestos fibers in site media are
summarized below.
¦ Asbestos fibers were not detected in indoor dust at homes remaining occupied in
the footprint of the former MRB facility. Only one asbestos structure was observed;
however, this was not a polarized light microscopy equivalent (PCME) fiber.
¦ Currently, asbestos fibers have been observed in indoor and outdoor ambient air
below a risk level of 1E-06 that is usually considered to be negligible by EPA and
Oregon DEQ; however, these inhalation exposure pathways may be of concern in
the future.
¦ ABS sampling showed the concentration of asbestos fibers observed in outdoor air
is elevated when the soil is disturbed even when surficial ACM has been removed
and the soil is non-detect by polarized light microscopy (PLM) analysis for free
asbestos fibers. However, the PLM analysis method for the measurement of free
asbestos fibers present in soil has not been well developed. In general, values lower
than about 1 percent are highly uncertain.
CDM
NRE_Final FS_Section 2.doc
-------
Section 2
Site Characteristics
¦ Free amosite asbestos fibers have only been observed in one soil sample collected at
the site at a concentration of 0.75 percent by PLM analysis indicating that free
amosite fibers are not detected at a high frequency in surface soils at the site at
sensitivities evaluated.
¦ ACM has been observed to make up between 0.01 and 11 percent by weight of soil
at the site.
The BLRA, summarized in Section 2.6, provides information regarding the
interpretation of these results for site-specific exposures.
2.4.3 Non-ACM Contamination
Historical uses at the site, including operation of the MRB and the college campus,
included activities associated with the potential releases of non-ACM COIs. Several
non-ACM COIs were detected during the non-ACM soil investigation completed in
June 2006, which indicated that such releases have occurred in the past. The COIs that
were detected above screening level values (SLVs) are summarized in Exhibit 2-4
below:
Exhibit 2-4. Non-ACM Contaminants of Interest Detected Above
Screening Level Values
Analyte/Location
Power Plant
Maintenance Shop
Laundry Building
Landfill
OTI Maintenance Shop
Paint Shops
Service Station
Fire Station
Rifle Range
TPH
Gasoline-Range
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Diesel-Range
X
X
NC
X
X
X
X
X
NC
Motor-Oil-Range
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Organic Contaminants
EDC
X
X
~
X
~
X
X
NC
NC
TCE
X
X
~
X
~
X
X
SVOCs
X
NC
X
X
NC
X
X
NC
NC
PCBs
X
NC
NC
X
NC
X
X
NC
NC
Pesticides
NC
NC
NC
X
NC
X
X
NC
NC
Metals
Arsenic*
~
X
NC
~
X
X
X
NC
X
Lead
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
CDM
NRE_Final FS_Section 2.doc
-------
Section 2
Site Characteristics
Exhibit 2-4. Non-ACM Contaminants of Interest Detected Above
Screening Level Values (continued)
Notes: X - all results are below established SLVs for the listed compound; S - at least one sample result is above
the established SLV; NC - samples for this parameter were not collected at this location; * - The summary for arsenic
concentrations only indicates locations where observed levels are above the SLV and the expected background
levels; EDC - 1,2-dichloroethane; TCE - trichloroethylene; PCB - polychlorinated biphenyl; SVOC - semi volatile
organic compounds; SLV - screening level value; VOC - volatile organic compounds; TPH - total petroleum
hydrocarbons
Coal is known to contain low levels of metals such as arsenic and arsenic could have
accumulated as a byproduct of coal combustion during the operation of the former
power plant. The analytical results from soil samples collected in 2006 ranged from
0.5 to 27.2 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg). All sample results were above the EPA
Region 6 SLVs.
Indoor air, sub-slab air, and soil gas samples collected in 2008 indicate the presence of
some VOCs in various sample types in the vicinity of residential homes. VOCs
detected include chloroform, 1,2-dichloroethane (EDC), benzene, trichloroethylene
(TCE), and tetracholorethylene (PCE). Chloroform and TCE were only detected at a
few locations on site. Benzene was detected in all samples collected and EDC was
detected in nearly all samples. PCE also had a high frequency of detection. The
concentrations of EDC, benzene, and PCE in the samples were below background
concentrations from residential indoor air of homes across the United States with
exception of EDC which does not have an established background concentration per
the BLRA Addendum. Overall comparison of gas concentrations between the
different locations (i.e. sub-slab, crawlspace, or living space) indicates that the
majority of these low-level VOC detections are a result of other indoor air sources
common to residential homes. The homogeneity in sample concentrations at different
homes indicates the low-level VOC detections may also be a result of ambient air
conditions.
Based on a qualitative assessment of risks to ecological receptors, there are potential
risks associated with pesticides (DDT and DDE) in debris and soil within the former
landfill. The analytical results from soil samples collected in 2006 ranged from 0.026 to
1.6 mg/kg for DDT and non-detect to 0.16J mg/kg for DDE ("]" indicates an
estimated concentration value).
2.5 Summary of Sampling and Analysis Methods
Various sampling and analysis methods may be used to determine the presence of
asbestos fiber in different media, such as soil and air. The following list provides
examples of these types of methods that have been implemented as part of the
remedial activity and risk assessment evaluation at the site:
¦ ABS - ABS simulates routine activities that would be conducted by users of the site
to estimate potential exposures. Personal air samples are collected from contractors
engaged in the activity and analyzed for asbestos fibers using transmission electron
microscopy (TEM) analysis.
2-10 CDM
NRE Final FS Section 2.doc
-------
Section 2
Site Characteristics
¦ Ambient air sampling - Ambient air sampling is completed by establishing
stationary air monitoring stations within the vicinity or downwind of contaminated
areas and collecting continuous air samples using a pump and air filtering cassette.
The purpose of ambient air sampling is to determine the extent of friable asbestos
fiber release from the soil. Weather data are also collected to correlate weather
conditions with measured releases of asbestos fibers. Samples are analyzed for
asbestos fibers using TEM analysis.
¦ PLM with stereomicroscopy analysis - Soil samples were analyzed using
EPA/600/R-93/116 with a modified protocol that will use a combination of PLM
and stereomicroscopy analysis to identify bulk ACM and/or asbestos fibers that
may be present in soils.
¦ Visual inspection - A visual inspection of ACM is completed by first designating
inspection areas to establish a boundary around the inspection zone. The soil is
then visually inspected for ACM material using an intrusive or non-intrusive
method, described as follows:
- Non-Intrusive Visual Inspection: A non-intrusive (surficial) visual inspection of
the immediate ground surface to determine the presence or absence of ACM
debris.
- Intrusive Visual Inspection: An intrusive visual inspection of the subsurface
(using excavations or boreholes) to determine the presence or absence of ACM
debris.
The visible ACM is then flagged to document spatial location and a quantitative
estimate is provided to document the amount of ACM observed.
2.6 Summary of Baseline Risk Assessments
Pursuant to federal regulations (National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution
Contingency Plan [NCP] Part 300.430(d)(2)), EPA is required to:
".. .characterize the nature of and threat posed by the hazardous substances and
hazardous materials and gather data necessary to assess the extent to which the
release poses a threat to human health or the environment..
This section summarizes the findings of the BLRA performed for EPA by Syracuse
Research Corporation (SRC 2009 & SRC 2010).
2.6.1 Baseline Human Health Risk Assessment
2.6.1.1 Scope of the Assessment
The BLRA (SRC 2009a & SRC 2009b) evaluated the current and potential future health
risks posed to humans (residents, workers) by asbestos and other non-ACM
contaminants (metals, solvents, pesticides, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons [PAHs],
CDM
NRE_Final FS_Section 2.doc
-------
Section 2
Site Characteristics
PCBs, petroleum hydrocarbons) at the site if no steps are taken to remediate the
environment or to reduce contact with contaminated environmental media.
2.6.1.2 Exposure and Risk from Asbestos
The main reason for human health concern at the site is the presence of ACM in
surface soil. ACM at the surface can breakdown over time, releasing asbestos fibers
into the soil. When disturbed, these fibers can enter the air where they can be inhaled
by humans. Inhalation of asbestos is known to increase the risk of several serious
diseases, including lung cancer, mesothelioma, and asbestosis. Cancer risks to
residents and workers under current site conditions were estimated based on
measurements of asbestos levels in three types of air:
¦ General outdoor air (ambient air)
¦ Air inside homes (indoor air)
¦ Air above a location where soil is being disturbed by an activity, such as raking or
digging
Cancer risks in the future were determined by estimating how much higher the level
of asbestos fibers in soil might be in the future (after all of the ACM has migrated to
the surface and broken down) compared to levels of fibers in soil now and
multiplying the current risk estimates by the estimated increase. Exhibit 2-5
summarizes the estimated current and future risk to residents from these pathways:
Exhibit 2-5. Current and Future Potential Cancer Risk to Residents from
Asbestos
Exposure
Scenario
Type of ACM
Current Risk Level
Potential Future
Risk Level
Soil disturbance
Poorly friable ACM
3E-05
3E-03 to 3E-02
Easily friable ACM (MAG)
1E-03
2E-03 to 4E-03
Indoor air
-
7E-07
7E-05 to 7E-04
Ambient air
-
2E-07
2E-05 to 2E-04
Total
Poorly friable ACM
3E-05
3E-03 to 3E-02
Easily friable ACM (MAG)
1E-03
2E-03 to 5E-03
In general, the EPA considers excess cancer risks that are below 1E-06 to be so small
as to be negligible, and risks above 1E-04 to be sufficiently large that some sort of
response action is desirable. Excess cancer risks that range between 1E-04 and 1E-06
are generally considered to be acceptable (USEPA 1991), although this is evaluated on
a case by case basis. The State of Oregon defines the level of acceptable risk level for
exposures of humans to a single carcinogen to be a lifetime excess cancer risk of one
per one million (1E-06) for an individual at an upper-bound exposure (ORS 415.315,
OAR 340-122-115 (2)(a)).
2-12
CDM
NRE_Final FS_Section 2.doc
-------
Section 2
Site Characteristics
Risks to residents from indoor air and ambient air appear to be below EPA and
Oregon DEQ acceptable risk ranges under current site conditions. Likewise risks from
soil disturbances under current site conditions are below EPA acceptable risk ranges
but above Oregon DEQ limits when poorly-friable ACM is present. Both EPA and
Oregon DEQ risk limits from current soil disturbances are exceeded in cases where
friable asbestos (e.g., MAG insulation) is present.
No data have been collected to estimate the levels of asbestos that may occur in air as
a consequence of construction- or excavation-related soil disturbance activities.
Therefore, risks to workers from soil disturbances were estimated using the same ABS
air data but modified exposure factors in a similar approach as for exposure of
residents during active soil disturbances. The results are summarized in Exhibit 2-6
below:
Exhibit 2-6. Estimated Risk to Workers under Current Site
Conditions from Asbestos
ACM Type
Worker Category
Construction
Excavation
Poorly friable
4E-06
1E-07
Readily friable
2E-04
8E-06
At locations where only poorly friable ACM is present, risks to construction and
excavation workers do not currently exceed the risk level of 1E-04 that EPA usually
considers acceptable but do exceed the risk level of 1E-06 that Oregon DEQ considers
acceptable.
Estimates of potential future risk to workers are summarized in Exhibit 2-7 below:
Exhibit 2-7. Estimated Future Risks to Workers from Asbestos
ACM Type
Worker Category
Construction
Excavation
Poorly friable
4E-04 to 4E-03
1E-05 to 1E-04
Readily friable
4E-04 to 8E-04
2E-05 to 3E-05
It is expected that future risks to construction workers are likely to exceed both EPA
and Oregon DEQ's maximum risk ranges, while risks to excavation workers are likely
remain at or below EPA's maximum acceptable risk level of 1E-04 but will be above
Oregon DEQ's maximum risk of 1E-06. It is expected that risk levels from asbestos
will increase in the future because of continuing transport of ACM from the
subsurface to surface soil and continuing breakdown of ACM at the surface to yield
free asbestos fibers in soil. The time course of future increases in free asbestos levels in
surface soil is not known, but is likely to require many years. Screening level
calculations suggest the ultimate magnitude of the increase in free fibers (and hence in
CDM
NRE_Final FS_Section 2.doc
2-13
-------
Section 2
Site Characteristics
risk) is likely to be on the order of 100 to 1000 fold. If so, then future risks for all of the
three exposure pathways are likely to approach or exceed the level of 1E-04 that EPA
considers to be the maximum excess risk that is acceptable. In particular the soil
disturbance pathway would be of special concern, with predicted future risks ranging
into the 1E-03 to 1E-02 range.
If all or part of the site were converted to non-residential land uses, future risks to
humans would be lower than if the site remained residential, but would likely
continue to exceed EPA and Oregon DEQ's acceptable cancer risk range, especially for
land uses where regular soil disturbances continued to occur.
It is important to emphasize that these quantitative estimates of risk are uncertain due
to a number of factors including uncertainty in measured asbestos levels in air and
soil under current site conditions, uncertainty in future exposure levels, and
uncertainties in the best cancer risk model to use. However, these uncertainties do not
substantially alter the key conclusions that risks are likely to be much higher in the
future if no steps are taken to prevent future migration and breakdown of ACM and
release of fibers into surface soil.
2.6.1.3 Exposure and Risk from Non-ACM Contaminants
Exposure and risk to residents and workers were evaluated for non-ACM
contaminants that were detected in site soils. A screening evaluation of these non-
ACM contaminants was used to identify which COI would require further
assessment.
The COI selection procedure is based on a comparison of the maximum detected
concentration in onsite soil to an SLV in soil. An SLV is a concentration in soil that is
believed to be without significant risk of either cancer or non-cancer effects. For
carcinogens, the SLV is based on an excess cancer risk of 1E-06. For non-carcinogens,
the SLV is based on a Hazard Quotient (HQ) of 0.1. If the maximum concentration in
soil does not exceed the SLV, the contaminants may be eliminated as a COI. If the
maximum concentration exceeds the SLV, the contaminant is retained as a COPC. If a
contaminant does not have an SLV, or if the contaminant was never detected but the
detection limit used in the analysis was higher than the SLV, the data are not
sufficient to determine if the contaminant is of potential concern, and this is identified
as a source of uncertainty.
Both the Region 6 and Oregon SLVs values for soil consider the following exposure
pathways:
¦ Incidental ingestion of soil and dust
¦ Dermal contact with soil
¦ Inhalation of soil particles in outdoor air (non-volatile contaminants)
¦ Inhalation of volatile contaminants in outdoor air
CDM
NRE_Final FS_Section 2.doc
-------
Section 2
Site Characteristics
Soil samples from the site were analyzed for a total of 150 different contaminants (8
metals, 15 PAHs, 73 SVOCs, 52 VOCs, and 2 TPH fractions). Of these, only eight
contaminants were identified in which the maximum detected concentration
exceeded the SLV:
¦ Arsenic
¦ Mercury
¦ EDC
¦ Benzene
¦ Chloroform
¦ cis-l,2-Dichloroethylene (DCE)
¦ PCE
¦ TCE
These eight contaminants were retained as COPCs for further evaluation of risks to
residents, as described below.
SLVs were developed for construction and excavation workers (Oregon DEQ 2007).
There were no contaminants whose maximum concentration exceeded the SLV for
excavation workers and only one contaminant (arsenic) whose maximum
concentration (27 mg/kg) was above the SLV for construction workers (13 mg/kg).
Two samples exceed the construction worker SLV, one at the former power plant, and
one at the former landfill. However, likely estimates of average concentration at the
landfill are below the SLV. Therefore, only arsenic in soil at the former power plant
was retained as a COPC for the construction worker.
Based on the 2008 investigation, non-cancer risks from inhalation of VOCs in indoor
air appear to be below a level of concern (HQ < 1) for current and future residents at
NRE and estimated excess cancer risks are within or below EPA's and Oregon DEQ's
risk range. This finding is consistent with previous and updated findings based on
data collected in 2007, and with most but not all of the samples collected in 2006.
Based on the weight of evidence, it is concluded that the initial indication of concern
identified based on the 2006 dataset likely had quality assurance/quality control
(QA/QC) problems, and that intrusion of VOCs from subsurface soil into indoor air
appears to be minimal, if in fact this pathway is complete.
2.6.2 Ecological Risk Assessment
EPA Region 10 and SRC have prepared an evaluation of risks to ecological receptors
in basic accord with EPA guidance for performing an ERA. The intent of the ERA is to
assess the risks from asbestos and other non-ACM contaminants to ecological
CDM
NRE_Final FS_Section 2.doc
2-15
-------
Section 2
Site Characteristics
receptors (birds, mammals, plants, soil organisms) at the site if no steps were taken to
remediate the contaminated soil.
2.6.2.1 Ecological Risks from Asbestos
The EPA has not yet established any benchmark values for assessing risks to
ecological receptors from oral or inhalation exposure to asbestos. Therefore, it is not
possible to perform a quantitative risk evaluation based on the HQ approach. Further,
even if such benchmarks were available, estimating the level of wildlife exposure to
asbestos from ACM in soil would be very difficult and risk estimates would be highly
uncertain. For these reasons, the assessment of risks to ecological receptors from
asbestos at this site is performed in a qualitative manner. The main qualitative
conclusions are as follows:
¦ Wildlife receptors with large home ranges (most birds and most large mammals)
are expected to be present at the site only intermittently and consequently the
average level of exposure to asbestos would tend to be low. In contrast, receptors
that have small home ranges and that reside on the site are likely to have a high
frequency of contact with ACM and would likely have the highest risk. This would
include, for example, small ground-dwelling mammals such as mice and voles, and
birds with relative small home ranges (e.g., robin).
¦ Based on the data derived from ABS studies, it appears that the levels of free
asbestos fibers in surface soil under current site conditions are relatively low in
most areas (except where MAG or possibly AirCell is present). Thus, similar to the
situation with humans, exposures (and presumably risks) of small home range
receptors to surface fibers under current site conditions are likely to be low.
Exposures and risks to animals that burrow into the soil might tend to be higher,
especially if the receptor actually chews on or digs through the ACM.
¦ In the future, if no action is taken to prevent release and breakdown of ACM at the
surface, levels of free fibers would be higher and exposure (both oral and
inhalation) of small home range receptors would tend to increase. It is not known
whether such future exposures would result in adverse effects on any populations
of exposed receptors.
¦ No data were located to indicate that asbestos is toxic to plants, and there is little
reason to suppose that it is. However, pieces of ACM that emerge on the surface
may impair plant growth by physically covering the soil and preventing exposure
of plants to sun and water.
¦ No data were located to indicate whether asbestos is toxic to soil invertebrates such
as earthworms. However, it is considered likely that earthworms will have direct
contact with free fibers in soil and will also ingest fibers while feeding. Thus,
adverse effects on earthworms could be of potential concern.
CDM
NRE_Final FS_Section 2.doc
-------
Section 2
Site Characteristics
¦ Methods are not presently available to support quantitative evaluation of risks to
ecological receptors from asbestos. Based on current site conditions, it is expected
that risks are likely to be low for large home range receptors, but might be of
concern for small home range receptors, especially those that burrow into the
ground and/ or chew on ACM. Risks would be expected to increase in the future as
ACM continues to break down and release free fibers into the environment.
2.6.2.2 Ecological Risks from Non-ACM Contaminants
Screening-level HQ values for metals must be interpreted with caution because most
benchmark values for metals are based on the assumption that the metal is present in
a soluble form, while most of the metals in soil are likely to be present as poorly
soluble minerals that are not well absorbed when ingested. To investigate further, the
risk assessment compared the concentrations of observed values of metals in soils at
the site to levels seen in background soils in Oregon or from values used in the
derivation of EPA's "Eco-SSL" (ecological soil screening level) values. As indicated in
the risk assessment none of the metals in site soils occur in concentration ranges
higher than these estimates of background soils. However, arsenic concentrations do
appear elevated relative to other areas within the site at the former power plant.
Because the power plant is a very small area relative to the home range of likely
ecological receptors, and because the measured concentrations are low relative to
regional estimates of background, it is concluded that metals in soils are not of
significant ecological concern at the site.
Most organic compounds in site soils were below a level of concern at all locations,
except for DDE and DDT. These two analytes were detected at levels of potential
concern in one area of the site (the landfill). These results indicate that ecological
receptors, including birds, mammals, plants, and soil invertebrates, that reside
entirely or mainly in the landfill area may be at risk from adverse effects of DDT and
DDE. EPA has subsequently performed an evaluation that indicates ecological risks
from DDT and DDE at the landfill do not require further consideration in this FS.
Additional details regarding this issue are documented in the Administrative Record
for the site.
2.7 Summary of Site Characteristics
Based on the information currently available and presented in this summary of the RI
report, the following conclusions have been drawn regarding the site:
¦ Current site conditions are such that MAG and AirCell containing friable amosite
and chrysotile present a current risk to residents when soil containing this type of
ACM is disturbed by routine outdoor activities. Given the current risk and the
widespread distribution of MAG and AirCell at the site, remedial actions are
required at the site to mitigate current exposures.
¦ Due to the potential for future increased risk to residents at the site from ACM that
is yet to break down, remedial actions should also include alternatives that reduce
CDM
NRE_Final FS_Section 2.doc
2-17
-------
Section 2
Site Characteristics
future exposures to residents and/or can prevent further emergence of ACM to the
surface that results in weathering causing the release of asbestos fibers to site soils.
¦ Currently, asbestos fibers have been observed in indoor and outdoor ambient air
below a risk level of 1E-06 that is usually considered to be negligible by EPA and
Oregon DEQ; however, these inhalation exposure pathways may be of concern in
the future.
¦ Non-ACM COIs that exceeded SLVs in soil include: arsenic, mercury, EDC,
benzene, chloroform, DCE, PCE, and TCE. There were no contaminants whose
maximum concentration exceeded the SLV for excavation workers and only arsenic
was above the SLV for construction workers. Therefore, only arsenic in soil at the
former power plant was retained as a COPC for the construction worker.
¦ Methods are not presently available to support quantitative evaluation of risks to
ecological receptors from asbestos. Based on current site conditions, it is expected
that risks are likely to be low for large home range receptors, but might be of
concern for small home range receptors, especially those that burrow into the
ground and/ or chew on ACM. Risks would be expected to increase in the future as
ACM continues to break down and release free fibers into the environment.
¦ Non-asbestos contaminants do not appear to be of concern to ecological receptors
except for the potential for risks from DDT and DDE in the landfill. However,
further study would be needed to reliably characterize the magnitude of these
risks. EPA has subsequently performed an evaluation that indicates ecological risks
from DDT and DDE at the landfill do not require further consideration in this FS.
Additional details regarding this issue are documented in the Administrative
Record for the site.
The FS evaluates potential remedial alternatives to address risks to human health and
the environment posed by contamination at the site.
2-18 CDM
NRE Final FS Section 2.doc
-------
Section 3
Remedial Action Objectives
Section 300.430(e) of the NCP requires that the remedial
alternative development process be initiated by developing
PR AOs, identifying general response actions that address
these PR AOs, and performing an initial screening of applicable
remedial technologies. The goal of the remedy selection
process is "to select remedies that are protective of human
health and the environment, maintain protection over time,
and minimize untreated waste."
PRAOs are media-specific and source-specific goals achieved
through completion of a remedial action that is protective of
human health and the environment. These objectives are
typically expressed in terms of the contaminant, the
concentration of the contaminant, and the exposure route and
receptor.
PRAOs are typically developed by evaluating several sources
of information, including results of the BLRA and ERA and
tentatively identified ARARs. These inputs provide the basis
for determination of whether protection of human health and
the environment is achieved for a remedial alternative.
This section presents the ARARs, PRAOs, and the PRGs that
are tentatively identified for the site. Final ARARs, remedial
action objectives (RAOs), and remedial goals (RGs) will be
developed from evaluations presented within this FS and set
forth in the ROD as performance standards for any and all
remedial design and subsequent remedial actions.
3.1 Applicable or Relevant and
Appropriate Requirements
Identification and evaluation of ARARs are integral components of the FS process to
determine whether remedial alternatives can protect human health and the
environment. The following paragraphs were developed from EPA's Introduction to
Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements (EPA 1998); they give an overview
of why ARARs must be identified and evaluated as part of the CERCLA process.
CERCLA and the NCP establish a standardized process through which EPA must
respond to spills and clean up the nation's most dangerous hazardous waste sites. The
CERCLA response process, while it sets acceptable risk-based goals for cleanups, does
not impose specific restrictions on the various activities (such as treatment, storage,
and disposal of wastes, construction and use of remediation equipment, and release of
contaminants into air, soil, and water) that may occur during a response. EPA instead
CDM
3-1
NRE Final FS Section 3.doc
-------
Section 3
Remedial Action Objectives
relies on other federal and state environmental laws and regulations to govern
response activities.
A site-specific risk assessment is the foundation on which the selection of a CERCLA
remedy is based. When developing PRCs, EPA and Oregon DEQ must also consider
readily available, generically applicable information, such as chemical-specific
ARARs. In addition, when carrying out the chosen remedy, EPA and Oregon DEQ
must implement other substantive and administrative requirements that are
applicable or relevant and appropriate to the conditions or actions at each CERCLA
site. These ARARs may affect a remedial or a removal response by limiting
concentrations of hazardous substances present in wastes or discharges, restricting
activities at sensitive locations, or regulating certain actions such as the design and
operation of cleanup equipment.
The laws that most often contribute ARARs to the CERCLA response process are
federal environmental laws, but other federal, state, and local standards may also be
applicable or relevant and appropriate to CERCLA activities. ARARs fill in the
substantive gaps in CERCLA's risk-based response framework, ensuring protection of
human health and the environment.
EPA and Oregon DEQ have conducted initial discussion concerning potential federal
and state ARARs and have tentatively identified regulations that may be applicable or
relevant and appropriate to the site. Appendix B constitutes the initial identification
and detailed description of ARARs for the implementation of a remedial action at the
site.
3.1.1 ARAR Identification Process
Determining exactly which laws and regulations will affect a CERCLA response is
somewhat different than determining the effect of laws and regulations on activities
that take place outside the boundaries of a site remediated under CERCLA. For onsite
activities, CERCLA requires compliance with both directly applicable requirements
(i.e., those that would apply to a given circumstance at any site or facility) and those
that EPA deems to be relevant and appropriate (even though they do not apply
directly), based on the unique conditions at a site.
ARARs are designated as either "applicable" or "relevant and appropriate,"
according to EPA guidance, and may stem either from federal or state law. ARARs
must be identified on a site-specific basis and involve a two-part analysis. A
determination must first be made on whether a given requirement is applicable. If it is
not applicable, then a second determination must be made on whether it is both
relevant and appropriate. When the analysis determines that a requirement is both
relevant and appropriate, such a requirement must be complied with to the same
degree as if it were applicable. Compliance with ARARs is a threshold criterion that
any selected remedy must meet unless a legal waiver as provided by CERCLA Section
121(d)(4) is invoked.
3-2
CDM
NRE_Final FS_Section 3.doc
-------
Section 3
Remedial Action Objectives
State requirements are potential ARARs for CERCLA response actions as long as they
meet the following eligibility criteria:
¦ State law or regulation
¦ Environmental or facility siting law or regulation
¦ Promulgated (of general applicability and legally enforceable)
¦ Substantive (not procedural or administrative)
¦ More stringent than federal requirements
¦ Identified in a timely manner
¦ Consistently applied
Many state requirements listed as ARARs are promulgated with identical or nearly
identical requirements to federal law pursuant to delegated environmental programs
administered by EPA and the state. The preamble to the NCP provides that such a
situation results in citation to the state provision and treatment of the provision as a
federal requirement.
3.1.1.1 Applicable Requirements
Section 300.5 of the NCP defines "applicable requirements" as cleanup standards,
standards of control, and other substantive environmental protection requirements,
criteria, or limitations promulgated under federal or state environmental laws that
specifically address a hazardous substance, pollutant, contaminant, removal action,
location, or other circumstances at a CERCLA site.
3.1.1.2 Relevant and Appropriate Requirements
Relevant and appropriate requirements specifically refer to cleanup standards,
standards of control, and other substantive requirements, criteria, or limitations
promulgated under federal or state environmental or facility siting laws. These
requirements are not directly applicable to hazardous substances, pollutants,
contaminants, remedial actions, locations, or other circumstances at a CERCLA site
but address problems or situations sufficiently similar (relevant) to those encountered
at the CERCLA site such that their use is well suited to the particular site.
The determination that a requirement is relevant and appropriate is a two-step
process: (1) the determination of whether a requirement is relevant and (2) the
determination of whether a requirement is appropriate. In general, this involves
comparing a number of site-specific factors, including examining the purpose of the
requirement and the purpose of the proposed CERCLA action, the medium and
substances regulated by the requirement and the proposed remedial action, the
actions or activities regulated by the requirement and the remedial action, and the
potential use of resources addressed in the requirement and the remedial action.
CDM
NRE_Final FS_Section 3.doc
-------
Section 3
Remedial Action Objectives
When the analysis results in a determination that a requirement is both relevant and
appropriate, such a requirement must be complied with to the same degree as if it
were applicable (EPA 1988).
3.1.1.3 Information to be Considered
In addition to ARARs, the NCP states that where ARARs do not exist, agency
advisories, criteria, or guidance are to be considered useful "in helping to determine
what is protective at a site or how to carry out certain actions or requirements"
(55 Federal Register 8745). These sources of information are referred to as TBC.
The NCP preamble states, however, that provisions in the TBC category "should not
be required as cleanup standards, because they are, by definition, generally neither
promulgated nor enforceable, so they do not have the same status under CERCLA as
do ARARs."Although not enforceable requirements, these documents are important
sources of information that EPA and the state may consider during selection of the
remedy, especially regarding the evaluation of public health and environmental risks,
or which will be referred to, as appropriate, in selecting and developing cleanup
actions [40 (Code of Federal Regulations) CFR § 300.400(g)(3), 40 CFR § 300.415(1)].
Appendix B contains a complete list of preliminary TBCs for the site.
3.1.1.4 Other Regulatory Requirements Not Considered ARARs
There are other laws and regulations that have not been identified as ARARs for the
site because they are not specifically related to environmental cleanup or facility
siting. One example would be the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT)
regulations for transport of hazardous and nonhazardous materials or wastes; another
would be Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) general
construction safety regulations.
3.1.2 Categories of ARARs
Environmental laws and regulations fit (more or less) into three categories: 1) those
that pertain to the management of certain chemicals; 2) those that restrict activities at
a given location; and 3) those that control specific actions. Thus there are three
primary types of ARARs: chemical-, location-, and action-specific. An ARAR can be
one or a combination of all three types of ARARs.
Chemical-specific requirements address chemical or physical characteristics of
compounds or substances on sites. These values establish acceptable amounts or
concentrations of contaminants that may be found in or discharged to the ambient
environment.
Location-specific requirements are restrictions placed on the concentrations of
hazardous substances or the conduct of cleanup activities because they are in specific
locations. Location-specific ARARs relate to the geographical or physical positions of
sites rather than the nature of contaminants at sites.
CDM
NRE_Final FS_Section 3.doc
-------
Section 3
Remedial Action Objectives
Action-specific requirements are usually technology-based or activity-based
requirements or limitations on actions taken with respect to hazardous substances,
pollutants, or contaminants. A given cleanup activity will trigger an action-specific
requirement. Such requirements do not themselves determine the cleanup alternative
but define how chosen cleanup methods should be performed.
3.1.3 Waivers of Specific ARARs
CERCLA Section 121(d)(4) authorizes that any ARAR may be waived under one of
the following six conditions if the protection of human health and the environment is
ensured:
¦ It is part of a total remedial action that will attain such level or standard of control
when completed (i.e., interim action waiver).
¦ Compliance with the ARAR at a given site will result in greater risk to human
health and the environment than alternative options that do not comply with the
ARAR.
¦ Compliance with such a requirement is technically impracticable from an
engineering perspective.
¦ The remedial action will attain a standard or performance equivalent to that
required by the ARARs through use of another method or approach.
¦ The ARAR in question is a state standard and the state has not consistently applied
(or demonstrated the intention to consistently apply) the ARAR in similar
circumstances at other sites.
¦ In meeting the ARAR, the selected remedial action will not ensure a balance
between the need for protection of public health and welfare and the environment
at the site and the availability of Superfund monies to respond to other facilities.
It is not anticipated that ARAR waivers will be required for selecting or
implementing a remedy at the site.
3.1.4 ARARs for Onsite and Offsite Actions
The types of legal requirements applying to CERCLA responses will differ to some
extent depending on whether the activity in question takes place on site or off site.
The term "on site" is defined in the NCP as "the areal extent of contamination and all
suitable areas in very close proximity to the contamination necessary for
implementation of the response action" (40 CFR § 300.5).
Implementation of onsite remedial actions for the site would not require federal, state,
or local permits in accordance with Section 121(e) of CERCLA. Onsite CERCLA
actions must comply with all substantive requirements that are "applicable" or
"relevant and appropriate." Offsite CERCLA actions would not only require
compliance with applicable requirements, but compliance with both substantive and
administrative components of the applicable regulations, as well. Exhibit 3-1 contains
CDM 35
-------
Section 3
Remedial Action Objectives
a summary of the scope and intent of ARARs with regards to onsite and offsite
actions.
Exhibit 3-1. Scope and Extent of ARARs
Scope of Requirements
Extent to Which Other
Requirements Apply
Onsite Compliance
Substantive
Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate
Offsite Compliance
Substantive and Administrative
Applicable Requirements
Permits are considered to be procedural or administrative requirements. Thus, onsite
activities of a remedial action for the site do not need obtain permits or meet other
administrative requirements contained in ARARs in accordance with Section 121(e) of
CERCLA. CERCLA Section 121(e)(1), 42 United States Code (U.S.C). § 9621(e)(1),
states, "No Federal, State, or local permit shall be required for the portion of any
removal or remedial action conducted entirely on site, where such remedial action is
selected and carried out in compliance with this section." The onsite activities must,
however, comply with substantive permit requirements.
In most cases, the classification of a particular requirement as substantive or
administrative will be clear, but some requirements may fall in an area between
provisions related primarily to program administration and those concerned
primarily with environmental and human health goals.
3.1.5 Identification of Potential ARARs for Remedial Alternatives
Appendix B lists potential ARARs and TBCs, and with a brief description of ARARs
for the implementation of a remedial action at the site. The ARARs are organized by
whether they are federal or Oregon ARARs or TBCs. The ARARs or group of related
ARARs included in Appendix B are identified by a statutory or regulatory citation,
followed by a brief explanation of the ARAR and how and to what extent the ARAR is
expected to apply to potential activities to be conducted. The tables in Appendix B
also identify whether the ARAR or TBC is chemical-, location-, and/or action-specific.
Appendix B identifies potential ARARs for the purpose of evaluating remedial
alternatives in this FS. The potential ARARs in this FS are not binding; final ARARs
will be determined in the ROD as performance standards for remedial design and
subsequent remedial actions.
3.1.6 Significant ARARs Affecting Protectiveness Determinations
The provisions of the following potential ARARs were identified as significant
ARARs affecting protectiveness determinations for remedial alternatives identified in
this FS.
The Oregon Environmental Cleanup Law (ORS 465.200 through ORS 465.900) and the
Oregon Hazardous Substance Remedial Action Rules (OAR 340-122) provide the
state's regulatory framework for the determination of removal and remedial action
necessary to assure protection of the present and future public health, safety and
CDM
NRE_Final FS_Section 3.doc
-------
Section 3
Remedial Action Objectives
welfare, and the environment in the event of a release or threat of a release of a
hazardous substance. These state laws and regulations have been identified as
"applicable" ARARs and thus compliance with the substantive requirements of these
laws and regulations is required.
CERCLA and the NCP form the federal laws and regulations under which a response
in the event of a release or threat of a release of a hazardous substance from an
abandoned site is performed.
Generally the substantive portions of the Oregon Environmental Cleanup Law and
Oregon Hazardous Substance Remedial Action Rules provide standards similar to
those within CERCLA and the NCP. However there are a few major differences that
fundamentally affect the determination of protectiveness.
Specifically, the NCP indicates the following regarding carcinogens:
¦ For known or suspected carcinogens, acceptable exposure levels are generally
concentration levels that represent an excess upper bound lifetime cancer risk to an
individual of between 1E-04 and 1E-06 using information on the relationship
between dose and response. The 1E-06 risk level shall be used as the point of
departure for determining remediation goals for alternatives when ARARs are not
available or are not sufficiently protective because of the presence of multiple
contaminants at a site or multiple pathways of exposure. (Section
300.430(e) (2) (i) (A) (2)).
The Oregon Hazardous Substance Remedial Action Rules indicate the following:
¦ "Acceptable risk level for human exposure to individual carcinogens" means for
deterministic risk assessments, a lifetime excess cancer risk of less than or equal to
one per one million (1E-06) for an individual at an upper-bound exposure (OAR
340-122-0115(2)(a).
This is a significant difference in determining protectiveness for remediation of the
primary carcinogen identified at the site (asbestos) since many of the analytical
techniques relied on for determination of risks from asbestos exposure have poor
sensitivity at low concentrations of asbestos fibers that pose risks at these levels. This
issue is discussed further in Section 3.4.1.
The issue of background concentrations of COPCs that are naturally occurring is
another aspect of the Oregon Hazardous Substance Remedial Action Rules that affects
the development of a PRG. Specifically the "Standards" section within OAR 340-122-
0040(2) (a) through (c) states:
¦ "In the event of a release of a hazardous substance, remedial actions shall be
implemented to achieve:
(a) Acceptable risk levels defined in OAR 340-122-0115, as demonstrated by a residual
risk assessment;
CDM
NRE_Final FS_Section 3.doc
-------
Section 3
Remedial Action Objectives
(b) Numeric cleanup standards developed as part of an approved generic remedy
identified or developed by the Department (Oregon DEQ) under OAR 340-122-0047, if
applicable; or
(c) For areas where hazardous substances occur naturally, the background level of the
hazardous substances, if higher than those levels specified in subsections (2) (a)
through (2)(b) of this rule."
Arsenic is a COPC but is also naturally-occurring element within soils near the site.
Thus, the determination of a PRG for arsenic is not solely based on the determination
of risk, but also whether that risk represents concentrations of arsenic above
background concentrations for the site.
The issue of background may also affect determinations of protectiveness for forms of
asbestos that may be naturally occurring at the site (those not associated with
chrysotile and amosite forms of asbestos in ACM that was used in construction of the
former MRB).
3.2 Anticipated Land Uses
The current and anticipated future land uses for the site are an important
consideration for the development of PRAOs and PRGs to ensure remedial
alternatives are protective of human health and the environment. The final condition
of the site after remediation must be considered in evaluating future land uses or
activities and the related protection to human health that is provided.
The expectation and assumption in this FS t is that yet to be remediated areas that
pose unacceptable risks (current or future potential risks) to human health for
residential use would also constitute unacceptable risks for non-residential uses.
Conversely, areas that are remediated that result in acceptable risks for residential use
would also result in acceptable risks for non-residential uses (assuming the remedial
measures, such as caps, put in place to address human health risks are kept intact).
Land uses or activities (residential or non-residential) that would compromise the
remedial measures such as caps implemented under a remedial action would be
considered unacceptable.
3.2.1 Residential Use
Based on the current zoning shown on the Klamath County land use zoning map for
Township 38S, Range 09E, Zone 15, (Klamath County 2007), the site is predominantly
zoned for low density residential (RL) use. However there are small parcels near the
site boundary that are zoned as medium density residential (RM) use and
forest/range (FR) use.
The site is currently used for residential purposes on 23 private parcels and was
partially developed for residential use on receivership parcels. It is further assumed
that the site can support future residential development since it has the following:
3-8
CDM
NRE_Final FS_Section 3.doc
-------
Section 3
Remedial Action Objectives
¦ Zoning that supports residential development
¦ Topography and aesthetics favorable to residential development
¦ Access from paved county roads
¦ A clean source of drinking and fire protection water and related infrastructure
¦ Other utilities and services required for residential purposes such as electricity
Various remedial measures considered in this FS may disrupt existing underground
utilities. This is of particular concern to septic systems, as occupancy can be precluded
if septic systems are rendered inoperable and/or do not meet local code requirements.
The NRE receiver is currently working with wastewater consultants to evaluate
options for wastewater treatment if septic systems are disrupted during
implementation of a selected remedy. This activity is funded through the NRE
receiver, independent of the Superfund program.
3.2.2 Non-Residential Use
Non-residential land uses could also be reasonably anticipated based on historical
uses of the site, the proximity to Klamath Falls, and the site's aerial extent. These
potential land uses could include commercial, industrial, recreational, or nature
reserve uses.
While residential use of the site is generally consistent with current county zoning,
discussions between EPA and Oregon DEQ concerning potential future land use with
respect to implementation of various remedial alternatives are ongoing.
3.3 Preliminary Remedial Action Objectives
PRAOs are media-specific and source-specific goals to be achieved through
completion of a remedy that is protective of human health and the environment.
These objectives are typically expressed in terms of the chemicals, the concentration of
the chemicals, and the exposure routes and receptors.
PRAOs are typically developed by evaluating several sources of information,
including results of the BLRA and ERA discussed in Section 2.6 and tentatively
identified ARARs presented in Appendix B. These inputs are the basis for
determining whether protection of human health and the environment is achieved for
a particular remedial alternative.
The PRAOs presented are initially based on anticipated future use of the site for
primarily residential purposes:
1. Mitigate the potential for inhalation and ingestion exposures by human and
ecological receptors to asbestos fibers in soil and indoor air that would result in
risks that exceed the target cancer risk specified by Oregon DEQ of 1E-06.
CDM
NRE_Final FS_Section 3.doc
3-9
-------
Section 3
Remedial Action Objectives
2. Control erosion of asbestos by wind and water to prevent the spread of
contamination from source locations to unimpacted locations and media.
3. Mitigate the potential for inhalation and ingestion exposures by human receptors
to arsenic in soil within the extent of the former power plant that exceed site
background concentrations of arsenic in soil and result in risks that exceed the
target cancer risk specified by Oregon DEQ of 1E-06.
3.4 Preliminary Remediation Goals
PRGs are defined as the average concentration of a chemical in an exposure unit
associated with a target risk level such that concentrations at or below the PRG do not
pose an unacceptable risk. At this site, EPA and Oregon DEQ identify different target
cancer risk levels constituting unacceptable risks as described in Section 3.1.6. The
effect of these differences on developing PRGs for asbestos is further discussed with
in Section 3.4.1. The PRGs are typically presented as chemical- and media-specific
values that directly address the PRAOs.
As stated in Section 3.3, the PRAOs for the site include protection of human and
ecological receptors from asbestos fibers within debris and soil distributed across the
site, and protection of human receptors from arsenic within soils in the vicinity of the
former power plant.
Identification and selection of the PRGs are typically based on PRAOs, the anticipated
future land uses, and the tentatively identified ARARs. These values are typically
used as a preliminary value in the FS to guide evaluations of remedial alternatives.
However it is not technically feasible to develop a PRG for asbestos, and it is difficult
to identify PRGs for the non-asbestos COPC (arsenic). The following subsections
describe these difficulties.
3.4.1 Asbestos
ACM poses an exposure risk to human receptors through inhalation of asbestos fibers
released during active soil disturbance activities, inhalation of asbestos fibers in
indoor air, and inhalation of asbestos fibers in outdoor (ambient) air as indicated in
Section 2. Risk calculations discussed in Section 2.6 indicate that current risks are
unacceptable in areas where readily friable asbestos (e.g., MAG and/or AirCell) is
present at the surface and that future risks are likely to be unacceptable at any
location where ACM is present and is allowed to undergo future breakdown to
release free fibers to soil. Based on this, it is concluded that remedial action is needed
for locations with known ACM contamination to address current and future risks
from asbestos.
Sites with contamination that pose cancer risks that exceed 1 in 10,000 (or 1E-04)
normally require remedial action under CERCLA. However PRAOs have been
established to address ACM in debris and soil that poses cancer risks in excess of 1 in
1,000,000 (1E-06) to comply with Oregon DEQ's Hazardous Substance Rules under
OAR 340-122-0040 and 340-122-0115 as discussed in Section 3.1.
3-10 CDM
NRE Final FS Section 3.doc
-------
Section 3
Remedial Action Objectives
Normally, PRGs would be developed by computing the concentration of asbestos in
soil that corresponds to an excess cancer risk of 1E-06. However, such a computation
is not possible at present because of the high variability in the relationship between
asbestos in soil and asbestos in air. Even if the computations were possible, the ability
to measure asbestos in surface and subsurface soil is presently limited by the available
technologies and methods. Noncancer risks from inhalation of asbestos fibers from
ACM have also been recognized, but there is no current methodology to quantify
noncancer risks for asbestos.
For these reasons, PRGs for asbestos have not been established for site debris and soil.
If the PRAOs for asbestos contamination are achieved through implementation of
remedial measures that either truncate the exposure pathways and/ or convert
asbestos to a non-respirable form, then risks to humans from inhalation exposures to
asbestos are expected to be acceptable.
3.4.2 Arsenic
Arsenic was identified in Sections 2.6 at concentrations that could potentially pose an
exposure risk to human receptors through ingestion or inhalation of soil in the
vicinity of the former power plant.
The regional screening level (RSL) identified by EPA as protective for arsenic
concentrations in residential soil is 0.39 mg/kg (EPA 2009a). The arsenic
concentrations in soil at the former power plant range between 0.5 mg/kg and 27.2
mg/kg. However arsenic is a metalloid that also occurs naturally within soils
developed over volcanic rocks such as those that underlie and outcrop near the site. A
site-specific background study has not been performed.
For purposes of the FS, the PRG for arsenic will be identified as 0.39 mg/kg or site-
specific background, whichever is higher. A site-specific background study will be
required to determine the mean background concentration for arsenic in soil.
CDM
NRE_Final FS_Section 3.doc
-------
Section 3
Remedial Action Objectives
This Page Left Blank Intentionally
3-12
CDM
NRE_Final FS_Section 3.doc
-------
Section 4
Identification and Screening of General
Response Actions, Remedial Technologies,
and Process Options
4.1 Overview
This section identifies CRAs, remedial technologies, and process options that are
potentially useful to address the PRAOs identified in Section 3 for the contaminated
media that pose a potential threat to human health and the environment. This section
presents the screening of CRAs, remedial technologies, and process options in
accordance with the NCP to retain representative technologies and process options
that can be assembled into remedial alternatives, which are
discussed in Section 5.
The identification and screening process consists of the
following general steps:
¦ Identify the contaminants and affected media that pose risks
to human health and the environment and group these into
a category or categories of contaminated media for FS
evaluation purposes.
¦ Develop GRAs for the contaminated media that will satisfy
the PRAOs identified in Section 3.
¦ Compile remedial technologies and process options for each
GRA that are potentially viable for remediation of the
contaminated media.
¦ Screen the remedial technologies and process options with
respect to technical implementability for the contaminated
media at the site. Technologies and process options that are
not technically implementable relative to the contaminated
media are eliminated from further consideration in this FS.
¦ Evaluate and screen the retained remedial technologies and
process options with respect to effectiveness, ease of
implementability, and relative cost. Technologies and
process options that have low effectiveness, low
implementability, or high cost relative to the contaminated
media are eliminated from further consideration in this FS.
Combine and assemble the retained technologies and process options for the
contaminated media into site-wide remedial alternatives as presented in
Section 5.
CDM
NRE_Final FS_Section 4.doc
4-1
-------
Section 4
Technology Screening
The remainder of this section describes the contaminated media and evaluates CRAs,
technologies, and process options that are potentially viable for addressing them to
meet the PRAOs and ARARs discussed in Section 3.
4.2 Contaminants and Affected Media
The purpose of this subsection is to identify the contaminants and affected media that
exhibit a potential risk to human health and the environment, and group these into
categories of contaminated media. Creating categories of contaminated media
facilitates identification of CRAs, remedial technologies, and process options that can
be used to address the PRAOs.
The nature and extent of contamination within media at the site and the human health
risks posed by the contaminated media are summarized in Section 2 and fully
discussed in the RI report (CDM 2010). The following subsections describe the two
contaminants posing human health and/ or ecological risks at the site (asbestos and
arsenic) and the categories of media affected by these contaminants.
4.2.1 Asbestos
Based on the RI, the primary contamination type that contributes to potential human
health and ecological risks at the site is asbestos. Since certain forms of asbestos are
naturally occurring within soils near the site, asbestos as discussed in this FS refers to
forms of asbestos that are not found naturally in the area and are associated with the
former MRB demolition debris (i.e., chrysotile and/or amosite forms of asbestos).
4.2.2 Arsenic
Arsenic was identified in the RI Report (CDM 2010) to pose potential human health
risks at the site; however, arsenic was not found to pose ecological risks. Arsenic is
naturally occurring within soils near the site, so arsenic as discussed in this FS refers
to arsenic contamination derived from demolition of the former MRB.
As identified in the RI report and summarized in Section 2, the only portion of the site
with arsenic above background concentrations and associated with demolition of the
former MRB is the vicinity of the former power plant.
4.2.3 Affected Media
Debris and associated soil are the predominant contaminated media at the site.
Asbestos contamination at the site occurs both in bulk form within exposed and
buried MRB demolition debris as well as free fibers within associated soils. Asbestos
contamination is widely distributed throughout the site. Arsenic contamination is
more localized and occurs primarily within surface and subsurface soil associated
with the former power plant. Distribution of asbestos contamination at the site is
shown on Figures 2-1 through 2-4; distribution of arsenic contamination at the former
power plant is shown on Figure 2-5.
4-2
CDM
NRE_Final FS_Section 4.doc
-------
Section 4
Technology Screening
To simplify FS evaluations and alternative descriptions, the contaminated media
(debris and soil contaminated with asbestos and/ or arsenic) are grouped together and
herein defined as "contaminated materials" to simplify FS evaluations. This grouping
was based on the following assumptions:
¦ MRB demolition debris varies widely in size and composition.
¦ MRB demolition debris is commonly co-mingled with associated soil
contamination.
¦ Debris can generally be addressed using the same remedial technologies and
process options as associated contaminated soil since they are both solid media
and much of the debris underwent significant size reduction during demolition of
the MRB.
¦ Arsenic and asbestos can generally be addressed using many of the same
remedial technologies and process options.
4.3 General Response Actions
GRAs are initial broad response actions considered to address the PRAOs for the
contaminated materials identified at the site. GRAs include several remedial
categories, such as containment, removal, disposal, and treatment of contaminated
materials. Site-specific GRAs are first developed to satisfy the PRAOs and/or ARARs,
and then are evaluated as part of the identification and screening of remedial
technologies and process options for the contaminated materials.
The GRAs considered for remediation of contaminant materials include the following:
¦ No Action ¦ Containment
¦ Monitoring ¦ Removal/Transport/ Disposal
¦ Land Use Controls ¦ Treatment
No Action leaves contaminated materials in their existing condition with no control or
cleanup planned. In accordance with the NCP, this GRA must be considered to
provide a baseline against which other options can be compared.
Monitoring involves physical and/or chemical measures used at the site to determine
if there is contaminant migration. Monitoring is not intended to substitute any
engineering aspect of a selected remedy and does not physically address
contaminants.
Land Use Controls involve administrative, legal, and/or informational measures
intended to control or prevent present and future use of contaminated materials, and
inform and warn of dangers associated with these materials. Land use controls are not
intended to substitute for engineering aspects of a selected remedy and do not
physically address contaminants.
CDM 43
-------
Section 4
Technology Screening
Containment involves physical measures applied to contaminated materials to control
the release of contaminants and/ or prevent direct contact or exposure to the
contaminants.
Removal/Transport/Disposal involve a complete or partial removal (i.e. excavation)
of contaminated materials followed by transportation and disposal of the materials at
an onsite/offsite location.
Treatment involves biological, chemical, thermal, and/or physical measures applied
to the contaminated materials that reduce toxicity, mobility, and/or volume of the
contaminants present.
4.4 Identification of Remedial Technologies and Process
Options
In this step of the FS process, remedial technology types and process options that are
capable of addressing contaminated materials are identified and organized under
each GRA listed in Section 4.3. This section provides potentially viable remedial
technologies and process options for the contaminated materials.
The primary source of information used to identify remedial technologies and process
options for the contaminated materials is the Federal Remediation Technologies
Roundtable (FRTR) Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix and Reference Guide,
Version 4.0 (FRTR 2007). Other sources of information used for identification of
remedial technologies and process options include previous studies and work
conducted at the site, relevant EPA guidance, published literature and vendor
information, and engineering judgment based on other asbestos- and arsenic-related
remediation projects.
Potentially viable remedial technologies and associated process options identified for
the contaminated materials are presented and described on Table 4-1.
4.5 Screening of Remedial Technologies and Process
Options for Technical Implementability
The remedial technologies and process options presented on Table 4-1 were first
evaluated and screened based on technical implementability. The preliminary
screening was very broad, looking at the suitability of a technology for addressing
contaminated materials. The sources of information discussed in Section 4.4 were also
used to perform screening.
A given technology or process option was eliminated from further consideration in
this FS if site conditions or site characterization data indicated that the technology or
process option is incompatible with the contaminants or media or cannot be
implemented effectively due to physical limitations or constraints at the site.
CDM
NRE_Final FS_Section 4.doc
-------
Section 4
Technology Screening
Some of the process options may be technically implementable on a small-scale basis
for a specific location; however, the technical implementability screening and
elimination were performed by evaluating use of the process options for the
contaminated materials on a large-scale, site-wide basis.
Each of the process options identified in Section 4.4 for contaminated materials has
been screened to eliminate those that are not implementable technically at the site.
The process options for contaminated materials eliminated from further consideration
in this FS (with the rationale for elimination) are indicated on Table 4-1, using grey
shading.
Remedial technologies and process options that were not deemed to be technically
implementable relative to the contaminated materials were eliminated from further
consideration. Retained technologies and process options were then carried forward
to the second step of the evaluation process as discussed in Section 4.6.
4.6 Evaluation of Remedial Technologies and Process
Options for Effectiveness, Implementability, and
Relative Cost
Each of the technically implementable remedial technologies and process options
retained from the preliminary screening process presented in Section 4.5 were further
evaluated in the second step of the screening process to determine whether they
should be eliminated from further consideration in the FS or retained for assembly
into remedial alternatives.
4.6.1 Evaluation Criteria
Each remedial technology or process option was qualitatively evaluated for
effectiveness, implementability, and relative cost. The criteria used, as defined in this
step of the FS process, are as follows:
Effectiveness
This evaluation of the effectiveness of a remedial technology or process option focuses
on:
¦ Potential effectiveness in handling the estimated volumes of contaminated
materials and meeting the objectives identified in the PRAOs
¦ Potential impacts to human health and the environment during construction and
implementation
¦ How proven the remedial technology or process option is with respect to the
contaminants and conditions at the site
Implement abi li ty
Technically implementable technologies and process options retained in Section 4.5
are evaluated with respect to both the technical and administrative feasibility of
implementing a remedial technology or process option. Technical implementability
CDM
NRE_Final FS_Section 4.doc
4-5
-------
Section 4
Technology Screening
was used as an initial screening step in Section 4.5 to eliminate remedial technologies
and process options that were clearly ineffective or unworkable at the site. This
subsequent screening criterion places greater emphasis on the institutional aspects of
implementability. This criterion focuses on:
¦ Ability to obtain permits for offsite actions
¦ Availability and capacity of treatment, storage, and disposal services
¦ Availability of necessary equipment and skilled workers
Relative Cost
Cost plays a limited role in the screening of remedial technologies and process
options. Relative capital and operations and maintenance (O&M) costs are used rather
than detailed estimates. The cost analysis is evaluated based on engineering judgment
and is ranked relative to other process options in the same technology type.
4.6.2 Screening Evaluation
Each of the remedial technologies and process options retained from the first
screening step for the contaminated materials were evaluated against the three criteria
identified in Section 4.6.1 to determine whether they should be eliminated from
further consideration in the FS or retained for assembly into remedial alternatives.
The results of this second screening step are presented on Table 4-2.
This evaluation and screening process is inherently qualitative. The evaluation criteria
described in Section 4.6.1 are specified by EPA RI/FS guidance (EPA 1988); however,
the degree to which the criteria are weighted against each other are not specified.
Determination of how the individual evaluation criterion should influence the overall
rankings is subjective and based on site-specific considerations and professional
judgment. The factors considered for each of the three criteria that justify retention or
elimination are rated using the qualitative rating system. Exhibit 4-1 presents the
qualitative rating system used in conjunction with the stated rationale to justify the
ratings with respect to each criterion.
Exhibit 4-1. Qualitative Rating System for Screening of Remedial
Technologies and
Process Options
Effectiveness and Implementability
Relative Cost
© None
© None
O Low
$ Low
© Low to moderate
$$ Low to moderate
© Moderate
$$$ Moderate
© Moderate to high
$$$$ Moderate to high
© High
$$$$$ High
CDM
NRE_Final FS_Section 4.doc
-------
Section 4
Technology Screening
Remedial technologies or process options deemed to have low effectiveness, low
administrative implementability, and/or high relative cost for contaminated materials
are eliminated from further consideration in the FS, and are indicated on the tables
(with the rationale for elimination) using grey shading.
4.7 Retained GRAs, Remedial Technologies, and Process
Options
Based on the results of the two-step screening process described in Sections 4.5 and
4.6, a reduced number of remedial technologies and process options for contaminated
materials were retained for further evaluation and the development of remedial
action alternatives as discussed further in Section 5. These retained remedial
technologies and process options are presented on Table 4-3.
Remedial technologies and process options identified to address the contaminated
materials are retained because they either have substantial potential and applicability
as a stand-alone remedy, or have remedial benefits in combination with other
remedial technologies but would only have cost-effective application for specific site
elements and particular conditions.
It is unlikely that using or applying a single remedial technology/process option to
the contaminated materials will solely be able to achieve the PRAOs or comply with
ARARs. Thus, using various remedial technologies/process options in combination is
likely to be necessary. Conventional and innovative remedial technologies/process
options for contaminated materials are used in various combinations for assembly of
remedial alternatives as discussed in Section 5.
The retained conventional and new (innovative) remedial technologies and process
options are identified in Sections 4.7.1 and 4.7.2.
4.7.1 Conventional Remedial Technologies and Process Options
for Contaminated Materials
Conventional methods for remediation of contaminated materials at the site include
monitoring, exclusion from contaminated areas, and removing, transporting and/or
containing (isolating) source materials to eliminate transport of dust and/or fibers
from the source materials. Exhibit 4-2 presents the conventional methods in
remediation strategies for contaminated materials included in this FS:
CDM
NRE_Final FS_Section 4.doc
4-7
-------
Section 4
Technology Screening
Exhibit 4-2. Conventional Remedial Technologies and Process Options
for Contaminated Materials
Remedial Technology
Process Option
Physical and/or Chemical Monitoring
- Non-Intrusive Visual Inspection
- Intrusive Visual Inspection
- Sample Collection and Analysis
Institutional Controls
- Governmental Controls, Proprietary Controls, and
Informational Devices
Community Awareness Activities
- Informational and Educational Programs
Access Controls
- Posted Warnings
Surface Source Controls
- Water-Based Suppression
- Chemical-Based Suppression
- Negative Pressure Enclosure
- Soil or Rock Exposure Barrier/Cover
- Asphalt or Concrete Exposure Barrier/Cover
- Geosynthetic Multi-Layer Exposure Barrier/Cover
Removal
- Mechanical Excavation
- Pneumatic Excavation (Vacuum Extraction/Pumping)
Transport
- Mechanical Transport (Hauling/Conveying)
- Pneumatic Transport (Vacuum Extraction/Pumping)
Disposal
- Onsite Disposal
- Offsite Disposal
Physical and/or Chemical Treatment
- Physical Separation/ Segregation
- Size Reduction
4.7.2 Innovative Remedial Technologies and Process Options for
Contaminated Materials
Several innovative remedial technologies and process options for addressing
contaminated materials were evaluated during the two-step screening process; one of
those innovative process options (thermo-chemical treatment) was retained for
assembly into remedial alternatives.
Thermo-chemical treatment involves mixing contaminated materials with proprietary
demineralizing agents within a hydrofluoric acid solution. The mixture is then heated
in a rotary hearth furnace. This process is similar to vitrification but does not involve
complete melting. Instead, the process results in partial sintering of the material. The
resulting reaction product (rock-like material) is an inert waste.
4-8
CDM
NRE_Final FS_Section 4.doc
-------
Section 4
Technology Screening
Thermo-chemical conversion technology (TCCT), patented by ARI Technologies Inc.
(ARI), is a commercial form of this technology that has been previously demonstrated
on other asbestos remediation projects. Currently the contaminated materials would
be required to be transported off site for treatment to the closest operating TCCT
facility in Washington State. Mobilization of a temporary onsite treatment facility is
possible but with high cost. The contaminated materials require size reduction before
they are put in the furnace for thermo-chemical conversion. The treatment process
does not require physical separation/ segregation of contaminated materials into
similar types, nor separation from associated soils.
Thermal desorption was retained because of moderate to high effectiveness and
moderate implementability when compared to other treatment process options. This
innovative remedial technology/ process option for contaminated materials is used in
the assembly of remedial alternatives as discussed in Section 5.
CDM
NRE_Final FS_Section 4.doc
4-9
-------
Section 4
Technology Screening
This Page Left Blank Intentionally
4-10
CDM
NRE_Final FS_Section 4.doc
-------
Section 5
Development and Screening of Alternatives
5.1 Overview
In this section, remedial action alternatives (herein referred to as remedial
alternatives) are assembled by combining the retained remedial technologies and
process options presented in Section 4 for contaminated materials. Remedial
alternatives are developed from either stand-alone process
options or combinations of the retained process options.
These remedial alternatives are then screened using a
qualitative process with standard evaluation to determine
overall effectiveness, implementability, and cost. The purpose
of alternative screening presented in this section is to reduce
the number of remedial alternatives retained for detailed
analysis in Section 7.
The remedial alternatives for the site span a range of categories
defined by the NCP as follows:
¦ No action alternative
¦ Alternatives that address the principal threats but involve
little or no treatment; protection would be by prevention or
control of exposure through actions such as containment
and/or land use controls
¦ Alternatives that, as their principal element, employ
treatment that reduces the toxicity, mobility, or volume of
the contaminants
¦ Alternatives that remove or destroy contaminants to the
maximum extent, eliminating or minimizing long-term
management
¦ Alternatives that include innovative treatment technologies
5.2 Assumptions Affecting Development
of Remedial Alternatives
Several fundamental assumptions affect the development of remedial alternatives
evaluated in this FS (other than a "no action alternative"). These assumptions are
driven by requirements of the PRAOs and ARARs identified in Section 3 and site
limitations and constraints that cannot be overcome by using one or more remedial
technology/process options as described in Section 4. These fundamental
assumptions were taken into consideration during development of remedial
alternatives for this FS and include the items listed in Exhibit 5-1:
CDM
5-1
NRE Final FS Section 5.doc
-------
Section 5
Development and Screening of Alternatives
Exhibit 5-1. Assumptions Affecting Development of
Remedial Alternatives
Fundamental Assumption
Rationale
Land Use is Generally Considered
to be Residential (Except for
Receivership Parcels Under
Selected Alternatives)
Land use for privately owned parcels (Figure 1-3) is assumed to be
residential under all remedial alternatives.
¦ It is assumed that privately owned parcels (whether currently
developed and occupied or not) could be developed and
occupied in the future.
¦ It is assumed that homes on privately owned parcels would be
preserved and not removed.
¦ It is assumed that residents of privately owned parcels would be
temporarily relocated as necessary to implement a remedial
alternative.
Land use for receiver-managed parcels (Figure 1-3) is assumed to
be residential except for Alternatives 2 and 3.
¦ It is assumed that homes on receiver-managed parcels would
be preserved and not removed under remedial alternatives that
assume residential use of all parcels (Alternatives 4, 5a, 5b, 6,
and 7).
¦ It is assumed that homes on receiver-managed parcels would
be removed (relocated or demolished) only under alternatives
that could potentially have non-residential uses (Alternatives 2
and 3).
Localized Arsenic Contamination
Addressed Coincidental to
Asbestos Contamination
Section 4.2.3 indicated that contaminated materials include arsenic
contamination associated with the former power plant. This
contamination is generally localized, co-located with ACM, and can
be addressed using the GRAs identified for asbestos
contamination. It is assumed that arsenic identified at this location
will be addressed coincidental to the co-located ACM and
associated soil.
Designation of Surface versus
Subsurface Contamination Within
Alternatives is Based on Frost
Heave Potential
The designation of surface versus subsurface contamination within
alternatives is based on the potential of contaminated materials,
especially ACM, to have upward migration due to frost heave
processes. These designations are not based on soil composition
or risk assessment determinations.
For purposes of FS evaluations, surface contamination is defined
as contamination existing within 2 feet of the ground surface.
Subsurface contamination is defined as existing deeper than 2 feet
from ground surface.
These assumptions are based on the estimated average frost
depth of 2 feet in the county as indicated by the Oregon Residential
Specialty Code, Table R301.2(1)-Climatic and Geographic Design
Criteria. This depth will be confirmed and revised, if necessary,
within the ROD or during remedial design (RD)/RA using freeze
depth and capping thickness recommendations for the site
currently being prepared by the United States Army Cold Regions
Research and Engineering Laboratory. A preliminary summary of
their results is also included in Appendix A.
Comprehensive Approach of
GRAs within Alternatives
The GRAs provided within the alternatives address the asbestos-
and arsenic-related contaminants and risks for the site as a whole
(i.e. a parcel by parcel approach was not taken for alternatives
evaluation). Combinations of GRAs to address specific parcel-
related issues will be addressed during identification of the
preferred alternative after finalization of the FS and subsequent
development of the proposed plan.
5-2
CDM
NRE_Final FS_Section 5.doc
-------
Section 5
Development and Screening of Alternatives
Exhibit 5-1. Assumptions Affecting Development of
Remedial Alternatives (continued)
Fundamental Assumption
Rationale
Compliance with Risk Standards
Identified in Oregon
Environmental Cleanup Law and
Oregon Hazardous Substance
Remedial Action Rules for
Asbestos Contamination
Requires Truncating Exposure
Pathways or Converting ACM to
a Non-Respirable Form through
T reatment
Oregon Environmental Cleanup Law and the implementing Oregon
Hazardous Substance Remedial Action Rules (discussed in
Section 3.1.6 and Appendix B) establish acceptable risk levels for
human health at 1E-06 for individual carcinogens, 1E-05 for
multiple carcinogens; and a Hazard Index of 1.0 for non-
carcinogens if contaminants are identified above background
concentrations. Use of these risk levels during cleanup of non-
asbestos contaminants is relatively straightforward.
However it is currently not feasible to use existing asbestos
sampling and analytical methods to determine carcinogenic risks
from asbestos at a risk level of 1E-06 due to poor analytical
sensitivity in soil or with ABS. Current analytical methods for soil
are unable to consistently identify individual asbestos fibers that
may be present in otherwise uncontaminated soils. Since one fiber
in an air sample could exceed a 1E-06 risk level, compliance with
these standards is uncertain even in soils otherwise free of visible
ACM. In addition it is not currently feasible to determine non-
carcinogenic risks from asbestos because a reference
concentration does not currently exist.
To ensure protectiveness, it is assumed that all remedial
alternatives presented in this FS would be unable to adequately
demonstrate through sampling and analysis compliance with these
standards. It is further assumed that compliance with these ARARs
for asbestos can only be achieved by truncating the exposure
pathways and/or converting asbestos to a non-respirable form. This
can be accomplished by excluding receptors from areas of
asbestos contamination, placing a barrier between receptors and
contaminated materials containing asbestos, and/or using
treatment to convert ACM to a non-respirable form.
These assumptions also apply to soils in identified contaminated
areas that otherwise appear free of ACM after implementing
remedial measures, due to the potential presence of individual
asbestos fibers.
Land Use Controls and
Monitoring are Essential GRA
Components of all Alternatives
ABS studies were performed at the site to determine whether
unacceptable exposure risks to asbestos fibers in soil exist outside
of the site boundary that did not have visual indications of ACM
contamination. The result of this limited study was not conclusive,
but generally indicated that no to low numbers of fibers were
detected in areas that did not otherwise have visible ACM
contamination.
This indication is significant because the areas outside of the site
boundary are not assumed to be an area impacted by releases due
to the demolition of the former MRB. Thus it is assumed that
monitoring is not required outside of the site boundary. However
this same assumption about monitoring cannot be made to areas
within the site boundary that have not exhibited ACM contamination
because the presumption is that areas within the site boundary
have potentially been impacted by releases due their locations
within the footprint of the former MRB.
As indicated in the previous fundamental assumption, one of the
remedial methods to ensure protectiveness is to truncate the
exposure pathways through barriers or exclusion from
contaminated areas. However periodic monitoring (visual
inspection and sampling/analysis) and land use controls
(institutional controls and access controls) must be performed to
ensure the permanence of these measures.
CDM
NRE_Final FS_Section 5.doc
5-3
-------
Section 5
Development and Screening of Alternatives
Exhibit 5-1. Assumptions Affecting Development of
Remedial Alternatives (continued)
Fundamental Assumption
Rationale
Land Use Controls and
Monitoring are Essential GRA
Components of all Alternatives
(continued)
It is assumed that monitoring and land use controls are essential
GRA components of all remedial alternatives except the "no action"
alternative required by the NCP. It is assumed that these activities
must be performed to determine protectiveness of the remedy after
implementation and the need for any future additional remedial
measures. These additional remedial measures are excluded from
the screening and evaluation of remedial alternatives since they
would be a contingency measure.
Interior Cleaning Only Required
to Address Potential Future
Risks from Indoor Air
As discussed in Section 2.6, asbestos fibers detected from indoor
air within residential homes at the site does not exceed the 1E-06
carcinogenic risk level required to be met to ensure protectiveness
for current risk, but does exceed that standard for potential future
risks from indoor air (assuming ACM, and specifically MAG or
Aircell, is allowed to degrade overtime).
Thus it is assumed that interior cleaning of homes would not be
required for alternatives that fully truncate the exposure pathway
for contaminated materials, since current risk to residents from
indoor air is acceptable.
For alternatives that will continue to leave contaminated materials
exposed at the surface (Alternatives 2 and 3), it is assumed that
interior cleaning of the homes would be periodically required for
homes on privately owned parcels to ensure protectiveness. For
homes on receiver-managed parcels under Alternatives 2 and 3,
interior cleaning would not be performed since those homes would
either be immediately relocated or demolished. It is further
assumed that residents on privately owned parcels would be
temporarily relocated to perform the interior cleaning.
30-year Period of Evaluation for
all Alternatives
It is likely that all remedial alternatives will require an indefinite
duration of operations and maintenance due to implementation of
land use controls and monitoring. However, evaluation of long
durations of operations and maintenance is cumbersome and is
generally not necessary for comparative evaluation between
alternatives due to cost discounting under present value analysis.
Thus for FS purposes a default 30-year period of evaluation has
been selected for all remedial alternatives.
Secondary factors and considerations have also been tentatively identified to aid
development of remedial alternatives but are not fundamental controlling
considerations. Since these considerations vary depending on the remedial approach
used in each alternative, they are discussed in Section 7 for retained remedial
alternatives.
5.3 Description of Remedial Alternatives
Remedial alternatives were assembled by combining the retained remedial
technologies and process options. Table 5-1 provides a comprehensive list of the
remedial technologies/ process options that were used to develop each remedial
alternative. The fundamental site assumptions and factors described in Sections 5.2
were also considered during development of the remedial alternatives.
The remedial alternatives evaluated for NRE include:
5-4
CDM
NRE_Final FS_Section 5.doc
-------
Section 5
Development and Screening of Alternatives
¦ Alternative 1: No Action
¦ Alternative 2: Interior Cleaning and Land Use Controls with Monitoring
¦ Alternative 3: Capping of Contaminated Materials on Private Parcels, Partial
Capping of Contaminated Materials on Receivership Parcels, Interior Cleaning, and
Land Use Controls with Monitoring
¦ Alternative 4: Capping of Contaminated Materials and Land Use Controls with
Monitoring
¦ Alternative 5a: Excavation and Onsite Consolidation/Disposal of Contaminated
Surface Materials, Future Excavation and Offsite Disposal of Contaminated Surface
Materials at Permitted Facilities, and Land Use Controls with Monitoring
¦ Alternative 5b: Excavation and Onsite Consolidation/Disposal of Contaminated
Materials, and Land Use Controls with Monitoring
¦ Alternative 6: Excavation and Offsite Disposal of Contaminated Materials at
Permitted Facilities, and Land Use Controls with Monitoring
¦ Alternative 7: Excavation and Offsite Thermo-Chemical Treatment of
Contaminated Materials at Permitted Facilities, Reuse of Treated Material, and
Land Use Controls with Monitoring
The following subsections provide generalized descriptions of the remedy
components for remedial alternatives to be evaluated during the screening process
presented in this section. Detailed information for remedy components, including but
not limited to specific quantities of contaminated materials and frequency and types
of samples collected for analysis, are discussed in Section 7 for the alternatives
retained after screening.
5.3.1 Alternative 1: No Action
Alternative 1 would leave removal action activities previously performed in their
current conditions. No new remedial action activities would be initiated at the site to
address contaminated materials or otherwise mitigate the associated risks to human
health and the environment. A "no action" alternative is required by the NCP to
provide an environmental baseline against which impacts of the various remedial
alternatives can be compared.
Five-year site reviews would be performed as required by the NCP to evaluate
whether adequate protection of human health and the environment is provided since
contaminated materials would remain at the site. Monitoring (consisting of non-
intrusive visual inspections and sample collection with laboratory analysis) would be
performed as necessary to complete the 5-year site reviews.
CDM
NRE_Final FS_Section 5.doc
-------
Section 5
Development and Screening of Alternatives
5.3.2 Alternative 2: Interior Cleaning and Land Use Controls with
Monitoring
Alternative 2 includes periodic interior cleaning of homes and residential structures
on private parcels. Residential structures on receiver-managed parcels would be
relocated or demolished. This alternative leaves the existing onsite waste repository
intact, but does not otherwise modify the interim cover over the repository since other
areas of contaminated materials on receiver-managed parcels surrounding the
repository would be left exposed at the surface.
Interior cleaning would be performed on a periodic basis using vacuum extraction to
remove asbestos fibers within residential structures on privately owned parcels.
Without periodic interior cleaning, risks from contaminated indoor air would increase
due to asbestos fibers tracked inside from exposed contaminated materials located
outside the homes. While asbestos fibers in indoor air do not pose a current risk,
tracking in contamination from outside in the future is of particular concern since
contaminated materials are left exposed at the site and will further degrade over time.
Residential structures on receiver-managed parcels would not be cleaned under this
alternative since they would be left unoccupied and would be demolished or
relocated during implementation of the remedy.
Land use controls would be implemented to restrict access and use of contaminated
areas and provide awareness of risks from potential exposure to contaminated
materials. Monitoring would consist of non-intrusive (surface) and intrusive
(subsurface) visual inspections and sample collection with analysis to ensure that
interior cleanings and land use controls are protective of human health and the
environment.
Five-year site reviews would be performed since contaminated materials would
remain at the site.
5.3.3 Alternative 3: Capping of Contaminated Materials on
Private Parcels, Partial Capping of Contaminated Materials on
Receivership Parcels, Interior Cleaning, and Land Use Controls
with Monitoring
Alternative 3 includes in-place capping (covering) of contaminated materials
identified on privately owned parcels and a portion of the contaminated materials on
receiver-managed parcels. The remainder of contaminated materials on parcels
managed by the receiver would be left exposed at the surface; however, land use
controls would be implemented to restrict access and use of these parcels. This
alternative leaves the existing onsite waste repository intact, but does not otherwise
modify the interim cover on the repository since other areas of contaminated
materials on receiver-managed parcels would be left exposed at the surface.
CDM
NRE_Final FS_Section 5.doc
-------
Section 5
Development and Screening of Alternatives
It is assumed, for purposes of the FS, that future land use of the covered portion of
receiver-managed parcels could be for either residential or non-residential purposes
and that the uses could vary based on the extent of cover construction. Determination
of allowable future land uses beyond the current zoning is outside the scope of this
FS. Current residential structures on receiver-managed parcels would be relocated or
demolished.
Covers over contaminated materials would be constructed to the extent practicable.
However, it may not be possible to construct frost-protective soil covers over
contaminated materials directly adjacent to obstructions such as homes or structures,
trees, subsurface utilities, and roads. For purposes of this FS, a thin profile of clean
soil backfill or another barrier material placed adjacent to covers coupled with land
use controls are assumed to address these situations.
Covers used to contain contaminated materials are assumed to be constructed from
clean soil transported from offsite borrow areas tested to ensure that contamination is
not present. The thickness of the covers would be designed to keep contaminated
materials from migrating to the surface in the future through frost heave processes.
Interior cleaning would be performed on a periodic basis using vacuum extraction to
remove asbestos fibers within residential structures on privately owned parcels.
Without periodic interior cleaning, risks from contaminated indoor air would increase
due to asbestos fibers tracked inside from exposed contaminated materials located
outside the homes. While asbestos fibers in indoor air do not pose a current risk,
tracking in contamination from outside in the future is of particular concern since
contaminated materials are left exposed at the site and will further degrade over time.
Land use controls would be implemented to protect covered areas as well as restrict
access and use of contaminated areas, and provide awareness of risks from potential
exposure to contaminated materials. Monitoring would consist of non-intrusive
(surface) and intrusive (subsurface) visual inspections and sample collection with
analysis to ensure that covers, interior cleanings, and land use controls are protective
of human health and the environment.
Five-year site reviews would be performed since contaminated materials left in place
under covers would remain at the site.
5.3.4 Alternative 4: Capping of Contaminated Materials and Land
Use Controls with Monitoring
Alternative 4 includes in-place capping (covering) of contaminated materials
identified on all parcels, regardless of whether they are privately owned parcels or
receiver-managed parcels. This alternative includes installation of a permanent cover
over the existing onsite waste repository to ensure the interim cover installed in 2009
is protective.
CDM
NRE_Final FS_Section 5.doc
-------
Section 5
Development and Screening of Alternatives
It is assumed, for purposes of the FS that future land use of the receiver-managed
parcels would be for residential purposes. Current residential structures on receiver-
managed parcels would be kept intact. Covers over contaminated materials would be
constructed to the extent practicable. However, it may not be possible to construct
frost-protective soil covers over contaminated materials directly adjacent to
obstructions such as homes or structures, trees, subsurface utilities, and roads. For
purposes of this FS, a thin profile of clean soil backfill or another barrier material
placed adjacent to covers coupled with land use controls are assumed to address these
situations.
Covers used to contain contaminated materials are assumed to be constructed from
clean soil transported from offsite borrow areas tested to ensure that contamination is
not present. The thickness of the covers would be designed to keep contaminated
materials from migrating to the surface in the future through frost heave processes.
Interior cleaning would not be required under this alternative, since all identified
contaminated materials would be isolated beneath covers and not left exposed at the
site.
Land use controls would be implemented to protect and restrict use of covered areas,
and provide awareness of risks from potential exposure to contaminated materials.
Monitoring would consist of non-intrusive (surface) and intrusive (subsurface) visual
inspections and sample collection with analysis to ensure that covers and land use
controls are protective of human health and the environment.
Five-year site reviews would be performed since contaminated materials left in place
under covers would remain at the site.
5.3.5 Alternative 5a: Excavation and Onsite
Consolidation/Disposal of Contaminated Surface Materials,
Future Excavation and Offsite Disposal of Contaminated Surface
Materials at Permitted Facilities, and Land Use Controls with
Monitoring
Alternative 5a includes excavation of contaminated surface materials (assumed to be
within 2 feet bgs) identified on all parcels, regardless of whether they are privately
owned parcels or receiver-managed parcels. This alternative does not remove
subsurface contaminated materials previously identified at the site (assumed to be
greater than 2 feet bgs). This alternative includes installation of a permanent cover
over the existing onsite waste repository to ensure the interim cover installed in 2009
is protective.
Excavation of contaminated surface materials would be conducted to the extent
practicable. However, it may not be possible to fully excavate contaminated surface
materials underneath or adjacent to obstructions such as homes or structures, trees,
subsurface utilities, and roads. Thus residual contaminated materials may be left in
soil underlying or adjacent to these obstructions. For purposes of this FS, a thin profile
CDM
NRE_Final FS_Section 5.doc
-------
Section 5
Development and Screening of Alternatives
of clean soil backfill or another barrier material placed in excavations coupled with
land use controls are assumed to address these situations.
Excavated contaminated materials would be consolidated at onsite disposal locations
specifically constructed to isolate wastes using covers. The covers would be designed
to keep contaminated materials from migrating to the surface in the future through
frost heave processes.
Clean soil would be used to backfill excavation areas. Clean soil is assumed to be
transported from offsite borrow areas tested to ensure that contamination is not
present. The backfill would be covered with topsoil and re vegetated, or otherwise
restored to match the surface conditions that previously existed. While the backfill
would provide an initial exposure barrier to subsurface contaminated materials and
asbestos fibers, it would not necessarily keep these materials in underlying or adjacent
soil from migrating to the surface in the future through frost heave processes.
Since subsurface contaminated materials would not be removed and could potentially
migrate to the surface over time, future excavation events (i.e. surface pickup of
contaminated materials) would be performed on an as-needed basis. Contaminated
materials excavated during these events are assumed to be transported offsite and
placed within permitted offsite disposal facilities authorized by Oregon DEQ to
receive asbestos and other site COPCs.
It is assumed, for purposes of the FS, that future land use of the receiver-managed
parcels would be for residential purposes and that current structures on receiver-
managed parcels would be kept intact. Interior cleaning is assumed to not be required
under this alternative, since all remaining contaminated materials are isolated beneath
covers or excavation backfill and are not left exposed at the site. Although residual or
subsurface contaminated materials may incrementally migrate to the surface over
time through backfill, the small quantities of these materials would not likely
contaminate indoor air to levels posing risks within residential structures.
Land use controls would be implemented to protect and restrict use of covered and
backfilled areas, and provide awareness of risks from potential exposure to
contaminated materials. Monitoring would consist of non-intrusive (surface) and
intrusive (subsurface) visual inspections and sample collection with analysis to ensure
that covers, excavation backfill, and land use controls are protective of human health
and the environment.
Five-year site reviews would be performed since contaminated materials left in place
under covers and backfill would remain at the site.
CDM
NRE_Final FS_Section 5.doc
-------
Section 5
Development and Screening of Alternatives
5.3.6 Alternative 5b: Excavation and Onsite
Consolidation/Disposal of Contaminated Materials, and Land
Use Controls with Monitoring
Alternative 5b includes excavation of surface and subsurface contaminated materials
identified on all parcels, regardless of whether they are privately owned parcels or
receiver-managed parcels. This alternative includes installation of a permanent cover
over the existing onsite waste repository to ensure the interim cover installed in 2009
is protective.
Excavation of contaminated surface materials would be conducted to the extent
practicable. However, it may not be possible to fully excavate contaminated surface
materials underneath or adjacent to obstructions such as homes or structures, trees,
subsurface utilities, and roads. Thus residual contaminated materials may be left in
soil underlying or adjacent to these obstructions. For purposes of this FS, a thin profile
of clean soil backfill or another barrier material placed in excavations coupled with
land use controls are assumed to address these situations.
Excavated contaminated materials would be consolidated at onsite disposal locations
specifically constructed to isolate wastes using covers. The covers would be designed
to keep contaminated materials from migrating to the surface in the future through
frost heave processes.
Clean soil would be used to backfill excavation areas. Clean soil is assumed to be
transported from offsite borrow areas tested to ensure that contamination is not
present. The backfill would be covered with topsoil and revegetated, or otherwise
restored to match the surface conditions that previously existed. While the backfill
would provide an initial exposure barrier to residual contaminated materials and
asbestos fibers, it would not necessarily keep these materials in underlying or adjacent
soil from migrating to the surface in the future through frost heave processes.
It is assumed, for purposes of the FS, that future land use of the receiver-managed
parcels would be for residential purposes and that current structures on receiver-
managed parcels would be kept intact. Interior cleaning is assumed to not be required
under this alternative, since all remaining contaminated materials are isolated beneath
covers or excavation backfill and are not left exposed at the site. Although residual
contaminated materials may migrate to the surface over time through backfill, the
small quantities of these materials would not likely contaminate indoor air to levels
posing risks within residential structures.
Land use controls would be implemented to protect and restrict use of covered and
backfilled areas, and provide awareness of risks from potential exposure to
contaminated materials. Monitoring would consist of non-intrusive (surface) and
intrusive (subsurface) visual inspections and sample collection with analysis to ensure
that covers, excavation backfill, and land use controls are protective of human health
and the environment.
CDM
NRE_Final FS_Section 5.doc
-------
Section 5
Development and Screening of Alternatives
Five-year site reviews would be performed since contaminated materials left in place
under covers and backfill would remain at the site.
5.3.7 Alternative 6: Excavation and Offsite Disposal of
Contaminated Materials at Permitted Facilities, and Land Use
Controls with Monitoring
Alternative 6 includes excavation of surface and subsurface contaminated materials
identified on all parcels, regardless of whether they are privately owned parcels or
receiver-managed parcels. This alternative includes installation of a permanent cover
over the existing onsite waste repository to ensure the interim cover installed in 2009
is protective.
Excavation of contaminated surface materials would be conducted to the extent
practicable. However, it may not be possible to fully excavate contaminated surface
materials underneath or adjacent to obstructions such as homes or structures, trees,
subsurface utilities, and roads. Thus residual contaminated materials may be left in
soil underlying or adjacent to these obstructions. For purposes of this FS, a thin profile
of clean soil backfill or another barrier material placed in excavations coupled with
land use controls are assumed to address these situations.
Removed contaminated materials would be transported offsite and placed within one
or more permitted offsite disposal facilities specifically authorized by Oregon DEQ to
receive asbestos and other site COPCs.
Clean soil would be used to backfill excavation areas. Clean soil is assumed to be
transported from offsite borrow areas tested to ensure that contamination is not
present. The backfill would be covered with topsoil and revegetated, or otherwise
restored to match the surface conditions that previously existed. While the backfill
would provide an initial exposure barrier to residual contaminated materials and
asbestos fibers, it would not necessarily keep these materials in underlying or adjacent
soil from migrating to the surface in the future through frost heave processes.
It is assumed, for purposes of the FS, that future land use of the receiver-managed
parcels would be for residential purposes and that current structures on receiver-
managed parcels would be kept intact. Interior cleaning is assumed to not be required
under this alternative, since all remaining contaminated materials are isolated beneath
covers or excavation backfill and are not left exposed at the site. Although residual
contaminated materials may migrate to the surface over time through backfill, the
small quantities of these materials would not likely contaminate indoor air to levels
posing risks within residential structures.
Land use controls would be implemented to protect and restrict use of covered and
backfilled areas, and provide awareness of risks from potential exposure to
contaminated materials. Monitoring would consist of non-intrusive (surface) and
intrusive (subsurface) visual inspections and sample collection with analysis to ensure
that covers, excavation backfill, and land use controls are protective of human health
and the environment.
CDM 5-11
-------
Section 5
Development and Screening of Alternatives
Five-year site reviews would be performed since contaminated materials left in place
under covers and backfill would remain at the site.
5.3.8 Alternative 7: Excavation and Offsite Thermo-Chemical
Treatment of Contaminated Materials at Permitted Facilities,
Reuse of Treated Material, and Land Use Controls with
Monitoring
Alternative 7 includes excavation of surface and subsurface contaminated materials
identified on all parcels, regardless of whether they are privately owned parcels or
receiver-managed parcels. This alternative includes installation of a cover over the
existing onsite waste repository to ensure the interim cover installed in 2009 is
protective.
Excavation of contaminated surface materials would be conducted to the extent
practicable. However, it may not be possible to fully excavate contaminated surface
materials underneath or adjacent to obstructions such as homes or structures, trees,
subsurface utilities, and roads. Thus residual contaminated materials may be left in
soil underlying or adjacent to these obstructions. For purposes of this FS, a thin profile
of clean soil backfill or another barrier material placed in excavations coupled with
land use controls are assumed to address these situations.
Excavated contaminated materials would be transported offsite for treatment at a
permitted offsite facility that demineralizes asbestos fibers using thermo-chemical
conversion. TCCT, patented by ARI, is a commercial form of this technology.
Contaminated materials, especially ACM, would be mixed with proprietary
demineralizing agents within a hydrofluoric acid solution. The mixture would then be
heated in a rotary hearth furnace. The resulting reaction product (rock-like material)
is an inert material that is not fibrous like ACM. Testing of the reaction product would
be performed before transport from the treatment facility to ensure that it no longer
poses risks to human health. Although studies have been performed by ARI to
support this assertion (ARI 2007), the technology is relatively new so extensive sets of
data are not available to demonstrate long-term irreversibility of the treatment
process. This technology also has not been demonstrated to treat non-asbestos COPCs
such as arsenic.
The treated inert material would then be transported back to the site and used as
backfill material for the excavation areas on the site. Clean soil would be used to
supplement inert backfill material derived from the treatment of contaminated
materials. Clean soil is assumed to be transported from offsite borrow areas tested to
ensure that contamination is not present. The resulting backfill would be covered with
topsoil and revegetated, or otherwise restored to match the surface conditions that
previously existed. While the backfill would provide an initial exposure barrier to
residual contaminated materials and asbestos fibers, it would not necessarily keep
these materials in underlying or adjacent soil from migrating to the surface in the
future through frost heave processes.
5-12
CDM
NRE_Final FS_Section 5.doc
-------
Section 5
Development and Screening of Alternatives
It is assumed, for purposes of the FS, that future land use of the receiver-managed
parcels would be for residential purposes and that current structures on receiver-
managed parcels would be kept intact. Interior cleaning is assumed to not be required
under this alternative, since all remaining contaminated materials are isolated beneath
covers or excavation backfill and are not left exposed at the site. Although residual
contaminated materials may incrementally migrate to the surface over time through
backfill, the small quantities of these materials would not likely contaminate indoor
air to levels posing risks within residential structures.
Land use controls would be implemented to protect and restrict use of covered and
backfilled areas, and provide awareness of risks from potential exposure to
contaminated materials. Monitoring would consist of non-intrusive (surface) and
intrusive (subsurface) visual inspections and sample collection with analysis to ensure
that covers, excavation backfill, and land use controls are protective of human health
and the environment.
Five-year site reviews would be performed since contaminated materials left in place
under covers and backfill would remain at the site.
5.4 Screening Evaluation of Alternatives
The purpose of this screening evaluation is to reduce the number of proposed
remedial alternatives that undergo the more thorough and extensive analysis
presented in Section 7. These alternatives are qualitatively evaluated using a smaller
set of screening evaluation criteria than what is used for detailed analysis of retained
alternatives after screening. Each of these proposed alternatives is screened using the
short- and long-term aspects (where applicable) of three broad criteria: effectiveness,
implementability, and cost.
5.4.1 Effectiveness
Effectiveness relates to the ability of the remedial alternative to satisfy screening
evaluation criteria detailed in Exhibit 5-2.
Exhibit 5-2. Effectiveness Criteria
Effectiveness Criteria
Overall protection of human health and the environment1
Compliance with ARARs1
Short-term effectiveness (during the remedial construction and implementation period)
Long-term effectiveness and permanence (following remedial construction)
Reduction of toxicity, mobility, or volume through treatment
These criteria are referred to as "threshold criteria" that an alternative must meet to be viable
(except the "no action" alternative); threshold criteria are described further in Section 6.
Effectiveness of each of the proposed alternatives is judged against the five
effectiveness screening criteria using the qualitative ratings system in Exhibit 5-3.
CDM 53
NRE Final FS Section 5.doc
-------
Section 5
Development and Screening of Alternatives
Exhibit 5-3. Effectiveness Qualitative Ratings System
Effectiveness Ratings Categories
Q
None
O
Low
©
Low to moderate
©
Moderate
o
Moderate to high
©
High
5.4.2 Implementability
Implementability relates to the ability of the remedial alternative to satisfy screening
evaluation criteria detailed in Exhibit 5-4.
Exhibit 5-4. Implementability Criteria
Implementability Criteria
Technical feasibility
Ability to construct, reliably operate, and meet technology-specific
regulations for process options until a remedial action is complete
Ability to operate, maintain, replace, and monitor technical components
after the remedial action is complete
Administrative feasibility
Ability to obtain approvals from other agencies
Availability and capacity of treatment, storage, and disposal services
Availability of property, specific materials and equipment, and technical
specialists required for a remedial action
Implementability of each of the proposed alternatives is judged against the screening
criteria using the qualitative ratings system presented in Exhibit 5-5.
Exhibit 5-5. Implementability Qualitative Ratings System
Implementability Ratings Categories
Q
None
O
Low
©
Low to moderate
©
Moderate
o
Moderate to high
©
High
A determination that an alternative is not technically feasible will usually preclude it
from further consideration. Negative factors affecting administrative feasibility will
normally involve coordination steps to lessen the negative aspects of the alternative
but will not necessarily eliminate an alternative from consideration.
CDM
NRE_Final FS_Section 5.doc
-------
Section 5
Development and Screening of Alternatives
5.4.3 Cost
Cost estimates prepared for screening alternatives are typically comparative estimates
with relative accuracy so that cost decisions among alternatives are sustained as the
accuracy of cost estimates improve in the detailed analysis of alternatives. The
procedures used to develop cost estimates for alternative screening are similar to
those used for detailed analysis; the differences are in the degree of alternative
refinement and cost component development.
The focus of comparative screening estimates is to identify and include items that are
essential to the alternatives that control the magnitude of the overall cost. Cost
estimates at this step of the FS process are generally determined using cost curves,
generic unit costs, vendor information, conventional cost-estimating guides, and prior
similar estimates modified by site-specific information rather than detailed cost
estimates. Both capital and O&M costs are considered in these estimates. Present
value analyses are performed to discount all costs to a common base year. This is
performed to fairly evaluate expenditures occurring over different time frames.
The development of alternatives during the alternatives screening process is
incomplete because a detailed analysis of the alternative components (such as
development of detailed quantities, detailed scoping of remedy components, etc.) has
not been performed. Thus the costs developed for the screening analysis of these
proposed alternatives are not held to the accuracy required for the detailed analysis of
alternatives (i.e. +50 percent to -30 percent of actual costs). Typical cost accuracy
ranges for alternative screening are +100 percent to -50 percent of actual costs.
A simplified approach was developed for determining alternative screening costs due
to the lack of detailed remedy component scope and associated quantities. This
simplified approach involves identifying specific GRAs for contaminated materials
that are fundamental cost drivers for the alternative in question and providing costs
for these GRA remedy components. If these fundamental GRAs are included in the
screening cost estimates, they should be within the accuracy range acceptable for
these estimates without development of the secondary remedy components.
The specific GRAs identified as fundamental cost drivers for each alternative are
listed below:
Alternative 1: Monitoring
Alternative 2: Monitoring, Removal/Transport/Disposal, and Land
Use Controls
Alternative 3 and 4: Monitoring, Removal/Transport/Disposal, Land Use
Controls, and Containment
Alternative 5a, 5b, and 6: Monitoring, Land Use Controls, and
Removal / T ransport / Disposal
Alternative 7: Monitoring, Land Use Controls,
Removal/Transport/Disposal, and Treatment
CDM
NRE_Final FS_Section 5.doc
5-15
-------
Section 5
Development and Screening of Alternatives
It should be noted that GRA components identified for screening cost development
purposes pertain only to contaminated materials. For instance, the GRA of
"Transport" is specifically for contaminated materials; transport of backfill required to
construct covers or place excavation backfill are inherent to the GRAs of
"Containment" or "Removal" rather than "Transport". Unit quantities (areas and
volumes) required to develop costs for these items are presented in Appendix C.
The cost of each proposed alternative is rated on a comparative basis with other
alternatives using a scale determined from the range of costs for the screened
alternatives. Due to the likely alternative costs for the site, the cost ranges for the
ratings categories are large. The cost rating categories are as follows in
Exhibit 5-6:
Exhibit 5-6. Cost Qualitative Ratings System
Cost Ratings Categories
Cost Ranges (Present Value Dollars)
$
Low
Less than 5 million dollars
$$
Low to moderate
Between 5 million and 10 million dollars
$$$
Moderate
Between 10 million and 15 million dollars
$$$$
Moderate to high
Between 15 million and 20 million dollars
^ ^ ^ ^ ^
High
Greater than 20 million dollars
5.5 Summary of Alternatives Screening
Appendix D presents the evaluation and screening of each remedial alternative using
the three screening criteria. This evaluation and screening process is inherently
qualitative in nature (with the exception of approximate cost). The evaluation criteria
described in Section 5.4 are specified by EPA CERCLA guidance; however the degree
to which the criteria are weighted against each other is not specified. A determination
of how the individual evaluation criteria influence the overall rankings is based on
site-specific considerations and requires engineering judgment.
Remedial alternatives with similar scope and essential components would have
overall rankings that are similar, unless other considerations such as large differences
in waste volumes or differing construction durations exist between them. Factors that
affect the threshold criteria (overall protection of human health and the environment
and compliance with ARARs) are given considerable weight in the overall ranking for
effectiveness since alternatives must meet these criteria to be selected as a remedy.
Section 6 describes the threshold criteria in further detail.
Each alternative developed and described in Section 5.3 was evaluated to determine
its overall effectiveness, implementability, and cost in Appendix D using the
qualitative ratings system discussed in Section 5.4.
5-16
CDM
NRE_Final FS_Section 5.doc
-------
Section 5
Development and Screening of Alternatives
Exhibit 5-7 summarizes the results for the screening of alternatives for the site.
Remedial alternatives deemed to have low effectiveness, low implementability, or
high cost were eliminated from further consideration. The remedial alternatives
eliminated from further consideration in this FS (indicated with grey shading) on
Exhibit 5-7 are Alternatives 2 and 7.
Alternative 2 was eliminated for low effectiveness due to the factors discussed in
Appendix D. Long-term effectiveness for this alternative is not entirely ensured since
contaminated materials potentially posing a risk are left exposed on site and can
continue to degrade and migrate. Interior cleaning is the primary remedial
component for protection of human health on privately owned parcels. However
cleaning does not ensure protectiveness within the interior of residential structures
since contaminated materials continue to be exposed and degrade and could be
tracked into the structures. Long-term effectiveness of institutional controls and
access controls is not ensured since humans and ecological receptors could ignore
them, especially on privately owned parcels.
Alternative 7 was eliminated for low implementability and high cost due to the
factors discussed in Appendix D. Implementability of Alternative 7 is more difficult
than other excavation-related alternatives. The treatment process (TCCT) is a patented
technology and is commercially available but not widespread. The treatment process
may require size reduction of larger ACM, and may not be capable of treating non-
asbestos COPCs. The treatment capacity of depends upon the size of the offsite
treatment facility; in general the capacity is relatively small compared to the volume
of contaminated materials generated from the site. Technical equipment and
specialists for implementation of thermo-chemical treatment are fairly limited in the
United States. In addition, regulatory approval for use of treated material as backfill
material may be problematic, depending on Oregon DEQ classification of the treated
material.
High cost is the other reason for eliminating Alternative 7 from further consideration.
The present value cost of Alternative 7 (approximately $129 million) is approximately
four to five times that of Alternative 6 (approximately $29.6 million). While
Alternative 7 includes a component of treatment, Alternative 6 provides a similar
degree of protection for human health and the environment at a much lower cost.
The remedial alternatives that were retained for detailed analysis are identified in
Section 5.6.
CDM
NRE_Final FS_Section 5.doc
5-17
-------
Section 5
Development and Screening of Alternatives
Exhibit 5-7. Summary of Alternatives Screening
Alternative
Description
Effectiveness
Implementability
Approximate Cost
(Present Value Dollars)
1
No Action
O
O
$
$190,000
2
Interior Cleaning and Land
Use Controls with Monitoring
o
@
$
$2,280,000
3
Capping of Contaminated
Materials on Private Parcels,
Partial Capping Containment
of Contaminated Materials on
Receivership Parcels, Interior
Cleaning, and Land Use
Controls with Monitoring
©
o
$$$
$10,130,000
4
Capping of Contaminated
Materials and Land Use
Controls with Monitoring
©
©
$$$
$14,060,000
5a
Excavation and Onsite
Consolidation/Disposal of
Contaminated Surface
Materials, Future Excavation
and Offsite Disposal of
Contaminated Surface
Materials at Permitted
Facilities, and Land Use
Controls with Monitoring
©
©
$$$
$10,460,000
5b
Excavation and Onsite
Consolidation/Disposal of
Contaminated Materials, and
Land Use Controls with
Monitoring
©
©
$$$
$14,070,000
6
Excavation and Offsite
Disposal of Contaminated
Materials at Permitted
Facilities, and Land Use
Controls with Monitoring
o
©
^ ^ ^ ^ ^
$29,890,000
7
Excavation and Offsite
Thermo-Chemical Treatment
of Contaminated Materials at
Permitted Facilities, Reuse of
Treated Material, and Land
Use Controls with Monitoring
o
©
^ ^ ^ ^ ^
$129,270,000
Notes:
1. The alternatives screening process involves a qualitative assessment of the degree to which remedial
alternatives meet the evaluation criteria presented in Appendix D. The numerical designations for the
qualitative ratings system used in this table are not used to quantitatively assess remedial alternatives (for
instance, rankings for a remedial alternative are not additive).
2. Shading indicates the remedial alternative has been eliminated from further consideration based on low
effectiveness, low implementability, and/or high costs. Remaining (unshaded) remedial alternatives have
been retained for detailed analysis in Section 7.
3. Screening cost backup information (screening cost estimate summaries and present value analyses) for
each alternative are presented in Appendix D.
5-18
CDM
NRE_Final FS_Section 5.doc
-------
Section 5
Development and Screening of Alternatives
Legend for Qualitative Ratings System:
Effectiveness and Implementability
Cost (Present Value Dollars)
© None
©
None ($0)
O Low
$
Low ($0 through $5M)
© Low to moderate
$$
Low to moderate ($5M through $10M)
© Moderate
$$$
Moderate ($10M through $15M)
© Moderate to high
$$$$
Moderate to high ($15M through $20M)
© High
^ ^ ^ ^ ^
High (Greater than $20M)
5.6 Alternatives Retained for Detailed Analysis
Based on the screening of the alternatives in Section 5.5, the following alternatives
were retained for detailed analysis as presented in Section 7.
¦ Alternative 1: No Action
¦ Alternative 3: Capping of Contaminated Materials on Private Parcels, Partial
Capping of Contaminated Materials on Receivership Parcels, Interior Cleaning, and
Land Use Controls with Monitoring
¦ Alternative 4: Capping of Contaminated Materials and Land Use Controls with
Monitoring
¦ Alternative 5a: Excavation and Onsite Consolidation/Disposal of Contaminated
Surface Materials, Future Excavation and Offsite Disposal of Contaminated Surface
Materials at Permitted Facilities, and Land Use Controls with Monitoring
¦ Alternative 5b: Excavation and Onsite Consolidation/Disposal of Contaminated
Materials, and Land Use Controls with Monitoring
¦ Alternative 6: Excavation and Offsite Disposal of Contaminated Materials at
Permitted Facilities, and Land Use Controls with Monitoring
CDM
NRE_Final FS_Section 5.doc
-------
Section 5
Development and Screening of Alternatives
This Page Left Blank Intentionally
5-20
CDM
NRE_Final FS_Section 5.doc
-------
Section 6
Definition of Criteria Used in the Detailed
Analysis of Retained Alternatives
The remedial alternatives retained after completion of the preliminary alternative
screening step of the FS process (summarized in Section 5) were evaluated using nine
evaluation criteria. These criteria were developed to address statutory requirements
and considerations for remedial actions in accordance with the NCP and additional
technical and policy considerations that have proven to be important for selecting
among remedial alternatives (EPA 1988). The following subsections describe the nine
evaluation criteria used in the detailed analysis of remedial alternatives and the
priority in which the criteria are considered.
6.1 Overall Protection of Human Health
and the Environment
Each alternative is assessed to determine whether it can
provide adequate protection of human health and the
environment (short- and long-term) from unacceptable risks
posed by hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants
present at the site. Evaluation of this criterion focuses on how
site risks are eliminated, reduced, or controlled through
treatment, engineered controls, or institutional controls and
whether an alternative poses any unacceptable cross-media
impacts.
Criteria Used to Evaluate
Remediation Alternatives
Address Multiple Areas
Protection of Human Health and
Environment
Compliance with ARARs
Long-Term Effectiveness and
Permanence
Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, or
Volume through Treatment
Short-Term Effectiveness
Implementability
Cost
State Acceptance
Community Acceptance
6.2 Compliance with
ARARs
For this criterion, we evaluate
each alternative to determine
how chemical-, location-, and
action-specific ARARs identified
in Appendix B of this document
will be met.
If the assessment indicates an
ARAR will not be met, then the
basis for justifying one of the six
ARAR waivers allowed under
CERCLA is required to be
discussed. These ARAR waivers
are detailed in Exhibit 6-1.
CDM
NRE_Final FS_Section 6.doc
6-1
-------
Section 6
Definition of Criteria
Exhibit 6-1. ARAR Waivers
Waiver
Description
Interim Measures
The remedial action selected is only part of a total remedial action that
will attain such level or standard of control when completed. (CERCLA
§121 (d)(4)(A).)
Greater Risk to Health and
the Environment
Compliance with such requirement at the facility will result in greater risk
to human health and the environment than alternative options. (CERCLA
§121(d)(4)(B).)
Technical Impracticability
Compliance with such requirement is technically impracticable from an
engineering perspective. (CERCLA §121 (d)(4)(C).)
Equivalent Standard of
Performance
The remedial action selected will attain a standard of performance that is
equivalent to that required under the otherwise applicable standard,
requirement, criteria, or limitation through use of another method or
approach. (CERCLA §121 (d)(4)(D).)
Inconsistent Application of
State Requirements
With respect to a state standard, requirement, criteria, or limitation, the
state has not consistently applied (or demonstrated the intention to
consistently apply) the standard, requirement, criteria, or limitation in
similar circumstances at other remedial actions. (CERCLA
§121(d)(4)(E).)
Fund Balancing
In the case of a remedial action to be undertaken solely under Section
104 using the fund, selection of a remedial action that attains such level
or standard of control will not provide a balance between the need for
protection of public health and welfare and the environment at the facility
under consideration and the availability of amounts from the fund to
respond to other sites which present or may present a threat to public
health or welfare or the environment, taking into consideration the relative
immediacy of such threats. (CERCLA §121 (d)(4)(F).)
6.3 Long-Term Effectiveness and Permanence
Long-term effectiveness evaluates the likelihood that the remedy will be successful
and the permanence that it affords. Factors to be considered, as appropriate, include
the following:
¦ Magnitude of residual risk remaining from untreated waste or treatment residuals
remaining at the conclusion of the remedial activities. The characteristics of the
residuals are considered to the degree that they remain hazardous, taking into
account their toxicity, mobility, or volume and propensity to bioaccumulate.
¦ Adequacy and reliability of controls that are used to manage treatment residuals
and untreated waste remaining at the site. This factor includes an assessment of
containment systems and institutional controls to determine if they are sufficient to
ensure that any exposure to human and ecological receptors is within protective
levels. This factor also addresses the long-term reliability of management controls
for providing continued protection from residuals, the assessment of the potential
need to replace technical components of the alternative, and the potential exposure
pathways and risks posed should the remedial action need replacement.
6-2
CDM
NRE_Final FS_Section 6.doc
-------
Section 6
Definition of Criteria
6.4 Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume Through
Treatment
Each alternative is assessed for the degree to which it employs technology to
permanently and significantly reduce toxicity, mobility, or volume, including how
treatment is used to address the principal threats posed by the site. Factors to be
considered, as appropriate, include the following:
¦ The treatment processes the alternatives use and materials they will treat
¦ The amount of hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants that will be
destroyed or treated, including how the principal threat(s) will be addressed
¦ The degree of expected reduction in toxicity, mobility, or volume of the waste due
to treatment
¦ The degree to which the treatment is irreversible
¦ The type and quantity of residuals that will remain following treatment,
considering the persistence, toxicity, mobility, and propensity to bioaccumulate
such hazardous substances and their constituents
¦ Whether the alternative would satisfy the statutory preference for treatment as a
principal element of the remedial action
6.5 Short-Term Effectiveness
This criterion reviews the effects of each alternative during the construction and
implementation phase of the remedial action until remedial response objectives are
met. The short-term impacts of each alternative are assessed, considering the
following factors, as appropriate:
¦ Short-term risks that might be posed to the community during implementation of
an alternative
¦ Potential impacts on workers during remedial action and the effectiveness and
reliability of protective measures
¦ Potential adverse environmental impacts resulting from construction and
implementation of an alternative and the reliability of the available mitigation
measures during implementation in preventing or reducing the potential impacts
¦ Time until protection is achieved
CDM
NRE_Final FS_Section 6.doc
6-3
-------
Section 6
Definition of Criteria
6.6 Implementability
The technical and administrative feasibility of implementing an alternative and the
availability of various services and materials required during its implementation is
evaluated under this criterion. The ease or difficulty of implementing each alternative
will be assessed by considering the following factors detailed in Exhibit 6.2.
Exhibit 6-2 Implementability Factors to be Considered during
Alternative Evaluation
Criterion
Factors to be Considered
Technical Feasibility
Technical difficulties and unknowns associated with the construction and
operation of a technology
Reliability of the technology, focusing on technical problems that will lead to
schedule delays
Ease of undertaking additional remedial actions, including what, if any, future
remedial actions would be needed and the difficulty to implement additional
remedial actions
Ability to monitor the effectiveness of the remedy, including an evaluation of
risks of exposure should monitoring be insufficient to detect a system failure
Administrative
Feasibility
Activities needed to coordinate with other offices and agencies and the ability
and time required to obtain any necessary approvals and permits from other
agencies (for offsite actions)
Availability of
Services and
Materials
Availability of adequate offsite treatment, storage capacity, and disposal
capacity and services
Availability of necessary equipment and specialists and provisions to ensure
any necessary additional resources
Availability of services and materials plus the potential for obtaining
competitive bids, which is particularly important for innovative technologies
Availability of prospective technologies
6.7 Cost
Types of costs that are assessed for each alternative include the following:
¦ Capital costs
¦ Annual O&M costs
¦ Periodic costs
¦ Present value of capital and annual O&M costs
Cost estimates are developed according to A Guide to Developing and Documenting Cost
Estimates during the Feasibility Study (EPA 2000a). Flexibility is incorporated into each
alternative for the location of remedial facilities, the selection of cleanup levels, and
the period in which remedial action will be completed. Assumptions of the project
scope and duration are defined for each alternative to provide cost estimates for the
various remedial alternatives. Important assumptions specific to each alternative are
summarized in the description of the alternative. Additional assumptions are
included in the detailed cost estimates in Appendix H.
6-4
NRE_Final FS_Section 6.doc
-------
Section 6
Definition of Criteria
The levels of detail employed in making these estimates are conceptual but are
considered appropriate for making choices between alternatives. The information
provided in the cost estimate is based on the best available information regarding the
anticipated scope of the remedial alternatives.
The costs are evaluated with respect to the following categories:
¦ Capital costs are those expenditures that are required to construct a remedial
action. They are exclusive of costs required to operate or maintain the action
throughout its lifetime. Capital costs consist primarily of expenditures initially
incurred to build or install the remedial action. Capital costs include all labor,
equipment, and material costs (including contractor markups, such as overhead
and profit) associated with activities, such as mobilization/ demobilization; site
work; installation of containment systems; and disposal. Capital costs also include
expenditures for professional/ technical services that are necessary to support
construction of the remedial action.
¦ Annual O&M costs are those post-construction costs necessary to ensure or verify
the continued effectiveness of a remedial action. These costs are estimated mostly
on an annual basis. Annual O&M costs include all labor, equipment, and material
costs (including contractor markups, such as overhead and profit) associated with
activities, such as monitoring, operating and maintaining containment systems, and
disposal. Annual O&M costs also include expenditures for professional/technical
services necessary to support O&M activities.
¦ Periodic costs are those costs that occur only once every few years (e.g., 5-year
reviews, equipment replacement) or expenditures that occur only once during the
entire O&M period or remedial time frame (e.g., site closeout, remedy
failure/replacement). These costs may be either capital or O&M costs but, because
of their periodic nature, it is more practical to consider them separately from other
capital or O&M costs in the estimating process.
¦ The present value of each alternative provides the basis for the cost comparison.
The present value cost represents the amount of money that, if invested in the
initial year of the remedial action at a given rate, would provide the funds required
to make future payments to cover all costs associated with the remedial action over
its planned life. Future O&M and periodic costs are included and reduced by the
appropriate present value discount rate as outlined in A Guide to Developing and
Documenting Cost Estimates during the Feasibility Study (EPA 2000a). Per the
guidance, the present value analysis was performed on remedial alternatives using
a 7 percent discount (interest) rate over the period of evaluation for each
alternative. Inflation and depreciation were not considered in preparing the present
value costs.
6-5
NRE_Final FS_Section 6.doc
-------
Section 6
Definition of Criteria
6.8 State Acceptance
This criterion evaluates the technical and administrative issues and concerns the state
may have regarding each of the alternatives. Assessment of state concerns will be
completed after comments on the FS and proposed plan are received by EPA and
addressed in the ROD. Thus, state acceptance is not considered in the detailed
evaluation of alternatives presented in this FS.
6.9 Community Acceptance
Assessment of concerns from the public will be completed after comments on the FS
and proposed plan are received by EPA and addressed in the ROD. Thus, community
acceptance is not considered in the detailed evaluation of alternatives presented in
this FS.
6.10 Criteria Priorities
The nine evaluation criteria are separated into three groups to establish priority
among these criteria during detailed evaluation of the remedial alternatives as
detailed in Exhibit 6-3.
Exhibit 6-3. Criteria Priorities
Group
Criteria
Definition
Threshold Criteria
Overall Protection of Human Health
and the Environment
Compliance with ARARs
Must be satisfied by the
remedial alternative being
considered as the preferred
remedy
Balancing Criteria
Long-Term Effectiveness and
Permanence
Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, or
Volume through Treatment
Short-Term Effectiveness
Implementability
Cost
Technical criteria evaluated
among those alternatives
satisfying the threshold
criteria
Modifying Criteria
State Acceptance and Community
Acceptance
Not evaluated in this FS;
evaluated after comments
received on the FS and
proposed plan
6-6
CDM
NRE_Final FS_Section 6.doc
-------
Section 7
Detailed Analysis of Retained Alternatives
7.1 Overview
This section presents the detailed analysis of the remedial alternatives retained in
Section 5. During detailed analysis, each alternative is assessed using the two
threshold criteria and five balancing criteria presented in Section 6. The results of the
detailed analysis for each remedial alterative are then compared to identify the key
tradeoffs between alternatives.
The following alternatives were retained for detailed analysis:
Alternative 1: No Action
Alternative 3: Capping of Contaminated Materials on Private Introduction
Parcels, Partial Capping of Contaminated Materials on
Receivership Parcels, Interior Cleaning, and Land Use ^
Controls with Monitoring Sjte
Characteristics
Alternative 4: Capping of Contaminated Materials and Land
Use Controls with Monitoring ^
Alternative 5a: Excavation and Onsite Consolidation/Disposal
of Contaminated Surface Materials, Future Excavation and Objectives
Offsite Disposal of Contaminated Surface Materials at
Permitted Facilities, and Land Use Controls with Monitoring ^
Alternative 5b: Excavation and Onsite Consolidation/Disposal Technology
of Contaminated Materials, and Land Use Controls with Screening
Monitoring ^
Alternative 6: Excavation and Offsite Disposal of
Contaminated Materials at Permitted Facilities, and Land Use Alternative
Screening
Controls with Monitoring ^
7.2 Secondary Assumptions Affecting screening
Detailed Analysis of Remedial criteria
Alternatives J
Section 5 presents the fundamental assumptions for all Detailed
remedial alternatives used during alternative development Analysis
and screening. In addition, there are numerous secondary
assumptions that affect the detailed analysis of alternatives but
are not fundamental controlling considerations and can vary between alternatives.
Some of these secondary assumptions are grouped into distinct categories and include
the items listed in Exhibit 7-1.
Introduction
~~r~
Site
Characteristics
I
Remedial
Action
Objectives
~~r~
Technology
Screening
~~r~
Alternative
Screening
~~r~
Screening
Criteria
Detailed
Analysis
CDM
NRE_Final FS_Section 7.doc
-------
Section 7
Detailed Analysis of Retained Alternatives
Exhibit 7-1. Secondary Assumptions Affecting Refinement and
Detailed Analysis of Remedial Alternatives
Secondary
Assumption
Category
Secondary
Assumption
Description
Rationale
Land Use Control
Assumptions
Land Use Controls for
Privately Owned Parcels
are Primarily Institutional
Controls and Community
Awareness Activities
Establishment of access control such as posted warnings
may be difficult on privately owned parcels that are occupied
and are actively used. It is also uncertain whether legal
authority exists to install access controls extensively on
privately owned parcels. However the legal authority exists
to implement certain types of institutional controls (for
instance informational devices) as well as community
awareness activities.
Thus, land use controls for privately owned parcels are
assumed to be primarily institutional controls and community
awareness activities.
Land Use Controls for
Receiver-Managed Parcels
are Primarily Institutional
Controls and Access
Controls
Establishment of institutional controls and access controls
such as posted warnings would be relatively easy on
receiver-managed parcels because they are unoccupied,
and the legal authority exists with the NRE receiver. The
onsite waste repositories that require institutional controls
and access controls are also assumed to be located on
receiver-managed parcels.
Land use controls for receiver-managed parcels are
assumed to be primarily institutional controls and access
controls since there are no current residents on these
parcels. Although community awareness activities are not
currently needed for receiver-managed parcels, these
activities may be needed in the future if parcels are
reoccupied.
Monitoring
Assumptions
Monitoring Activities
Identified for FS Evaluation
Purposes Only
All alternatives (including Alternative 1) include physical
and/or chemical monitoring to ensure protectiveness of the
remedy. While quantities and types of monitoring activities
have been assumed for FS evaluation purposes, data quality
objectives (DQOs) have not been established for specific
monitoring activities relative to a particular alternative.
A detailed evaluation of monitoring requirements for each
alternative is presented in Appendix F. These monitoring
requirements and related objectives for monitoring were
determined for FS evaluation and costing purposes, and are
not intended to substitute development of DQOs and
determination of remedy-specific monitoring requirements
during design and implementation.
Interior Cleaning
Assumptions
Periodic Interior Cleaning
Required At Least Every 10
Years for Alternative 3
Periodic interior cleaning would be performed under
Alternative 3 to address potential future risks from asbestos
fibers in indoor air at residential structures on privately
owned parcels.
Since the fibers originate from exposed contaminated
materials that degrade overtime and are tracked into
residences, it is assumed for FS purposes that interior
cleaning would be required every two 5-year site reviews
(i.e., every 10 years) for Alternative 3 to address potential
risks from contaminated materials brought into residential
structures and identified during site reviews.
Interior cleaning is assumed to not be required for
alternatives other than Alternative 3, since all identified
contaminated materials are either isolated beneath covers or
excavation backfill and are not left exposed at the site.
CDM
NRE_Final FS_Section 7.doc
-------
Section 7
Detailed Analysis of Retained Alternatives
Exhibit 7-1. Secondary Assumptions Affecting Refinement and
Del
tailed Analysis of Remedial Alternatives (continued)
Secondary
Assumption
Category
Secondary
Assumption
Description
Rationale
Interior Cleaning
Assumptions
(continued)
Periodic Interior Cleaning
Required At Least Every 10
Years for Alternative 3
(continued)
Although residual contaminated materials may incrementally
migrate to the surface overtime through backfill, especially
for Alternative 5a, the small quantities of these materials
would not likely contaminate indoor air to levels posing risks
within residential structures. Although interior cleaning is
only included for alternative 3, all alternatives include
monitoring of indoor air during 5-year reviews to ensure
protectiveness.
Capping (Cover)
Assumptions
Type and Thickness of
Covers For Capping
The type of cover is assumed for FS purposes to be soil
since soil covers are easily installed, borrow soil resources
should be available, and borrow soil is relatively inexpensive
compared to other types of cover materials, such as
geosynthetic materials or concrete/asphalt. The actual types
of cover placed at a particular parcel would be addressed
during RD.
Thickness of the cover for in-place containment and onsite
consolidation and containment is assumed to be a minimum
of 2 feet (18 inches of subsoil and 6 inches of topsoil for soil
covers) to prevent upward migration of contaminated
materials from frost heave processes.
This assumption is based on the estimated average frost
depth of 2 feet in the county as indicated by the Oregon
Residential Specialty Code, Table R301.2(1)-Climatic and
Geographic Design Criteria. This depth will be confirmed and
the cover thickness revised, if necessary, within the ROD or
during RD/RA using freeze depth and capping thickness
recommendations for the site currently being prepared by
the United States Army Cold Regions Research and
Engineering Laboratory. A preliminary summary of their
results is also included in Appendix A.
Cover Construction Over
Subsurface Contaminated
Materials
Due to shallow depths of subsurface contaminated materials
(ranging from a few inches bgs to several feet bgs), areas
with subsurface contaminated materials are assumed to
require capping using soil covers under Alternatives 3, 4a,
and 4b.
Permanent Soil Cover for
the Existing Onsite Waste
Repository
An interim soil cover was placed over the existing onsite
waste repository during the removal actions conducted in
2008 and 2009. The thickness of the interim cover is variable
and generally less than 2 feet. The interim cover also was
not constructed with borrow demonstrated to be free from
contamination.
It is assumed the interim cover on the existing onsite waste
repository will require modification to ensure permanence for
alternatives that fully address exposure of contaminated
materials (Alternatives 4, 5a, 5b, and 6). These alternatives
assume placement of an additional 12 inches of clean cover
material to ensure that the permanent cover has the required
minimum thickness to provide protection against frost heave
processes.
For Alternative 3, the interim cover is assumed to not require
modification since the existing waste repository would
remain surrounded by exposed contaminated materials on
receiver-managed parcels.
CDM
NRE_Final FS_Section 7.doc
-------
Section 7
Detailed Analysis of Retained Alternatives
Exhibit 7-1. Secondary Assumptions Affecting Refinement and
Detailed Analysis of Remedial Alternatives (continued)
Secondary
Assumption
Category
Secondary
Assumption
Description
Rationale
Excavation
Assumptions
Assumed Depth of Surface
and Subsurface
Contamination for
Excavation Assumptions
Alternatives 5a, 5b, and 6 include excavation of
contaminated materials. The depth of contaminated surface
materials in Alternative 5a is assumed to be the depth of
contamination identified in the Rl or 2 feet bgs, whichever is
less.
This assumption is based on the estimated average frost
depth of 2 feet in the county as indicated by the Oregon
Residential Specialty Code, Table R301.2(1)-Climatic and
Geographic Design Criteria. This depth will be confirmed and
revised, if necessary, within the ROD or during RD/RA using
freeze depth and capping thickness recommendations for
the site currently being prepared by the United States Army
Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory. A
preliminary summary of their results is also included in
Appendix A.
The depth of excavation for Alternatives 5b and 6 is
assumed to be the full depth of contamination identified in
the Rl. The depth for subsurface contaminated materials
varies across the site based on estimated depths determined
during previous investigations, and is not limited to 2 feet
bgs.
Excavation Near Onsite
Structures
Excavation in some portions of the site will not be
practicable, especially near the onsite residential structures
(houses on both privately owned and receiver-managed
parcels) due to stability issues. These areas or portions of
the site are assumed to be excavated to a depth of 2 feet
bgs to the extent practicable, backfilled with clean soil or
covered with other barrier materials such as concrete, and
the remedy protected through the use of land use controls.
Use of structural support measures is also assumed for
excavation of deeper subsurface contaminated materials
adjacent to structures.
Borrow Material
Assumptions
Uncontaminated Subsoil
and Topsoil Borrow from
Offsite Locations
All alternatives except Alternatives 1 and 2 would require the
use of uncontaminated soil for construction (soil cover and
clean backfill material). Onsite materials are not assumed
because most of the area within the site boundary has the
potential to be contaminated. Borrow soil could potentially be
obtained from locations on either private or public property.
It is assumed that the offsite soil borrow areas would be
located on private property within 10 miles of the site. For
cost purposes, it was assumed that 50 percent of the offsite
borrow would be obtained within 1 mile of the site, and the
remaining 50 percent of offsite borrow would be obtained
within 10 miles of the site.
Organic Materials for
Topsoil from Offsite Areas
All alternatives except Alternative 1 would require the use of
uncontaminated topsoil for construction of covers and
reclamation of excavated borrow areas. Borrow soil could
potentially be obtained from offsite areas on either private or
public property.
It is assumed that topsoil would be manufactured from the
clean borrow soil brought from an offsite borrow locations
using organic materials derived from composting facilities.
The composting facilities are assumed to be located in
Klamath Falls.
CDM
NRE_Final FS_Section 7.doc
-------
Section 7
Detailed Analysis of Retained Alternatives
Exhibit 7-1. Secondary Assumptions Affecting Refinement and
Detailed Analysis of Remedial Alternatives (continued)
Secondary
Assumption
Category
Secondary
Assumption
Description
Rationale
Disposal
Assumptions
Onsite Disposal Locations
Alternatives 5a and 5b assume the construction of new
onsite waste repositories to consolidate and contain the
excavated contaminated materials. It is assumed that the
repositories would be constructed on receiver-managed
parcels that are already significantly impacted by
contaminated materials, thus, reducing the volume of
additional contaminated materials excavation and disposal
required from the site as a whole and to avoid increasing the
surface area of contamination that would require land use
controls.
Use of Offsite Permitted
Disposal Facilities
Alternatives 5a and 6 assume offsite disposal of
contaminated materials at permitted disposal facilities
authorized by Oregon DEQ for asbestos. There are a
number of permitted disposal facilities for asbestos in the
State of Oregon, but few facilities could accept all the ACM
wastes within contaminated materials expected to be
generated for these two alternatives and acceptance of
these wastes by the facilities is uncertain. Thus, it is
assumed that multiple facilities would be used for offsite
disposal.
For cost purposes, haul distance and disposal fees for all
the facilities that responded to disposal queries were
averaged on a weighted basis based on the proximity to the
site and the volume of waste that the facility indicated they
could potentially accept.
Miscellaneous
Assumptions
Water-Based Dust
Suppression
Dust suppression measures would be implemented under all
alternatives except Alternative 1. Water is assumed to be
used as the primary option for dust suppression to provide
protection of human health and the environment and meet
potential ARARs (e.g., keeping ACM "adequately wet").
Demolition and Relocation
Assumptions for
Residential Structures on
Receiver-Managed Parcels
Portions of the receiver-managed parcels would be left
unremediated under Alternative 3 and would not be
protective for residential use. Thus, the NRE receiver has
indicated that those homes and other residential structures
that cannot be unoccupied within receiver-managed parcels
would require either demolition or relocation to avoid
becoming safety hazards to nearby homes on privately
owned parcels.
Demolition and offsite disposal of debris from homes on
receiver-managed parcels is assumed for Alternative 3 cost
evaluation purposes. It is assumed under all other
alternatives that reoccupancy of the homes and other
residential structures would be allowed and thus demolition
or relocation is not required.
Remedial Measures for
Steam Pipe Vary By
Location
Buried steam pipe with asbestos insulation is present across
much of the site (approximately 14,695 feet buried at an
approximate depth of 4 feet bgs).
Steam pipe west of Old Fort Road may have been disturbed
during demolition of the former MRB. Thus it is assumed
that subsurface steam pipe west of Old Fort Road would
need to be addressed in a similar manner to other
subsurface contaminated materials under each remedial
alternative since the steam pipe is generally co-located with
other subsurface contaminated materials.
CDM
NRE_Final FS_Section 7.doc
-------
Section 7
Detailed Analysis of Retained Alternatives
Exhibit 7-1. Secondary Assumptions Affecting Refinement and
Detailed Analysis of Remedial Alternatives (continued)
Secondary
Assumption
Category
Secondary
Assumption
Description
Rationale
Miscellaneous
Assumptions
(continued)
Remedial Measures for
Steam Pipe Vary By
Location
(continued)
There is no indication that steam pipe east of Old Fort Road
had been disturbed during demolition of the former MRB.
Thus it is assumed that subsurface steam pipe east of Old
Fort Road (primarily along Thicket Court) would be left in
place under all remedial alternatives and addressed through
a combination of land use controls (i.e. institutional controls,
community awareness activities, and access controls).
Alternatives Would
Incorporate Relevant
Elements of EPA Region
10's Clean & Green Policy
Except Where
Protectiveness is Affected
It is assumed that all alternatives would address relevant
elements of EPA Region 10's Clean & Green policy (EPA
2009b) to the extent possible. Under the policy, use of the
indicated elements and other green cleanup technologies
are standard unless a site-specific evaluation demonstrates
impracticability or favors an alternative green approach. The
elements of the "Clean & Green" policy include:
¦ 100 percent use of renewable energy (green power), and
energy conservation and efficiency approaches including
Energy Star® equipment.
¦ Cleaner fuels, diesel emissions controls and retrofits,
and emission reduction strategies.
¦ Water conservation and efficiency approaches including
WaterSense products.
¦ Sustainable site design.
¦ Industrial material reuse or recycling within regulatory
requirements.
¦ Recycling of materials generated at or removed from the
site.
¦ Environmentally Preferable Purchasing.
¦ Greenhouse gas emission reduction technologies.
¦ Concrete made with Coal Combustion Products
replacing a portion of traditional cement.
¦ Capture landfill gases under the Landfill Methane
Outreach Program.
¦ Environmental Management System practices such as
reducing the use of paper by moving to fully electronic
transmittal of project documents and implementation of
waste reduction and recycling programs at all work sites.
The Clean & Green Policy does not fundamentally change
how and why cleanup decisions are made, but calls for
more sustainable methods of implementing those cleanups.
Some of these elements may not be relevant to the
alternatives considered for the site (for instance, there is
non anticipated need for collection of landfill gasses). The
policy also does not preclude remedy components that are
required to ensure protectiveness. For instance, using large
quantities of water for dust suppression is a required
element of asbestos cleanups to ensure safety. Thus, water
conservation may not be possible in this situation.
The use of Clean & Green practices will be considered
during implementation of a selected remedy at the site.
Note: The list of secondary assumptions provided is a summary and is not all-inclusive; additional
secondary assumptions are contained in Appendices C, F, and H.
7-6
CDM
NRE_Final FS_Section 7.doc
-------
Section 7
Detailed Analysis of Retained Alternatives
7.3 Alternative 1: No Action
7.3.1 Detailed Remedy Component Descriptions
Alternative 1 is required by the NCP to provide an environmental baseline against
which impacts of the various remedial alternatives can be compared. A summary of
the remedial components of Alternative 1 is provided in Section 5.3.1. The following
text provides additional detail about the remedial components of this alternative.
Alternative 1 would leave removal action activities previously performed in their
current conditions. No new remedial action activities would be initiated at the site to
address contaminated materials or otherwise mitigate the associated risks to human
health and the environment.
The only actions that would be implemented for Alternative 1 are completion of
5-year site reviews as required by the NCP and monitoring (specifically non-intrusive
visual inspections and ambient air sampling) only as required to support conclusions
made in the 5-year site reviews. Non-intrusive visual inspections (i.e., surface
inspections) and ambient air sampling for asbestos and non-asbestos COPCs would
be performed in support of 5-year site reviews. Monitoring would be made on all
parcels within the site boundary regardless of ownership.
Generalized descriptions of inspection and sampling methods for asbestos are
provided in Section 2.5, and details concerning the proposed monitoring and
inspection protocol for Alternative 1 are provided in Appendix F.
7.3.2 Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment
Evaluation of overall protection of human health and the environment for Alternative
1 is provided in Table G-l using the evaluation criteria along with the qualitative
rating for each and the justification for the rating. The overall rating on this criterion
for Alternative 1 is "none." ©
7.3.3 Compliance with ARARs
Evaluation of compliance with ARARs for Alternative 1 is provided in Table G-2
using the evaluation criteria considerations along with the qualitative rating for each
and the justification for the rating. ARARs evaluated for this alternative are included
in Appendix B. The overall rating on this criterion for Alternative 1 is "none." ©
7.3.4 Long-Term Effectiveness and Permanence
Evaluation of long-term effectiveness and permanence for Alternative 1 is provided in
Table G-3 using the evaluation criteria considerations along with the qualitative rating
for each and the justification for the rating. The overall rating on this criterion for
Alternative 1 is "none." ©
CDM
NRE_Final FS_Section 7.doc
-------
Section 7
Detailed Analysis of Retained Alternatives
7.3.5 Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume through
Treatment
Evaluation of reduction of toxicity, mobility, or volume through treatment for
Alternative 1 is provided in Table G-4 using the evaluation criteria considerations
along with the qualitative rating for each and the justification for the rating. The
overall rating on this criterion for Alternative 1 is "none." ©
7.3.6 Short-Term Effectiveness
Evaluation of short-term effectiveness for Alternative 1 is provided in Table G-5 using
the evaluation criteria considerations along with the qualitative rating for each and
the justification for the rating. The overall rating on this criterion for Alternative 1 is
"none." ©
7.3.7 Implementability
Evaluation of implementability for Alternative 1 is provided in Table G-6 using the
evaluation criteria considerations along with the qualitative rating for each and the
justification for the rating. The overall rating on this criterion for Alternative 1 is
"none." ©
7.3.8 Cost
Evaluation of cost for Alternative 1 is provided in Table G-7 using the evaluation
criteria considerations along with the cost rating for each and the justification for the
rating. Detailed cost estimates for this alternative are included in Appendix H. The
overall rating on this criterion for Alternative 1 is "low." $
7.4 Alternative 3: Capping of Contaminated Materials on
Private Parcels, Partial Capping of Contaminated
Materials on Receivership Parcels, Interior Cleaning, and
Land Use Controls with Monitoring
7.4.1 Detailed Remedy Component Descriptions
A description of the remedial components of Alternative 3 is provided in Section 5.3.3.
The conceptual depiction of this remedial alternative is presented in Figure 7-1. The
following text provides additional detail about the remedial components of this
alternative.
Covers
Alternative 3 would cap (cover) all contaminated materials on privately owned
parcels and a portion of the contaminated materials on receiver-managed parcels. All
contaminated materials identified on privately owned parcels and a portion of
contaminated materials on the receiver-managed parcels would be would be capped
with at least 24 inches of clean materials (assumed to be a minimum of 18 inches of
subsoil and 6 inches of topsoil). Covers would provide protection from exposure to
contaminated materials and frost heave processes. Clean soils for the covers would be
brought from offsite borrow areas.
CDM
-------
Section 7
Detailed Analysis of Retained Alternatives
For cost evaluation purposes, it is assumed that approximately 50 percent of the
horizontal extent of exposed contaminated materials on receiver-managed parcels
would be addressed through construction of covers.
This alternative leaves the existing onsite waste repository intact, but does not
otherwise modify the interim cover over the repository since other areas of
contaminated materials on receiver-managed parcels surrounding the repository
would be left exposed at the surface.
Determination of allowable future land uses beyond the current zoning is outside the
scope of this FS. However it is assumed that future land use of the covered portion of
receiver-managed parcels could be used for non-residential or residential purposes
and that the potential future uses could vary based on the extent of coverage. While
uncovered portions of the receiver-managed parcels would have restricted access
using access controls, they could be used in conjunction with covered areas to provide
open viewing areas for specific non-residential or residential purposes on the covered
portions of the parcels.
Some potential non-residential future uses of covered areas indicated by the public to
EPA during the RI/FS process for this alternative included the following:
¦ Minimized coverage: Park or trail areas, the viewing area for a nature conservancy,
or the access paths for a cemetery
¦ Moderate coverage: Senior citizen community centers
¦ Maximized coverage: Business park or light industrial complex
Health and safety precautions, including establishment of exclusion and contaminant
reduction zones, dust suppression, use of personal protective equipment (PPE), and
monitoring, would be performed during construction of covers to reduce risks to
workers. Either water- or chemical-based dust suppression would be used during
construction of the covers to prevent asbestos fibers from becoming airborne and
potentially posing an inhalation exposure risk. Temporary gravel access roads would
be used as necessary to limit disturbance of contaminated materials during
construction of the covers.
Covers over contaminated materials would be constructed to the extent practicable.
However it may not be possible to construct frost-protective soil covers over
contaminated materials directly adjacent to obstructions such as homes or structures,
trees, subsurface utilities, and roads. . For purposes of this FS, a thin profile of clean
soil backfill or another barrier material placed adjacent to covers coupled with land
use controls are assumed to address these situations. Long-term O&M would be
required to maintain the integrity of the covers.
CDM
NRE_Final FS_Section 7.doc
-------
Section 7
Detailed Analysis of Retained Alternatives
Residential Structure Demolition or Relocation
Portions of the receiver-managed parcels would be left unremediated under this
alternative and would not be protective for residential use. Thus, the NRE receiver
has indicated that those homes and other residential structures that cannot be
unoccupied within receiver-managed parcels would require either demolition or
relocation to avoid becoming safety hazards to nearby homes on privately owned
parcels. Demolition and offsite disposal of debris from homes on receiver-managed
parcels is assumed for cost evaluation purposes on this alternative.
Interior Cleaning
Interior cleaning would be performed on a periodic basis using vacuum extraction to
remove asbestos fibers within residential structures on privately owned parcels.
Residential structures on receiver-managed parcels would not be cleaned under this
alternative since they would be left unoccupied and would be demolished or
relocated during implementation of the remedy.
Interior cleaning would involve temporary relocation of residents, enclosure of the
residence to prevent escape of asbestos fibers, aggressive disturbance of home
surfaces with blowers to dislodge fibers, and vacuum extraction/pumping to remove
the fibers. It is assumed for FS purposes that all structures that could be occupied
(homes, apartments, and supporting structures such as garages or sheds) would be
cleaned regardless of current occupant status. Interior cleanings would be performed
only if results of monitoring indicates that a potential risk exists from indoor air; it is
assumed that potential risks are identified every other 5-year site review (i.e., every 10
years).
Land Use Controls
Land use controls would consist of a combination of institutional controls (legal and
administrative controls), access controls (physical controls such as posted warnings),
and community awareness activities (informational and educational programs) to
restrict access and use of contaminated areas and provide awareness of risks from
exposure to contaminated materials. The types of land use controls would be tailored
for each parcel, with the type and extent of contaminated materials and type of
ownership in mind to provide protection of human health and maintain the integrity
of the remedy put in place (covers and posted warnings) to the extent possible.
Institutional controls would consist of a combination of governmental controls,
proprietary controls, and/or informational devices that would be selected on a parcel
by parcel basis depending on the ownership status (privately owned parcels versus
receiver-managed parcels) and the degree of contamination present on the parcel. In
general, there likely will be a greater degree of difficulty implementing and enforcing
institutional controls on privately owned parcels. "Layering" of institutional controls
may be required to enhance the overall protectiveness of institutional controls,
especially on privately owned parcels. Issuance and periodic review and update of a
comprehensive institutional control plan likely would be required to keep track of the
various institutional control measures taken for each parcel. Detailed descriptions of
these specific legal and administrative instruments are provided in Appendix F.
CDM
NRE_Final FS_Section 7.doc
-------
Section 7
Detailed Analysis of Retained Alternatives
Access controls (specifically posted warnings) would be implemented primarily on
the uncovered portions of receiver-managed parcels to discourage access and warn
people of exposed contaminated materials and the current onsite waste repository
located on receiver-managed parcels.
Access controls could also be used for specific areas of contamination on any parcel in
consultation with the parcel owner. For instance, warning signs could be used to
demarcate the existence and alignment of buried ACM steam pipe located on
privately owned parcels along the east side of Old Fort Road( such as Thicket Court).
Long-term O&M would be required to maintain access controls damaged by weather
or vandalism.
Community awareness activities include informational and educational programs to
inform the public about site risks and the activities being performed to reduce these
risks. Dissemination of this information could use electronic communication (e-mails
and web site updates), printed communication (flyers, facts sheets, newspaper
articles, or signs), and/or personal communication (public meetings or personal
visits). Community awareness activities would be put in place throughout the
remedial process, especially during implementation of remedial action and
subsequent 5-year site reviews.
Monitoring
Monitoring would be performed during the construction of the remedial action
remedy components (covers and access controls) and routinely after the remedy is in
place to determine whether there is adequate protection of human health and the
environment.
Monitoring during construction of the remedy components would consist of ambient
air sampling, borrow source testing, and inspection of areas without identified
contamination. Ambient air samples would be collected and analyzed from various
locations of the site to assess whether there are current exposure risks to asbestos
fibers and non-asbestos COPCs in ambient air during the construction activities.
Borrow samples would be collected from potential soil borrow areas and analyzed for
asbestos and non-asbestos COPCs. Results of the sample analysis would be used to
determine that contamination is not present in proposed offsite borrow area materials
before use in construction. Inspection of areas without identified contamination
would be made to ensure that those areas are not adversely impacted from prior
disturbance of adjacent contaminated materials.
Routine monitoring would be performed for all parcels outside of areas with exposed
contaminated materials. Monitoring protocol for covered portions of privately owned
and receiver-managed parcels would include routine non-intrusive visual inspections
(i.e. surface inspections) to ensure integrity of the covers; these are assumed to be
performed at least annually.
CDM
NRE_Final FS_Section 7.doc
-------
Section 7
Detailed Analysis of Retained Alternatives
Five-year site reviews would be performed as required by the NCP since
contaminated materials would remain at the site. Non-intrusive visual inspections
(i.e. surface inspections), indoor air sampling for asbestos, and ambient air sampling
for asbestos and non-asbestos COPCs would be performed in support of 5-year site
reviews. Ambient air samples would be collected and analyzed from various locations
of the site to assess whether there are current exposure risks to asbestos fibers and
non-asbestos COPCs in ambient air outside areas of exposed contaminated materials.
Monitoring would be performed on all parcels within the site boundary regardless of
ownership.
Generalized descriptions of inspection and sampling methods for asbestos are
provided in Section 2.5, and specific details concerning the monitoring and inspection
protocol for Alternative 3 (including proposed sample types, quantities, frequencies,
and analytical methods) are provided in Appendix F.
Remedial Component Quantity Summary
Exhibit 7-2 provides a summary of the major remedial components for Alternative 3
requiring construction and the estimated quantities for these components.
Exhibit 7-2. Summary of Major Remedial Components and
Associated Quantities for Alternative 3
Remedial Component
Unit
Estimated Quantity
Surface Area of Covers
Acres
53
Common Backfill Required to Construct Covers
Loose Cubic
Yards
145,000
Topsoil Required to Construct Covers
Loose Cubic
Yards
48,300
Privately Owned Parcels Potentially Requiring Periodic
Interior Cleaning of Residential Structures
Each
24
Privately Owned Parcels Potentially Requiring Land Use
Controls
Each
27
Receiver-Managed Parcels Potentially Requiring Land Use
Controls
Each
29
Receiver-Managed Parcels Requiring Home Relocation or
Removal
Each
18
Note: Quantities summarized in this exhibit are contained in Appendices C and H. Although quantities
provided are detailed, they should be considered approximate for FS evaluation purposes only.
7.4.2 Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment
Evaluation of overall protection of human health and the environment for Alternative
3 is provided in Table G-8 using the evaluation criteria considerations along with the
qualitative rating for each and the justification for the rating. The overall rating on this
criterion for Alternative 3 is "low to moderate." ©
7-12
CDM
NRE_Final FS_Section 7.doc
-------
Section 7
Detailed Analysis of Retained Alternatives
7.4.3 Compliance with ARARs
Evaluation of compliance with ARARs for Alternative 3 is provided in Table G-9
using the evaluation criteria considerations along with the qualitative rating for each
and the justification for the rating. ARARs evaluated for this alternative are included
in Appendix B. The overall rating on this criterion for Alternative 3 is "moderate." ©
7.4.4 Long-Term Effectiveness and Permanence
Evaluation of long-term effectiveness and permanence for Alternative 3 is provided in
Table G-10 using the evaluation criteria considerations along with the qualitative
rating for each and the justification for the rating. The overall rating on this criterion
for Alternative 3 is "low to moderate." ©
7.4.5 Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume through
Treatment
Evaluation of reduction of toxicity, mobility, or volume through treatment for
Alternative 3 is provided in Table G-ll using the evaluation criteria considerations
along with the qualitative rating for each and the justification for the rating. The
overall rating on this criterion for Alternative 3 is "none." ©
7.4.6 Short-Term Effectiveness
Evaluation of short-term effectiveness for Alternative 3 is provided in Table G-12
using the evaluation criteria considerations along with the qualitative rating for each
and the justification for the rating. The overall rating on this criterion for Alternative 3
is "moderate to high." ©
7.4.7 Implementability
Evaluation of implementability for Alternative 3 is provided in Table G-13 using the
evaluation criteria considerations along with the qualitative rating for each and the
justification for the rating. The overall rating on this criterion for Alternative 3 is
"moderate to high." ©
7.4.8 Cost
Evaluation of cost for Alternative 3 is provided in Table G-14 using the evaluation
factors. Detailed cost estimates for this alternative are included in Appendix H. The
overall rating on this criterion for Alternative 3 (present value cost) is "low to
moderate." $$
7.5 Alternative 4: Capping of Contaminated Materials
and Land Use Controls with Monitoring
7.5.1 Detailed Remedy Component Descriptions
A summary of the remedial components of Alternative 4 is provided in Section 5.3.4.
The conceptual depiction of this remedial alternative is presented in Figure 7-2. The
following text provides additional detail about the remedial components of this
alternative.
CDM
NRE_Final FS_Section 7.doc
-------
Section 7
Detailed Analysis of Retained Alternatives
Covers
Alternative 4 would cover all contaminated materials both on privately owned parcels
and the receiver-managed parcels. This alternative would also include construction of
a permanent cover over the existing onsite waste repository to ensure the interim
cover installed in 2009 is protective. This alternative assumes placement of an
additional 12 inches of clean cover material to ensure that the permanent cover has
the required minimum thickness to provide protection against frost heave processes.
Cover construction and maintenance for privately owned parcels and the receiver-
managed parcels would otherwise be performed as described in Section 7.4.1 for
Alternative 3.
Land Use Controls
Land use controls would consist of a combination of institutional controls (legal and
administrative controls), access controls (physical controls such as posted warnings),
and community awareness activities (informational and educational programs) to
restrict access and use of contaminated areas and provide awareness of risks from
exposure to contaminated materials. The types of land use controls would be tailored
for each parcel, with the type and extent of contaminated materials and type of
ownership in mind to provide protection of human health and maintain the integrity
of the remedy put in place (covers and posted warnings) to the extent possible.
Institutional controls would consist of a combination of governmental controls,
proprietary controls, and/or informational devices that would be selected on a parcel
by parcel basis depending on the ownership status (privately owned parcels versus
receiver-managed parcels) and the degree of contamination present on the parcel. In
general, there likely will be a greater degree of difficulty implementing and enforcing
institutional controls on privately owned parcels. "Layering" of institutional controls
may be required to enhance the overall protectiveness of institutional controls,
especially on privately owned parcels. Issuance and periodic review and update of a
comprehensive institutional control plan likely would be required to keep track of the
various institutional control measures taken for each parcel. Detailed descriptions of
these specific legal and administrative instruments are provided in Appendix F.
Access controls (specifically posted warnings) would be implemented primarily at the
current onsite repository located on receiver-managed parcels. Access controls could
also be used for specific areas of contamination on any parcel in consultation with the
parcel owner. For instance, warning signs could be used to demarcate the existence
and alignment of buried ACM steam pipe located on privately owned parcels along
the east side of Old Fort Road( such as Thicket Court). Long-term O&M would be
required to maintain access controls damaged by weather or vandalism.
CDM
NRE_Final FS_Section 7.doc
-------
Section 7
Detailed Analysis of Retained Alternatives
Community awareness activities include informational and educational programs to
inform the public about site risks and the activities being performed to reduce these
risks. Dissemination of this information could use electronic communication (e-mails
and web site updates), printed communication (flyers, facts sheets, newspaper
articles, or signs), and/or personal communication (public meetings or personal
visits). Community awareness activities would be put in place throughout the
remedial process, especially during implementation of remedial action and
subsequent 5-year site reviews.
Monitoring
Monitoring would be performed during the construction of the remedial action
remedy components (covers and access controls) and routinely after the remedy is in
place to determine whether there is adequate protection of human health and the
environment.
Monitoring during construction of the remedy components would consist of ambient
air sampling, borrow source testing, and inspection of areas without identified
contamination. Ambient air samples would be collected and analyzed from various
locations of the site to assess whether there are current exposure risks to asbestos
fibers and non-asbestos COPCs in ambient air during the construction activities.
Borrow samples would be collected from potential soil borrow areas and analyzed for
asbestos and non-asbestos COPCs. Results of the sample analysis would be used to
determine that contamination is not present in proposed offsite borrow area materials
before use in construction. Inspection of areas without identified contamination
would be made to ensure that those areas are not adversely impacted from prior
disturbance of contaminated materials.
Routine monitoring would be performed for all parcels with covers. Monitoring
protocol for covered portions of privately owned and receiver-managed parcels
would include routine non-intrusive visual inspections (i.e., surface inspections) to
ensure integrity of the covers; these are assumed to be performed at least annually.
Five-year site reviews would be performed as required by the NCP since
contaminated materials would remain at the site. Non-intrusive visual inspections
(i.e., surface inspections) would be performed in support of 5-year site reviews.
Monitoring would be performed on all parcels within the site boundary regardless of
ownership.
Generalized descriptions of inspection and sampling methods for asbestos are
provided in Section 2.5, and specific details concerning the monitoring and inspection
protocol for Alternative 4 (including proposed sample types, quantities, frequencies,
and analytical methods) are provided in Appendix F.
Remedial Component Quantity Summary
Exhibit 7-3 provides a summary of the major remedial components for Alternative 4
requiring construction and the estimated quantities for these components.
CDM
NRE_Final FS_Section 7.doc
-------
Section 7
Detailed Analysis of Retained Alternatives
Exhibit 7-3. Summary of Major Remedial Components and
Associated Quantities for Alternative 4
Remedial Component
Unit
Estimated Quantity
Surface Area of Covers
Acres
88
Common Backfill Required to Construct Covers
Loose Cubic
Yards
238,800
Topsoil Required to Construct Covers
Loose Cubic
Yards
80,900
Privately Owned Parcels Potentially Requiring Land Use
Controls
Each
27
Receiver-Managed Parcels Potentially Requiring Land Use
Controls
Each
29
Note: Quantities summarized in this exhibit are contained in Appendices C and H. Although quantities
provided are detailed, they should be considered approximate for FS evaluation purposes only.
7.5.2 Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment
Evaluation of overall protection of human health and the environment for Alternative
4a is provided in Table G-15 using the evaluation criteria considerations along with
the qualitative rating for each and the justification for the rating. The overall rating on
this criterion for Alternative 4 is "moderate." ©
7.5.3 Compliance with ARARs
Evaluation of compliance with ARARs for Alternative 4 is provided in Table G-16
using the evaluation criteria considerations along with the qualitative rating for each
and the justification for the rating. ARARs evaluated for this alternative are included
in Appendix B. The overall rating on this criterion for Alternative 4 is "high." ©
7.5.4 Long-Term Effectiveness and Permanence
Evaluation of long-term effectiveness and permanence for Alternative 4 is provided in
Table G-17 using the evaluation criteria considerations along with the qualitative
rating for each and the justification for the rating. The overall rating on this criterion
for Alternative 4 is "moderate." ©
7.5.5 Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume through
Treatment
Evaluation of reduction of toxicity, mobility, or volume through treatment for
Alternative 4 is provided in Table G-18 using the evaluation criteria considerations
along with the qualitative rating for each and the justification for the rating. The
overall rating on this criterion for Alternative 4 is "none." ©
7.5.6 Short-Term Effectiveness
Evaluation of short-term effectiveness for Alternative 4 is provided in Table G-19
using the evaluation criteria considerations along with the qualitative rating for each
and the justification for the rating. The overall rating on this criterion for Alternative 4
is "moderate." ©
7-16
CDM
NRE_Final FS_Section 7.doc
-------
Section 7
Detailed Analysis of Retained Alternatives
7.5.7 Implementability
Evaluation of implementability for Alternative 4 is provided in Table G-20 using the
evaluation criteria considerations along with the qualitative rating for each and the
justification for the rating. The overall rating on this criterion for Alternative 4 is
"moderate." ©
7.5.8 Cost
Evaluation of cost for Alternative 4 is provided in Table G-21 using the evaluation
criteria considerations along with the cost rating for each and the justification for the
rating. Detailed cost estimates for this alternative are included in Appendix H. The
overall rating on this criterion for Alternative 4 (present value cost) is "moderate."
$$$
7.6 Alternative 5a: Excavation and Onsite
Consolidation/Disposal of Contaminated Surface
Materials, Future Excavation and Offsite Disposal of
Contaminated Surface Materials at Permitted Facilities,
and Land Use Controls with Monitoring
7.6.1 Detailed Remedy Component Descriptions
A summary of the remedial components of Alternative 5a is provided in Section 5.3.5.
The conceptual depiction of this remedial alternative is presented in Figure 7-3. The
following text provides additional detail about the remedial components of this
alternative.
Initial Excavation of Contaminated Surface Materials
All contaminated surface materials on privately owned parcels and receiver-managed
parcels would be excavated. For purposes of the FS, contaminated surface materials
would be fully excavated unless the identified depth of contamination exceeds 2 feet
bgs. Trucks or other mechanical conveyance would be used to transport excavated
contaminated materials and consolidate them at a new onsite disposal location.
Intrusive visual inspections (i.e., subsurface inspections using test pits or boreholes)
coupled with confirmation sample collection and analysis would be conducted
adjacent to the excavation areas after initial surface excavation is completed to
confirm that contaminated materials exposed at the surface would be excavated
horizontally to the extent they can be detected.
Health and safety precautions, including establishment of exclusion and contaminant
reduction zones, dust suppression, use of PPE, and monitoring, would be performed
during excavation of contaminated materials to reduce risks to workers. Either water-
or chemical-based dust suppression would be used during excavation to prevent
asbestos fibers within contaminated materials from becoming airborne and
potentially posing an inhalation exposure risk. Temporary gravel access roads would
be constructed as necessary to limit disturbance of contaminated materials during
excavation.
CDM 77
-------
Section 7
Detailed Analysis of Retained Alternatives
Excavation of contaminated surface materials would be conducted to the extent
practicable. However, it may not be possible to fully excavate contaminated surface
materials underneath or adjacent to obstructions such as homes or structures, trees,
subsurface utilities, and roads. Thus residual contaminated materials may be left in
soil underlying or adjacent to these obstructions. For purposes of this FS, a thin profile
of clean soil backfill or another barrier material placed adjacent to excavations
coupled with land use controls are assumed to address these situations.
Onsite Consolidation/Disposal
The excavated contaminated surface materials would be consolidated at an
authorized onsite location specifically for disposal of the contaminated materials,
including ACM. This disposal location would be located on receiver-managed parcels;
it is assumed for purposes of the FS that the new onsite disposal location
(Consolidation Area 1) would be in the central portion of the site to coincide with
parcels that are already heavily impacted by surface and subsurface contaminated
materials to limit the need to remove them.
Health and safety precautions, including establishment of exclusion and contaminant
reduction zones, dust suppression, use of PPE, and monitoring, would be used during
placement of contaminated materials at the onsite disposal locations to reduce risks to
workers.
Covers
Contaminated materials consolidated at the disposal locations would be capped with
at least 24 inches of clean materials (assumed to be a minimum of 18 inches of subsoil
and 6 inches of topsoil). Covers would provide protection from exposure to
contaminated materials and frost heave processes. Clean soils for the covers would be
brought from offsite borrow areas. Long-term O&M would be required to maintain
the integrity of the final covers over the onsite disposal locations.
This alternative would also include construction of a permanent cover over the
existing onsite waste repository to ensure the interim cover installed in 2009 is
protective. This alternative assumes placement of an additional 12 inches of clean
cover material to ensure that the permanent cover has the required minimum
thickness to provide protection against frost heave processes.
Excavation Backfill
Excavations would be backfilled to existing grade under this alternative. Clean soil is
assumed to be transported from offsite borrow areas tested for contamination. The
backfill would be covered with topsoil and revegetated, or otherwise restored to
match the surface conditions that previously existed. The backfill would provide an
initial exposure barrier to residual subsurface contaminated materials and asbestos
fibers, and would provide sufficient depth (2 feet) in some locations to eliminate frost
heave processes. However on a parcel-by-parcel basis it would not necessarily keep
residual or subsurface contaminated materials in underlying or adjacent soil from
migrating to the surface in the future through frost heave processes, especially where
the backfill is less than 2 feet thick.
7-18 CDM
NRE_Final FS_Section 7.doc
-------
Section 7
Detailed Analysis of Retained Alternatives
Future Excavation
Future excavation events (i.e., surface pickup of contaminated materials such as ACM
debris) would be performed on a regular basis to address subsurface contaminated
materials that could potentially migrate to the surface over time in absence of frost-
protective covers. Periodic inspection and mapping for the presence of contaminated
materials, especially immediately after periods of freeze-thaw, would be conducted to
establish the need and frequency of excavation. For purposes of this FS, it is assumed
that future excavations would be performed annually.
Future Offsite Disposal at Permitted Facilities
Contaminated materials excavated during future excavation events would be
transported offsite for disposal. Disposal facilities include permitted municipal-
owned landfills, construction debris landfills, and/or commercially or privately
owned landfills authorized by Oregon DEQ for asbestos. Offsite disposal facilities
would be required to meet the general provisions for solid waste disposal (Oregon
Administrative Rule [OAR] 340-093) as well as applicable requirements for either
municipal solid waste landfills (OAR 340-094) or land disposal sites other than
municipal solid waste landfills (OAR 340-095), depending on the type of disposal
facilities selected. These types of facilities are operated and maintained according to
the conditions set forth in their State of Oregon-issued permits.
Land Use Controls
Land use controls would consist of a combination of institutional controls (legal and
administrative controls), access controls (physical controls such as posted warnings),
and community awareness activities (informational and educational programs) to
restrict access and use of contaminated areas and provide awareness of risks from
exposure to contaminated materials. The types of land use controls would be tailored
for each parcel, with the type and extent of contaminated materials and type of
ownership in mind to maintain the integrity of the remedy put in place (excavation
backfill, covers, and posted warnings) to the extent possible.
Institutional controls would consist of a combination of governmental controls,
proprietary controls, and/or informational devices that would be selected on a parcel
by parcel basis depending on the ownership status (privately owned parcels versus
receiver-managed parcels) and the degree of contamination present on the parcel. In
general, there likely will be a greater degree of difficulty implementing and enforcing
institutional controls on privately owned parcels. "Layering" of institutional controls
may be required to enhance the overall protectiveness of institutional controls,
especially on privately owned parcels. Issuance and periodic review and update of a
comprehensive institutional control plan likely would be required to keep track of the
various institutional control measures taken for each parcel. Detailed descriptions of
these specific legal and administrative instruments are provided in Appendix F.
Access controls (specifically posted warnings) would be implemented primarily at the
onsite disposal locations to discourage access and warn people of the current and new
onsite repositories on receiver-managed parcels. These access controls would include
appropriate warning and informational signs. The actual type of signage would be
CDM 7-19
-------
Section 7
Detailed Analysis of Retained Alternatives
determined during remedial design based on the future uses of the site. These access
controls would be designed to meet substantive ARARs for inactive asbestos disposal
facilities.
Access controls could also be used for specific areas of contamination on any parcel in
consultation with the parcel owner. For instance, warning signs could be used to
demarcate the existence and alignment of buried ACM steam pipe located on
privately owned parcels along the east side of Old Fort Road( such as Thicket Court).
Long-term O&M would be required to maintain the integrity of the access controls if
damaged by weather or vandalism.
Community awareness activities include informational and educational programs to
inform the public about site risks and the activities being performed to reduce these
risks. Dissemination of this information could use electronic communication (e-mails
and web site updates), printed communication (flyers, facts sheets, newspaper
articles, or signs), and/or personal communication (public meetings or personal
visits). Community awareness activities would be put in place throughout the
remedial process, especially during implementation of remedial action and
subsequent 5-year site reviews.
Monitoring
Monitoring would be performed during the construction of the remedial action
remedy components (initial and future incremental excavation, onsite
consolidation/disposal and offsite disposal, covers, excavation backfill, and access
controls) and routinely after the remedy is in place to determine whether there is
adequate protection of human health and the environment.
Monitoring during construction of the initial remedy components would consist of
ambient air sampling, borrow source testing, excavation confirmatory sampling, and
inspection of areas without identified contamination. Ambient air samples would be
collected and analyzed from various locations of the site to assess whether there are
current exposure risks to asbestos fibers and non-asbestos COPCs in ambient air
during the construction activities. Borrow samples would be collected from potential
soil borrow areas and analyzed for asbestos and non-asbestos COPCs. Results of the
sample analysis would be used to determine that contamination is not present in
proposed offsite borrow area materials before use in construction. Excavation
confirmatory sampling would be performed to confirm that contaminated surface
materials have been completely excavated to the extent they can be detected.
Inspection of areas without identified contamination would be made to ensure that
those areas are not adversely impacted from prior disturbance of contaminated
materials.
Routine monitoring would be performed for all parcels with covers and/ or
excavation backfill. Monitoring protocol for covered or backfilled portions of
privately owned and receiver-managed parcels would include routine non-intrusive
visual inspections (i.e., surface inspections) to ensure integrity of the covers and
backfill; these are assumed to be performed at least annually.
CDM
NRE_Final FS_Section 7.doc
-------
Section 7
Detailed Analysis of Retained Alternatives
For Alternative 5a, it is assumed that emergence of contaminated materials requiring
future excavation would be discovered during the annual visual inspections.
Additional sampling and analysis would not be performed due to the emergence of
these materials. These materials would indicate a localized failure of the remedy that
is not protective of human health and the environment and that would require
immediate repair.
Five-year site reviews would be performed as required by the NCP since
contaminated materials would remain at the site. Non-intrusive visual inspections
(i.e., surface inspections) would be performed in support of 5-year site reviews.
Monitoring would be performed on all parcels within the site boundary regardless of
ownership.
Generalized descriptions of inspection and sampling methods for asbestos are
provided in Section 2.5, and specific details concerning the monitoring and inspection
protocol for Alternative 5a (including proposed sample types, quantities, frequencies,
and analytical methods) are provided in Appendix F.
Remedial Component Quantity Summary
Exhibit 7-4 provides a summary of the major remedial components for Alternative 5a
requiring construction and the estimated quantities for these components.
CDM
NRE_Final FS_Section 7.doc
7-21
-------
Section 7
Detailed Analysis of Retained Alternatives
Exhibit 7-4. Summary of Major Remedial Components and
Associated Quantities for Alternative 5a
Remedial Component
Unit
Estimated Quantity
Area of Contaminated Surface Materials Initially
Excavated
Acres
81
Volume of Contaminated Surface Materials Initially
Excavated
Loose Cubic Yards
97,000
Common Backfill Required for Excavations
Loose Cubic Yards
31,500
Topsoil Required for Excavations
Loose Cubic Yards
69,500
Receiver-Managed Parcels Potentially Impacted by
Onsite Disposal Locations
Parcel ID
5 parcels assumed to be
the following:
MBK-E, AG, and Y
(Existing Repository);
MBK-D, and L
(Consolidation Area 1)
Surface Area of Onsite Disposal Locations
Acres
8
Common Backfill Required to Construct Covers for
Onsite Disposal Locations
Loose Cubic Yards
50,700
Topsoil Required to Construct Covers for Onsite
Disposal Locations
Loose Cubic Yards
6,600
Annual Weight of Contaminated Materials During
Future Excavation - Years 1 through 10
Tons
11
Annual Weight of Contaminated Materials Assumed
During Future Excavation - Years 11 through 20
Tons
7
Annual Weight of Contaminated Materials Assumed
During Future Excavation - Years 21 through 30
Tons
3
One-Way Distance to Multiple Offsite Disposal
Facilities (Weighted Average)
Miles
110
Privately Owned Parcels Potentially Requiring Land
Use Controls
Each
27
Receiver-Managed Parcels Potentially Requiring
Land Use Controls
Each
29
Note: Quantities summarized in this exhibit are contained in Appendices C and H. Although the quantities
provided are detailed, they should be considered approximate for FS evaluation purposes only.
7.6.2 Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment
Evaluation of overall protection of human health and the environment for Alternative
5a is provided in Table G-22 using the evaluation criteria considerations along with
the qualitative rating for each and the justification for the rating. The overall rating on
this criterion for Alternative 5a is "low to moderate." ©
7.6.3 Compliance with ARARs
Evaluation of compliance with ARARs for Alternative 5a is provided in Table G-23
using the evaluation criteria considerations along with the qualitative rating for each
and the justification for the rating. ARARs evaluated for this alternative are included
in Appendix B. The overall rating on this criterion for Alternative 5a is "moderate."
©
7-22
CDM
NRE_Final FS_Section 7.doc
-------
Section 7
Detailed Analysis of Retained Alternatives
7.6.4 Long-Term Effectiveness and Permanence
Evaluation of long-term effectiveness and permanence for Alternative 5a is provided
in Table G-24 using the evaluation criteria considerations along with the qualitative
rating for each and the justification for the rating. The overall rating on this criterion
for Alternative 5a is "low to moderate." ©
7.6.5 Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume through
Treatment
Evaluation of reduction of toxicity, mobility, or volume through treatment for
Alternative 5a is provided in Table G-25 using the evaluation criteria considerations
along with the qualitative rating for each and the justification for the rating. The
overall rating on this criterion for Alternative 5a is "none." ©
7.6.6 Short-Term Effectiveness
Evaluation of short-term effectiveness for Alternative 5a is provided in Table G-26
using the evaluation criteria considerations along with the qualitative rating for each
and the justification for the rating. The overall rating on this criterion for Alternative
5a is "low to moderate." ©
7.6.7 Implementability
Evaluation of implementability for Alternative 5a is provided in Table G-27 using the
evaluation criteria considerations along with the qualitative rating for each and the
justification for the rating. The overall rating on this criterion for Alternative 5a is
"moderate." ©
7.6.8 Cost
Evaluation of cost for Alternative 5a is provided in Table G-28 using the evaluation
criteria considerations along with the cost rating for each and the justification for the
rating. Detailed cost estimates for this alternative are included in Appendix H. The
overall rating on this criterion for Alternative 5a (present value cost) is "moderate."
$$$
7.7 Alternative 5b: Excavation and Onsite
Consolidation/Disposal of Contaminated Materials, and
Land Use Controls with Monitoring
7.7.1 Detailed Remedy Component Descriptions
A summary of the remedial components of Alternative 5b is provided in
Section 5.3.6. The conceptual depiction of this remedial alternative is presented in
Figure 7-4. The following text provides additional detail about the remedial
components of this alternative.
CDM
NRE_Final FS_Section 7.doc
7-23
-------
Section 7
Detailed Analysis of Retained Alternatives
Excavation of Contaminated Materials
All contaminated materials on privately owned parcels and receiver-managed parcels
would be excavated to the extent practicable. For purposes of the FS, surface and
subsurface contaminated materials would be fully excavated to the identified depth of
contamination. Trucks or other mechanical conveyance would be used to transport
excavated contaminated materials and consolidate them at a new onsite disposal
location.
Intrusive visual inspections (i.e., subsurface inspections using test pits or boreholes)
coupled with confirmation sample collection and analysis would be conducted
adjacent and beneath the excavation areas after initial excavation is completed to
confirm that contaminated materials would be excavated horizontally and vertically
to the extent they can be detected.
Excavation of contaminated surface materials would be conducted to the extent
practicable. However, it may not be possible to fully excavate contaminated materials
underneath or adjacent to obstructions such as homes or structures, trees, subsurface
utilities, and roads. Thus residual contaminated materials may be left in soil
underlying or adjacent to these obstructions. There may also be specific instances
(such as near homes) where excavation of all contaminated materials is not practicable
due to potential damage to the foundations. Measures such as excavation
sloping/benching or structural support measures would be used to excavate
contaminated materials to the extent practical. Excavation of contaminated surface
materials would then be conducted in the remaining areas close to the foundation but
subsurface contaminated materials may need to be left in place. For purposes of this
FS, clean soil backfill placed in excavations coupled with land use controls are
assumed to address these situations.
Excavation of contaminated materials would otherwise be performed as described in
Section 7.6.1 for Alternative 5a.
Onsite Consolidation/Disposal
Onsite consolidation and disposal would be performed as described in Section 7.6.1
for Alternative 5a.
Covers
Covers would be constructed as described in Section 7.6.1 for Alternative 5a.
Excavation Backfill
Excavation backfill would be constructed as described in Section 7.6.1 for Alternative 5a.
Land Use Controls
Land use controls on privately owned parcels and the receiver-managed parcels
would be implemented as described in Section 7.6.1 for Alternative 5a.
CDM
NRE_Final FS_Section 7.doc
-------
Section 7
Detailed Analysis of Retained Alternatives
Monitoring
Monitoring would be performed during the construction of the remedial action
remedy components (excavation, onsite consolidation/disposal, covers, and access
controls) and routinely after the remedy is in place to determine whether there is
adequate protection of human health and the environment.
Monitoring during construction of the remedy components would consist of ambient
air sampling, borrow source testing, excavation confirmatory sampling, and
inspection of areas without identified contamination. Ambient air samples would be
collected and analyzed from various locations of the site to assess whether there are
current exposure risks to asbestos fibers and non-asbestos COPCs in ambient air
during the construction activities. Borrow samples would be collected from potential
soil borrow areas and analyzed for asbestos and non-asbestos COPCs. Results of the
sample analysis would be used to determine that contamination is not present in
proposed offsite borrow area materials before use in construction. Excavation
confirmatory sampling would be performed to confirm that contaminated materials
have been completely excavated to the extent they can be detected. Inspection of areas
without identified contamination would be made during construction to ensure that
those areas are not adversely impacted from disturbance of contaminated materials.
Routine monitoring would be performed for all parcels with covers and/ or
excavation backfill. Monitoring protocol for covered or backfilled portions of
privately owned and receiver-managed parcels would include routine non-intrusive
visual inspections (i.e., surface inspections) to ensure integrity of the covers and
backfill; these are assumed to be performed at least annually.
Five-year site reviews would be performed as required by the NCP since
contaminated materials would remain at the site. Non-intrusive visual inspections
(i.e., surface inspections) would be performed in support of 5-year site reviews.
Monitoring would be performed on all parcels within the site boundary regardless of
ownership.
Generalized descriptions of inspection and sampling methods for asbestos are
provided in Section 2.5, and specific details concerning the monitoring and inspection
protocol for Alternative 5b (including proposed sample types, quantities, frequencies,
and analytical methods) are provided in Appendix F.
Remedial Component Quantity Summary
Exhibit 7-5 provides a summary of the major remedial components for Alternative 5b
requiring construction and the estimated quantities for these components.
CDM
NRE_Final FS_Section 7.doc
-------
Section 7
Detailed Analysis of Retained Alternatives
Exhibit 7-5. Summary of Major Remedial Components and
Associated Quantities for Alternative 5b
Remedial Component
Unit
Estimated Quantity
Surface Area of Excavations
Acres
82
Volume of Contaminated Materials Excavated
Loose Cubic
Yards
130,300
Common Backfill Required for Excavations
Loose Cubic
Yards
63,700
Topsoil Required for Excavations
Loose Cubic
Yards
70,600
Receiver-Managed Parcels Impacted by Onsite Disposal
Locations
Parcel ID
5 parcels assumed to be
the following:
MBK-E, AG, and Y
(Existing Repository);
MBK-D, and L
(Consolidation Area 1)
Surface Area of Onsite Disposal Locations
Acres
8
Common Backfill Required to Construct Covers for
Onsite Disposal Locations
Loose Cubic
Yards
59,200
Topsoil Required to Construct Covers for Onsite
Disposal Locations
Loose Cubic
Yards
6,700
Privately Owned Parcels Potentially Requiring Land Use
Controls
Each
27
Receiver-Managed Parcels Potentially Requiring Land
Use Controls
Each
29
Note: Quantities summarized in this exhibit are contained in Appendices C and H. Although the quantities
provided are detailed, they should be considered approximate for FS evaluation purposes only.
7.7.2 Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment
Evaluation of overall protection of human health and the environment for Alternative
5b is provided in Table G-29 using the evaluation criteria considerations along with
the qualitative rating for each and the justification for the rating. The overall rating on
this criterion for Alternative 5b is "moderate". ©
7.7.3 Compliance with ARARs
Evaluation of compliance with ARARs for Alternative 5b is provided in Table G-30
using the evaluation criteria considerations along with the qualitative rating for each
and the justification for the rating. ARARs evaluated for this alternative are included
in Appendix B. The overall rating on this criterion for Alternative 5b is "high." ©
7.7.4 Long-Term Effectiveness and Permanence
Evaluation of long-term effectiveness and permanence for Alternative 5b is provided
in Table G-31 using the evaluation criteria considerations along with the qualitative
rating for each and the justification for the rating. The overall rating on this criterion
for Alternative 5b is "moderate to high." ©
7-26
CDM
NRE_Final FS_Section 7.doc
-------
Section 7
Detailed Analysis of Retained Alternatives
7.7.5 Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume through
Treatment
Evaluation of reduction of toxicity, mobility, or volume through treatment for
Alternative 5b is provided in Table G-32 using the evaluation criteria considerations
along with the qualitative rating for each and the justification for the rating. The
overall rating on this criterion for Alternative 5b is "none." ©
7.7.6 Short-Term Effectiveness
Evaluation of short-term effectiveness for Alternative 5b is provided in Table G-33
using the evaluation criteria considerations along with the qualitative rating for each
and the justification for the rating. The overall rating on this criterion for Alternative
5b is "low to moderate." ©
7.7.7 Implementability
Evaluation of implementability for Alternative 5b is provided in Table G-34 using the
evaluation criteria considerations along with the qualitative rating for each and the
justification for the rating. The overall rating on this criterion for Alternative 5b is
"moderate." ©
7.7.8 Cost
Evaluation of cost for Alternative 5b is provided in Table G-35 using the evaluation
criteria considerations along with the cost rating for each and the justification for the
rating. Detailed cost estimates for this alternative are included in Appendix H. The
overall rating on this criterion for Alternative 5b (present value cost) is "moderate."
$$$
7.8 Alternative 6: Excavation and Offsite Disposal of
Contaminated Materials at Permitted Facilities, and Land
Use Controls with Monitoring
7.8.1 Detailed Remedy Component Descriptions
A summary of the remedial components of Alternative 6 is provided in Section 5.3.7.
The conceptual depiction of this remedial alternative is presented in Figure 7-5. The
following text provides additional detail about the remedial components of this
alternative.
Excavation of Contaminated Materials
Excavation of contaminated materials for offsite disposal would be performed as
described in Section 7.7.1 for Alternative 5b.
Offsite Disposal at Permitted Facilities
Excavated contaminated materials would be transported offsite for disposal. Disposal
facilities include permitted municipal-owned landfills, construction debris landfills,
and/or commercially or privately owned landfills authorized by Oregon DEQ for
asbestos. Offsite disposal facilities would be required to meet the general provisions
for solid waste disposal (OAR 340-093) as well as applicable requirements for either
CDM 727
-------
Section 7
Detailed Analysis of Retained Alternatives
municipal solid waste landfills (OAR 340-094) or land disposal sites other than
municipal solid waste landfills (OAR 340-095), depending on the type of disposal
facilities selected. These types of facilities are operated and maintained according to
the conditions set forth in their State of Oregon-issued permits.
Excavation Backfill
Excavation backfill would be performed as described in Section 7.6.1 for Alternative 5a.
Covers
This alternative would include construction of a permanent cover over the existing
onsite waste repository to ensure the interim cover installed in 2009 is protective.
This alternative assumes placement of an additional 12 inches of clean cover
material to ensure that the permanent cover has the required minimum thickness to
provide protection against frost heave processes.
Land Use Controls
Land use controls on privately owned parcels and the receiver-managed parcels
would be implemented as described in Section 7.6.1 for Alternative 5a.
Monitoring
Monitoring would be performed during the construction of the remedial action
remedy components (excavation, offsite disposal, covers, excavation backfill, and
access controls) and routinely after the remedy is in place to determine whether there
is adequate protection of human health and the environment.
Monitoring during construction of the remedy components would consist of ambient
air sampling, borrow source testing, excavation confirmatory sampling, and
inspection of areas without identified contamination. Ambient air samples would be
collected and analyzed from various locations of the site to assess whether there are
current exposure risks to asbestos fibers and non-asbestos COPCs in ambient air
during the construction activities. Borrow samples would be collected from potential
soil borrow areas and analyzed for asbestos and non-asbestos COPCs. Results of the
sample analysis would be used to determine that contamination is not present in
proposed offsite borrow area materials before use in construction. Excavation
confirmatory sampling would be performed to confirm that contaminated surface
materials have been completely excavated from the excavation areas to the extent they
can be detected. Inspection of areas without identified contamination would be made
during construction to ensure that those areas are not adversely impacted from
disturbance of contaminated materials.
Routine monitoring would be performed for all parcels with covers and/ or
excavation backfill. Monitoring protocol for covered or backfilled portions of
privately owned and receiver-managed parcels would include routine non-intrusive
visual inspections (i.e., surface inspections) to ensure integrity of the covers and
backfill; these are assumed to be performed at least annually.
CDM
NRE_Final FS_Section 7.doc
-------
Section 7
Detailed Analysis of Retained Alternatives
Five-year site reviews would be performed as required by the NCP since
contaminated materials would remain at the site. Non-intrusive visual inspections
(i.e., surface inspections) would be performed in support of 5-year site reviews.
Monitoring would be performed on all parcels within the site boundary regardless of
ownership.
Generalized descriptions of inspection and sampling methods for asbestos are
provided in Section 2.5, and specific details concerning the monitoring and inspection
protocol for Alternative 6 (including proposed sample types, quantities, frequencies,
and analytical methods) are provided in Appendix F.
Remedial Component Quantity Summary
Exhibit 7-6 provides a summary of the major remedial components for Alternative 6
requiring construction and the estimated quantities for these components.
Exhibit 7-6. Summary of Major Remedial Components and
Associated Quantities for Alternative 6
Remedial Component
Unit
Estimated Quantity
Surface Area of Excavations
Acres
89
Volume of Contaminated Materials Excavated
Loose Cubic
Yards
139,600
Estimated Weight of Contaminated Materials for Offsite
Disposal
Tons
186,700
One-Way Distance to Multiple Offsite Disposal Facilities
(Weighted Average)
Miles
110
Common Backfill Required for Excavations
Loose Cubic
Yards
67,200
Topsoil Required for Excavations
Loose Cubic
Yards
76,400
Privately Owned Parcels Potentially Requiring Land Use
Controls
Each
27
Receiver-Managed Parcels Potentially Requiring Land
Use Controls
Each
29
Note: Quantities summarized in this exhibit are contained in Appendices C and H. Although quantities
provided are detailed, they should be considered approximate for FS evaluation purposes only.
7.8.2 Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment
Evaluation of overall protection of human health and the environment for Alternative
6 is provided in Table G-36 using the evaluation criteria considerations along with the
qualitative rating for each and the justification for the rating. The overall rating on this
criterion for Alternative 6 is "moderate to high." ©
CDM
NRE_Final FS_Section 7.doc
7-29
-------
Section 7
Detailed Analysis of Retained Alternatives
7.8.3 Compliance with ARARs
Evaluation of compliance with ARARs for Alternative 6 is provided in Table G-37
using the evaluation criteria considerations along with the qualitative rating for each
and the justification for the rating. ARARs evaluated for this alternative are included
in Appendix B. The overall rating on this criterion for Alternative 6 is "high." ©
7.8.4 Long-Term Effectiveness and Permanence
Evaluation of long-term effectiveness and permanence for Alternative 6 is provided in
Table G-38 using the evaluation criteria considerations along with the qualitative
rating for each and the justification for the rating. The overall rating on this criterion
for Alternative 6 is "moderate to high." ©
7.8.5 Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume through
Treatment
Evaluation of reduction of toxicity, mobility, or volume through treatment for
Alternative 6 is provided in Table G-39 using the evaluation criteria considerations
along with the qualitative rating for each and the justification for the rating. The
overall rating on this criterion for Alternative 6 is "none." ©
7.8.6 Short-Term Effectiveness
Evaluation of short-term effectiveness for Alternative 6 is provided in Table G-40
using the evaluation criteria considerations along with the qualitative rating for each
and the justification for the rating. The overall rating on this criterion for Alternative 6
is "low to moderate." ©
7.8.7 Implementability
Evaluation of implementability for Alternative 6 is provided in Table G-41 using the
evaluation criteria considerations along with the qualitative rating for each and the
justification for the rating. The overall rating on this criterion for Alternative 6 is "low
to moderate." ©
7.8.8 Cost
Evaluation of cost for Alternative 6 is provided in Table G-42 using the evaluation
criteria considerations along with the cost rating for each and the justification for the
rating. Detailed cost estimates for this alternative are included in Appendix H. The
overall rating on this criterion for Alternative 6 (present value cost) is "high." $$$$$
7.9 State (Support Agency) Acceptance
State (support agency) acceptance is a modifying criterion under the NCP.
Assessment of state acceptance will not be completed until comments on the final FS
report are submitted to EPA. Thus, state acceptance is not considered in the detailed
analysis of alternatives presented in the FS.
7-30
CDM
NRE_Final FS_Section 7.doc
-------
Section 7
Detailed Analysis of Retained Alternatives
7.10 Community Acceptance
Community acceptance is also a modifying criterion under the NCP. Assessment of
community acceptance will include responses to questions that any interested person
in the community may have regarding any component of the remedial alternatives
presented in the proposed plan. This assessment will be completed after EPA receives
public comments on the proposed plan during the public commenting period. Thus,
community acceptance is not considered in the detailed analysis of alternatives
presented in the FS.
7.11 Comparative Analysis of Alternatives
This FS evaluated the six retained remedial alternatives discussed in this section
against the two threshold criteria and five balancing criteria. The results of the
detailed analysis for each remedial alterative are presented in Table 7-1 to allow a
comparative analysis of the alternatives and identify the key tradeoffs between them.
Comparative analysis for the remedial alternatives using the threshold and balancing
criteria has been put into narrative form in the following subsections. Only significant
comparative differences between alternatives are presented; the full set of rationale
for the qualitative ratings is provided in Appendix G.
It should be noted that the site is complex, with not only varying degrees of
contamination from parcel to parcel but also various types of ownership, levels of
occupancy, and degrees of current development between parcels. It is possible that
elements of several remedial alternatives will need to be compiled into a preferred
remedy for the site to address all of the parcel-specific issues. This will be addressed
in the proposed plan after issuance of this report.
7.11.1 Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment
Of the six retained alternatives, only the no action alternative (i.e., Alternative 1) fails
to provide protection for human health and the environment and did not address the
PRAOs for contaminated materials. Thus, Alternative 1 was given a rating of "none."
Alternative 3 addresses the PRAOs primarily through partial capping of
contaminated materials using covers coupled with land use controls to reduce risks
from contact with covered and exposed materials. Interior cleanings would also be
performed for residential structures on privately owned parcels to enhance
protectiveness from contamination potentially tracked from outside. Contaminated
materials remain exposed outside of capped areas pose human health and ecological
risks through dispersal across the site. Contaminated materials also still remain
beneath covers across a large extent of the site and could pose additional risks if the
covers are compromised. Due to these factors, protection of human health and the
environment is less than other alternatives. Thus this alternative was given a rating of
"low to moderate."
Alternative 4 addresses the PRAOs primarily through in-place capping of
contaminated materials using covers to reduce risks from contact with these
materials. Capping provides an exposure barrier to the contaminated materials and
CDM 731
-------
Section 7
Detailed Analysis of Retained Alternatives
prevents upward migration to the surface from frost heave processes. However
contaminated materials still remain beneath covers across a large extent of the site and
could pose risks if the covers are compromised. Thus this alternative was given a
rating of "moderate."
Alternative 5a addresses the PRAOs primarily through excavation of contaminated
surface materials and onsite consolidation and disposal. Capping at the onsite
disposal locations provides an exposure barrier to the contaminated materials and
prevents upward migration to the surface from frost heave processes. However
contaminated materials still remain beneath covers at these disposal locations and
could pose risks if the covers are compromised. Contaminated subsurface materials
also remain across a large extent of the site beneath backfill placed in excavations. The
backfill has a variable thickness and is not designed to prevent frost heave processes,
so upward migration of subsurface contaminated materials to the surface may occur
over time and pose additional risks. Future excavations may only partially address
these risks they would only occur periodically. Thus this alternative was given a
rating of "low to moderate."
Alternative 5b addresses the PRAOs primarily through excavation of surface and
subsurface contaminated materials and onsite consolidation and disposal. Capping at
the onsite disposal locations provides an exposure barrier to the contaminated
materials and prevents upward migration to the surface from frost heave processes.
Contaminated materials still remain beneath covers at these disposal locations and
could pose risks if the covers are compromised. Residual contaminated materials such
as asbestos fibers may also remain beneath backfill placed in excavations and could
pose risks if the backfill is compromised. Since the majority of the contaminated
materials are excavated and disposed of at onsite disposal locations protected by land
use controls, long-term protection of human health and the environment is more
certain across the site than alternatives that leave contaminated materials across a
larger extent of the site. Thus this alternative was given a rating of "moderate."
Alternative 6 addresses the PRAOs primarily through excavation of contaminated
surface and subsurface materials and offsite disposal. Residual contaminated
materials such as asbestos fibers may remain beneath backfill placed in excavations.
Exposure to residual contaminated materials could pose risks if the backfill is
compromised. Since the majority of the contaminated materials are excavated and
disposed of offsite, long-term protection of human health and the environment is
more certain than Alternative 5b. Thus, this alternative was given a rating of
"moderate to high."
7.11.2 Compliance with ARARs
Alternative 1 fails to be compliant with the chemical-specific ARARs identified for the
site since no action is taken. Thus, this alternative was given a rating of "none."
Alternatives 3, 4, 5a, 5b, and 6 would address the location- and action-specific ARARs
through adherence of the ARARs during implementation of the remedial action.
However compliance with chemical-specific ARARs for these alternatives is less
CDM
NRE_Final FS_Section 7.doc
-------
Section 7
Detailed Analysis of Retained Alternatives
certain. Specifically the "Standards for Degree of Cleanup" included in Oregon
Environmental Cleanup Law and Oregon Hazardous Substance Remedial Action
Rules were identified as fundamentally controlling ARARs to establish
protectiveness. These ARARs establish acceptable risk levels for human health at
1E-06 for individual carcinogens, 1E-05 for multiple carcinogens, and an HI of 1.0 for
non-carcinogens. As discussed in Exhibit 5-1, the exposure pathways must be
truncated to ensure compliance with these risk levels for asbestos contamination in
soil.
Alternatives 3 and 5a either leave contaminated materials exposed at the site or have a
higher potential of future exposure at the surface to significant quantities of
contaminated materials through frost heave processes. Thus compliance with the
previously mentioned ARARs is questionable and these alternatives were given a
rating of "moderate."
Alternatives 4, 5b, and 6 fully address these ARARs by truncating the exposure
pathways to contaminated materials through combinations of in-place capping,
excavation and onsite or offsite disposal. Backfilling of excavations is also used to
address residual contamination such as asbestos fibers after excavation. Thus these
alternatives were all given a rating of "high."
7.11.3 Long-Term Effectiveness and Permanence
Alternative 1 fails to provide long-term effectiveness and permanence since no action
is taken. Thus, this alternative was given a rating of "none."
Alternative 3 addresses contaminated materials primarily through partial capping
using covers coupled with land use controls to reduce risks from contact with covered
and exposed materials. Interior cleanings would also be performed for residential
structures on privately owned parcels to enhance protectiveness from contamination
potentially tracked from outside. Contaminated materials remain exposed outside of
capped areas pose human health and ecological risks through dispersal across the
site. Contaminated materials also still remain beneath covers across a large extent of
the site and could pose additional risks if the covers are compromised. Due to these
factors, long-term effectiveness and permanence is less than other alternatives. Thus,
this alternative was given a rating of "low to moderate."
Alternative 4 addresses contaminated materials primarily through in-place capping
using covers to reduce risks from contact with these materials. Capping provides an
exposure barrier to the contaminated materials and prevents upward migration to the
surface from frost heave processes. However, contaminated materials still remain
beneath covers across a large extent of the site and could pose risks if the covers are
compromised. Thus, long-term effectiveness and permanence is not as certain as for
remedies that remove and consolidate contaminated materials for onsite and offsite
disposal. Thus, this alternative was given a rating of "moderate."
CDM
NRE_Final FS_Section 7.doc
-------
Section 7
Detailed Analysis of Retained Alternatives
Alternatives 5a addresses contaminated surface materials primarily through
excavation of and onsite consolidation and disposal. Excavation and onsite
consolidation of contaminated surface materials slightly increases the long-term
effectiveness and permanence of the remedy for locations where excavation takes
place. However, contaminated materials still remain under covers at onsite disposal
locations. Contaminated subsurface materials also remain across a large extent of the
site beneath backfill placed in excavations. These materials could pose current and
future human health and ecological risks if the covers at the onsite disposal locations
are compromised or contaminated materials become exposed at the surface in
backfilled excavations. Thus, this alternative was given a rating of "low to moderate."
Alternative 5b and 6 addresses contaminated materials primarily through excavation
of surface and subsurface materials and either onsite consolidation and disposal or
offsite disposal. Excavation and onsite or offsite disposal of contaminated materials
greatly increase the long-term effectiveness and permanence of the remedy for
locations where excavation takes place. Contaminated materials still remain under
covers at onsite disposal locations, and residual contaminated materials still remain
under excavation backfill. Since the majority of the contaminated materials are
excavated and disposed of at onsite or offsite disposal locations protected by land use
controls, long-term protection of human health and the environment is more certain
across the site than alternatives that leave contaminated materials across a larger
extent of the site. Thus, these alternatives were given a rating of "moderate to high."
7.11.4 Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume through
Treatment
All of the retained alternatives fail to provide a reduction of toxicity, mobility, or
volume through treatment since treatment is not a component of these alternatives.
Thus, all of the retained alternatives were given a rating of "none."
7.11.5 Short-Term Effectiveness
Alternative 1 fails to provide short-term effectiveness since no action is taken. Thus,
this alternative was given a rating of "none".
Alternatives 3 and 4 address short-term risks to workers, the community, and the
environment. Land use controls could be quickly implemented to address potential
exposure to contaminated materials. Construction of covers could be implemented
shortly after the implementation of land use controls to protect the community and
the environment. While construction of covers would involve surface disturbance of
contaminated materials, short-term risks to workers would be mitigated through the
use of safety measures such as PPE. Short-term risks to workers, the community, and
the environment could be mitigated through measures such as water-based dust
suppression. Trucks used to haul offsite borrow used to construct the covers slightly
increase short-term risks to the community. Thus Alternative 3 was given a rating of
"moderate to high." Alternative 4 involves significantly more surface disturbance
during cover construction and a larger number of haul trucks than Alternative 3. Thus
Alternative 4 was given a rating of "moderate."
CDM
NRE_Final FS_Section 7.doc
-------
Section 7
Detailed Analysis of Retained Alternatives
Excavation and onsite consolidation under Alternatives 5a and 5b requires
disturbance of a large amount of contaminated materials across the site, which poses
increased short-term risks to workers and the community. Construction of onsite
disposal locations also requires placement of large amounts of contaminated materials
in a few select locations, increasing risks at those locations. Excavation of surface
and/or subsurface contaminated materials and onsite consolidation also require large
volumes of offsite borrow not only to backfill excavations but also to construct covers
over the onsite disposal locations. These activities pose more risks to workers and the
community than solely surface disturbance activities under Alternative 4. Truck
traffic would be increased to haul both contaminated materials and offsite borrow,
but most of the traffic would occur within or near the site and not as much offsite
borrow would be required as for Alternative 4. While Alternative 5a involves initial
excavation and consolidation of a smaller volume of contaminated materials than
Alternative 5b, the decrease in initial short-term risks during surface excavation is
offset by the short-term risks posed over a longer period of time by the future
excavation of contaminated surface materials. Thus, these alternatives were both
given a rating of "low to moderate."
Excavation and offsite disposal under Alternative 6 requires disturbance of a large
amount of contaminated materials across the site similar to Alternative 5b, which
poses increased short-term risks to workers and the community. Offsite disposal does
not require onsite consolidation and disposal and the associated risks to workers and
the community. However hauling of contaminated materials for offsite disposal
greatly increases truck traffic and related risks to the community away from the site.
Backfilling of excavations also requires large volumes of offsite borrow which poses
additional risks to workers and the community during transportation and placement,
similarly to Alternative 5b. Since the majority of contaminated materials are excavated
and disposed of offsite, short-term impacts to workers and especially the community
are greatly increased over alternatives that do not require offsite disposal due to truck
traffic to the offsite disposal facilities. Thus, this alternative was also given a rating of
"low to moderate."
7.11.6 Implementability
Alternative 1 has no action taken other than 5-year site reviews. Since no new
remedial action is taken, this alternative was given a rating of "none."
Alternative 3 involves capping of contaminated materials on privately owned parcels
and portions of receiver-managed parcels through construction of covers. The
construction resources and materials needed to construct the quantity of covers for
this alternative should be available. While there may be additional difficulties
associated with implementation of institutional controls especially on privately
owned parcels, institutional controls have been implemented in a similar manner on
other contaminated residential sites in Oregon. Access controls would be relatively
easy to install. Maintenance of the covered areas and monitoring, especially on
privately owned parcels, could provide difficulties in the future. However,
monitoring has been previously implemented at the site with available labor and
technical resources. Interior cleaning has not been performed at this site and would
CDM 735
-------
Section 7
Detailed Analysis of Retained Alternatives
require coordination with affected residents, but has been successfully performed at
similar sites with asbestos contamination. Thus, this alternative was given a rating of
"moderate to high."
Alternative 4 has similar implementability issues to Alternative 3. However,
Alternative 4 requires covering a larger area of the site than Alternatives 3 and
requires a larger volume of suitable borrow from offsite areas. Maintenance of the
additional covered areas and monitoring, especially on privately owned parcels,
could provide difficulties in the future. Thus, this alternative was given a rating of
"moderate."
Alternatives 5a and 5b primarily involve excavation of contaminated materials and
onsite consolidation/ disposal with land use controls and monitoring. Excavation and
onsite consolidation of contaminated materials could be difficult in areas of
underground utilities, trees, roads, and near structures. These two alternatives require
less overall offsite borrow than Alternative 4, but additional logistical coordination is
needed since both contaminated materials and offsite borrow will be transported
simultaneously. While Alternative 5a requires less initial excavation than Alternative 5b,
the increase in implementability from reducing the volume of initial excavation is offset
by the difficulties in performing periodic future excavations of contaminated surface
materials. Thus, both of these alternatives were given a rating of "moderate."
Alternative 6 primarily involves excavation of contaminated materials and offsite
disposal with land use controls and monitoring. Excavation and offsite disposal of
contaminated materials could be difficult in areas of underground utilities, trees,
roads, and near structures. This alternative does not require onsite consolidation and
disposal, but similar logistical coordination is needed since both contaminated
materials and offsite borrow will be transported simultaneously. Offsite disposal of
large volumes of excavated materials requires additional coordination with the offsite
disposal facilities. The ability to obtain the necessary approvals and the logistics of
transporting large volumes of contaminated materials for long distances to offsite
disposal facilities decreases the implementability of this alternative. Thus, this
alternative was given a rating of "low to moderate."
7.11.7 Cost
Present value costs for all alternatives were evaluated over a 31-year period (Years 0
through 30).
The present value cost for Alternative 1 was given a rating of "low." The present
value cost for this alternative is approximately $186,000.
The present value cost for Alternatives 3, 4, 5a and 5b were given a rating of
"moderate." The present value costs for these alternatives are approximately
$10,152,000, $12,798,000, $10,467,000, and $14,028,000, respectively.
The present value cost for Alternative 6 was given a rating of "high." The present
value costs for this alternatives is approximately $29,472,000.
CDM
NRE_Final FS_Section 7.doc
-------
Section 8
References
ARI Technologies, Inc. 2007. Final Report Ten-Day Asbestos Destruction Demonstration
Using Thermo chemical Conversion Technology. December 20, 2007.
CDM Federal Programs Corporation (CDM). 2008. Final Draft Remedial Investigation
Report, North Ridge Estates Site, Klamath County, Oregon. February.
Ecology and Environment (E&E). 2006. North Ridge Estates Site 2005 Removal Action
Report, Klamath Falls, Oregon, prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Contract No. EP-S7-06-02, Seattle, Washington.
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable (FRTR). 2007. Remediation Technologies
Screening Matrix and Reference Guide, Version 4.0.
National Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 1985. Soil Survey of Klamath County,
Oregon, Southern Part.
Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (Oregon DEQ). 2007. Oregon
Department of Environmental Quality Environmental Cleanup and Tanks Program.
Risk-Based Concentrations for Individual Chemicals. Provided in an electronic
spreadsheet available at http://www.deq.state.or.us/lq/pubs/docs/RBDM03F.xls
Oregon Department of Human Services (Oregon DHS). 2004. North Ridge Estates
Public Health Consultation - Final Release, Klamath Falls, Oregon.
Syracuse Research Corporation (SRC). 2009. Human Health and Ecological Risk
Assessment for the North Ridge Estates Site, Klamath Falls, Oregon. December 2.
. 2010. Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment for the North Ridge
Estates Site, Klamath Falls, Oregon. Addendum 1: Updated Evaluation of Human Exposure
and Health Risk from Volatile Organic Compounds. January 8.
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1988. Guidance for Conducting Remedial
Investigations and Feasibility Studies Under CERCLA. Interim Final. October.
. 1991. Human Health Evaluation Manual, Supplemental Guidance: " Standard
Default Exposure Factors." U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste and
Emergency Response. OSWER Directive 9285.6-03.
. 1998. Introduction to Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements. 1998
. 2000a. A Guide to Developing and Documenting Cost Estimates during the
Feasibility Study. 2000.
CDM
NRE_Final FS_Section 8.doc
-------
Section 8
References
. 2009a. Regional Screening Level (RSL) Master Table. December
http:/ / www.epa.gov/reg3hwmd/risk/human/rb-
concentration table/Generic Tables/pdf/master si table run DECEMBER2009.pdf
. 2009b. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 10 Superfund, RCRA,
LUST, and Brownfields Clean and Green Policy. August 13.
U.S. Geologic Survey (USGS). 1999a. Upper Klamath Basin Ground-Water Study.
. 1999b. Ground Water Atlas of the United States; Idaho, Oregon,
Washington (HA 730-H).
. 2002. Personius, S.F., compiler. Fault number 843c, Klamath graben fault
system, South Klamath Lake Section, in Quaternary fault and fold database of the United
States, ver 1.0: USGS Open-File Report 03-417.
CDM
NRE Final FS Section 8.doc
-------
Tables
-------
Table 4-1
Identification and Technical Implementability Screening of Potentially Applicable Remedial Technologies/Process Options
Contaminated M
aterials
General
Response
Actions
Remedial
Technology
Process Option
Description of Option
Screening Comments
Retained
No Action
None
None
No action would be taken. Contaminated materials
would remain in their existing conditions.
Required by NCP as baseline for
comparison.
Yes
Monitoring
Physical and/or
Chemical Monitoring
Non-Intrusive Visual
Inspection
A non-intrusive (surficial) visual inspection of the
immediate ground surface to determine the presence
or absence of contaminated materials.
Potentially implementable process
option.
Yes
Intrusive Visual
Inspection
An intrusive visual inspection of the subsurface
(using excavations or boreholes) to determine the
presence or absence of contaminated materials.
Potentially implementable process
option.
Yes
Sample Collection and
Analysis
Air and/or soil samples would be collected for
microscopic analysis of asbestos or chemical
analysis of arsenic to determine the potential
presence of asbestos fibers or arsenic. Types of
samples collected include but are not limited to soil,
ambient air, and ABS. Types of microscopic analyses
for asbestos fibers include but are not limited to PLM,
stereomicroscopy, and TEM. Chemical analysis of
arsenic is typically performed using graphite furnace
atomic absorption methods.
Potentially implementable process
option.
Yes
Land Use Controls
Institutional Controls
Governmental Controls,
Proprietary Controls, and
Informational Devices
Contact with contaminated materials would be
controlled through legal instruments. Examples of
governmental controls include but are not limited to
local zoning, permits, codes, or regulations.
Examples of proprietary controls include but are not
limited to instruments such as Easement and
Equitable Servitude and Covenants, Conditions and
Restrictions (CC&Rs). Examples of informational
devices include but are not limited to Notices of
Environmental Contamination.
Potentially implementable process
option.
Yes
Community
Awareness Activities
Informational and
Educational Programs
Community informational and educational programs
would be undertaken to enhance awareness of
potential hazards and remedies for contaminated
materials.
Potentially implementable process
option.
Yes
Access Controls
Posted Warnings
Warning signs would be used to warn people of
dangers posed by contaminated materials at the site.
Potentially implementable process
option.
Yes
CDM
NRE_Final FS_Table4-1 - RemTech.doc
1 of 6
-------
Table 4-1 (continued)
Identification and Technical Implementability Screening of Potentially Applicable Remedial Technologies/Process Options
Contaminated M
aterials
General
Response
Actions
Remedial
Technology
Process Option
Description of Option
Screening Comments
Retained
Containment
Surface Source
Controls
Water-Based
Suppression
Contaminated materials would be kept "adequately
wet" using water or a water-based dust suppressant to
control airborne migration of asbestos fibers or arsenic
to the surrounding environment.
Potentially implementable process
option.
Yes
Chemical-Based
Suppression
Contaminated materials would be treated with a
resinous or petroleum-based chemical dust
suppressant to control airborne migration of asbestos
fibers and/or arsenic to the surrounding environment.
Potentially implementable process
option.
Yes
Negative Pressure
Enclosures
Contaminated materials would be enclosed within a
temporary structure. The structure would be operated
under negative pressure with filtering to control
airborne migration of asbestos fibers or arsenic in dust
to the surrounding environment.
Potentially implementable process
option.
Yes
In Situ Mixing
Contaminated materials and associated soils would be
mixed with underlying uncontaminated soil or fill
materials.
Potentially implementable process
option.
Yes
Soil or Rock Exposure
Barrier/Cover
Contaminated materials would be covered with a
layer of clean soil or rock with sufficient thickness to
eliminate surface exposure.
Potentially implementable process
option.
Yes
Asphalt or Concrete
Exposure Barrier/Cover
Contaminated materials would be covered with
layers of asphalt or concrete with sufficient thickness
to eliminate surface exposure.
Potentially implementable process
option.
Yes
Geosynthetic Multi-Layer
Exposure Barrier/Cover
Contaminated materials would be covered with
geosynthetic material (such as geomembrane or a
geosynthetic clay liner [GCL]) along with protective
vegetative or rock layers to eliminate surface
exposure.
Potentially implementable process
option.
Yes
Removal/
Transport/Disposal
Removal
Mechanical Excavation
Contaminated materials would be excavated using
mechanical methods.
Potentially implementable process
option.
Yes
Pneumatic Excavation
(Vacuum Extraction/
Pumping)
Contaminated materials would be excavated using
vacuum hoses, vacuum trucks, or other pneumatic
conveyance system.
Potentially implementable process
option.
Yes
Transport
Mechanical Transport
(Hauling/Conveying)
Excavated contaminated materials would be
transported by truck or other mechanical conveyance
method.
Potentially implementable process
option.
Yes
CDM
2 of 6
NRE Final FS Table4-1 -RemTech.doc
-------
Table 4-1 (continued)
Identification and Technical Implementability Screening of Potentially Applicable Remedial Technologies/Process Options
Contaminated M
aterials
General
Response
Actions
Remedial
Technology
Process Option
Description of Option
Screening Comments
Retained
Removal/
Transport/
Disposal -
Continued
Transport-
Continued
Hydraulic Transport
(Slurrying)
Excavated contaminated materials would be
transported in slurry form using a pipeline or other
hydraulic conveyance system.
Potentially implementable process
option.
Yes
Pneumatic T ransport
(Vacuum Extraction/
Pumping)
Excavated contaminated materials would be
transported using vacuum hoses, vacuum trucks, or
other pneumatic conveyance system.
Potentially implementable process
option.
Yes
Disposal
Onsite Disposal
Excavated contaminated materials would be
disposed of at an onsite location authorized for
disposal of asbestos and arsenic contamination.
Potentially implementable process
option.
Yes
Offsite Disposal
Excavated contaminated materials would be
disposed of at an offsite location authorized for
disposal of asbestos and arsenic contamination.
Potentially implementable process
option.
Yes
Treatment
Biological Treatment
Vermiprocess
Worms are employed to convert contaminated
materials into an inert waste material.
Not technically feasible for site application
because it has not been demonstrated for
large-scale remediation of asbestos and
arsenic in contaminated materials.
No
Phytoremediation
Asbestos and arsenic in contaminated materials
would be treated/removed using select plant species.
Not technically feasible for site application
because no plant has been identified that
can remove asbestos from contaminated
materials through phytoremediation.
No
Physical and/or
Chemical
T reatment
Physical Separation/
Segregation
Contaminated materials would be separated and
segregated from uncontaminated debris and soil for
disposal and/or treatment.
Potentially implementable process
option.
Yes
Size Reduction
Contaminated materials would be reduced in size
using approved techniques to facilitate disposal and/or
treatment.
Potentially implementable process
option.
Yes
Pozzolan- or Cement-
Based
Stabilization/Solidification
Contaminated materials would be mixed with a
pozzolan- or cement-based binding agent before
disposal.
Potentially implementable process
option.
Yes
Pozzolan- or Cement-
Based In Situ
Stabilization/Solidification
Contaminated materials would be mixed in situ with a
pozzolan- or cement-based binding agent using a
deep soil auger mixing/injection technique.
Potentially implementable process
option.
Yes
Chemical Decomposition
Contaminated materials would be decomposed to an
amorphous silica suspension at relatively low
temperatures (~100°C) using chemicals tailored to the
waste stream. The resulting amorphous silica would
then be solidified for disposal as an inert waste.
ABCOV™ is a demonstrated form of this technology.
Potentially implementable process
option.
Yes
CDM
3 of 6
NRE Final FS Table4-1 -RemTech.doc
-------
Table 4-1 (continued)
Identification and Technical Implementability Screening of Potentially Applicable Remedial Technologies/Process Options
Contaminated M
aterials
General
Response
Actions
Remedial
Technology
Process Option
Description of Option
Screening Comments
Retained
T reatment -
Continued
Physical and/or
Chemical
Treatment-
Continued
Chemical Digestion
Contaminated materials would be treated using a
spray-applied foam that soaks into porous materials
and converts chrysotile asbestos contained within to
an inert, non-fiberous form. DMA® is a commercial
form of this technology.
Not technically feasible for site application
because the technology is only applicable
to chrysotile asbestos-containing porous
materials that can readily absorb the
digestion agent and does not affect
amosite asbestos or arsenic.
No
Soil Washing
Contaminated materials would be flushed with a site-
specific washing solution; flushed asbestos and
arsenic would be collected for further treatment and/or
disposal.
Not technically feasible for site application
because it has not been identified or
demonstrated for remediation of asbestos
from contaminated materials.
No
Soil Flushing
A washing solution (as with soil washing) would be
circulated through contaminated materials with the use
of injection and extraction wells or trenches; flushed
asbestos and arsenic would be collected for further
treatment and/or disposal.
Not technically feasible for site application
because it has not been identified or
demonstrated for remediation of asbestos
from contaminated materials.
No
Thermal Treatment
In Situ Vitrification
An electrical current would be passed between
electrodes inserted into in-place contaminated
materials to cause melting. The melted matrix is then
allowed to cool in place into a solid vitrified glass
mass.
Potentially implementable process
option.
Yes
Electric Arc Vitrification
(Ex Situ)
An electrical current would be passed between
electrodes in a furnace creating an electrical arc.
Contaminated materials placed in the furnace form a
molten bath that cools to form a vitrified glass mass.
The vitrified glass mass is an inert waste.
Potentially implementable process
option.
Yes
Plasma Arc Vitrification
(Ex Situ)
An electrical current would be passed between
electrodes to form plasma. Contaminated materials
placed in the plasma arc form a molten bath that
cools to form a vitrified glass mass. The vitrified glass
mass is an inert waste.
Potentially implementable process
option.
Yes
Incineration (Ex Situ)
Contaminated materials would be crushed and
mixed. The mixture is subjected to incineration
without chemical additives. The reaction product is
an inert waste.
Not technically feasible for site application
because it has not been identified or
demonstrated for remediation of asbestos
in contaminated materials.
No
CDM
4 of 6
NRE Final FS Table4-1 -RemTech.doc
-------
Table 4-1 (continued)
Identification and Technical Implementability Screening of Potentially Applicable Remedial Technologies/Process Options
Contaminated M
aterials
General
Response
Actions
Remedial
Technology
Process Option
Description of Option
Screening Comments
Retained
T reatment -
Continued
Thermal/Chemical
Treatment
Thermo-Caustic
Dissolution
Contaminated materials would be placed into a high
temperature caustic (strong basic) solution.
Contaminated materials are partially to fully
converted (changed to an amorphous structure)
during immersion. Partially converted contaminated
materials are further converted using chemical
reactions to form a viscous mixture, which is later
vitrified. The resulting reaction product (glass) is an
amorphous inert waste.
Potentially implementable process
option.
Yes
Thermo-Chemical
Treatment
Contaminated materials would be mixed with
proprietary demineralizing agents within a
hydrofluoric acid solution. The mixture is then heated
in a rotary hearth furnace. This process is similar to
vitrification but does not involve complete melting.
Instead, the process results in partial sintering of the
material. The resulting reaction product (rock-like
material) is an inert waste. TCCT, patented by ARI, is
a commercial form of this technology.
Potentially implementable process
option.
Yes
Notes:
1. The screening process for technical implementability involves a qualitative assessment of the degree to which process options address evaluation criteria presented in Section 4.5.
2. Shading indicates remedial technologies/process options have been eliminated from further consideration based on lack of technical implementability. Remaining (unshaded) remedial
technologies/process options have been retained for additional screening in Table 4-2.
CDM
NRE_Final FS_Table4-1 - RemTech.doc
5 of 6
-------
Table 4-1 (continued)
Identification and Technical Implementability Screening of Potentially Applicable Remedial Technologies/Process Options
Contaminated Materials
This Page Left Blank Intentionally
CDM
NRE_Final FS_Table4-1 - RemTech.doc
6 of 6
-------
Table 4-2
Screening of Potentially Applicable Remedial Technologies/Process Options Based on Effectiveness, Implementability, and Relative Cost
Contaminated Materials
General
Response Actions
Remedial Technology
Process Option
Description of Option
Effectiveness
Implementability
Relative Cost
Reasons for
Elimination of
Process Option from
Consideration
Process Option Viability with
Respect to Assembly of
Remedial Alternatives
Capital
Cost
O&M
Cost
No Action
None
None
No action would be taken.
Contaminated materials would
remain in their existing conditions.
©
No protection of human health or the
environment and no compliance with
ARARs.
©
Easily implemented but is not acceptable to
regulatory agencies and does not meet
ARARs.
©
©
Retained
Required by NCP as stand-
alone alternative.
Monitoring
Physical and/or
Chemical Monitoring
Non-Intrusive Visual
Inspection
A non-intrusive (surficial) visual
inspection of the immediate ground
surface to determine the presence or
absence of contaminated materials.
©
Protects people by monitoring
contaminant concentrations and
migration. Does not directly affect
people or animals and does not
physically address contaminated
materials.
©
Easily implemented using available technical
labor resources.
$
O
Retained
Viable for short- and long-term
site monitoring.
Intrusive Visual
Inspection
An intrusive visual inspection of the
subsurface (using excavations or
boreholes) to determine the
presence or absence of
contaminated materials.
©
Protects people by monitoring
contaminant concentrations and
migration. Does not directly affect
people or animals and does not
physically address contaminated
materials.
©
Easily implemented using available technical
labor resources.
$$
O
Retained
Viable for short- and long-term
site monitoring.
Sample Collection and
Analysis
Air and/or soil samples would be
collected for microscopic analysis of
asbestos or chemical analysis of
arsenic to determine the potential
presence of asbestos fibers or
arsenic. Types of samples collected
include but are not limited to soil,
ambient air, and ABS. Types of
microscopic analyses for asbestos
fibers include but are not limited to
PLM, stereomicroscopy, and TEM.
Chemical analysis of arsenic is
typically performed using graphite
furnace atomic absorption methods.
©
Protects people by monitoring
contaminant concentrations and
migration. Does not directly affect
people or animals and does not
physically address contaminated
materials.
©
Easily implemented using available technical
labor and equipment resources.
$$$
O
Retained
Viable for short- and long-term
site monitoring.
Land Use Controls
Institutional Controls
Governmental Controls,
Proprietary Controls,
and Informational
Devices
Contact with contaminated materials
would be controlled through legal
instruments. Examples of
governmental controls include but
are not limited to local zoning,
permits, codes, or regulations.
Examples of proprietary controls
include but are not limited to
instruments such as Easement and
Equitable Servitude, and CC&Rs.
Examples of informational devices
include but are not limited to Notices
of Environmental Contamination.
©
Restricts future uses of the site that are
not protective of human health and the
environment but does not physically
address contaminated materials.
©
Implemented using legal instruments and
labor resources; potential public resistance.
$$
$
Retained
Potentially viable process
option for combination with
access controls or containment
and/or disposal technologies in
which contaminated materials
are left on site.
Community
Awareness Activities
Informational and
Educational Programs
Community informational and
educational programs would be
undertaken to enhance awareness of
potential hazards and remedies for
contaminated materials.
©
Protects people by enhancing
awareness of potential site hazards and
remedies. Does not directly affect
animals and does not physically
address contaminated materials.
©
Easily implemented using available technical
and community involvement labor resources.
$
$
Retained
Potentially viable process
option for combination with all
other technologies.
Access Controls
Posted Warnings
Warning signs would be used to
warn people of dangers posed by
contaminated materials at the site.
©
Protects people by enhancing
awareness of potential site hazards and
remedies through warnings, though
people may choose to ignore warnings.
Does not directly affect animals.
©
Easily implemented and resources readily
available.
$$
$
Retained
Potentially viable process
option for combination with
institutional controls or
containment and/or disposal
technologies in which
contaminated materials are left
on site.
CDM
NRE_Final FS_Table 4-2 - Screening Rem Tech, Eff-lmp-Cost.doc
1 of 7
-------
Table 4-2 (continued)
Screening of Potentially Applicable Remedial Technologies/Process Options Based on Effectiveness, Implementability, and Relative Cost
Contaminated Materials
Relative Cost
Reasons for
General
Response Actions
Remedial Technology
Process Option
Description of Option
Effectiveness
Implementability
Capital
Cost
O&M
Cost
Elimination of
Process Option from
Consideration
Process Option Viability with
Respect to Assembly of
Remedial Alternatives
Containment
Surface Source
Controls
Water-Based
Suppression
Contaminated materials would be
kept "adequately wet" using water or a
water-based dust suppressant to
control airborne migration of asbestos
fibers or arsenic to the surrounding
environment.
©
Wetting contaminated materials for dust
suppression inhibits airborne transport
of asbestos fibers and/or dust, but
frequent wetting may facilitate asbestos
or arsenic transport through surface
runoff. Does not provide long-term
effectiveness without continuous re-
application.
o
Easily implemented and construction
resources readily available. A suitable water
supply must be located. Requires continuous
re-application to ensure protectiveness.
$$
$$
Retained
Not viable as a long-term
solution; however, it is a
potentially viable process option
for combination with removal,
disposal, and/or treatment
technologies.
Chemical-Based
Suppression
Contaminated materials would be
treated with a resinous or petroleum-
based chemical dust suppressant to
control airborne migration of asbestos
fibers and/or arsenic to the
surrounding environment.
©
Chemically treating contaminated
materials inhibits airborne transport of
dust. Does not provide long-term
effectiveness without frequent re-
application.
©
Implementable and construction resources
readily available. May be difficult to ensure
uniform application of the chemical
suppressant over the contaminated materials.
Requires frequent re-application to ensure
protectiveness.
$$$
$$$
Retained
Not viable as a long-term
solution; however, it is a
potentially viable process option
for combination with removal,
disposal, and/or treatment
technologies.
Negative Pressure
Enclosure
Contaminated materials would be
enclosed within a temporary structure.
The structure would be operated
under negative pressure with filtering
to control airborne migration of
asbestos fibers or arsenic in dust to
the surrounding environment.
o
Enclosing contaminated materials
eliminates airborne transport of
asbestos fibers and dust outside of the
enclosure. Does not provide long-term
effectiveness without continuous
operation of the filtering system within
the enclosure.
©
Implementable and construction resources
available. Difficult to enclose large areas of
contaminated materials. Requires constant
O&M to ensure protectiveness.
$$$$
$$$
Retained
Not viable as a long-term
solution; however, it is a
potentially viable process option
for combination with removal
and/or treatment technologies.
In Situ Mixing
Contaminated materials and
©
Reduces future asbestos and arsenic
ft
Implemented using available construction
$$$$
$$
Effectiveness,
Eliminated from consideration.
associated soils would be mixed with
underlying uncontaminated soil or fill
materials.
releases from surface soils after
implementation; however, there is
potential for subsurface contaminated
materials to migrate back to the surface
over time through natural and/or human
activities. It does not protect people and
animals by itself.
resources. Difficulty may be encountered in
homogenizing contaminated materials with
underlying soils and depth to bedrock may
preclude in situ mixing at some locations.
May require re-application overtime if
subsurface contaminated materials migrate to
the surface. Must be combined with
institutional and access controls.
Implementability
Soil or Rock Exposure
Barrier/Cover
Contaminated materials would be
covered with a layer of clean soil or
rock with sufficient thickness to
eliminate surface exposure.
o
Protects people and animals by
eliminating surface exposure of
contaminated materials. Prevents
erosion and transport by air and water.
o
Implemented using available construction
resources and materials. Must be combined
with institutional and access controls.
Requires some maintenance for long-term
protectiveness.
$$$
$$
Retained
Viable as a long-term solution.
Asphalt or Concrete
Exposure Barrier/Cover
Contaminated materials would be
covered with layers of asphalt or
concrete with sufficient thickness to
eliminate surface exposure.
o
Protects people and animals by
eliminating surface exposure
contaminated materials. Prevents
erosion and transport by air and water.
o
Implemented using available construction
resources and materials. Must be combined
with institutional and access controls.
Requires some maintenance for long-term
protectiveness.
$$$$
$$$
Retained
Viable as a long-term solution.
Geosynthetic Multi-Layer
Exposure Barrier/Cover
Contaminated materials would be
covered with geosynthetic material
(such as geomembrane or a GCL)
along with protective vegetative or
rock layers to eliminate surface
exposure.
o
Protects people and animals by
eliminating surface exposure of
contaminated materials. Prevents
erosion and transport by air and water.
©
Implemented using available construction
resources; however, special material and
labor resources are required to install the
geosynthetic material. Care must be taken
during installation to avoid damage to the
geosynthetic. Must be combined with
institutional and access controls. Requires
some maintenance for long-term
protectiveness.
$$$$
$$$
Retained
Viable as a long-term solution.
Removal/T ransport/
Disposal
Removal
Mechanical Excavation
Contaminated materials would be
excavated using mechanical
methods.
o
Protects people and animals by
eliminating future exposure to
contaminated materials and migration of
asbestos fibers and dust after
implementation. Suppression of dust
required to protect receptors and the
environment from release of asbestos
fibers during implementation. Must be
combined with containment, transport,
disposal, and/or treatment technologies.
o
Implemented using available construction
resources.
$$$
O
Retained
Viable as a long-term solution;
must be combined with
transport, disposal, and/or
treatment technologies.
CDM
NRE_Final FS_Table 4-2 - Screening Rem Tech, Eff-lmp-Cost.doc
-------
Table 4-2 (continued)
Screening of Potentially Applicable Remedial Technologies/Process Options Based on Effectiveness, Implementability, and Relative Cost
Contaminated Materials
General
Response Actions
Remedial Technology
Process Option
Description of Option
Effectiveness
Implementability
Relative Cost
Reasons for
Elimination of
Process Option from
Consideration
Process Option Viability with
Respect to Assembly of
Remedial Alternatives
Capital
Cost
O&M
Cost
Removal/T ransport/
Disposal -
Continued
Removal - Continued
Pneumatic Excavation
(Vacuum Extraction/
Pumping)
Contaminated materials would be
excavated using vacuum hoses,
vacuum trucks, or other pneumatic
conveyance system.
o
Protects people and animals by
eliminating future exposure to
contaminated materials and migration of
asbestos fibers and dust after
implementation. Collection of dust
required to protect receptors and the
environment from release of asbestos
fibers during implementation. Effective
in performing removal of small and fine
material during excavation. Must be
combined with transport, containment,
disposal, and/or treatment technologies.
©
Efficient for soils and gravel or smaller
particle sizes; however, filtering and
containment of air stream would be required.
Only useful for onsite actions. High abrasive
wear on equipment may occur depending on
type of job performed. Grinding or pulverizing
of large ACM and debris for pneumatic
transport would be required and may conflict
with ARARs. This concern can be eliminated
if used for finer or smaller ACM or removal of
indoor dust.
$$$
©
Retained
Viable as a long-term solution;
must be combined with
transport, disposal, and/or
treatment technologies.
Transport
Mechanical Transport
(Hauling/Conveying)
Excavated contaminated materials
would be transported by truck or
other mechanical conveyance
method.
©
Protects people and animals by
eliminating future exposure to
contaminated materials and migration of
asbestos fibers and dust after
implementation. Suppression of dust
required to protect receptors and the
environment from release of asbestos
fibers during implementation. Must be
combined with removal, containment,
disposal, and/or treatment technologies.
o
Easily implemented using available
construction resources; efficient for all sizes
of materials. Useful for onsite or offsite
actions.
$$$$
O
Retained
Viable as a long-term solution;
must be combined with
removal, disposal, and/or
treatment technologies.
Hydraulic Transport
(Slurrying)
Excavated contaminated materials
would be transported in slurry form
using a pipeline or other hydraulic
conveyance system.
©
Protects people and animals by
eliminating future exposure to
contaminated materials and migration of
asbestos fibers and dust after
implementation. Suppression of dust is
achieved though slurry transport. Must
be combined with removal,
containment, disposal, and/or treatment
technologies.
©
Efficient for soils and gravel or smaller
particle sizes. Only useful for onsite actions.
Difficult to transport large ACM and debris or
may require higher flow velocities, which can
cause more abrasive wear on equipment.
Treatment of water used for transport would
be required, and it is unknown whether
current water supply systems can handle the
additional volume requirements. Grinding or
pulverizing of large ACM for hydraulic
transportation would be required and may
conflict with ARARs.
$$$
O
Implementability
Eliminated from consideration.
Pneumatic Transport
(Vacuum Extraction/
Pumping)
Excavated contaminated materials
would be transported using vacuum
hoses, vacuum trucks, or other
pneumatic conveyance system.
©
Protects people and animals by
eliminating future exposure to
contaminated materials and migration of
asbestos fibers and dust after
implementation. Collection of dust
required to protect receptors and the
environment from release of asbestos
fibers during implementation. Effective
in performing removal of small and fine
material during excavation. Must be
combined with removal, containment,
disposal, and/or treatment technologies.
©
Efficient for soils and gravel or smaller
particle sizes; however, filtering and
containment of air stream would be required.
Only useful for onsite actions. High abrasive
wear on equipment may occur depending on
type of job performed. Grinding or pulverizing
of large ACM for pneumatic transport would
be required and may conflict with ARARs.
This concern can be eliminated if used for
finer or smaller ACM or removal of indoor
dust.
$$$
O
Retained
Viable as a long-term solution;
must be combined with
removal, disposal, and/or
treatment technologies.
Disposal
Onsite Disposal
Excavated contaminated materials
would be disposed of at an onsite
location authorized for disposal of
asbestos and arsenic contamination.
o
Protects people and animals by
eliminating exposure to contaminated
materials and migration of asbestos
fibers and dust at original location and
provides containment of contaminated
materials within an engineered disposal
facility. Suppression of dust required to
protect receptors and the environment
from release of asbestos fibers during
implementation. Must be combined with
removal, transport, containment, and/or
treatment technologies.
©
Implemented using available construction
resources. Design and approval of onsite
disposal facility required. Institutional and
access controls would also be required.
Requires O&M for long-term protectiveness
of the onsite disposal facility.
$$$$
$$$
Retained
Viable as a long-term solution;
must be combined with removal
and transport technologies.
CDM
NRE_Final FS_Table 4-2 - Screening Rem Tech, Eff-lmp-Cost.doc
-------
Table 4-2 (continued)
Screening of Potentially Applicable Remedial Technologies/Process Options Based on Effectiveness, Implementability, and Relative Cost
Contaminated Materials
Relative Cost
Reasons for
General
Response Actions
Remedial Technology
Process Option
Description of Option
Effectiveness
Implementability
Capital
Cost
O&M
Cost
Elimination of
Process Option from
Consideration
Process Option Viability with
Respect to Assembly of
Remedial Alternatives
Removal/T ransport/
Disposal -
Continued
Disposal - Continued
Offsite Disposal
Excavated contaminated materials
would be disposed of at an offsite
location authorized for disposal of
asbestos and arsenic contamination.
o
Protects people and animals by
eliminating exposure to contaminated
materials and migration of asbestos
fibers and dust at original location and
provides containment of contaminated
materials within an engineered disposal
facility. Suppression of dust required to
protect people, animals, and the
environment from release of asbestos
fibers during implementation. Must be
combined with removal, transport,
and/or treatment technologies.
o
Implemented using an authorized commercial
or governmental disposal facility that accepts
contaminated materials. Requires approval of
disposal facility.
$$$$
©
Retained
Viable as a long-term solution;
must be combined with removal
and transport technologies.
T reatment
Physical and/or
Chemical Treatment
Physical Separation/
Segregation
Contaminated materials would be
separated and segregated from
uncontaminated debris and soil for
disposal and/or treatment.
©
Does not protect receptors by itself;
however, separation of ACM from other
contaminated materials is required for
several treatment technologies. Surface
source controls are required to protect
people, animals, and the environment
from release of asbestos fibers during
implementation. Must be combined with
removal and/or treatment technologies
that require separation of ACM debris
from soil.
©
Implemented using available construction
resources but time consuming. Effective in
removing large ACM debris like CAB, VAT,
AirCell, MAG, and other construction-related
ACMs; however, there is no proven
technology to physically separate individual
asbestos fibers from a soil matrix.
$$$
O
Retained
Not viable as a long-term
solution; however, it is a
potentially viable process option
for combination with other
treatment technologies.
Size Reduction
Contaminated materials would be
reduced in size using approved
techniques to facilitate disposal and/or
treatment.
©
Does not protect people and animals by
itself; however, size reduction of larger
ACM debris is required for several
containment, treatment, and/or disposal
technologies. Surface source controls
are required to protect people, animals,
and the environment from release of
asbestos fibers during implementation.
o
Implemented using available construction
resources and approved techniques.
$$
O
Retained
Not viable as a long-term
solution; however, it is a
potentially viable process option
for combination with
containment, disposal, and/or
treatment technologies.
Pozzolan- or Cement-
Based
Stabilization/Solidification
Contaminated materials would be
mixed with a pozzolan- or cement-
based binding agent before disposal.
©
Protects people and animals by binding
contaminated materials within a solid
inert matrix. Effectiveness of
stabilization may decrease overtime
due to development of freeze-thaw
cracking. Surface source controls are
required to protect people, animals, and
the environment from release of
asbestos fibers during implementation.
Must be combined with removal,
transport, and disposal technologies.
©
Implemented using available construction
resources. Difficult to obtain and transport
large quantities of binding agent and
homogenize binding agent with
heterogeneous contaminated materials.
(£ ^ ^ ^ ^
O
Implementability,
Cost
Eliminated from consideration.
Pozzolan- or Cement-
Based In Situ
Stabilization/Solidification
Contaminated materials would be
mixed in situ with a pozzolan- or
cement-based binding agent using a
deep soil auger mixing/injection
technique.
©
Protects people and animals by binding
contaminated materials within a solid
inert matrix. Contaminated materials
would be treated in place, which
minimizes exposure to people, animals,
and the environment. Effectiveness of
stabilization may decrease overtime
due to development of freeze-thaw
cracking near the surface.
©
Implemented using available construction
resources. Contaminated materials are
scattered over site, which include large
quantities of ACM that vary in depth and
extent. Difficult to obtain and transport large
quantities of binding agent and homogenize
binding agent with contaminated materials.
Depth to bedrock may preclude in situ mixing
at some locations.
(£ ^ ^ ^ ^
O
Implementability,
Cost
Eliminated from consideration.
CDM
NRE_Final FS_Table 4-2 - Screening Rem Tech, Eff-lmp-Cost.doc
4 of 7
-------
Table 4-2 (continued)
Screening of Potentially Applicable Remedial Technologies/Process Options Based on Effectiveness, Implementability, and Relative Cost
Contaminated Materials
General
Response Actions
Remedial Technology
Process Option
Description of Option
Effectiveness
Implementability
Relative Cost
Reasons for
Elimination of
Process Option from
Consideration
Process Option Viability with
Respect to Assembly of
Remedial Alternatives
Capital
Cost
O&M
Cost
Treatment -
Continued
Physical and/or
Chemical Treatment -
Continued
Chemical Decomposition
Contaminated materials would be
decomposed to an amorphous silica
suspension at relatively low
temperatures (~100°C) using
chemicals tailored to the waste
stream. The resulting amorphous
silica would then be solidified for
disposal as an inert waste. ABCOV™
is a demonstrated form of this
technology.
©
Protects people and animals by
converting ACM within contaminated
materials to an inert form. The
treatment is irreversible. Once treated,
the inert materials and soil can be used
for site restoration. Surface source
controls are required to protect people,
animals, and the environment from
release of asbestos fibers during
implementation. Must be combined with
removal and transport technologies.
Has not been shown to treat arsenic
contamination.
o
Implemented using a patented and
demonstrated technology; however,
commercialization of the technology is not
fully developed. There is only one vendor in
the U.S. offering this technology, which
requires special chemicals tailored to the
waste stream. The treatment process
requires physical separation/segregation of
contaminated materials, including ACM, into
similar types and associated soils and
adjustment of the chemicals for the waste
streams.
(£ ^ ^ ^ ^
©
Implementability,
Cost
Eliminated from consideration.
Thermal Treatment
In Situ Vitrification
An electrical current would be
passed between electrodes inserted
into in-place contaminated materials
to cause melting. The melted matrix
is then allowed to cool in place into a
solid vitrified glass mass.
©
Protects people and animals by
converting contaminated materials to an
inert form. The treatment is irreversible.
Contaminated materials would be
treated in place, which minimizes
exposure to people, animals, and the
environment during implementation.
Effectiveness is highly dependent on
the nature of the subsurface;
heterogeneity of the contaminated
materials and soils, lack of
groundwater, and variable depth to
bedrock would impact effectiveness.
Surface source controls required to
protect people, animals, and the
environment from release of asbestos
fibers during implementation.
o
Implemented using a patented,
demonstrated, and commercialized
technology. The technology requires a
significant, reliable source of electrical power.
Difficult to implement since technology is
mainly dependent on the electrical
conductivity of the subsurface; contaminated
materials are highly heterogeneous. Lack of
saturated soils in the subsurface hinder the
implementation of this technology. Depth to
bedrock may also complicate in situ
vitrification at some locations. The system
requires off-gas treatment system to address
air emissions.
(£ ^ ^ ^ ^
O
Implementability,
Cost
Eliminated from consideration.
Electric Arc Vitrification
(Ex Situ)
An electrical current would be passed
between electrodes in a furnace
creating an electrical arc.
Contaminated materials placed in the
furnace form a molten bath that cools
to form a vitrified glass mass. The
vitrified glass mass is an inert waste.
o
Protects people and animals by
converting contaminated materials to an
inert form. The treatment is inert-
regulated material and soil can be used
for site restoration. Surface source
controls are required to protect people,
animals, and the environment from
release of asbestos fibers during initial
processing. Must be combined with
removal and transport technologies.
o
Implemented using a patented,
demonstrated, and commercialized
technology. However, the literature does not
indicate that electric arc furnace units are
widely available commercially for remediation
of contaminated materials. Thus,
contaminated materials would be required to
be transported off site for treatment (one
demonstration location identified is in New
Jersey). Mobilization of a temporary onsite
treatment facility is possible but has not been
demonstrated in the literature and could pose
numerous setup and startup difficulties. The
technology requires a significant, reliable
source of electrical power. Contaminated
materials require size reduction before it is
put in the furnace for vitrification. The system
requires off-gas treatment system to address
air emissions.
(£ ^ ^ ^ ^
O
Implementability,
Cost
Eliminated from consideration.
CDM
NRE_Final FS_Table 4-2 - Screening Rem Tech, Eff-lmp-Cost.doc
5 of 7
-------
Table 4-2 (continued)
Screening of Potentially Applicable Remedial Technologies/Process Options Based on Effectiveness, Implementability, and Relative Cost
Contaminated Materials
General
Response Actions
Remedial Technology
Process Option
Description of Option
Effectiveness
Implementability
Relative Cost
Reasons for
Elimination of
Process Option from
Consideration
Process Option Viability with
Respect to Assembly of
Remedial Alternatives
Capital
Cost
O&M
Cost
Treatment -
Continued
Thermal Treatment -
Continued
Plasma Arc Vitrification
(Ex Situ)
An electrical current would be passed
between electrodes to form plasma.
Contaminated materials placed in the
plasma arc form a molten bath that
cools to form a vitrified glass mass.
The vitrified glass mass is an inert
waste.
o
Protects people and animals by
converting contaminated materials to an
inert form. The treatment is irreversible.
Once treated, the inert material and soil
can be used for site restoration. Surface
source controls are required to protect
people, animals, and the environment
from release of asbestos fibers during
initial processing. Must be combined
with removal and transportation
technologies.
o
Implemented using a patented,
demonstrated, and commercialized
technology. Currently the technology is not
available in the U.S. to treat large volumes of
waste. The sole vendor available in the U.S.
has commercial portable units, which can
only treat very small volumes of waste. The
technology requires a significant, reliable
source of electrical power. Contaminated
materials require size reduction before they
are put in the furnace for vitrification. The
system also requires an off-gas treatment
system.
(£ ^ ^ ^ ^
©
Implementability,
Cost
Eliminated from consideration.
Thermal/Chemical
Treatment
Thermo-Caustic
Dissolution
Contaminated materials would be
placed into a high temperature
caustic (strong basic) solution.
Contaminated materials are partially
to fully converted (changed to an
amorphous structure) during
immersion. Partially converted
contaminated materials are further
converted using chemical reactions
to form a viscous mixture, which is
later vitrified. The resulting reaction
product (glass) is an amorphous inert
waste.
o
Protects people and animals by
converting contaminated materials to an
inert form. The treatment is irreversible.
Once treated, the inert material and soil
can be used for site restoration. Surface
source controls are required to protect
people, animals, and the environment
from release of asbestos fibers during
initial processing. Must be combined
with removal and transport
technologies.
o
Implemented using a patented and
demonstrated technology jointly developed
by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and
their contractors for specialized use on DOE
facilities. This technology is not commercially
available. The high temperature caustic
solution poses potential difficulties and risks
to workers during the first stage of the
process. The contaminated materials require
size reduction before they are put into the
caustic solution. The vitrification portion of the
technology requires a significant, reliable
source of electrical power. The system also
requires an off-gas treatment system.
(£ ^ ^ ^ ^
O
Implementability,
Cost
Eliminated from consideration.
Thermo-chemical
Treatment
Contaminated materials would be
mixed with proprietary demineralizing
agents within a hydrofluoric acid
solution. The mixture is then heated
in a rotary hearth furnace. This
process is similar to vitrification but
does not involve complete melting.
Instead, the process results in partial
sintering of the material. The resulting
reaction product (rock-like material)
is an inert waste. TCCT, patented by
ARI, is a commercial form of this
technology.
o
Protects people and animals by
converting contaminated materials to an
inert form. The treatment is irreversible.
Once treated, the inert material and soil
can be used for site restoration. Surface
source controls are required to protect
people, animals, and the environment
from release of asbestos fibers during
initial processing. Must be combined
with removal and transport
technologies.
©
Implemented using a patented,
demonstrated, and commercialized
technology (TCCT). Currently the
contaminated materials would be required to
be transported off site for treatment to the
closest operating TCCT facility in Washington
State. Mobilization of a temporary onsite
treatment facility is possible but with high
cost. The contaminated materials require size
reduction before they are put in the furnace
for thermo-chemical conversion. The
treatment process does not require physical
separation/segregation of contaminated
materials into similar types, nor separation
from associated soils.
^ ^ ^ ^ ^
O
Retained
Viable as a long-term solution
and meets NCP preference for
innovative and demonstrated
treatment technologies. Must
be combined with removal and
transport technologies.
CDM
NRE_Final FS_Table 4-2 - Screening Rem Tech, Eff-lmp-Cost.doc
6 of 7
-------
Table 4-2 (continued)
Screening of Potentially Applicable Remedial Technologies/Process Options Based on Effectiveness, Implementability, and Relative Cost
Contaminated Materials
Notes:
1. The screening process for effectiveness, implementability, and relative cost involves a qualitative assessment of the degree to which process options address evaluation criteria presented in Section 4.6. The numerical designations for the qualitative ratings system used in this table
are not used to quantitatively assess process options (for instance, rankings for a process option are not additive).
2. Shading indicates remedial technologies/process options have been eliminated from further consideration based on lack of effectiveness, implementability, and/or disproportionate cost relative to other process options within the same GRA. Remaining (unshaded) remedial
technologies/process options have been retained for assembly into remedial action alternatives as discussed in Section 5.
3. The following sources of technical information were used to identify and screen remedial technologies and process options:
The ABCOV™ Method and Technologies, .
ARI Technologies, Inc. 2007. Final Report Ten-Day Asbestos Destruction Demonstration Using Thermochemical Conversion Technology. December 20, 2007.
ARI's Thermochemical Conversion Technology (TCCT), .
Asbestos Abatement/Destruction Using Plasma Arc Technology. 1998. . February.
C.M. Jantzen and J. B. Pickett, How to Recycle Asbestos Containing Materials, .
D E Deegan, C D Chapman, S A Ismail, M L H Wise and H Ly. The Thermal Treatment of Hazardous Waste Materials Using Plasma Arc Technology.
David A. Counts, Bruce D. Sartwell, Steven H. Peterson, Robert Kirkland, Nicholas P. Kolak. 1999. Thermal Plasma Waste Remediation Technology: Historical Perspective and Current Trends. January.
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable (FRTR). 2007. Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix and Reference Guide, Version 4.0.
In Situ Vitrification, Appropriate Technologies forthe Treatment of Scheduled Wastes Review Report Number 4. 1997. http://www.environment.gov.au/settlements/publications/chemicals/scheduled-waste/swtt/insitu.html>. November.
Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (Oregon DEQ), Oregon Landfills Accepting Asbestos Wastes
R.S. Kasevich, W. Vaux, N. Ulerich, T. Nocito. 1996. Electromagnetic Mixed Waste Processing System for Asbestos Decontamination.
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1994. Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation (SITE) Technology Capsule, Geosafe Corporation, In Situ Vitrification Technology. November.
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).. 1998. Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation (SITE) Technology Capsule, Geotech Development Corporation Cold Top Ex-Situ Vitrification Technology. March.
Vermiprocess for Asbestos Remediation, US Patent Issued on April 6, 2004, .
W.R. Grace & Co.-Conn., Grace Construction Products, Digestion Material for Asbestos (DMA®)
Waste Management, Inc. (WM®),
Legend for Qualitative Ratings System: The following ratings were used for evaluation and presentation of effectiveness, implementability, and relative cost:
Effectiveness and Implementability
® None
O Low
© Low to moderate
© Moderate
© Moderate to high
© High
Relative Cost
O
None
$
Low
$$
Low to moderate
$$$
Moderate
$$$$
Moderate to high
^ ^ ^ ^ ^
High
CDM
NRE_Final FS_Table 4-2 - Screening Rem Tech, Eff-lmp-Cost.doc
7 of 7
-------
Table 4-3
Retained Remedial Technologies/Process Options
Contaminated Materials
General
Response Actions
Remedial Technology
Process Option
Description of Option
Process Option Viability with Respect
to Assembly of Remedial Alternatives
No Action
None
None
No action would be taken. Contaminated materials
would remain in their existing conditions.
Required by NCP as stand-alone
alternative.
Monitoring
Physical and/or Chemical
Monitoring
Non-Intrusive Visual
Inspection
A non-intrusive (surficial) visual inspection of the
immediate ground surface to determine the
presence or absence of contaminated materials.
Viable for short- and long-term site
monitoring.
Intrusive Visual Inspection
An intrusive visual inspection of the subsurface
(using excavations or boreholes) to determine the
presence or absence of contaminated materials.
Viable for short- and long-term site
monitoring.
Sample Collection and
Analysis
Air and/or soil samples would be collected for
microscopic analysis of asbestos or chemical
analysis of arsenic to determine the potential
presence of asbestos fibers or arsenic. Types of
samples collected include but are not limited to soil,
ambient air, and ABS. Types of microscopic
analyses for asbestos fibers include but are not
limited to PLM, stereomicroscopy, and TEM.
Chemical analysis of arsenic is typically performed
using graphite furnace atomic absorption methods.
Viable for short- and long-term site
monitoring.
Land Use Controls
Institutional Controls
Governmental Controls,
Proprietary Controls, and
Informational Devices
Contact with contaminated materials would be
controlled through legal instruments. Examples of
governmental controls include but are not limited to
local zoning, permits, codes, or regulations.
Examples of proprietary controls include but are not
limited to instruments such as Easement and
Equitable Servitude, and CC&Rs. Examples of
informational devices include but are not limited to
Notices of Environmental Contamination.
Potentially viable process option for
combination with access controls or
containment and/or disposal technologies
in which contaminated materials risk are
left on site.
Community Awareness
Activities
Informational and
Educational Programs
Community informational and educational programs
would be undertaken to enhance awareness of
potential hazards and remedies for contaminated
materials.
Potentially viable process option for
combination with all other technologies.
Access Controls
Posted Warnings
Warning signs would be used to warn people of
dangers posed by contaminated materials at the
site.
Potentially viable process option for
combination with institutional controls or
containment and/or disposal technologies
in which contaminated materials are left
on site.
CDM
NRE_Final FS_Table 4-3 - Retained RemTech.doc
1 of 4
-------
Table 4-3 (continued)
Retained Remedial Technologies/Process Options
Contaminated Materials
General
Response Actions
Remedial Technology
Process Option
Description of Option
Process Option Viability with Respect
to Assembly of Remedial Alternatives
Containment
Surface Source Controls
Water-Based Suppression
Contaminated materials would be kept "adequately
wet" using water or a water-based dust suppressant
to control airborne migration of asbestos fibers or
arsenic to the surrounding environment.
Not viable as a long-term solution;
however, it is a potentially viable process
option for combination with removal,
disposal, and/or treatment technologies.
Chemical-Based
Suppression
Contaminated materials would be treated with a
resinous or petroleum-based chemical dust
suppressant to control airborne migration of asbestos
fibers and/or arsenic to the surrounding environment.
Not viable as a long-term solution;
however, it is a potentially viable process
option for combination with removal,
disposal, and/or treatment technologies.
Negative Pressure Enclosure
Contaminated materials would be enclosed within a
temporary structure. The structure would be operated
under negative pressure with filtering to control
airborne migration of asbestos fibers or arsenic in
dust to the surrounding environment.
Not viable as a long-term solution;
however, it is a potentially viable process
option for combination with removal
and/or treatment technologies.
Soil or Rock Exposure
Barrier/Cover
Contaminated materials would be covered with a
layer of clean soil or rock with sufficient thickness to
eliminate surface exposure.
Viable as a long-term solution.
Asphalt or Concrete
Exposure Barrier/Cover
Contaminated materials would be covered with
layers of asphalt or concrete with sufficient
thickness to eliminate surface exposure.
Viable as a long-term solution.
Geosynthetic Multi-Layer
Exposure Barrier/Cover
Contaminated materials would be covered with
geosynthetic material (such as geomembrane or a
GCL) along with protective vegetative or rock layers
to eliminate surface exposure.
Viable as a long-term solution.
Removal/T ransport/
Disposal
Removal
Mechanical Excavation
Contaminated materials would be excavated using
mechanical methods.
Viable as a long-term solution; must be
combined with transport, disposal, and/or
treatment technologies.
Pneumatic Removal (Vacuum
Extraction/ Pumping)
Contaminated materials would be excavated using
vacuum hoses, vacuum trucks, or other pneumatic
conveyance system.
Viable as a long-term solution; must be
combined with transport, disposal, and/or
treatment technologies
Transport
Mechanical Transport
(Hauling/Conveying)
Excavated contaminated materials would be
transported by truck or other mechanical
conveyance method.
Viable as a long-term solution; must be
combined with removal, disposal, and/or
treatment technologies.
Pneumatic Transport
(Vacuum Extraction/
Pumping)
Excavated contaminated materials would be
transported using vacuum hoses, vacuum trucks, or
other pneumatic conveyance system.
Viable as a long-term solution; must be
combined with removal, disposal, and/or
treatment technologies.
Disposal
Onsite Disposal
Excavated contaminated materials would be
disposed of at an onsite location authorized for
disposal of asbestos and arsenic contamination.
Viable as a long-term solution; must be
combined with removal and transport
technologies.
Offsite Disposal
Excavated contaminated materials would be
disposed of at an offsite location authorized for
disposal of asbestos and arsenic contamination.
Viable as a long-term solution; must be
combined with removal and transport
technologies.
CDM
2 of 4
-------
Table 4-3 (continued)
Retained Remedial Technologies/Process Options
Contaminated Materials
General
Response Actions
Remedial Technology
Process Option
Description of Option
Process Option Viability with Respect
to Assembly of Remedial Alternatives
Treatment
Physical and/or Chemical
T reatment
Physical Separation/
Segregation
Contaminated materials would be separated and
segregated from uncontaminated debris and soil for
disposal and/or treatment.
Not viable as a long-term solution;
however, it is a potentially viable process
option for combination with treatment
technologies.
Size Reduction
Contaminated materials would be reduced in size
using approved techniques to facilitate disposal
and/or treatment.
Not viable as a long-term solution;
however, it is a potentially viable process
option for combination with containment,
disposal, and/or treatment technologies.
Thermal/Chemical
T reatment
Thermo-Chemical Treatment
Contaminated materials would be mixed with
proprietary demineralizing agents within a
hydrofluoric acid solution. The mixture is then
heated in a rotary hearth furnace. This process is
similar to vitrification but does not involve complete
melting. Instead, the process results in partial
sintering of the material. The resulting reaction
product (rock-like material) is an inert waste. TCCT,
patented by ARI, is a commercial form of this
technology.
Viable as a long-term solution and meets
NCP preference for innovative and
demonstrated treatment technologies.
Must be combined with removal and
transport technologies.
CDM
NRE_Final FS_Table 4-3 - Retained RemTech.doc
3 of 4
-------
Table 4-3 (continued)
Retained Remedial Technologies/Process Options
Contaminated Materials
This Page Left Blank Intentionally
CDM
NRE_Final FS_Table 4-3 - Retained Rem Tech.doc
4 of 4
-------
Table 5-1
Remedial Technologies/Process Options Evaluated for Assembly Into Remedial Alternatives
General
Response Actions
Remedial Technology
Process Option
Alternative 1
Alternative 2
Alternative 3
Alternative 4
Alternative 5a
Alternative 5b
Alternative 6
Alternative 7
No Action
None
None
~
Monitoring
Physical and/or Chemical
Monitoring
Non-Intrusive Visual Inspection
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
Intrusive Visual Inspection
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
Sample Collection and Analysis
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
Land Use Controls
Institutional Controls
Governmental Controls, Proprietary Controls,
and Informational Devices
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
Community Awareness Activities
Informational and Educational Programs
~
~
~
~
~
~
Access Controls
Posted Warnings
~
~
~
~
~
Containment
Surface Source Controls
Water-Based Suppression
~
~
~
~
~
~
Chemical-Based Suppression
~
~
~
~
~
~
Negative Pressure Enclosure
~
~
Soil or Rock Exposure Barrier/Cover
~
~
~
~
~
~
Asphalt or Concrete Exposure Barrier/Cover
~
~
~
~
~
~
Geosynthetic Multi-Layer Exposure
Barrier/Cover
~
~
~
~
~
~
Removal/T ransport/Disposal
Removal
Mechanical Excavation
~
~
~
~
Pneumatic Excavation
(Vacuum Extraction/ Pumping)
~
~
~
~
~
~
Transport
Mechanical Transport (Hauling/Conveying)
~
~
~
~
Pneumatic Transport
(Vacuum Extraction/ Pumping)
~
~
~
~
~
~
Disposal
Onsite Disposal
S
S
Offsite Disposal
S
S
Treatment
Physical and/or Chemical
Treatment
Physical Separation/ Segregation
s
S
Size Reduction
s
s
~
Thermal/Chemical Treatment
Thermo-Chemical Treatment
~
Notes:
1. Check mark designations indicate that remedial technology/process option could be evaluated as a potential component of the indicated remedial alternative.
2. Shaded boxes indicate the process options are not considered for the remedial alternative(s) in question.
3. Where similar process options have been indicated for the same remedial alternative (such as mechanical transport versus pneumatic transport), the most representative process has been selected for evaluation and costing. However, that does not preclude use of the similar
alternate processes during implementation of the selected remedy.
4. Descriptions of remedial technologies/process options are provided in Table 4-3. Descriptions of remedial alternatives are provided in Section 5.3.
Alternative 1: No Action
Alternative 2: Interior Cleaning and Land Use Controls with Monitoring
Alternative 3: Capping of Contaminated Materials on Private Parcels, Partial Capping of Contaminated Materials on Receivership Parcels, Interior Cleaning, and Land Use Controls with Monitoring
Alternative 4: Capping of Contaminated Materials and Land Use Controls with Monitoring
Alternative 5a: Excavation and Onsite Consolidation/Disposal of Contaminated Surface Materials, Future Excavation and Offsite Disposal of Contaminated Surface Materials at Permitted Facilities, and Land Use Controls with Monitoring
Alternative 5b: Excavation and Onsite Consolidation/Disposal of Contaminated Materials, and Land Use Controls with Monitoring
Alternative 6: Excavation and Offsite Disposal of Contaminated Materials at Permitted Facilities, and Land Use Controls with Monitoring
Alternative 7: Excavation and Offsite Thermo-Chemical Treatment of Contaminated Materials at Permitted Facilities, Reuse of Treated Material, and Land Use Controls with Monitoring
CDM
NRE_Final FS_Table 5-1 .doc
-------
Table 7-1
Summary of Comparative Analysis of Alternatives
Remedial
Alternative
Description
Threshold Criteria
Balancing Criteria
Overall Protection of Human
Health and the Environment
Compliance with ARARs
Long-Term Effectiveness
and Permanence
Reduction of Toxicity,
Mobility, or Volume
through Treatment
Short-Term Effectiveness
Implemen tabili ty
Present Value Cost (Dollars)
1
No Action
© Not protective of human
health and the environment and
does not meet PRAOs.
© Not compliant with
chemical-specific ARARs.
Specifically, the risk standards
in the Oregon Hazardous
Substance Remedial Action
Rules for asbestos are
exceeded because exposure
to contamination is not
addressed.
©No additional cleanup
measures are initiated and
contaminated materials are left
exposed.
© No treatment;
therefore, does not reduce
toxicity, mobility, or volume
of contaminants through
treatment.
© No additional cleanup
measures are initiated and
contaminated materials are left
exposed. Thus there are no
short-term effectiveness issues
for this alternative.
© No action is taken other than 5-
year site reviews. Since no new
remedial action is taken, this
alternative has no implementability
issues.
$
$186,000
3
Capping of Contaminated
Materials on Private Parcels,
Partial Capping of Contaminated
Materials on Receivership Parcels,
Interior Cleaning, and Land Use
Controls with Monitoring
© Contaminated materials that
remain exposed outside of capped
areas pose human health and
ecological risks through dispersal
across the site. Contaminated
materials also still remain beneath
covers across a large extent of the
site and could pose additional
risks if the covers are
compromised.
© Addresses the location- and
action-specific ARARs through
adherence of the ARARs
during implementation of the
remedial action.
This alternative leaves
contaminated materials
exposed at the site. Thus
compliance with the chemical-
specific ARARs is
questionable.
© Contaminated materials
that remain exposed outside of
capped areas pose human
health and ecological risks
through dispersal across the
site. Contaminated materials
also still remain beneath covers
across a large extent of the site
and could pose additional risks
if the covers are compromised.
© No treatment;
therefore, does not reduce
toxicity, mobility, or volume
of contaminants through
treatment.
© Addresses short-term risks
to workers, the community, and
the environment. Trucks used to
haul offsite borrow are also used
to construct the covers, which
slightly increases short-term
risks to the community.
© Construction resources and
materials needed to construct covers
for this alternative should be
available. Institutional controls have
been implemented in a similar
manner on other contaminated
residential sites in Oregon. Interior
cleaning has not been performed at
this site and would require
coordination with affected residents,
but has been successfully performed
at similar sites with asbestos
contamination.
$$$
$10,152,000
4
Capping of Contaminated
Materials and Land Use Controls
with Monitoring
© Contaminated materials still
remain beneath covers across a
large extent of the site and could
pose risks if the covers are
compromised.
© Addresses the location-
and action-specific ARARs
through adherence of the
ARARs during implementation
of the remedial action.
Addresses chemical-specific
ARARs by in-place capping of
contamination.
© Contaminated materials still
remain beneath covers across
a large extent of the site and
could pose risks if the covers
are compromised. Long-term
effectiveness and permanence
is not as certain as for
remedies that remove and
consolidate contaminated
materials for onsite and offsite
disposal.
© No treatment;
therefore, does not reduce
toxicity, mobility, or volume
of contaminants through
treatment.
© Similar to Alternative 3.
However Alternative 4 involves
significantly more surface
disturbance of contaminated
materials and larger number of
haul trucks than Alternative 3.
© Similar to Alternative 3. However
Alternative 4 requires covering a
larger area of the site than Alternative
3 and requires a larger volume of
borrow from offsite areas.
Maintenance of the additional covered
areas and monitoring, especially on
privately owned parcels, could
provide difficulties in the future.
$$$
$12,798,000
5a
Excavation and Onsite
Consolidation/Disposal of
Contaminated Surface Materials,
Future Excavation and Offsite
Disposal of Contaminated Surface
Materials at Permitted Facilities,
and Land Use Controls with
Monitoring
© Contaminated subsurface
materials also remain across a
large extent of the site beneath
covers at disposal locations and
backfill placed in excavations.
These materials could pose risks if
the covers or backfill are
compromised. Upward migration
of subsurface contaminated
materials through backfill to the
surface may occur overtime and
pose additional risks. Future
excavations may only partially
address these risks since they
would only occur periodically.
©This alternative has a higher
potential of future exposure at
the surface to significant
quantities of contaminated
materials through frost heave
processes than other
alternatives. Thus compliance
with the chemical-specific
ARARs is questionable.
© Contaminated materials still
remain under covers at onsite
disposal locations.
Contaminated subsurface
materials also remain across a
large extent of the site beneath
backfill placed in excavations.
These materials could pose
current and future human
health and ecological risks if
the covers at the onsite
disposal locations are
compromised or contaminated
materials become exposed at
the surface in backfilled
excavations.
© No treatment;
therefore, does not reduce
toxicity, mobility, or volume
of contaminants through
treatment.
© Requires disturbance and
consolidation of a large amount
of contaminated materials
across the site and large
volumes of offsite borrow. These
activities pose increased short-
term risks to workers and the
community than surface
disturbance activities under
Alternative 4.
Alternative 5a involves initial
excavation and future excavation
of contaminated materials over a
long period of time which
increases the risks.
© Excavation and onsite
consolidation of contaminated
materials could be difficult in areas of
underground utilities, trees, roads,
and near structures. This alternative
requires less overall offsite borrow
than Alternative 4, but additional
logistical coordination is needed since
both contaminated materials and
offsite borrow will be transported
simultaneously. Alternative 5a
requires less initial excavation than
Alternative 5b. However, there may
be difficulties in performing periodic
future excavations of contaminated
surface materials.
$$$
$10,467,000
CDM
NRE_Final FS_Table 7-1.doc
1 of 2
-------
Table 7-1 (continued)
Summary of Comparative Analysis of Alternatives
Remedial
Alternative
Description
Threshold Criteria
Balancing Criteria
Overall Protection of Human
Health and the Environment
Compliance with ARARs
Long-Term Effectiveness
and Permanence
Reduction of Toxicity,
Mobility, or Volume
through Treatment
Short-Term Effectiveness
Implemen tabili ty
Present Value Cost (Dollars)
5b
Excavation and Onsite
Consolidation/Disposal of
Contaminated Materials, and Land
Use Controls with Monitoring
© Since the majority of the
contaminated materials are
excavated and disposed of at
onsite disposal locations protected
by land use controls, long-term
protection of human health and
the environment is more certain
across the site than alternatives
that leave contaminated materials
across a larger extent of the site.
©Addresses the location- and
action-specific ARARs through
adherence of the ARARs
during implementation of the
remedial action. Addresses
chemical-specific ARARs by
excavation of contaminated
materials, onsite consolidation
and disposal, and backfilling of
excavations.
© Since the majority of the
contaminated materials are
excavated and disposed of at
onsite disposal locations
protected by land use controls,
long-term protection of human
health and the environment is
more certain across the site
than alternatives that leave
contaminated materials across
a larger extent of the site.
© No treatment;
therefore, does not reduce
toxicity, mobility, or volume
of contaminants through
treatment.
© Similar to Alternative 5a.
While Alternative 5b involves
initial excavation and
consolidation of a larger volume
of contaminated materials than
Alternative 5b, the increase in
initial short-term risks during
excavation is offset by not
requiring future excavation of
contaminated materials as under
Alternative 5a.
© Similar to Alternative 5a.
Alternative 5b requires more initial
excavation than Alternative 5a, but
does not have the difficulties in
performing future excavations as for
Alternative 5a.
$$$
$14,028,000
6
Excavation and Offsite Disposal of
Contaminated Materials at
Permitted Facilities, and Land Use
Controls with Monitoring
© Similar to Alternative 5b,
except that contaminated
materials are excavated and
disposed of offsite rather than
consolidated and disposed of
onsite. Since the majority of the
contaminated materials are
excavated and disposed of offsite,
long-term protection of human
health and the environment is
more certain than Alternative 5b.
© Addresses the location-
and action-specific ARARs
through adherence of the
ARARs during implementation
of the remedial action.
Addresses chemical-specific
ARARs by excavation of
contaminated materials, offsite
disposal, and backfilling of
excavations.
© Similar to Alternative 5b,
except offsite rather than onsite
disposal of excavated
contaminated materials is
performed.
© No treatment;
therefore, does not reduce
toxicity, mobility, or volume
of contaminants through
treatment.
©Similar to Alternative 5b,
offsite rather than onsite disposal
of excavated contaminated
materials is performed. Short-
term impacts to workers and
especially the community are
greatly increased over
alternatives that do not require
offsite disposal due to truck
traffic to the offsite disposal
facilities.
© Similar to Alternative 5b except
offsite rather than onsite disposal of
excavated contaminated materials is
performed. Offsite disposal of large
volumes of removed materials
requires additional coordination with
the offsite disposal facilities.
Additional difficulties exist in obtaining
the necessary approvals and the
logistics of transporting large volumes
of contaminated materials for long
distances to offsite disposal facilities.
^ ^ ^ ^ ^
$29,472,000
Notes:
1. The detailed analysis of retained alternatives involves a qualitative assessment of the degree to which remedial alternatives address evaluation criteria.
The numerical designations for the qualitative ratings system used in this table are not used to quantitatively assess remedial alternatives (for instance, individual rankings for an alternative are not additive).
Legend for Qualitative Ratings System:
Threshold and Balancing Criteria (Excluding Cost) Balancing Criteria (Present Value Cost in Dollars)
©
None
©
None ($0)
o
Low
$
Low ($0 through $5M)
©
Low to Moderate
$$
Low to Moderate ($5M through $10M)
©
Moderate
$$$
Moderate ($10M through $15M)
©
Moderate to High
$$$$
Moderate to High ($15M through $20M)
©
High
^ ^ ^ ^ ^
High (Greater than $20M)
CDM
NRE_Final FS_Table 7-1.doc
2 of 2
-------
Figures
-------
zmmm-
hormer Wastewater
SEa Treatment Plant
Warehouse
Apartments
Former Power Plant
Former
Landfill
i .. Memorial
¦ . Park
North RidaeiEstates
) Former
. Swimming Pool
Klamath Falls*
Washington
Idaho
Oregon
Nevada
California
Legend
OU1 - North Ridge Estates
¦¦¦¦¦¦
OU2 - Firing Range
Parcels
N
A
0 300 600 900 1,200 1,500
Feet
1 inch = 600 feet
Geographic Data Standards:
Projected Coordinate System:
NAD 1983 State Plane Oregon
South FIPS
Data Source(s):
May 2005 Aerial Photo
March 2010
This product is for informational purposes
and may not have been prepared for legal.
engineering or surveying purposes.
Users of this information should review or
consult the primary data and information
source to ascertain the usability of this
information.
Site Location Map
Figure 1-1
CDM
-------
Former Wastewater
Treatment Plant
Warehouse
' —* "r 1
Apartments
. .» .v».
s.
i
Former
Landfill
Former Power Plant
Memorial
Park
* •< m&t-
Former ,
Swimming Pool
Legend
OU1 - North Ridge Estates
Parcels
ACM Burial Area
Surficial ACM
Surficial ACM Debris
Mag / Air Cell Area
2005 EPA MAG / AirCell
Arsenic Contamination
Asbestos-Containing Steam Pipe
Note: Distribution of contaminated materials was
prior to 2008 removal activities. Also, an
onsite repository was created in 2008 in
the vicinity of the former swimming pool.
N
A
0 300 600 900 1,200 1,500
Feet
1 inch = 600 feet
Geographic Data Standards:
Projected Coordinate System:
NAD 1983 State Plane Oregon
South FIPS
Data Source(s):
May 2005 Aerial Photo
March 2010
This product is for informational purposes
and may not have been prepared for legal.
engineering or surveying purposes.
Users of this information should review or
consult the primary data and information
source to ascertain the usability of this
information.
Distribution of
Contaminated Materials
Figure 1-2
CDM
-------
WmPJ&l
Former Wastewater
Treatment Plant
V\ferehouse
Apartments
MBK-G
Former Power Plant
Former
Landfill
Memorial
Park
MBK-D
MBK-A
BBS
MBK-B
'MBK-C,
MBK-F
it j
Former
^ Swimming Pool
,• . <<*.¦ ,
NRE Site Parcel Owner Key
Parcel ID
Pa res I Owner
Parcel ID
Parcel Owner
Homfeldt
Budden +
Rinehart
Budden +
Holland
Wenneis
Winn
Lindell
Sarsenski +
Bailey +
Hawthorne
Selim
Metz +
Walle
Stewart +
Cornachione
Miles
Devish
Martin +
MBK-A
MBK
Dirr +
MBK-B
MBK
Newton +
MBK-C
MBK
Schectell +
MBK-D
MBK
Easley h
Neill +
MBK-E
MBK-F
MBK
MBK
Neill +
MBK-G
MBK
Peterson
Gibson +
Purves +
Burns
Roskos +
McClung +
Roberts +
Micka
Wenneis +
Graham
Dykstra
Bunch
West
WWTP
Budden +
Morrow +
Stearns
Wirth +
Gurske
Galpin
Mingus
+ Indicates parcels are occupied
Legend
OU1 - North Ridge Estates
Developed Parcels
Undeveloped Parcels
A Receivership -
29 parcels
A Private Ownership -
27 parcels
N
A
0 300 600 900 1,200 1,500
Feet
1 inch = 600 feet
Geographic Data Standards:
Projected Coordinate System:
NAD 1983 State Plane Oregon
South FIPS
Data Source(s):
May 2005 Aerial Photo
March 2010
This product is for informational purposes
and may not have been prepared for legal.
engineering or surveying purposes.
Users of this information should review or
consult the primary data and information
source to ascertain the usability of this
information.
Parcel Status Map
Figure 1-3
CDM
-------
Former Wastewater
Treatment Plant
Warehouse
Apartments
Former Power Plant
Former
Landfill
Memorial
Park
Former
Swimming Pool
Legend
OU1 - North Ridge Estates
| Parcels
2006 Surficial ACM (Identified
by PMX/CDM)
2005 Surficial ACM (Identified
by EPA START-2)
EPA 2008 Surficial ACM Debris
Note: Distribution of contaminated materials was
prior to 2008 removal activities. Also, an
onsite repository was created in 2008 in
the vicinity of the former swimming pool.
N
A
300 600 900 1,200 1,500
Feet
1 inch = 600 feet
Geographic Data Standards:
Projected Coordinate System:
NAD 1983 State Plane Oregon
South FIPS
Data Source(s):
May 2005 Aerial Photo
March 2010
This product is for informational purposes
and may not have been prepared for legal,
engineering or surveying purposes.
Users of this information should review or
consult the primary data and information
source to ascertain the usability of this
information.
Sitewide Representation
of Surficial ACM
Figure 2-1
CDM
-------
Former Wastewater
Treatment Plant
Warehouse
Apartments
Former Power Plant
Former
Landfill
Memorial
Park
Former
Swimming Pool
Legend
OU1 - North Ridge Estates
Parcels
2006 Burial Area (Identified
by PMX/CDM)
2003 Burial Area
(Identified by PBS)
Note: Distribution of contaminated materials was
prior to 2008 removal activities. Also, an
onsite repository was created in 2008 in
the vicinity of the former swimming pool.
N
A
0 300 600 900 1,200 1,500
Feet
1 inch = 600 feet
Geographic Data Standards:
Projected Coordinate System:
NAD 1983 State Plane Oregon
South FIPS
Data Source(s):
May 2005 Aerial Photo
March 2010
This product is for informational purposes
and may not have been prepared for legal,
engineering or surveying purposes.
Users of this information should review or
consult the primary data and information
source to ascertain the usability of this
information.
Sitewide Representation of
Contaminated Material in Burial Areas
Figure 2-2
CDM
-------
si ¦
Former Wastewater
Treatment Plant
Warehouse
Apartments
Former Power Plant
Former
Landfill
Memorial
Park
rfH
Former
Swimming Pool
,v
Legend
OU1 - North Ridge Estates
Parcels
2005 EPA MAG / AirCell Area
2005 EPA MAG Debris
2008 EPA MAG / AirCel! Debris
2009 EPA MAG / AirCell Debris
Note: Distribution of contaminated materials was
prior to 2008 removal activities. Also, an
onsite repository was created in 2008 in
the vicinity of the former swimming pool.
N
A
0 300 600 900 1,200 1,500
Feet
1 inch = 600 feet
Geographic Data Standards:
Projected Coordinate System:
NAD 1983 State Plane Oregon
South FIPS
Data Source(s):
May 2005 Aerial Photo
March 2010
This product is for informational purposes
and may not have been prepared for legal.
engineering or surveying purposes.
Users of this information should review or
consult the primary data and information
source to ascertain the usability of this
information.
Sitewide Representation of
Surficial MAG and AirCell
Figure 2-3
CDM
-------
Former Wastewater
— 7 Treatment Plant
SwjV'Sf
, -«W * ¦
¦«CT • *¦*>
• '>
v
>j.. * ti¦
Warehouse
I Apartments
Former Power Plant
Former,
Landfiii
Memorial
Park
' JU
W:*>2
;Vo->,a:.Y-^,f
;V Former !
Swimming Pooll
?*
<
* . • •*
Legend
OU1 - North Ridge Estates
Parcels
Asbestos-Containing Steam Pipe
(Identified by OTI Survey in 1958)
Note: Distribution of contaminated materials was
prior to 2008 removal activities. Also, an
onsite repository was created in 2008 in
the vicinity of the former swimming pool.
N
A
0 300 600 900 1,200 1,500
Feet
1 inch = 600 feet
Geographic Data Standards:
Projected Coordinate System:
NAD 1983 State Plane Oregon
South FIPS
Data Source(s):
May 2005 Aerial Photo
March 2010
This product is for informational purposes
and may not have been prepared for legal.
engineering or surveying purposes.
Users of this information should review or
consult the primary data and information
source to ascertain the usability of this
information.
Buried Steam Pipe with
Asbestos Insulation
Figure 2-4
CDM
-------
Former Wastewater
Treatment Plant
Warehouse
J Apartments
J Former Power Plant
I Memorial f
1 Park mm
Former
Landfill
¦y*nffcy^
< - •" *3£| Former dt
¦ r| Swimming Pooljj
v" - **- 7 * f'
PP-08
Surface - 3.3 mg/kg
2 ft bgs - 2.1 mg/kg
10 ft bgs -1.4 mg/kg
PP-01
Surface - 27.2 mg/kg
2 ft bgs - 2 mg/kg
10 ft bgs - 5.4 mg/kg
PP-07
Surface - 2.3 mg/kg
2 ft bgs - 0.58 mg/kg
10 ft bgs - 1 mg/kg
•V*'*
X r
PP-03
Surface -12.9 mg/kg
2 ft bgs -1.7 mg/kg
10 ft bgs - 2.1 mg/kg
PP-04
Surface -15.5 mg/kg
2 ft bgs -18.1 mg/kg
10 ft bgs - 2.5 mg/kg
PP-02
Surface -12.3 mg/kg
2 ft bgs -10 mg/kg
10 ft bgs - 0.92 mg/kg
PP-05
Surface -11.4 mg/kg
2 ft bgs - 2.8 mg/kg
10 ft bgs - 0.73 mg/kg
PP-OS
Surface - 2.5 mg/kg
2 ft bgs -1.2 mg/kg
10 ft bgs - 0.5 mg/kg
Legend
OU1 - North Ridge Estates
Parcels
Non-ACM Borehole Locations
0 300 600 900 1,200 1,500
Feet
1 inch = 600 feet
Geographic Data Standards:
Projected Coordinate System:
NAD 1983 State Plane Oregon
South FIPS
Data Source(s):
May 2005 Aerial Photo
March 2010
This product is for informational purposes
and may not have been prepared for legal,
engineering or surveying purposes.
Users of this information should review or
consult the primary data and information
source to ascertain the usability of this
information.
Distribution of Arsenic
Figure 2-5
COM
-------
Former Wastewatei
Treatment Plant
Warehouse
I Apartments
Former Power Plant
Former,
Landfili
Memorial
Park
:v«S£Si;
—
Existing ——
Repository
—:
! Former ,
HjfeJ Swimming Pool|
Contaminated materials on receivership controlled
parcels would be partially covered. The location
and extent of covers would be determined during
remedial design based on potential future land use.
Legend
OU1 - North Ridge Estates
Parcels
Private Ownership
Clean Soil Cover
(Privately-Owned Parcels Only)
Existing Repository
0 300 600 900 1,200 1,500
Feet
1 inch = 600 feet
Geographic Data Standards:
Projected Coordinate System:
NAD 1983 State Plane Oregon
South FIPS
Data Source(s):
May 2005 Aerial Photo
March 2010
This product is for informational purposes
and may not have been prepared for legal,
engineering or surveying purposes.
Users of this information should review or
consult the primary data and information
source to ascertain the usability of this
information.
Alternative 3
Conceptual Remedy Configuration
Figure 7-1
CDM
-------
Former Wastewater
Treatment Plant
Warehouse
I Apartments
Former Power Plant
Former
Landfiii
Memorial
Park
Existing
Repository
Former
SB Swimming Pool]
SsBt&MZ
Legend
OU1 - North Ridge Estates
Parcels
Clean Soil Cover
Cover for Existing Repository
0 300 600 900 1,200 1,500
Feet
1 inch = 600 feet
Geographic Data Standards:
Projected Coordinate System:
NAD 1983 State Plane Oregon
South FIPS
Data Source(s):
May 2005 Aerial Photo
March 2010
This product is for informational purposes
and may not have been prepared for legal,
engineering or surveying purposes.
Users of this information should review or
consult the primary data and information
source to ascertain the usability of this
information.
Alternative 4
Conceptual Remedy Configuration
Figure 7-2
CDM
-------
Former Wastewater
Treatment Plant
Warehouse
I Apartments
Former Power Plant
Former.
Landfill
Memorial
Park
Prevailing,;',
.Wind Direction
CONSOLIDATION,-*,
//¦ A'REA 1
few
WSk-'-i
• . Tji
Existing
Repository
Former ,
Swimming Pool
Legend
OU1 - North Ridge Estates
Parcels
Excavation/Backfill Area
Consolidation Area for Onsite
Contaminated Materials Disposal
Cover for Existing Repository
N
A
0 300 600 900 1,200 1,500
Feet
1 inch = 600 feet
Geographic Data Standards:
Projected Coordinate System:
NAD 1983 State Plane Oregon
South FIPS
Data Source(s):
May 2005 Aerial Photo
March 2010
This product is for informational purposes
and may not have been prepared for legal,
engineering or surveying purposes.
Users of this information should review or
consult the primary data and information
source to ascertain the usability of this
information.
Alternative 5a
Conceptual Remedy Configuration
Figure 7-3
CDM
-------
I
Structural Support
Measures
Former Wastewater
Treatment Plant
Warehouse
I Apartments
Former Power Plant
Former.
Landfill
Memorial
Park
Structural Support
Measures
Prevailing,;',
.Wind Direction
CONSOLIDATION,,
& /REA1 2S
few
ilk ¦ L
\
^ \
iStructu ra IJBu ppo rt!
£ Measures y »?
Existing
Repository
Former ,
Swimming Pool
^Wf/yy &
a/z^O/V/ - M
V; • *
c r I
Legend
OU1 - North Ridge Estates
Parcels
Excavation/Backfill Area
Consolidation Area for Onsite
Contaminated Materials Disposal
Cover for Existing Repository
N
A
i
0 300 600 900 1,200 1,500
Feet
1 inch = 600 feet
Geographic Data Standards:
Projected Coordinate System:
NAD 1983 State Plane Oregon
South FIPS
Data Source(s):
May 2005 Aerial Photo
March 2010
This product is for informational purposes
and may not have been prepared for legal,
engineering or surveying purposes.
Users of this information should review or
consult the primary data and information
source to ascertain the usability of this
information.
Alternative 5b
Conceptual Remedy Configuration
Figure 7-4
CDM
-------
Structural Support
r Measures
Former Wastewater
Treatment Plant
Warehouse
I Apartments
Former Power Plant
Former.
Landfill
Memorial
Park
Structural Support
Measures
Prevailing, i',
.Wind Direction
Existing
Repository
i Structu ra I .S u p po rt
Measures
Former
Swimming Pool
Legend
OU1 - North Ridge Estates
Parcels
Excavation/Backfill Area
Cover for Existing Repository
N
A
0 300 600 900 1,200 1,500
Feet
1 inch = 600 feet
Geographic Data Standards:
Projected Coordinate System:
NAD 1983 State Plane Oregon
South FIPS
Data Source(s):
May 2005 Aerial Photo
March 2010
This product is for informational purposes
and may not have been prepared for legal,
engineering or surveying purposes.
Users of this information should review or
consult the primary data and information
source to ascertain the usability of this
information.
Alternative 6
Conceptual Remedy Configuration
Figure 7-5
CDM
-------
Appendix A
Freeze Depth and Capping Thickness Recommendation
(United States Army Cold Regions Research and
Engineering Laboratory)
-------
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
ENGINEER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT CENTER, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
COLD REGIONS RESEARCH AND ENGINEERING LABORATORY
ALASKA PROJECTS OFFICE, PO BOX 35170
FORT WAIN WRIGHT, ALASKA 99703-0170
January 25, 2010
TO:
Ms. Denise Baker-Kircher - Remedial Project Manager
Environmental Cleanup Office (ECL) - U.S. EPA, Region 10
1200 Sixth Avenue. MC ECL-115
Seattle, WA 98101
Phone: (206)553-4303
baker.denise@epa.gov
SUBJECT: Freeze depth and capping thickness recommendation for Northridge Estates.
Dear Ms. Baker-Kircher:
Attached you will find our recommendation for soil cap thickness to prevent frost action of
buried materials.
We appreciate the opportunity to be of service and if you have any questions please do not
hesitate to call or email.
Thank you,
Sincerely,
Kevin Bjelia, MSc. P.E.
Research Civil Engineer - CRREL-AIaska
-------
Freeze Depth nod St»ii Capping Thickness
Northridge Estates, K hi math Falls, Oregon
Prepared by the
( old Regions Research and Engineering, Laboratory (C'KRFt i
Purpose
The F.nvironmcritnl Cleanup Office of ihe I'A, FPA, Region in contacted CRRFT to
perform an anuh sis and determine the cover required for a soil capping project ai
North ridge Estates, Klamath Fulls. Oregon Building material:-, from demolished
structures are buried at unspecified depths about the properly The primar\ material of
concern is asbestos used to insulate steam heating pipes, and a seen mi an material of
eoneern is asbestos in roofing and,or .siding material. It is undeistooj h\ CRRM thai
sufficient thickness of the soil eap is required to nan em frost action ? up-f'ree/inu) on
these buried maleriais at the above mentioned site, and CRRLL has been retained to
make that recommendation.
Method
i, ;p-t'ree/ing describes ihe mo\ ement of materials in a soil column due u> e\ elteal
free/e and thaw of that -oil. The priman mechanism is the expansion of water upon
turning. to ice. where the expansion exerts a I'oree on the materia! from mart) directions.
The direction that provides the least confining stress is upv.ard.s due to the low surehai ge
uciedit of ihe seasonal frost layer abo\ e. After man} repeated e>cies of free/e and lhu\e.
ihe material will migrate upwards and emerge at the surface. Because up-irec/ine is o
function of ihe free/inu of water, any material located bdow ihe maximum depth of
seasonal Irost penetration is outside the influence and will not be acted upon.
Climate data uav reviewed for she Klamath f ails. I >reeon area. I he data \\as obtained
from the \ational Weather Service. Klamath Falls, Oregon. Monihh Climate Data iCFh>
data scries, from this data we calculated the annual free/inui degree days index T
o\f 1)5)5 for the last four winter seasons s October to \pril). The a\ era tie was 476 i
da\s. with a minimum of 348 and a maximum ofoOT [he source material that wiii be
used is unidentified at this time, therefore the anahsis «as peribrmed for three eerteiai
si»d i\ pes a> specified in the if niform Soil Classification S\ stem 11 SCSI -alt i M i. sand
and e.ra\el tu;
\\ e utili/ed the Modified Bergercn equation to calculate the freeze depth where
\4M...„nFI
i :.'l i,.'
,n. * s> "s ¦;
\ L
Where: \
A
k-av
Ff
L
- depth of iree/e
dimension less coefficient
- thermal conduct iv it\ of the ->o;l > B11' Sir ill s
- eot]ver.sinit faelot fur curiae e cm ci I f '» - nuitral co\er|
- free/ine index 1" 1- da\s»
~ latere heat> B H I' i
-------
Results
Table 1 list the results for freeze depth calculated via a commercially available
software program BERG2. Due to the arid nature of the Klamath Falls area, the moisture
contents were assumed not to be saturated and middle value moisture contents were
chosen for each soil type. The Freezing n value was reduced to 0.8 to account for some
insulating effect from existing vegetation, and a snow cover that can be assumed to exist
for some portion of the freezing season. 5000 °F thawing degree days was utilized.
Table 1. Freeze Depth Calculations
Soil Type
Moisture
Content lb/lb
Drv Density'
lb/ft3
Freeze Depth ft.
Average
476 °F Days
Maximum
669 °F Days
Silt
15%
90.0
1.67
2.04
Sand
10%
110.0
2.45
3.04
Gravel
7.5%
130.0
3.04
3.79
Recommendations
Because up-freezing is a function of the seasonally frozen layer only, the depth to
which the bottom of the seasonal frost extends is the main concern. Soil type, soil
moisture, vegetation, snow cover, and southern aspect are the main parameters that effect
freeze depth. At Northridge Estates it can be expected that frost depth will be deeper on
the north side of buildings and in vegetation shaded areas. Also roadways and driveways
that area plowed of snow will push the frost deeper than the surrounding areas.
When the final soil capping material is determined, its soil type and moisture should
be compared to Table 1 for the recommended burial depth. We consider the 669 °F days
to be a high end number for this area, therefore the freeze depths listed for that value are
conservative.
Mid and late winter season test borings could be conducted to ascertain actual frost
depths allowing for a comparison to Table 1. and a calibration for capping design. Details
of conducting test borings and how the results can be interpreted for a given freezing
season are available if requested. The test borings and interpretation are not within the
scope-of-work for this current report.
Kevin Bjella
Research Civil Engineer
Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory
Ft. Wainwright. Ak 99703
Alaska P.E.CE 11884
KEVIN L. BJELLA ^0
%;N° CE,,88\;#r
-------
Appendix B
Summary of Federal and State Applicable or Relevant
and Appropriate Requirements (ARARs) and
To Be Considered Information (TBCs) -
North Ridge Estates (NRE) Site
-------
Summary of Federal and State Applicable or Relevant
and Appropriate Requirements (ARARs) and To Be Considered Information (TBCs)
North Ridge Estates (NRE) Site
Statues, Regulations,
Standards, or
Requirements
Citations or
References
ARAR
Determination
Description
Comment
Chemical-
Specific
Location
-Specific
Action-
Specific
Federal ARARs and TBCs
National Historic
Preservation Act (NHPA)
National Register of
Historic Places
Determinations of
eligibility for inclusion in
the National Register of
Historic Places
Protection of
historic properties
16 United States
Code (U.S.C).
470
36 Code of
Federal
Regulations
(CFR) 60
36 CFR 63,
36 CFR 800
Applicable
This statute and implementing
regulations require federal agencies to
take into account the effect of this
response action upon any district, site,
building, structure, or object that is
included in or eligible for the National
Register of Historic Places (generally,
50 years old or older).
If cultural resources on or eligible
for the national register are present,
it will be necessary to determine if
there will be an adverse effect and,
if so, how the effect may be
minimized or mitigated, in
consultation with the appropriate
State Historic Preservation Office.
The unauthorized removal of
archaeological resources from
public or Indian lands is prohibited
without a permit and any
archaeological investigations at a
site must be conducted by a
professional archaeologist.
-------
Appendix B
Summary of Federal and State Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements (ARARs), NRE Site
Statues, Regulations,
Standards, or
Requirements
Citations or
References
ARAR
Determination
Description
Comment
Chemical-
Specific
Location
-Specific
Action-
Specific
Federal ARARs and TBCs
Fish and Wildlife
Coordination Act
Responsible official
requirements
Rules implementing the
Fish and Wildlife
Conservation Act of 1980
16 U.S.C. 661 et
seq.,
40 CFR 6.302(g)
50 CFR 83
Applicable
This statute and implementing
regulations require coordination with
federal and state agencies for federally
funded projects to ensure that any
modification of any stream or other
water body affected by any action
authorized or funded by the federal
agency provides for adequate
protection offish and wildlife resources.
If the remedial action involves
activities that affect wildlife and/or
non-game fish, federal agencies
must first consult with the USFWS
and the relevant state agency with
jurisdiction over wildlife resources.
-------
Appendix B
Summary of Federal and State Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements (ARARs), NRE Site
Statues, Regulations,
Standards, or
Requirements
Citations or
References
ARAR
Determination
Description
Comment
Chemical-
Specific
Location
-Specific
Action-
Specific
Federal ARARs and TBCs
Standard for demolition
and renovation
40 CFR 61.145
(c)
Relevant and
Appropriate
This requirement establishes detailed
standards and specifications for
demolition and renovation. The
regulation provides detailed procedures
for controlling asbestos release during
demolition of a building containing
"regulated-asbestos containing material
(RACM)".
Applicable to building demolitions
that will occur as part of the
removal if certain threshold
volumes of RACM are disturbed.
The dust control portions of the
regulations are relevant and
appropriate for soil disturbance
activities and for asbestos
contaminated material that does not
meet the strict definition of RACM.
-------
Appendix B
Summary of Federal and State Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements (ARARs), NRE Site
Statues, Regulations,
Standards, or
Requirements
Citations or
References
ARAR
Determination
Description
Comment
Chemical-
Specific
Location
-Specific
Action-
Specific
Federal ARARs and TBCs
Occupational Safety and
Health Act related
regulations- asbestos
(construction industry)
non-mandatory guidance
29 CFR
1926.1101 -
Appendices B, F,
and H through K
To Be
Considered
Provides non-mandatory guidance on
safety and health procedures as well
as sampling and analysis procedures
for occupational exposures to asbestos
by construction workers covered by the
Occupational Safety and Health Act.
No Comments.
-------
Appendix B
Summary of Federal and State Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements (ARARs), NRE Site
Statues,
Regulations,
Standards, or
Requirements
Citations or
References
ARAR
Determination
Description
Comment
Chemical
-Specific
Location
-Specific
Action-
Specific
State of Oregon ARARs and TBCs
Indian Graves And
Protected Objects
Oregon
Revised
Statutes (ORS)
97.740-97.750
Applicable
Governs Oregon Historical
Preservation. Analogous to Federal
Historic Preservation Act (36 CFR;
Parts 60 and 61).
No Comments.
Historic Property
ORS 358.475
Historic Preservation
Plan
ORS 358.612
ORS 358.622
Preservation Of Property
Of Historic Significance
Oregon Property
Management Program
For Historic Sites And
Properties
Archaeological Objects
And Sites
ORS 358.635
ORS 358.680
ORS 358.905
-------
Appendix B
Summary of Federal and State Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements (ARARs), NRE Site
Statues,
Regulations,
Standards, or
Requirements
Citations or
References
ARAR
Determination
Description
Comment
Chemical
-Specific
Location
-Specific
Action-
Specific
State of Oregon ARARs and TBCs
Air Quality
General Emission
Standards
ORS 468A
Relevant and
Appropriate
This requirement states that highest
and best practicable treatment and
control of air contaminant emissions
must in every case be provided so as
to maintain overall air quality at the
highest possible levels and to
maintain contaminant concentrations,
visibility reduction, odors, soiling and
other deleterious factors at the lowest
possible levels.
No Comments.
-------
Appendix B
Summary of Federal and State Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements (ARARs), NRE Site
Statues,
Regulations,
Standards, or
Requirements
Citations or
References
ARAR
Determination
Description
Comment
Chemical
-Specific
Location
-Specific
Action-
Specific
State of Oregon ARARs and TBCs
Removal Or Remedial
Action
Storage, Treatment And
Disposal Of Hazardous
Waste And PCB
Hazardous Waste
Management System:
General
Identification And Listing
Of Hazardous Waste
ORS 465.225
ORS 466.005
Relevant and
Appropriate
Regulations under this act establish a
regulatory structure for the
generation, transportation, treatment,
storage, and disposal of hazardous
wastes.
At this time, it is not anticipated
that material meeting the
regulatory definition of hazardous
waste will be disturbed or
encountered.
-------
Appendix B
Summary of Federal and State Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements (ARARs), NRE Site
Statues,
Regulations,
Standards, or
Requirements
Citations or
References
ARAR
Determination
Description
Comment
Chemical
-Specific
Location
-Specific
Action-
Specific
State of Oregon ARARs and TBCs
Removal Or Remedial
Action
Oil Storage Tanks
ORS 465.200-
ORS 465.455
ORS 466.706
ORS 466.835
Applicable
Governs the regulation of
underground storage tanks (USTs) to
protect the public health, safety,
welfare, and the environment.
UST possibly still buried at parcels
AL and MBK-E (Former Oregon
Technical Institute gas station).
-------
Appendix B
Summary of Federal and State Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements (ARARs), NRE Site
Statues, Regulations,
Standards, or
Requirements
Citations or
References
ARAR
Determination
Description
Comment
Chemical
-Specific
Location-
Specific
Action-
Specific
State of Oregon ARARs
Rules For The
Administration Of The
Oregon Safe Employment
Act
General Occupational
Safety And Health Rules
Construction
OAR 437-001
OAR 437-002
OAR 437-003
Applicable
Analogous to the federal Occupational
Safety and Health Administration codes
and contains health and safety
requirement that must be met during
implementation of any remedial action.
These standards are intended to
protect construction and utility workers
at the site. Contains health and safety
training requirements for on site
workers and permissible exposure
limits for contaminants when
conducting work at a site.
Applicable for site remedial
actions and for some
investigative activities.
-------
Appendix B
Summary of Federal and State Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements (ARARs), NRE Site
Acronyms
ACM
asbestos containing material
ARAR
Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements
CFR
Code of Federal Regulations
EPA
United States Environmental Protection Agency
ESA
Endangered Species Act
MBK
Melvin Bercot Kenneth Partnership
NEPA
National Environmental Policy Act
NESHAP
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
NHPA
National Historic Preservation Act
NRE
North Ridge Estates
OAR
Oregon Administrative Rules
Oregon DEQ
State of Oregon Department of Environmental Quality
ORS
Oregon Revised Statutes
OSWER
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
PCB
poly chlorinated biphenyl
RACM
regulated-asbestos containing material
TBCs
to be considered information
U.S.C
United States Code
USFWS
United States Fish and Wildlife Services
UST
underground storage tank
CDM
NRE_Final FS_Appendix B.doc
B-10
-------
Appendix B
Summary of Federal and State Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements (ARARs), NRE Site
This Page Left Blank Intentionally
CDM
NRE_Final FS_Appendix B.doc
B-11
-------
Appendix C
Alternative Quantity Calculations
-------
Alternative Screening
-------
Table C-1
Alternative 2
Interior Cleaning and Land Use Controls with Monitoring
Remedial Component Materials Summary
Access Controls
Number Warning Signs
78
Number of Private Ownership Parcels
27
Number of Receivership Parcels
29
Interior Cleaning
Interior Cleaning of Houses
24
FINAL
-------
Table C-2
Alternative 3
Capping of Contaminated Materials on Private Parcels, Partial Capping of Contaminated
Materials on Receivership Parcels, Interior Cleaning, and Land Use Controls with Monitoring
Contaminated Materials Inventory and Remedial Component Materials Summary
Cover Materials Area and Volume
Access Controls
Total Area Covered
(ACR)
Volume of Cover
(CF)
Common Backfill
(CF)
Topsoil (CF)
Fence(LF)
Warning Signs
(EA)
53
4,537,600
3,403,200
1,134,400
...
78
Number of Private Ownership Parcels
27
Number of Receivership Parcels
29
Interior Cleaning of Houses
24
Table C-3
Alternative 4
Capping of Contaminated Materials and Land Use Controls with Monitoring
Contaminated Materials Inventory and Remedial Component Materials Summary
Cover Materials Area and Volume
Access Controls
Total Area Covered
(ACR)
Volume of Cover
(CF)
Common Backfill
(CF)
Topsoil (CF)
Fence(LF)
Warning Signs
(EA)
88
7,505,000
5,605,300
1,899,700
...
25
Number of Private Ownership Parcels
27
Number of Receivership Parcels
29
FINAL
-------
Table C-4
Alternative 5a
Excavation and Onsite Consolidation/Disposal of Contaminated Surface Materials, Future Excavation and Offsite
Disposal of Contaminated Surface Materials at Permitted Facilities, and Land Use Controls with Monitoring
Contaminated Materials Inventory and Remedial Component Materials Summary
Contaminated Materials
Volume Removed (CY)
Cover Materials Volume
Access Controls
Total Volume (CF)
Common Backfill (CF)
Topsoil (CF)
Fence(LF)
Warning Signs (EA)
100,000
3,715,450
1,929,600
1,785,850
—
25
Number of Private Ownership Parcels
27
Number of Receivership Parcels
29
FINAL
-------
Table C-5
Alternative 5b
Excavation and Onsite Consolidation/Disposal of Contaminated Materials, and Land Use Controls with Monitoring
Contaminated Materials Inventory and Remedial Component Materials Summary
Excavated Contaminated Materials Volume
Cover Materials Volume
Access Controls
Total Volume
(CY)
Surficial
Contaminated
Materials (CY)
Subsurface
(Buried)
Contaminated
Materials (CY)
Steam Pipe
(CY)
Total Volume
(CF)
Common
Fill (CF)
Topsoil (CF)
Fence(LF)
Warning
Signs (EA)
130,305
57,245
63,370
9,690
4,698,000
2,885,300
1,812,700
—
25
Number of Private Ownership Parcels
27
Number of Receivership Parcels
29
FINAL
-------
Table C-6
Alternative 6
Excavation and Offsite Disposal of Contaminated Materials at Permitted Facilities, and Land Use Controls with Monitoring
Contaminated Materials Inventory and Remedial Component Materials Summary
Excavated Contaminated Materials Volume
Cover Materials Volume
Total Volume (CY)
Surficial Contaminated
Materials (CY)
Subsurface (Buried)
Contaminated
Materials (CY)
Steam Pipe (CY)
Total Volume (CF)
Common Fill (CF)
Topsoil (CF)
139,544
62,330
66,322
10,892
3,369,900
1,577,000
1,792,900
Total Weight (TN)
(1.35 TN/CY)
190,000
84,000
89,000
14,000
Number of Private Ownership Parcels
27
Number of Receivership Parcels
29
Table C-7
Alternative 7
Excavation and Offsite Thermo-Chemical Treatment of Contaminated Materials at Permitted Facilities, Reuse of Treated
Material, and Land Use Controls with Monitoring
Contaminated Materials Inventory and Remedial Component Materials Summary
Excavated Contaminated Materials Volume
Cover Materials Volume
Total Volume (CY)
Surficial Contaminated
Materials (CY)
Subsurface (Buried)
Contaminated
Materials (CY)
Steam Pipe (CY)
Total Volume (CF)
Common Fill (CF)
Topsoil (CF)
139,544
62,330
66,322
10,892
3,369,900
1,577,000
1,792,900
Total Weight (TN)
(1.35 TN/CY)
190,000
84,000
89,000
14,000
Number of Private Ownership Parcels
27
Number of Receivership Parcels
29
FINAL
-------
Detailed Analysis of Alternatives
-------
Alternative 3
Capping of Contaminated Materials on Private Parcels,
Partial Capping of Contaminated Materials on Receivership
Parcels, Interior Cleaning, and Land Use Controls
with Monitoring
-------
Alternative 3: Capping of Contaminated Materials on Private Parcels, Partial Capping of Contaminated
Materials on Receivership Parcels, Interior Cleaning, and Land Use Controls with Monitoring
Parcel IDs
Total Area
Total Area Requiring
Remediation
50% Reduction for In-Place Capping3
Total Volume of
Cover
Common Backfill1
Topsoil2
SF
SF
CF
CF
CF
A4
240,463
128,925
96,694
32.231
128.925
AG
206,876
106,563
79,923
26.641
106.563
Al
106,100
106,100
79.575
26.525
106.100
AKf
52,008
18,041
27,061
9,020
36,081
AL
117,290
117,290
87.968
29.323
117.290
AMf
164,124
76,053
114,079
38,026
152,106
AP
124,269
124,269
93.202
31.067
124.269
AQf
117,216
44,461
66,692
22,231
88,922
ARf
507,189
48,927
73,391
24,464
97,854
ASf
240,028
15,309
22,964
7,655
30,618
ATt
28,098
...
...
...
0
AUf
28,077
...
...
...
0
AVf
21,236
...
...
...
0
AWf
21,844
...
...
...
0
AXf
19,905
...
...
...
0
AYf
19,628
...
...
...
0
AZf
18,949
...
...
...
0
B
244,982
128,079
96.059
32.020
128.079
BAf
34,200
...
...
...
0
BBf
20,111
...
...
...
0
BCf
29,744
...
...
...
0
BJf
44,403
11,560
17,340
5,780
23,120
BKf
224,527
8,915
13,373
4,458
17,830
BL
78,546
...
...
...
0
BMf
95,935
35,585
53,378
17,793
71,171
BOf
36,614
10,013
15,020
5,007
20,026
BPf
360,993
180,297
270,445
90,148
360,593
BQf
168,008
44,691
67,037
22,346
89,383
BRf
434,134
12,766
19,149
6,383
25,532
BSf
279,890
16,166
24,249
8,083
32,332
C
99,399
65,700
49.275
16.425
65.700
D
103,036
41,513
31.135
10.378
41.513
E
129,710
77,952
58.464
19.488
77.952
Ft
146,193
146,193
219,290
73,097
292,386
G
173,258
83,154
62.366
20.789
83.154
H
3,901,263
289,010
216.758
72.253
289.010
L
170,977
165,263
123.948
41.316
165.263
M
103,851
85,951
64.463
21.488
85.951
MBK-A
81,959
81,959
61.469
20.490
81.959
MBK-B
82,837
82,837
62.128
20.709
82.837
MBK-C
79,369
79,369
59.527
19.842
79.369
MBK-D
126,679
105,580
79.185
26.395
105.580
MBK-E
132,121
111,718
83.788
27.929
111.718
MBK-F
91,207
18,507
13.880
4.627
18.507
MBK-G
95,235
53,321
39.991
13.330
53.321
Nt
158,057
158,057
237,085
79,028
316,113
O
185,518
118,230
88.673
29.558
118.230
Pt
77,893
65,815
98,723
32,908
131,631
Q
75,099
75,099
56.324
18.775
75.099
R
70,175
70,175
52.631
17.544
70.175
S
92,670
92,670
69.502
23.167
92.670
W
98,880
66,354
49.766
16.589
66.354
WWTPf
1,499,333
50,001
75,001
25,000
100,002
X
91,228
47,359
35.519
11.840
47.359
Y
137,170
79,481
59.611
19.870
79.481
Z
80,588
49,381
37.035
12.345
49.381
Cover Material Extending Outside Parcel Areas
Other
110,936
83.202
27.734
110.936
TOTALS:
12,169,100
3,594,700
3,403,200
1,134,400
4,537,600
Notes:
1. Common Backfill depth assumed to be (FT): f" 1.5
2. Topsoil depth assumed to be (FT): £ _ _ _ _0.^
3. Partial In-Place Capping = 50%
4. Arsenic contamination is co-located with ACM
f - Indicates Private Ownership; In-Place Capping of ACM
n
1
-------
Alternative 4
Capping of Contaminated Materials and Land Use Controls
with Monitoring
-------
Alternative 4: Capping of Contaminated Materials and Land Use Controls with Monitoring
Total Parcel Area
Total Area Covered
Total Volume of Cover
Parcel IDs
Common Backfill1
Topsoil2
SF
SF
CF
CF
CF
AJ
240,463
128,925
193,388
64,463
257,850
AG
206,876
106,563
159,845
53,282
213,127
Al
106,100
106,100
159,150
53,050
212,200
AKf
52,008
18,041
27,061
9,020
36,081
AL
117,290
117,290
175,936
58,645
234,581
AMf
164,124
76,053
114,079
38,026
152,106
AP
124,269
124,269
186,403
62,134
248,538
AQf
117,216
44,461
66,692
22,231
88,922
ARf
507,189
48,927
73,391
24,464
97,854
ASf
240,028
15,309
22,964
7,655
30,618
ATf
28,098
...
...
...
0
AUf
28,077
...
...
...
0
AVf
21,236
...
...
...
0
AWf
21,844
...
...
...
0
AXf
19,905
...
...
...
0
AYf
19,628
...
...
...
0
AZf
18,949
...
...
...
0
B
244,982
128,079
192,119
64,040
256,158
BAf
34,200
...
...
...
0
BBf
20,111
...
...
...
0
BCf
29,744
...
...
...
0
BJf
44,403
11,560
17,340
5,780
23,120
BKf
224,527
8,915
13,373
4,458
17,830
BL
78,546
...
...
...
0
BMf
95,935
35,585
53,378
17,793
71,171
BOf
36,614
10,013
15,020
5,007
20,026
BPf
360,993
180,297
270,445
90,148
360,593
BQf
168,008
44,691
67,037
22,346
89,383
BRf
434,134
12,766
19,149
6,383
25,532
BSf
279,890
16,166
24,249
8,083
32,332
C
99,399
65,700
98,550
32,850
131,401
D
103,036
41,513
62,270
20,757
83,026
E
129,710
77,952
116,929
38,976
155,905
Ft
146,193
146,193
219,290
73,097
292,386
G
173,258
83,154
124,731
41,577
166,308
H
3,901,263
289,010
433,516
144,505
578,021
L
170,977
165,263
247,895
82,632
330,527
M
103,851
85,951
128,927
42,976
171,902
MBK-A
81,959
81,959
122,939
40,980
163,918
MBK-B
82,837
82,837
124,255
41,418
165,674
MBK-C
79,369
79,369
119,054
39,685
158,738
MBK-D
126,679
105,580
158,370
52,790
211,161
MBK-E
132,121
111,718
167,576
55,859
223,435
MBK-F
91,207
18,507
27,760
9,253
37,014
MBK-G
95,235
53,321
79,981
26,660
106,642
Nf
158,057
158,057
237,085
79,028
316,113
O
185,518
118,230
177,345
59,115
236,460
Pt
77,893
65,815
98,723
32,908
131,631
Q
75,099
75,099
112,648
37,549
150,198
R
70,175
70,175
105,262
35,087
140,350
S
92,670
92,670
139,005
46,335
185,339
W
98,880
66,354
99,532
33,177
132,709
WWTPf
1,499,333
50,001
75,001
25,000
100,002
X
91,228
47,359
71,039
23,680
94,718
Y
137,170
79,481
119,221
39,740
158,962
Z
80,588
49,381
74,071
24,690
98,761
Current Repository'*
...
93,750
46,875
46,875
93,750
Cover Material Extending Outside Parcel Areas
Other
110,936
166,404
55,468
221,872
TOTALS:
12,169,100
3,799,400
5,605,300
1,899,700
7,505,000
Notes:
1. Common Backfill depth assumed to be (FT): ^ 1.5 ^
2. Topsoil depth assumed to be (FT): ^ 0.5 j
3. Arsenic contamination is co-located with ACM
4. Existing repository will be covered with 6 inches of common backfill and 6 inches of topsoil.
t - indicates Private Ownership
-------
Alternative 5a
Excavation and Onsite Consolidation/Disposal of
Contaminated Surface Materials, Future Excavation and
Offsite Disposal of Contaminated Surface Materials at
Permitted Facilities, and Land Use Controls with Monitoring
-------
Alternative 5a: Excavation and Onsite Consolidation/Disposal of Contaminated Surface Materials, Future Excavation and Offsite Disposal of Contaminated Surface Materials at Permitted Facilities, and Land Use Controls with
Monitoring
Parcel IDs
Total Parcel
Area
Surficial ID
Burial ID
Total Area Excavated4
Excavation Depth
Excavation Volume
Total Volume
Backfill Volume7
Incremental Removal - 30-Year Projection
Surficial ACM
Area3
Buried ACM Area
Surficial ACM
Area
Buried ACM Area
Volume Removed
During 2008
Surficial ACM
Volume
Buried ACM
Volume
Removed4
Common Fill
Top soil
Parcel ID
Exposure Area
Exposure Area -
Percentage of
Site
Incremental
Removal - 30
Year Projection
SF
SF
SF
FT
FT
CF
CF
CF
CF
CF
CF
SF
%
CF
A*
240,463
SA-15
72,529
0.5
36,265
36,265
0
36,265
127,392
4%
262
SA-42
418
0.5
209
209
0
209
SA-43
0
0.5
0
0
0
0
BA-46**
9,620
2.0
19,722
19,722
14,792
4,931
Add'l Areas (MAG, AirCell, etc)
18,614
0.5
9,307
9,307
0
9,307
Arsenic Contamination11
26,211
2.0
268,663
268,663
255,230
13,433
AG*
206,876
SA-1a
52,654
0.5
26,327
26,327
0
26,327
105,966
3%
218
SA-1b
88
0.5
45
45
0
45
SA-1c
224
0.5
113
113
0
113
SA-1d
4,652
0.5
2,326
2,326
0
2,326
SA-4
17,328
0.5
8,664
8,664
0
8,664
BA-11
3,030
2.0
6,061
6,061
4,546
1,515
BA-2
18,518
2.0
37,037
37,037
27,778
9,259
Add'l Areas (MAG, AirCell, etc)
9,471
0.5
4,736
4,736
0
4,736
Al*
106,100
SA-5
98,040
0.5
49,020
49,020
0
49,020
106,100
3%
219
BA-6
7,124
2.0
14,249
14,249
10,687
3,562
Add'l Areas (MAG, AirCell, etc)
936
0.5
468
468
0
468
AKf
52,008
SA-40 |
17,892
0.5
(2,539)
6,407
6,407
0
6,407
17,933
1%
37
Add'l Areas (MAG, AirCell, etc)
41
0.5
21
21
0
21
AL*
117,290
SA-5
108,197
0.5
54,099
54,099
0
54,099
115,637
3%
238
BA-5**
4,081
2.0
8,366
8,366
6,275
2,092
Add'l Areas (MAG, AirCell, etc)
3,359
0.5
1,680
1,680
0
1,680
AM+
164,124
SA-41
32,611
0.5
(7,984)
8,322
8,322
0
8,322
76,053
2%
157
BA-48
4,630
0.5
(1,127)
1,188
1,188
0
1,188
Add'l Areas (MAG, AirCell, etc)
38,812
0.5
19,406
19,406
0
19,406
CL
<
124,269
SA-1a
2,157
0.5
1,079
1,079
0
1,079
124,269
4%
256
SA-1b
1,395
0.5
698
698
0
698
SA-45
22
0.5
11
11
0
11
Add'l Areas (MAG, AirCell, etc)
120,695
0.5
60,348
60,348
0
60,348
AQf
117,216
Add'l Areas (MAG, AirCell, etc)
44,461
0.5
22,231
22,231
0
22,231
44,461
1%
92
AR+
507,189
Add'l Areas (MAG, AirCell, etc)
48,927
0.5
24,464
24,464
0
24,464
48,927
1%
101
ASf
240,028
Add'l Areas (MAG, AirCell, etc)
15,309
0.5
7,655
7,655
0
7,655
15,309
0%
32
AT+
28,098
0
0
>
c
28,077
0
0
>
<
21,236
0
0
AWf
21,844
0
AX+
19,905
0
AYf
19,628
0
>
N
18,949
0
B*
244,982
SA-12a
19,410
0.5
9,705
9,705
0
9,705
127,668
4%
263
SA-15
31,402
0.5
15,701
15,701
0
15,701
SA-17
873
0.5
437
437
0
437
SA-18
3,659
0.5
1,830
1,830
0
1,830
SA-19
35,606
0.5
17,804
17,804
0
17,804
BA-23
2.430
1.0
2,430
2,430
1,215
1,215
BA-24
1.879
0.8
1,503
1,503
564
939
Add'l Areas (MAG, AirCell, etc)
32.410
0.5
16,205
16,205
0
16,205
34,200
0
CD
CD
20,111
0
0
CD
o
29,744
0
BJf
44,403
Add'l Areas (MAG, AirCell, etc)
11,560
0.5
5,780
5,780
0
5,780
11,560
0%
24
CD
*
224,527
Add'l Areas (MAG, AirCell, etc)
8,915
0.5
4,458
4,458
0
4,458
8,915
0%
18
BL*
78,546
0
BM+
95,935
SA-37
13,743
0.5
(625)
6,247
6,247
0
6,247
34,976
1%
72
Add'l Areas (MAG, AirCell, etc)
21,233
0.5
10,617
10,617
0
10,617
CD
O
36,614
SA-39 |
9,077
0.5
(2,457)
2,082
2,082
0
2,082
9,875
0%
20
Add'l Areas (MAG, AirCell, etc)
798
0.5
399
399
0
399
BPt
360,993
Add'l Areas (MAG, AirCell, etc)
180,297
0.5
90,149
90,149
0
90,149
180,297
5%
371
BQt
168,008
Add'l Areas (MAG, AirCell, etc)
44,691
0.5
22,346
22,346
0
22,346
44,691
1%
92
BRt
434,134
Add'l Areas (MAG, AirCell, etc)
12,766
0.5
6,383
6,383
0
6,383
12,766
0%
26
BSt
279,890
SA-36a
16,166
0.5
8,084
8,084
0
8,084
16,166
0%
33
C*
99,399
SA-9a
34,770
0.5
(2,424)
14,961
14,961
0
14,961
64,326
2%
132
SA-9b
5,147
0.5
2,574
2,574
0
2,574
BA-10a**
7,771
2.0
(2,543)
13,388
13,388
10,041
3,347
BA-10b
4,108
1.3
5,341
5,341
3,287
2,054
BA-10c
3,748
1.5
(5,008)
615
615
410
205
Add'l Areas (MAG, AirCell, etc)
8,781
0.5
4,391
4,391
0
4,391
D*
103,036
SA-9a
38,913
0.5
19,457
19,457
0
19,457
41,432
1%
85
SA-9b
1,292
0.5
646
646
0
646
BA-9
1,227
1.0
1,227
1,227
614
614
E*
129,710
SA-9a
41,195
0.5
(12,337)
8,261
8,261
0
8,261
77,826
2%
160
SA-10
4,621
0.5
2,311
2,311
0
2,311
SA-44
30
0.5
15
15
0
15
BA-11
1,929
1.0
1,930
1,930
965
965
BA-12
13,843
1.8
24,917
24,917
17,996
6,921
BA-13
1,947
1.0
(1,643)
304
304
152
152
Add'l Areas (MAG, AirCell, etc)
14,262
0.5
7,131
7,131
0
7,131
F+
146,193
SA-11
53,811
0.5
(11,958)
14,948
14,948
0
14,948
144,915
4%
298
SA-12a
37,483
0.5
(12,750)
5,992
5,992
0
5,992
SA-12b
25,135
0.5
(8,123)
4,445
4,445
0
4,445
BA-14
1,670
1.0
(647)
1,024
1,024
512
512
BA-15a**
448
2.0
919
919
689
230
BA-15**
3,722
2.0
(3,717)
3,913
3,913
2,935
978
BA-16
2,846
2.0
(4,515)
1,178
1,178
884
295
BA-17
831
1.0
(425)
407
407
204
204
BA-18
1,664
1.5
(264)
2,232
2,232
1,488
744
Add'l Areas (MAG, AirCell, etc)
17,304
0.5
8,652
8,652
0
8,652
G*
173,258
SA-11
2,641
0.5
1,321
1,321
0
1,321
82,563
2%
170
SA-12a
43,005
0.5
(1,593)
19,910
19,910
0
19,910
BA-19
1,600
0.5
801
801
0
801
BA-20a**
13,653
2.0
27,990
27,990
20,993
6,998
BA-20b**
2,442
2.0
5,007
5,007
3,755
1,252
Add'l Areas (MAG, AirCell, etc)
19,221
0.5
9,611
9,611
0
9,611
H*
3,901,362
SA-12a
20,533
0.5
10,267
10,267
0
10,267
288,638
8%
595
SA-13
12,650
0.5
6,325
6,325
0
6,325
SA-14
58,649
0.5
29,325
29,325
0
29,325
SA-15
52,756
0.5
26,379
26,379
0
26,379
SA-16
57,284
0.5
28,643
28,643
0
28,643
BA-20b**
3,731
2.0
7,649
7,649
5,737
1,912
BA-212"
36,786
2.0
75,412
75,412
56,559
18,853
BA-22
15,251
2.0
30,503
30,503
22,877
7,626
Add'l Areas (MAG, AirCell, etc)
30,997
0.5
15,499
15,499
0
15,499
L*
170,977
SA-21a
Onsite Consolidation Area 1
Onsite Consolidation Area 1
Onsite Consolidation Area 1
0
595,032
77,624
Onsite Consolidation Area 1
SA-34
BA-40
BA-41
BA-42
BA-43a
BA-43b
M*
103,851
SA-25a
914
0.5
(457)
1
1
0
1
84,010
2%
173
SA-30
474
0.5
(237)
0
0
0
0
SA-32
24,634
0.5
(8,927)
3,391
3,391
0
3,391
BA-36
9,044
1.3
(10,540)
1,217
1,217
749
468
Add'l Areas (MAG, AirCell, etc)
48,944
0.5
24,472
24,472
0
24,472
-------
SA-21a
17,115
0.5
8,558
8,558
0
8,558
MBK-A*
81,959
SA-21b
743
0.5
372
372
0
372
79,973
2%
165
BA-30
48,641
1.1
53,505
53,505
29,185
24,320
Add'l Areas (MAG, AirCell, etc)
13,475
0.5
6,738
6,738
0
6,738
SA-21a
14,918
0.5
7,459
7,459
0
7,459
MBK-B*
82,837
SA-21 c
847
0.5
424
424
0
424
81,490
2%
168
BA-30
43,764
1.1
48,141
48,141
26,259
21,882
Add'l Areas (MAG, AirCell, etc)
21,961
0.5
10,981
10,981
0
10,981
SA-21 a
1,663
0.5
832
832
0
832
SA-21 d
0
0.5
0
0
0
0
MBK-C*
79,369
SA-23
1,667
0.5
834
834
0
834
77,938
2%
161
BA-30
50,396
1.1
55,437
55,437
30,238
25,199
Add'l Areas (MAG, AirCell, etc)
24,212
0.5
12,106
12,106
0
12,106
SA-21 a
SA-35
MBK-D*
126,679
BA-26
Onsite Consolidation Area 1
Onsite Consolidation Area 1
Onsite Consolidation Area 1
0
595,032
77,624
Onsite Consolidation Area 1
BA-44**
BA-45
SA-5
129,312
0.5
64,656
64,656
0
64,656
MBK-E*
132,121
BA-3
1,017
0.5
509
509
0
509
110,125
3%
227
BA-4
1,472
0.5
736
736
0
736
Existing Repository
(21,676)
0.5
(10,838)
(10,838)
0
-10,838
SA-8
10,752
0.5
5,376
5,376
0
5,376
MBK-F*
91,207
BA-7
2,012
2.0
4,024
4,024
3,018
1,006
18,300
1%
38
BA-8
683
0.5
342
342
0
342
Add'l Areas (MAG, AirCell, etc)
4,853
0.5
2,427
2,427
0
2,427
SA-15
11,949
0.5
5,975
5,975
0
5,975
SA-36a
5,555
0.5
2,778
2,778
0
2,778
SA-36b
1,635
0.5
818
818
0
818
MBK-G*
95,235
SA-36c
13,667
0.5
6,834
6,834
0
6,834
52,790
2%
109
BA-47a**
1,010
2.0
2,072
2,072
1,554
518
BA-47**
11,257
2.0
23,078
23,078
17,309
5,770
Add'l Areas (MAG, AirCell, etc)
7,717
0.5
3,859
3,859
0
3,859
SA-31
60,906
0.5
(537)
29,916
29,916
0
29,916
SA-32
50,519
0.5
(20,063)
5,197
5,197
0
5,197
N+
158,057
BA-37
1,077
0.5
(418)
121
121
0
121
156,149
5%
322
BA-38
2,116
0.5
(1,029)
29
29
0
29
BA-39
15,269
2.0
(8,241)
22,298
22,298
16,723
5,574
Add'l Areas (MAG, AirCell, etc)
26,262
0.5
13,131
13,131
0
13,131
SA-32
959
0.5
(479)
1
1
0
1
0*
185,518
SA-33a
13,703
0.5
(5,025)
1,827
1,827
0
1,827
117,075
3%
241
SA-33b
3,751
0.5
(1,876)
0
0
0
0
Add'l Areas (MAG, AirCell, etc)
98,662
0.5
49,331
49,331
0
49,331
SA-21 a
27,294
0.5
13,647
13,647
0
13,647
P+
77,893
BA-28
7,096
1.3
9,225
9,225
5,677
3,548
64,285
2%
132
BA-29
4,305
2.0
8,611
8,611
6,458
2,153
Add'l Areas (MAG, AirCell, etc)
25,590
0.5
12,795
12,795
0
12,795
SA-22
3,476
0.5
1,739
1,739
0
1,739
SA-23
11,184
0.5
5,592
5,592
0
5,592
SA-31
7,645
0.5
3,823
3,823
0
3,823
Q*
75,099
BA-30
6,646
1.1
7,311
7,311
3,988
3,323
74,709
2%
154
BA-31
14,004
0.8
11,204
11,204
4,202
7,003
BA-32
645
2.0
1,290
1,290
968
323
BA-33
1,467
0.5
734
734
0
734
Add'l Areas (MAG, AirCell, etc)
29,642
0.5
14,821
14,821
0
14,821
SA-23
6,724
0.5
3,363
3,363
0
3,363
SA-24
34,733
0.5
(860)
16,507
16,507
0
16,507
SA-25a
399
0.5
200
200
0
200
R*
70,175
SA-31
965
0.5
483
483
0
483
69,446
2%
143
BA-31
4,779
0.8
3,824
3,824
1,434
2,390
BA-34
1,106
0.5
(197)
357
357
0
357
Add'l Areas (MAG, AirCell, etc)
20,740
0.5
10,370
10,370
0
10,370
SA-20a
35,378
0.5
17,690
17,690
0
17,690
SA-20b
1,642
0.5
821
821
0
821
SA-21 a
28,433
0.5
14,217
14,217
0
14,217
S*
92,670
BA-25
2,195
1.0
2,195
2,195
1,098
1,098
90,690
3%
187
BA-26
11,805
1.2
14,167
14,167
8,264
5,903
BA-27
8,670
2.0
17,340
17,340
13,005
4,335
Add'l Areas (MAG, AirCell, etc)
2,567
0.5
1,284
1,284
0
1,284
SA-25a
4,086
0.5
(401)
1,642
1,642
0
1,642
SA-25b
2,426
0.5
1,214
1,214
0
1,214
SA-29
8,829
0.5
(73)
4,342
4,342
0
4,342
W*
98,880
SA-30
824
0.5
(412)
0
0
0
0
64,590
2%
133
SA-32
835
0.5
(418)
0
0
0
0
BA-35a**
9,843
2.0
20,179
20,179
15,134
5,045
BA-35b
16,433
0.7
11,503
11,503
3,287
8,216
Add'l Areas (MAG, AirCell, etc)
21,314
0.5
10,657
10,657
0
10,657
WWTP
1,499,333
SA-38
50,001
0.5
25,001
25,001
0
25,001
50,001
1%
103
SA-27
668
0.5
334
334
0
334
X*
91,228
SA-28a
18,663
0.5
9,332
9,332
0
9,332
46,987
1%
97
SA-28b
2,553
0.5
1,277
1,277
0
1,277
Add'l Areas (MAG, AirCell, etc)
25,103
0.5
12,552
12,552
0
12,552
SA-1b
47
0.5
24
24
0
24
Y*
137,170
SA-1c
977
0.5
489
489
0
489
79,481
2%
164
SA-3
616
0.5
308
308
0
308
Add'l Areas (MAG, AirCell, etc)
77,841
0.5
38,921
38,921
0
38,921
SA-24
8,971
0.5
4,486
4,486
0
4,486
SA-25a
15,259
0.5
(192)
7,438
7,438
0
7,438
Z*
80,588
SA-26
601
0.5
301
301
0
301
48,622
1%
100
BA-35a**
14,206
2.0
29,123
29,123
21,842
7,281
BA-35b
4,663
0.7
3,264
3,264
933
2,331
Add'l Areas (MAG, AirCell, etc)
4,922
0.5
2,461
2,461
0
2,461
Existing Repository Cover11
... | ...
93,750
0
46,875
46,875
SA-1a
16
0.5
8
8
0
8
SA-2
193
0.5
97
97
0
97
SA-5
3,939
0.5
1,970
1,970
0
1,970
SA-6
111
0.5
56
56
0
56
SA-7
2,179
0.5
1,090
1,090
0
1,090
SA-8
2,371
0.5
1,186
1,186
0
1,186
SA-9a
9,263
0.5
4,632
4,632
0
4,632
SA-10
146
0.5
74
74
0
74
SA-11
2,267
0.5
1,134
1,134
0
1,134
SA-12a
12,431
0.5
6,216
6,216
0
6,216
SA-12b
37
0.5
19
19
0
19
SA-15
9,393
0.5
4,697
4,697
0
4,697
SA-16
52
0.5
26
26
0
26
SA-20a
8,883
0.5
4,442
4,442
0
4,442
SA-21 a
8,899
0.5
4,450
4,450
0
4,450
SA-23
2,634
0.5
1,317
1,317
0
1,317
SA-24
1,000
0.5
500
500
0
500
103,049
3.0%
212
SA-25a
14
0.5
7
7
0
7
SA-28a
262
0.5
132
132
0
132
SA-28b
378
0.5
189
189
0
189
SA-30
15
0.5
(8)
0
0
0
0
SA-32
106
0.5
(11)
43
43
0
43
SA-34
1,022
0.5
512
512
0
512
SA-35
4,256
0.5
2,129
2,129
0
2,129
SA-36a
3,870
0.5
1,935
1,935
0
1,935
SA-36c
7,647
0.5
3,824
3,824
0
3,824
SA-39
967
0.5
484
484
0
484
SA-40
3,797
0.5
1,899
1,899
0
1,899
SA-41
1,884
0.5
943
943
0
943
BA-6
2,433
2.0
4,866
4,866
3,650
1,217
BA-25
3,127
1.0
3,127
3,127
1,564
1,564
BA-26
7,032
1.2
8,439
8,439
4,923
3,516
Add'l Areas (MAG, AirCell, etc)
2,424
0.5
1,212
1,212
0
1,212
Total
12,169,100
2,987,200
505,000
(143,100)
1,344,000
932,300
2,276,300
1,929,600
1,785,800
3,398,400
100%
7,000
Notes:
1. Depth of buried ACM debris at BA-1 assumed to be same as at BA-2. Both BA-1 and BA-2 are under parcel AG.
2. See Section 4.1.8.2 of Rl for ACM volumes at BA-21 (under parcel H).
3. Depth of Surface ACM Removal, FT: £ 0.5 ^
4. Depth ofTopsoil, FT: ^ 0.5 J
6. Surface ACM Area is accounted with the Buried ACM Area when there is an overlap in excavation.
7. All volumes and areas are rounded up to the nearest whole number
10. Top soil depth is 6 inches; Common Backfill depth varies with excavation depth.
11. Existing repository will be covered with 6 inches of common backfill and 6 inches of top soil.
* Indicates properties no longer occupied
f Indicates that property is privately owned.
I I -Location of Onsite Consolidation Area - No Excavation Activity
-------
Alternative 5a: ACM Volume Calculations for Future Excavation Events
Total Volume of ACM - 30-Year Linear Removal Rate1
Assumed Reduction (50%)
in Volume of ACM (ft3)
Percent Volumes
Year
Linear Volume Reduction
(ft3)
Percent Volume w.r.t Total
Volume
Percent Volume w.r.t
Yr. 1 Volume
1 Year
450
225
6.43%
2 Year
435
217.5
6.21%
96.67%
3 Year
420
210
6.00%
93.33%
4 Year
405
202.5
5.79%
90.00%
5 Year
390
195
5.57%
86.67%
6 Year
375
187.5
5.36%
83.33%
7 Year
360
180
5.14%
80.00%
8 Year
345
172.5
4.93%
76.67%
9 Year
330
165
4.71%
73.33%
10 Year
315
157.5
4.50%
70.00%
11 Year
300
150
4.29%
66.67%
12 Year
285
142.5
4.07%
63.33%
13 Year
270
135
3.86%
60.00%
14 Year
255
127.5
3.64%
56.67%
15 Year
240
120
3.43%
53.33%
16 Year
225
112.5
3.21%
50.00%
17 Year
210
105
3.00%
46.67%
18 Year
195
97.5
2.79%
43.33%
19 Year
180
90
2.57%
40.00%
20 Year
165
82.5
2.36%
36.67%
21 Year
150
75
2.14%
33.33%
22 Year
135
67.5
1.93%
30.00%
23 Year
120
60
1.71%
26.67%
24 Year
105
52.5
1.50%
23.33%
25 Year
90
45
1.29%
20.00%
26 Year
75
37.5
1.07%
16.67%
27 Year
60
30
0.86%
13.33%
28 Year
45
22.5
0.64%
10.00%
29 Year
30
15
0.43%
6.67%
30 Year
15
7.5
0.21%
3.33%
Total
7,000
3,500
100.00%
Notes;
1. A starting average of 450 ft3 total surficial ACM was calculated from historic data from 2002 to 2005.
Average Volume (CF)
Average Volume (CY)
Average Volume (LCY)
Years through 1 to 10
191.25
8.0
10.0
Years through 11 to 20
116.25
5.0
6.0
Years through 21 to 30
41.25
2.0
3.0
-------
Onsite Consolidation Areas
Consolidation Area 1:
1. Capacity of Each Landfill:
Landfill Capacity - Active
Given:
1. Landfill to be placed in Parcel ID: MBK-D and L
2. Footprint of the landfill will be defined by the Parcel boundaries.
Assume:
1. Maximum height of Waste Material: 14 ft
2. Maximum slope < 20% Current: 14%
Total Capacity
Calculations:
a. Pyramid
V= 1/3b2h b= 200 ft
V= 186,667 ft3 h= 14 ft
b. Large Wedge X2
V= 1/2bhl * 2 b= 100 ft
V= 602,000 ft3 h= 14 ft
l= 430 ft
c. Small Wedge X2
V= 1/2bhl * 2 b= 100 ft
V= 406,000 ft3 h= 14 ft
l= 290 ft
d. Rectangular Prism
V= bhl b= 290 ft
V= 1,745,800 ft3 h= 14 ft
l= 430 ft
| VCapaCjty -|
2,940,467 ft3 |
| Total Vcapacity1-
2,940,467 ft3 |
Volume Check = Good
-------
2. Filling the Landfills:
Volume of Waste - Site
V waste = 2,276,300 ft3
259,498,200 lbs
129,749
tons
| Volume of Common Fill ¦
- (Combined Active Landfill) |
The Landfill will be filled using the following assumptions:
1. Number of Years to Complete: 2 years
2. Work from April 1 until November 30:
8 months
3. 4 Days off per month in 30 days months:
26 per month
4. Number of working days:
208 da^s^_^^
|5. Dump Trucks per day:
16 trucks/da^]
6. Tons per truck:
20 ton
6. Soil Bulk weight:
114 lbs/ft3
|7. Stock each day (lift) in ft:
2 ft |
8. Common Fill cover per day:
0.5 ft
Tons per day:
Lbs per day:
Ft3 per day:
Area Needing Fill:
6 inches of fill each day:
Fill 1-Year:
Fill Completion:
312 tons
623,794 lbs
5,472 ft3
2,736 ft2
1,368 ft3
284,538 ft3
569,075 ft3
| ^common fill 569,075 ft
^capacity needed 2,845,375 ft I
3. Covering the Landfills:
| Volume of Fill - (Inactive Landfill) |
Consolidation Area 1:
Inactive landfill cover - 2.0 feet common fill, 6 inches composite (for vegetation)
Surface Area (a) Sides: 8
Surface Area (c) Sides: 2
sh= 101
\ l= 290
b= 100
\ sh= 101
SA= 0.5(b*h)
\ 101 SA= h*l
40,390 ft2
14
\ 58,566 ft2
Surface Area (b) Sides: 2
100 Surface Area (d) Sides: 1
l= 430
b= 290
sh= 101
l= 430
SA= h*l
SA= h*l
86,839 ft2
124,700 ft2
vCommon = 620,989 ft3
Common Fill Final Cover = 2 ft
VTopsoii= 155,247 ft3
Topsoil Fill Final Cover = 0.5 ft
Note:
Final elevation of the landfill including cover:
16.5 ft
-------
4. Summary of Materials and Landfill Final Height
Landfill Final Height
Consolidation Area 1
16.5 ft
Summary of Materials
Material Summary
Volume
Total Excavated Soil:
2,276,300 ft3
Total Common Fill (Active Landfills):
569,075 ft3
Total Common Fill (Inactive Landfills):
620,989 ft3
Total Common Fill:
1,190,064 ft3
Total Topsoil/Mulch (Inactive Landfills):
155,247 ft3
-------
Alternative 5b
Excavation and Onsite Consolidation/Disposal of
Contaminated Materials, and Land Use Controls with
Monitoring
-------
Alternative 5b: Excavation and Onsite Consolidation/Disposal of Contaminated Materials, and Land Use Controls with Monitoring
Parcel IDs
Total Parcel
Area
Surficial ID
Burial ID
Total Area Excavated4
Excavation Depth
Excavation Volume
Backfill Volume7
Surficial ACM
Area3
Buried ACM Area
Pipe Insulation
ACM5,6
Surficial ACM
Area
Buried ACM Area
Pipe Insulation
ACM5
Volume Removed
During 2008
Surficial ACM
Volume
Buried ACM
Volume
Pipe Insulation
ACM5
Removed4
Common Fill
Topsoil
SF
SF
SF
SF
FT
FT
FT
CF
CF
CF
CF
CF
CF
CF
A*
240,463
SA-15
72,529
0.5
36,265
36,265
0
36,265
SA-42
418
0.5
209
209
0
209
SA-43
0
0.5
0
0
0
0
BA-46**
9,620
4.8
46,839
46,839
41,909
4,930
1,533
4.0
8,156
8,156
7,136
1,019
Add'l Areas (MAG, AirCell, etc)
18,614
0.5
9,307
9,307
0
9,307
Arsenic Contamination11
26,211
10.0
268,663
268,663
255,230
13,433
AG*
206,876
SA-1a
52,654
0.5
26,327
26,327
0
26,327
SA-1b
88
0.5
45
45
0
45
SA-1c
224
0.5
113
113
0
113
SA-1d
4,652
0.5
2,326
2,326
0
2,326
SA-4
17,328
0.5
8,664
8,664
0
8,664
BA-11
3,030
2.4
7,274
7,274
5,759
1,515
BA-2
18,518
2.4
44,444
44,444
35,185
9,259
597
4.0
3,176
3,176
2,779
397
Add'l Areas (MAG, AirCell, etc)
9,471
0.5
4,736
4,736
0
4,736
Al*
106,100
SA-5
98,040
0.5
49,020
49,020
0
49,020
BA-6
7,124
2.0
14,249
14,249
10,687
3,562
Add'l Areas (MAG, AirCell, etc)
936
0.5
468
468
0
468
AKf
52,008
SA-40
17,892
0.5
(2,539)
6,407
6,407
0
6,407
108
4.0
575
575
503
72
Add'l Areas (MAG, AirCell, etc)
41
0.5
21
21
0
21
AL*
117,290
SA-5
108,197
0.5
54,099
54,099
0
54,099
BA-5**
4,081
4.0
16,732
16,732
14,641
2,092
1,653
4.0
8,794
8,794
7,695
1,099
Add'l Areas (MAG, AirCell, etc)
3,359
0.5
1,680
1,680
0
1,680
AMf
164,124
SA-41
32,611
0.5
(7,984)
8,322
8,322
0
8,322
BA-48
4,630
0.5
(1,127)
1,188
1,188
0
1,188
Add'l Areas (MAG, AirCell, etc)
38,812
0.5
19,406
19,406
0
19,406
Q_
<
124,269
SA-1a
2,157
0.5
1,079
1,079
0
1,079
SA-1b
1,395
0.5
698
698
0
698
SA-45
22
0.5
11
11
0
11
Add'l Areas (MAG, AirCell, etc)
120,695
0.5
60,348
60,348
0
60,348
>
D
117,216
Add'l Areas (MAG, AirCell, etc)
44,461
0.5
22,231
22,231
0
22,231
ARf
507,189
Add'l Areas (MAG, AirCell, etc)
48,927
0.5
24,464
24,464
0
24,464
ASf
240,028
Add'l Areas (MAG, AirCell, etc)
15,309
0.5
7,655
7,655
0
7,655
ATf
28,098
0
0
AUf
28,077
0
0
AVf
21,236
0
0
AWf
21,844
0
AXf
19,905
0
AYf
19,628
0
AZf
18,949
0
B*
244,982
SA-12a
19,410
0.5
9,705
9,705
0
9,705
SA-15
31,402
0.5
15,701
15,701
0
15,701
SA-17
873
0.5
437
437
0
437
SA-18
3,659
0.5
1,830
1,830
0
1,830
SA-19
35,606
0.5
17,804
17,804
0
17,804
BA-23
2,430
1.0
2,430
2,430
1,215
1,215
BA-24
1,879
0.8
1,503
1,503
564
939
411.0
4.0
2,187
2,187
1,913
273
Add'l Areas (MAG, AirCell, etc)
32,410
0.5
16,205
16,205
0
16,205
BAf
34,200
0
CD
CD
20,111
0
0
CD
29,744
0
BJ1
44,403
Add'l Areas (MAG, AirCell, etc)
11,560
0.5
5,780
5,780
0
5,780
CD
224,527
Add'l Areas (MAG, AirCell, etc)
8,915
0.5
4,458
4,458
0
4,458
BL*
78,546
0
BMf
95,935
SA-37
13,743
0.5
(625)
6,247
6,247
0
6,247
609.0
4.0
3,240
3,240
2,835
405
Add'l Areas (MAG, AirCell, etc)
21,233
0.5
10,617
10,617
0
10,617
BOf
36,614
SA-39
9,077
0.5
(2,457)
2,082
2,082
0
2,082
138.0
4.0
734
734
642
92
Add'l Areas (MAG, AirCell, etc)
798
0.5
399
399
0
399
BPt
360,993
Add'l Areas (MAG, AirCell, etc)
180,297
0.5
90,149
90,149
0
90,149
BQt
168,008
Add'l Areas (MAG, AirCell, etc)
44,691
0.5
22,346
22,346
0
22,346
BRt
434,134
Add'l Areas (MAG, AirCell, etc)
12,766
0.5
6,383
6,383
0
6,383
BSt
279,890
SA-36a
16,166
0.5
8,084
8,084
0
8,084
C*
99,399
SA-9a
34,770
0.5
(2,424)
14,961
14,961
0
14,961
SA-9b
5,147
0.5
2,574
2,574
0
2,574
BA-10a**
7,771
8.7
(2,543)
66,484
66,484
62,648
3,836
BA-10b
4,108
1.3
5,341
5,341
3,287
2,054
BA-10C
3,748
1.5
(5,008)
615
615
410
205
1,374
4.0
7,310
7,310
6,396
914
Add'l Areas (MAG, AirCell, etc)
8,781
0.5
4,391
4,391
0
4,391
D*
103,036
SA-9a
38,913
0.5
19,457
19,457
0
19,457
SA-9b
1,292
0.5
646
646
0
646
BA-9
1,227
1.0
1,227
1,227
614
614
774
4.0
4,118
4,118
3,603
515
E*
129,710
SA-9a
41,195
0.5
(12,337)
8,261
8,261
0
8,261
SA-10
4,621
0.5
2,311
2,311
0
2,311
SA-44
30
0.5
15
15
0
15
BA-11
1,929
1.0
1,930
1,930
965
965
BA-12
13,843
1.8
24,917
24,917
17,996
6,921
BA-13
1,947
1.0
(1,643)
304
304
152
152
126
4.0
670
670
587
84
Add'l Areas (MAG, AirCell, etc)
14,262
0.5
7,131
7,131
0
7,131
146,193
SA-11
53,811
0.5
(11,958)
14,948
14,948
0
14,948
SA-12a
37,483
0.5
(12,750)
5,992
5,992
0
5,992
SA-12b
25,135
0.5
(8,123)
4,445
4,445
0
4,445
BA-14
1,670
1.0
(647)
1,024
1,024
512
512
BA-15a**
448
8.0
3,674
3,674
3,444
230
BA-15**
3,722
8.0
(3,717)
26,802
26,802
25,127
1,675
BA-16
2,846
2.5
(4,515)
2,602
2,602
2,082
520
BA-17
831
1.0
(425)
407
407
204
204
BA-18
1,664
1.5
(264)
2,232
2,232
1,488
744
1,278
4.0
6,799
6,799
5,949
850
Add'l Areas (MAG, AirCell, etc)
17,304
0.5
8,652
8,652
0
8,652
G*
173,258
SA-11
2,641
0.5
1,321
1,321
0
1,321
SA-12a
43,005
0.5
(1,593)
19,910
19,910
0
19,910
BA-19
1,600
0.5
801
801
0
801
BA-20a**
13,653
9.0
125,952
125,952
118,955
6,997
BA-20b**
2,442
9.0
22,530
22,530
21,278
1,252
591
4.0
3,144
3,144
2,751
393
Add'l Areas (MAG, AirCell, etc)
19,221
0.5
9,611
9,611
0
9,611
H*
3,901,362
SA-12a
20,533
0.5
10,267
10,267
0
10,267
SA-13
12,650
0.5
6,325
6,325
0
6,325
SA-14
58,649
0.5
29,325
29,325
0
29,325
SA-15
52,756
0.5
26,379
26,379
0
26,379
SA-16
57,284
0.5
28,643
28,643
0
28,643
BA-20b**
3,731
9.0
34,417
34,417
32,505
1,912
BA-212**
36,786
6.5
246,031
246,031
227,178
18,853
BA-22
15,251
2.0
30,503
30,503
22,877
7,626
372
4.0
1,979
1,979
1,732
247
Add'l Areas (MAG, AirCell, etc)
30,997
0.5
15,499
15,499
0
15,499
L*
170,977
SA-21a
Onsite Consolidation Area 1
Onsite Consolidation Area 1
Onsite Consolidation Area 1
0
694,392
77,998
SA-34
BA-40
BA-41
BA-42
BA-43a
BA-43b
-------
Alternative 5b: Excavation and Onsite Consolidation/Disposal of Contaminated Materials, and Land Use Controls with Monitoring
Parcel IDs
Total Parcel
Area
Surficial ID
Burial ID
Total Area Excavated4
Excavation Depth
Excavation Volume
Backfill Volume7
Surficial ACM
Area3
Buried ACM Area
Pipe Insulation
ACM5,6
Surficial ACM
Area
Buried ACM Area
Pipe Insulation
ACM5
Volume Removed
During 2008
Surficial ACM
Volume
Buried ACM
Volume
Pipe Insulation
ACM5
Removed4
Common Fill
Topsoil
SF
SF
SF
SF
FT
FT
FT
CF
CF
CF
CF
CF
CF
CF
M*
103,851
SA-25a
914
0.5
(457)
1
1
0
1
SA-30
474
0.5
(237)
0
0
0
0
SA-32
24,634
0.5
(8,927)
3,391
3,391
0
3,391
BA-36
9,044
1.3
(10,540)
1,217
1,217
749
468
1,941
6.0
15,489
15,489
14,198
1,291
Add'l Areas (MAG, AirCell, etc)
48,944
0.5
24,472
24,472
0
24,472
MBK-A*
81,959
SA-21a
17,115
0.5
8,558
8,558
0
8,558
SA-21b
743
0.5
372
372
0
372
BA-30
48,641
1.1
53,505
53,505
29,185
24,320
1,986
4.0
10,566
10,566
9,245
1,321
Add'l Areas (MAG, AirCell, etc)
13,475
0.5
6,738
6,738
0
6,738
MBK-B*
82,837
SA-21a
14,918
0.5
7,459
7,459
0
7,459
SA-21 c
847
0.5
424
424
0
424
BA-30
43,764
1.1
48,141
48,141
26,259
21,882
1,347
4.0
7,166
7,166
6,270
896
Add'l Areas (MAG, AirCell, etc)
21,961
0.5
10,981
10,981
0
10,981
MBK-C*
79,369
SA-21 a
1,663
0.5
832
832
0
832
SA-21 d
0
0.5
0
0
0
0
SA-23
1,667
0.5
834
834
0
834
BA-30
50,396
1.1
55,437
55,437
30,238
25,199
1,431
4.0
7,613
7,613
6,661
952
Add'l Areas (MAG, AirCell, etc)
24,212
0.5
12,106
12,106
0
12,106
MBK-D*
126,679
SA-21 a
Onsite Consolidation Area 1
Onsite Consolidation Area 1
Onsite Consolidation Area 1
0
694,392
77,998
SA-35
BA-26
BA-44**
BA-45
MBK-E*
132,121
SA-5
129,312
0.5
64,656
64,656
0
64,656
BA-3
1,017
0.5
509
509
0
509
BA-4
1,472
0.5
736
736
0
736
1,593
4.0
8,475
8,475
7,415
1,059
Existing Repository
(21,676)
0.5
(10,838)
(10,838)
0
-10,838
MBK-F*
91,207
SA-8
10,752
0.5
5,376
5,376
0
5,376
BA-7
2,012
3.5
7,042
7,042
6,036
1,006
BA-8
683
0.5
342
342
0
342
207
4.0
1,101
1,101
964
138
Add'l Areas (MAG, AirCell, etc)
4,853
0.5
2,427
2,427
0
2,427
MBK-G*
95,235
SA-15
11,949
0.5
5,975
5,975
0
5,975
SA-36a
5,555
0.5
2,778
2,778
0
2,778
SA-36b
1,635
0.5
818
818
0
818
SA-36c
13,667
0.5
6,834
6,834
0
6,834
BA-47a**
1,010
10.0
10,357
10,357
9,839
518
BA-47**
11,257
6.0
69,232
69,232
63,463
5,769
531
4.0
2,825
2,825
2,472
353
Add'l Areas (MAG, AirCell, etc)
7,717
0.5
3,859
3,859
0
3,859
158,057
SA-31
60,906
0.5
(537)
29,916
29,916
0
29,916
SA-32
50,519
0.5
(20,063)
5,197
5,197
0
5,197
BA-37
1,077
0.5
(418)
121
121
0
121
BA-38
2,116
0.5
(1,029)
29
29
0
29
BA-39
15,269
2.0
(8,241)
22,298
22,298
16,723
5,574
1,908
4.0
10,151
10,151
8,882
1,269
Add'l Areas (MAG, AirCell, etc)
26,262
0.5
13,131
13,131
0
13,131
0*
185,518
SA-32
959
0.5
(479)
1
1
0
1
SA-33a
13,703
0.5
(5,025)
1,827
1,827
0
1,827
SA-33b
3,751
0.5
(1,876)
0
0
0
0
1,155
6.0
9,217
9,217
8,449
768
Add'l Areas (MAG, AirCell, etc)
98,662
0.5
49,331
49,331
0
49,331
77,893
SA-21 a
27,294
0.5
13,647
13,647
0
13,647
BA-28
7,096
1.3
9,225
9,225
5,677
3,548
BA-29
4,305
2.0
8,611
8,611
6,458
2,153
1,530
4.0
8,140
8,140
7,122
1,017
Add'l Areas (MAG, AirCell, etc)
25,590
0.5
12,795
12,795
0
12,795
Q*
75,099
SA-22
3,476
0.5
1,739
1,739
0
1,739
SA-23
11,184
0.5
5,592
5,592
0
5,592
SA-31
7,645
0.5
3,823
3,823
0
3,823
BA-30
6,646
1.1
7,311
7,311
3,988
3,323
BA-31
14,004
0.8
11,204
11,204
4,202
7,003
BA-32
645
2.0
1,290
1,290
968
323
BA-33
1,467
0.5
734
734
0
734
390
4.0
2,075
2,075
1,815
259
Add'l Areas (MAG, AirCell, etc)
29,642
0.5
14,821
14,821
0
14,821
R*
70,175
SA-23
6,724
0.5
3,363
3,363
0
3,363
SA-24
34,733
0.5
(860)
16,507
16,507
0
16,507
SA-25a
399
0.5
200
200
0
200
SA-31
965
0.5
483
483
0
483
BA-31
4,779
0.8
3,824
3,824
1,434
2,390
BA-34
1,106
0.5
(197)
357
357
0
357
729
4.0
3,878
3,878
3,393
485
Add'l Areas (MAG, AirCell, etc)
20,740
0.5
10,370
10,370
0
10,370
S*
92,670
SA-20a
35,378
0.5
17,690
17,690
0
17,690
SA-20b
1,642
0.5
821
821
0
821
SA-21 a
28,433
0.5
14,217
14,217
0
14,217
BA-25
2,195
1.0
2,195
2,195
1,098
1,098
BA-26
11,805
1.2
14,167
14,167
8,264
5,903
BA-27
8,670
2.2
18,785
18,785
14,450
4,335
1,980
4.0
10,534
10,534
9,217
1,317
Add'l Areas (MAG, AirCell, etc)
2,567
0.5
1,284
1,284
0
1,284
W*
98,880
SA-25a
4,086
0.5
(401)
1,642
1,642
0
1,642
SA-25b
2,426
0.5
1,214
1,214
0
1,214
SA-29
8,829
0.5
(73)
4,342
4,342
0
4,342
SA-30
824
0.5
(412)
0
0
0
0
SA-32
835
0.5
(418)
0
0
0
0
BA-35a**
9,843
4.4
44,513
44,513
39,468
5,045
BA-35b
16,433
0.7
11,503
11,503
3,287
8,216
1,764
4.0
9,384
9,384
8,211
1,173
Add'l Areas (MAG, AirCell, etc)
21,314
0.5
10,657
10,657
0
10,657
WWTP
1,499,333
SA-38
50,001
0.5
25,001
25,001
0
25,001
X*
91,228
SA-27
668
0.5
334
334
0
334
SA-28a
18,663
0.5
9,332
9,332
0
9,332
SA-28b
2,553
0.5
1,277
1,277
0
1,277
372
6.0
2,969
2,969
2,721
247
Add'l Areas (MAG, AirCell, etc)
25,103
0.5
12,552
12,552
0
12,552
Y*
137,170
SA-1b
47
0.5
24
24
0
24
SA-1c
977
0.5
489
489
0
489
SA-3
616
0.5
308
308
0
308
Add'l Areas (MAG, AirCell, etc)
77,841
0.5
38,921
38,921
0
38,921
Z*
80,588
SA-24
8,971
0.5
4,486
4,486
0
4,486
SA-25a
15,259
0.5
(192)
7,438
7,438
0
7,438
SA-26
601
0.5
301
301
0
301
BA-35a**
14,206
4.4
64,245
64,245
56,964
7,281
BA-35b
4,663
0.7
3,264
3,264
933
2,331
759
4.0
4,038
4,038
3,533
505
Add'l Areas (MAG, AirCell, etc)
4,922
0.5
2,461
2,461
0
2,461
Existing Repository Cover11
... | ...
93,750
0
46,875
46,875
-------
Alternative 5b: Excavation and Onsite Consolidation/Disposal of Contaminated Materials, and Land Use Controls with Monitoring
Total Area Excavated4
Excavation Depth
Excavation Volume
Backfill Volume7
Parcel IDs
Area
Surficial ID
Burial ID
Surficial ACM
Area3
Buried ACM Area
Pipe Insulation
ACM5,6
Surficial ACM
Area
Buried ACM Area
Pipe Insulation
ACM5
Volume Removed
During 2008
Surficial ACM
Volume
Buried ACM
Volume
Pipe Insulation
ACM5
Removed4
Common Fill
Topsoil
SF
SF
SF
SF
FT
FT
FT
CF
CF
CF
CF
CF
CF
CF
SA-1a
16
0.5
8
8
0
8
SA-2
193
0.5
97
97
0
97
SA-5
3,939
0.5
1,970
1,970
0
1,970
SA-6
111
0.5
56
56
0
56
SA-7
2,179
0.5
1,090
1,090
0
1,090
SA-8
2,371
0.5
1,186
1,186
0
1,186
SA-9a
9,263
0.5
4,632
4,632
0
4,632
SA-10
146
0.5
74
74
0
74
SA-11
2,267
0.5
1,134
1,134
0
1,134
SA-12a
12,431
0.5
6,216
6,216
0
6,216
SA-12b
37
0.5
19
19
0
19
SA-15
9,393
0.5
4,697
4,697
0
4,697
SA-16
52
0.5
26
26
0
26
SA-20a
...
8,883
...
...
0.5
...
4,442
...
...
4,442
0
4,442
SA-21a
...
8,899
...
...
0.5
...
4,450
...
...
4,450
0
4,450
SA-23
...
2,634
...
...
0.5
...
1,317
...
...
1,317
0
1,317
SA-24
...
1,000
...
...
0.5
...
500
...
...
500
0
500
SA-2 5a
...
14
...
...
0.5
...
7
...
...
7
0
7
SA-28a
...
262
...
...
0.5
...
132
...
...
132
0
132
SA-28b
...
378
...
...
0.5
...
189
...
...
189
0
189
SA-30
...
15
...
...
0.5
...
(8)
0
...
...
0
0
0
SA-32
...
106
...
...
0.5
...
(11)
43
...
...
43
0
43
SA-34
...
1,022
...
...
0.5
...
512
...
...
512
0
512
SA-35
...
4,256
...
...
0.5
...
...
2,129
...
...
2,129
0
2,129
SA-36a
...
3,870
...
...
0.5
...
...
1,935
...
...
1,935
0
1,935
SA-36C
...
7,647
...
...
0.5
...
...
3,824
...
...
3,824
0
3,824
SA-39
...
967
...
...
0.5
...
...
484
...
...
484
0
484
SA-40
...
3,797
...
...
0.5
...
...
1,899
...
...
1,899
0
1,899
SA-41
...
1,884
...
...
0.5
...
...
943
...
...
943
0
943
BA-6
2,433
...
...
2.0
...
4,866
...
4,866
3,650
1,217
BA-25
3,127
...
1.0
...
3,127
...
3,127
1,564
1,564
BA-26
7,032
...
1.2
...
8,439
...
8,439
4,923
3,516
7,887
...
6.0
...
...
62,938
62,938
57,693
5,245
Add'l Areas (MAG, AirCell, etc)
2.424
0.5
1.212
1.212
0
1.212
Total
12,169,100
2,987,200
505,000
37,100
(143,100)
1,344,000
1,487,800
227,500
3,059,200
2,885,200
1,812,600
Notes:
1. Depth of buried ACM debris at BA-1 assumed to be same as at BA-2. Both BA-1 and BA-2 are under parcel AG.
2. See Section 4.1.8.2 of Rl for ACM volumes at BA-21 (under parcel H).
3. Depth of Surface ACM Removal, FT: ^ 0.5 _j
4. Depth of Topsoil, FT: I 0.5 I
5. Width of Excavation Trench for Pipe, FT: L ^ J
6. Surface ACM Area is accounted with the Buried ACM Area when there is an overlap in excavation.
7. All volumes and areas are rounded up to the nearest whole number
8. Steam pipe was observed at depths ranging from 2 to 6 feet bgs and assume 3 feet wide excavation
9. Excavation of steam pipe within Surficial ACM and Buried ACM areas considered negligible.
10. Topsoil depth is 6 inches; common backfill depth varies with excavation depth.
11. Existing repository will be covered with 6 inches of common backfill and 6 inches of topsoil.
* Indicates properties no longer occupied
** Burial area depth is greater than 4 feet - assume a 2.5% increase in soil excavation for sloping.
*** All pipe excavation - assume a 33% increase in soil excavation for sloping.
f Indicates that property is privately owned.
| | -Location of Onsite Consolidation Area - No Excavation Activity
-------
Onsite Consolidation Areas
Consolidation Area 1:
1. Capacity of Each Landfill:
630
Landfill Capacity - Active
Given:
1. Landfill to be placed in Parcel ID: MBK-D and L
2. Footprint of the landfill will be defined by the Parcel boundaries.
Assume:
1. Maximum height of Waste Material:
2. Maximum slope < 20% Current:
19 ft
19%
490
Total Capacity
Calculations:
a. Pyramid
V=
V=
253,333 ft3
200 ft
19 ft
b. Large Wedge X2
V= 1/2bhl * 2
V= 817,000 ft3
100 ft
19 ft
430 ft
c. Small Wedge X2
V= 1/2bhl * 2
V= 551,000 ft3
100 ft
19 ft
290 ft
d. Rectangular Prism
V= bhl
V= 2,369,300 ft3
290 ft
19 ft
430 ft
VcapacityConl 3,990,633 ft3
3,990,633 ft3
Volume Check =
Good
-------
2. Filling the Landfills:
[
Volume of Waste - Site
| V waste = 3,059,200 ft3
348,748,800 lbs
174,374 tons
| Volume of Common Fill-
(Combined Active Landfill)
I
The Landfill will be filled using the following assumptions:
1. Number of Years to Complete:
3.0 years
2. Work from April 1 until November 30:
8 months
3. 4 Days off per month in 30 days months:
26 per month
4. Number of working days:
208 days
|5. Dump Trucks per day:
14 trucks/day |
6. Tons per truck:
20 ton
6. Soil Bulk weight:
114 lbs/ft3
|7. Stock each day (lift) in ft:
2 ft |
8. Common Fill cover per day:
0.5 ft
Tons waste per day: 279 tons
Lbs waste per day: 558,892 lbs
Ft3 waste per day: 4,903 ft3
Area Waste Needing Fill: 2,451
ft2
6 inches of fill each day: 1,226 ft3
Fill 1-Year: 254,933 ft3
Fill Completion: 764,800 ft3
| ^common fill- 764,800 ft
^capacity needed 3,824,000 ft3 I
3. Covering the Landfills:
| Volume of Fill -
(Inactive Landfill)
I
Consolidation Area 1:
Inactive landfill cover - 2.0 feet common fill, 6 inches composite (for vegetation)
Surface Area (a) Sides: 8
Surface Area (c) Sides: 2
sh= 102
l= 290
b= 100
sh= 102
SA= 0.5(b*h)
N. 102
SA= h*l
40,716 ft2
19
59,038 ft2
Surface Area (b) Sides: 2
100
Surface Area (d) Sides: 1
l= 430
b= 290
sh= 102
l= 430
SA= h*l
SA= h*l
87,539 ft2
124,700 ft2
vCommon = 623,984 ft3
Common Fill Final Cover =
2 ft
Vtopsoh= 155,996 ft3
Topsoll Fill Final Cover =
0.5 ft
Note:
Final elevation of the landfill including cover:
21.5 ft
|Total Surface Area= 311,992 ft2
-------
5. Summary of Materials
Landfill Final Height
Consolidation Area 1
21.5 ft
Summary of Materials
Material Summary
Volume
Total Excavated Soil:
3,059,200
ft3
Total Common Fill (Active Landfills):
764,800
ft3
Total Common Fill (Inactive Landfills):
623,984
ft3
Total Common Fill:
1,388,784
ft3
Total Topsoil/Mulch (Inactive Landfills):
155,996
ft3
-------
Alternative 6
Excavation and Offsite Disposal of Contaminated Materials at
Permitted Facilities, and Land Use Controls with Monitoring
-------
Alternative 6: Excavation and Offsite Disposal of Contaminated Materials at Permitted Facilities, and Land Use Controls with Monitoring
Parcel IDs
Total Parcel
Area
Surficial ID
Burial ID
Total Area Excavated4
Excavation Depth
Excavation Volume
Backfill Volume7
Surficial ACM
Area3
Buried ACM Area
Pipe Insulation
ACM5,6
Surficial ACM
Area
Buried ACM Area
Pipe Insulation
ACM5
Volume Removed
During 2008
Surficial ACM
Volume
Buried ACM
Volume
Pipe Insulation
ACM5
Removed4
Common Fill
Topsoil
SF
SF
SF
SF
FT
FT
FT
CF
CF
CF
CF
CF
CF
CF
A*
240,463
SA-15
72,529
0.5
36,265
36,265
0
36,265
SA-42
418
0.5
209
209
0
209
SA-43
0
0.5
0
0
0
0
BA-46**
9,620
4.8
46,839
46,839
41,909
4,930
1,533
4.0
8,156
8,156
7,136
1,019
Add'l Areas (MAG, AirCell, etc)
18,614
0.5
9,307
9,307
0
9,307
Arsenic Contamination11
26,211
10.0
268,663
268,663
255,230
13,433
AG*
206,876
SA-1a
52,654
0.5
26,327
26,327
0
26,327
SA-1b
88
0.5
45
45
0
45
SA-1c
224
0.5
113
113
0
113
SA-1d
4,652
0.5
2,326
2,326
0
2,326
SA-4
17,328
0.5
8,664
8,664
0
8,664
BA-11
3,030
2.4
7,274
7,274
5,759
1,515
BA-2
18,518
2.4
44,444
44,444
35,185
9,259
597
4.0
3,176
3,176
2,779
397
Add'l Areas (MAG, AirCell, etc)
9,471
0.5
4,736
4,736
0
4,736
Al*
106,100
SA-5
98,040
0.5
49,020
49,020
0
49,020
BA-6
7,124
2.0
14,249
14,249
10,687
3,562
Add'l Areas (MAG, AirCell, etc)
936
0.5
468
468
0
468
AKf
52,008
SA-40
17,892
0.5
(2,539)
6,407
6,407
0
6,407
108
4.0
575
575
503
72
Add'l Areas (MAG, AirCell, etc)
41
0.5
21
21
0
21
AL*
117,290
SA-5
108,197
0.5
54,099
54,099
0
54,099
BA-5**
4,081
4.0
16,732
16,732
14,641
2,092
1,653
4.0
8,794
8,794
7,695
1,099
Add'l Areas (MAG, AirCell, etc)
3,359
0.5
1,680
1,680
0
1,680
AM*
164,124
SA-41
32,611
0.5
(7,984)
8,322
8,322
0
8,322
BA-48
4,630
0.5
(1,127)
1,188
1,188
0
1,188
Add'l Areas (MAG, AirCell, etc)
38,812
0.5
19,406
19,406
0
19,406
CL
<
124,269
SA-1a
2,157
0.5
1,079
1,079
0
1,079
SA-1b
1,395
0.5
698
698
0
698
SA-45
22
0.5
11
11
0
11
Add'l Areas (MAG, AirCell, etc)
120,695
0.5
60,348
60,348
0
60,348
AQf
117,216
Add'l Areas (MAG, AirCell, etc)
44,461
0.5
22,231
22,231
0
22,231
ARf
507,189
Add'l Areas (MAG, AirCell, etc)
48,927
0.5
24,464
24,464
0
24,464
>
CO
240,028
Add'l Areas (MAG, AirCell, etc)
15,309
0.5
7,655
7,655
0
7,655
ATf
28,098
0
0
AUf
28,077
0
0
AVf
21,236
0
0
AWf
21,844
0
AXf
19,905
0
AYf
19,628
0
AZf
18,949
0
B*
244,982
SA-12a
19,410
0.5
9,705
9,705
0
9,705
SA-15
31,402
0.5
15,701
15,701
0
15,701
SA-17
873
0.5
437
437
0
437
SA-18
3,659
0.5
1,830
1,830
0
1,830
SA-19
35,606
0.5
17,804
17,804
0
17,804
BA-23
2,430
1.0
2,430
2,430
1,215
1,215
BA-24
1,879
0.8
1,503
1,503
564
939
411.0
4.0
2,187
2,187
1,913
273
Add'l Areas (MAG, AirCell, etc)
32,410
0.5
16,205
16,205
0
16,205
CD
>.
34,200
0
BBf
20,111
0
0
CD
29,744
0
BJf
44,403
Add'l Areas (MAG, AirCell, etc)
11,560
0.5
5,780
5,780
0
5,780
CD
7^
224,527
Add'l Areas (MAG, AirCell, etc)
8,915
0.5
4,458
4,458
0
4,458
BL*
78,546
0
BMf
95,935
SA-37
13,743
0.5
(625)
6,247
6,247
0
6,247
609.0
4.0
3,240
3,240
2,835
405
Add'l Areas (MAG, AirCell, etc)
21,233
0.5
10,617
10,617
0
10,617
CD
O
36,614
SA-39
9,077
0.5
(2,457)
2,082
2,082
0
2,082
138.0
4.0
734
734
642
92
Add'l Areas (MAG, AirCell, etc)
798
0.5
399
399
0
399
BPt
360,993
Add'l Areas (MAG, AirCell, etc)
180,297
0.5
90,149
90,149
0
90,149
BQt
168,008
Add'l Areas (MAG, AirCell, etc)
44,691
0.5
22,346
22,346
0
22,346
BRt
434,134
Add'l Areas (MAG, AirCell, etc)
12,766
0.5
6,383
6,383
0
6,383
BSt
279,890
SA-36a
16,166
0.5
8,084
8,084
0
8,084
C*
99,399
SA-9a
34,770
0.5
(2,424)
14,961
14,961
0
14,961
SA-9b
5,147
0.5
2,574
2,574
0
2,574
BA-10a**
7,771
8.7
(2,543)
66,484
66,484
62,648
3,836
BA-10b
4,108
1.3
5,341
5,341
3,287
2,054
BA-10C
3,748
1.5
(5,008)
615
615
410
205
1,374
4.0
7,310
7,310
6,396
914
Add'l Areas (MAG, AirCell, etc)
8,781
0.5
4,391
4,391
0
4,391
D*
103,036
SA-9a
38,913
0.5
19,457
19,457
0
19,457
SA-9b
1,292
0.5
646
646
0
646
BA-9
1,227
1.0
1,227
1,227
614
614
774
4.0
4,118
4,118
3,603
515
E*
129,710
SA-9a
41,195
0.5
(12,337)
8,261
8,261
0
8,261
SA-10
4,621
0.5
2,311
2,311
0
2,311
SA-44
30
0.5
15
15
0
15
BA-11
1,929
1.0
1,930
1,930
965
965
BA-12
13,843
1.8
24,917
24,917
17,996
6,921
BA-13
1,947
1.0
(1,643)
304
304
152
152
126
4.0
670
670
587
84
Add'l Areas (MAG, AirCell, etc)
14,262
0.5
7,131
7,131
0
7,131
146,193
SA-11
53,811
0.5
(11,958)
14,948
14,948
0
14,948
SA-12a
37,483
0.5
(12,750)
5,992
5,992
0
5,992
SA-12b
25,135
0.5
(8,123)
4,445
4,445
0
4,445
BA-14
1,670
1.0
(647)
1,024
1,024
512
512
BA-15a**
448
8.0
3,674
3,674
3,444
230
BA-15**
3,722
8.0
(3,717)
26,802
26,802
25,127
1,675
BA-16
2,846
2.5
(4,515)
2,602
2,602
2,082
520
BA-17
831
1.0
(425)
407
407
204
204
BA-18
1,664
1.5
(264)
2,232
2,232
1,488
744
1,278
4.0
6,799
6,799
5,949
850
Add'l Areas (MAG, AirCell, etc)
17,304
0.5
8,652
8,652
0
8,652
G*
173,258
SA-11
2,641
0.5
1,321
1,321
0
1,321
SA-12a
43,005
0.5
(1,593)
19,910
19,910
0
19,910
BA-19
1,600
0.5
801
801
0
801
BA-20a**
13,653
9.0
125,952
125,952
118,955
6,997
BA-20b**
2,442
9.0
22,530
22,530
21,278
1,252
591
4.0
3,144
3,144
2,751
393
Add'l Areas (MAG, AirCell, etc)
19,221
0.5
9,611
9,611
0
9,611
H*
3,901,362
SA-12a
20,533
0.5
10,267
10,267
0
10,267
SA-13
12,650
0.5
6,325
6,325
0
6,325
SA-14
58,649
0.5
29,325
29,325
0
29,325
SA-15
52,756
0.5
26,379
26,379
0
26,379
SA-16
57,284
0.5
28,643
28,643
0
28,643
BA-20b**
3,731
9.0
34,417
34,417
32,505
1,912
BA-212"
36,786
6.5
246,031
246,031
227,178
18,853
BA-2 2
15,251
2.0
30,503
30,503
22,877
7,626
372
4.0
1,979
1,979
1,732
247
Add'l Areas (MAG, AirCell, etc)
30,997
0.5
15,499
15,499
0
15,499
L*
170,977
SA-21a
105,859
0.5
52,930
52,930
0
52,930
SA-34
14,776
0.5
7,388
7,388
0
7,388
BA-40
1,685
0.5
843
843
0
843
BA-41
2,686
0.5
1,344
1,344
0
1,344
BA-42
2,244
1.0
2,245
2,245
1,123
1,123
BA-43a
12,475
3.5
43,662
43,662
37,425
6,237
BA-43b
2,662
3.5
9,316
9,316
7,985
1,331
2,673
4.0
14,220
14,220
12,443
1,778
Add'l Areas (MAG, AirCell, etc)
20,203
0.5
10,102
10,102
0
10,102
-------
Alternative 6: Excavation and Offsite Disposal of Contaminated Materials at Permitted Facilities, and Land Use Controls with Monitoring
Parcel IDs
Total Parcel
Area
Surficial ID
Burial ID
Total Area Excavated4
Excavation Depth
Excavation Volume
Backfill Volume7
Surficial ACM
Area3
Buried ACM Area
Pipe Insulation
ACM5,6
Surficial ACM
Area
Buried ACM Area
Pipe Insulation
ACM5
Volume Removed
During 2008
Surficial ACM
Volume
Buried ACM
Volume
Pipe Insulation
ACM5
Removed4
Common Fill
Topsoil
SF
SF
SF
SF
FT
FT
FT
CF
CF
CF
CF
CF
CF
CF
M*
103,851
SA-25a
914
0.5
(457)
1
1
0
1
SA-30
474
0.5
(237)
0
0
0
0
SA-32
24,634
0.5
(8,927)
3,391
3,391
0
3,391
BA-36
9,044
1.3
(10,540)
1,217
1,217
749
468
1,941
6.0
15,489
15,489
14,198
1,291
Add'l Areas (MAG, AirCell, etc)
48,944
0.5
24,472
24,472
0
24,472
MBK-A*
81,959
SA-21a
17,115
0.5
8,558
8,558
0
8,558
SA-21b
743
0.5
372
372
0
372
BA-30
48,641
1.1
53,505
53,505
29,185
24,320
1,986
4.0
10,566
10,566
9,245
1,321
Add'l Areas (MAG, AirCell, etc)
13,475
0.5
6,738
6,738
0
6,738
MBK-B*
82,837
SA-21a
14,918
0.5
7,459
7,459
0
7,459
SA-21c
847
0.5
424
424
0
424
BA-30
43,764
1.1
48,141
48,141
26,259
21,882
1,347
4.0
7,166
7,166
6,270
896
Add'l Areas (MAG, AirCell, etc)
21,961
0.5
10,981
10,981
0
10,981
MBK-C*
79,369
SA-21a
1,663
0.5
832
832
0
832
SA-21d
0
0.5
0
0
0
0
SA-23
1,667
0.5
834
834
0
834
BA-30
50,396
1.1
55,437
55,437
30,238
25,199
1,431
4.0
7,613
7,613
6,661
952
Add'l Areas (MAG, AirCell, etc)
24,212
0.5
12,106
12,106
0
12,106
MBK-D*
126,679
SA-21a
62,322
0.5
31,161
31,161
0
31,161
SA-35
15,667
0.5
7,834
7,834
0
7,834
BA-26
581
1.2
697
697
407
290
BA-44**
814
9.0
7,510
7,510
7,093
417
BA-45
3,644
1.0
3,644
3,644
1,822
1,822
2,628
4.0
13,981
13,981
12,233
1,748
Add'l Areas (MAG, AirCell, etc)
19,925
0.5
9,963
9,963
0
9,963
MBK-E*
132,121
SA-5
129,312
0.5
64,656
64,656
0
64,656
BA-3
1,017
0.5
509
509
0
509
BA-4
1,472
0.5
736
736
0
736
1,593
4.0
8,475
8,475
7,415
1,059
Repository Area
(21,676)
0.5
(10,838)
(10,838)
0
-10,838
MBK-F*
91,207
SA-8
10,752
0.5
5,376
5,376
0
5,376
BA-7
2,012
3.5
7,042
7,042
6,036
1,006
BA-8
683
0.5
342
342
0
342
207
4.0
1,101
1,101
964
138
Add'l Areas (MAG, AirCell, etc)
4,853
0.5
2,427
2,427
0
2,427
MBK-G*
95,235
SA-15
11,949
0.5
5,975
5,975
0
5,975
SA-36a
5,555
0.5
2,778
2,778
0
2,778
SA-36b
1,635
0.5
818
818
0
818
SA-36c
13,667
0.5
6,834
6,834
0
6,834
BA-47a**
1,010
10.0
10,357
10,357
9,839
518
BA-47**
11,257
6.0
69,232
69,232
63,463
5,769
531
4.0
2,825
2,825
2,472
353
Add'l Areas (MAG, AirCell, etc)
7,717
0.5
3,859
3,859
0
3,859
158,057
SA-31
60,906
0.5
(537)
29,916
29,916
0
29,916
SA-32
50,519
0.5
(20,063)
5,197
5,197
0
5,197
BA-37
1,077
0.5
(418)
121
121
0
121
BA-38
2,116
0.5
(1,029)
29
29
0
29
BA-39
15,269
2.0
(8,241)
22,298
22,298
16,723
5,574
1,908
4.0
10,151
10,151
8,882
1,269
Add'l Areas (MAG, AirCell, etc)
26,262
0.5
13,131
13,131
0
13,131
0*
185,518
SA-32
959
0.5
(479)
1
1
0
1
SA-33a
13,703
0.5
(5,025)
1,827
1,827
0
1,827
SA-33b
3,751
0.5
(1,876)
0
0
0
0
1,155
6.0
9,217
9,217
8,449
768
Add'l Areas (MAG, AirCell, etc)
98,662
0.5
49,331
49,331
0
49,331
77,893
SA-21a
27,294
0.5
13,647
13,647
0
13,647
BA-28
7,096
1.3
9,225
9,225
5,677
3,548
BA-29
4,305
2.0
8,611
8,611
6,458
2,153
1,530
4.0
8,140
8,140
7,122
1,017
Add'l Areas (MAG, AirCell, etc)
25,590
0.5
12,795
12,795
0
12,795
Q*
75,099
SA-22
3,476
0.5
1,739
1,739
0
1,739
SA-23
11,184
0.5
5,592
5,592
0
5,592
SA-31
7,645
0.5
3,823
3,823
0
3,823
BA-30
6,646
1.1
7,311
7,311
3,988
3,323
BA-31
14,004
0.8
11,204
11,204
4,202
7,003
BA-3 2
645
2.0
1,290
1,290
968
323
BA-3 3
1,467
0.5
734
734
0
734
390
4.0
2,075
2,075
1,815
259
Add'l Areas (MAG, AirCell, etc)
29,642
0.5
14,821
14,821
0
14,821
R*
70,175
SA-23
6,724
0.5
3,363
3,363
0
3,363
SA-24
34,733
0.5
(860)
16,507
16,507
0
16,507
SA-25a
399
0.5
200
200
0
200
SA-31
965
0.5
483
483
0
483
BA-31
4,779
0.8
3,824
3,824
1,434
2,390
BA-3 4
1,106
0.5
(197)
357
357
0
357
729
4.0
3,878
3,878
3,393
485
Add'l Areas (MAG, AirCell, etc)
20,740
0.5
10,370
10,370
0
10,370
S*
92,670
SA-20a
35,378
0.5
17,690
17,690
0
17,690
SA-20b
1,642
0.5
821
821
0
821
SA-21a
28,433
0.5
14,217
14,217
0
14,217
BA-25
2,195
1.0
2,195
2,195
1,098
1,098
BA-26
11,805
1.2
14,167
14,167
8,264
5,903
BA-27
8,670
2.2
18,785
18,785
14,450
4,335
1,980
4.0
10,534
10,534
9,217
1,317
Add'l Areas (MAG, AirCell, etc)
2,567
0.5
1,284
1,284
0
1,284
W*
98,880
SA-25a
4,086
0.5
(401)
1,642
1,642
0
1,642
SA-25b
2,426
0.5
1,214
1,214
0
1,214
SA-29
8,829
0.5
(73)
4,342
4,342
0
4,342
SA-30
824
0.5
(412)
0
0
0
0
SA-32
835
0.5
(418)
0
0
0
0
BA-35a**
9,843
4.4
44,513
44,513
39,468
5,045
BA-35b
16,433
0.7
11,503
11,503
3,287
8,216
1,764
4.0
9,384
9,384
8,211
1,173
Add'l Areas (MAG, AirCell, etc)
21,314
0.5
10,657
10,657
0
10,657
WWTP
1,499,333
SA-38
50,001
0.5
25,001
25,001
0
25,001
X*
91,228
SA-27
668
0.5
334
334
0
334
SA-28a
18,663
0.5
9,332
9,332
0
9,332
SA-28b
2,553
0.5
1,277
1,277
0
1,277
372
6.0
2,969
2,969
2,721
247
Add'l Areas (MAG, AirCell, etc)
25,103
0.5
12,552
12,552
0
12,552
Y*
137,170
SA-1b
47
0.5
24
24
0
24
SA-1c
977
0.5
489
489
0
489
SA-3
616
0.5
308
308
0
308
Add'l Areas (MAG, AirCell, etc)
77,841
0.5
38,921
38,921
0
38,921
Z*
80,588
SA-24
8,971
0.5
4,486
4,486
0
4,486
SA-25a
15,259
0.5
(192)
7,438
7,438
0
7,438
SA-26
601
0.5
301
301
0
301
BA-35a**
14,206
4.4
64,245
64,245
56,964
7,281
BA-3 5b
4,663
0.7
3,264
3,264
933
2,331
759
4.0
4,038
4,038
3,533
505
Add'l Areas (MAG, AirCell, etc)
4,922
0.5
2,461
2,461
0
2,461
Existing Repository Cover12
... | ...
93,750
0
46,875
46,875
-------
Alternative 6: Excavation and Offsite Disposal of Contaminated Materials at Permitted Facilities, and Land Use Controls with Monitoring
Total Area Excavated4
Excavation Depth
Excavation Volume
Backfill Volume7
Parcel IDs
Area
Surficial ID
Burial ID
Surficial ACM
Area3
Buried ACM Area
Pipe Insulation
ACM5,6
Surficial ACM
Area
Buried ACM Area
Pipe Insulation
ACM5
Volume Removed
During 2008
Surficial ACM
Volume
Buried ACM
Volume
Pipe Insulation
ACM5
Removed4
Common Fill
Topsoil
SF
SF
SF
SF
FT
FT
FT
CF
CF
CF
CF
CF
CF
CF
SA-1a
16
0.5
8
8
0
8
SA-2
193
0.5
97
97
0
97
SA-5
3,939
0.5
1,970
1,970
0
1,970
SA-6
111
0.5
56
56
0
56
SA-7
2,179
0.5
1,090
1,090
0
1,090
SA-8
2,371
0.5
1,186
1,186
0
1,186
SA-9a
9,263
0.5
4,632
4,632
0
4,632
SA-10
146
0.5
74
74
0
74
SA-11
2,267
0.5
1,134
1,134
0
1,134
SA-12a
12,431
0.5
6,216
6,216
0
6,216
SA-12b
37
0.5
19
19
0
19
SA-15
9,393
0.5
4,697
4,697
0
4,697
SA-16
52
0.5
26
26
0
26
SA-20a
...
8,883
...
...
0.5
...
4,442
...
...
4,442
0
4,442
SA-21a
...
8,899
...
...
0.5
...
4,450
...
...
4,450
0
4,450
SA-23
...
2,634
...
...
0.5
...
1,317
...
...
1,317
0
1,317
SA-24
...
1,000
...
...
0.5
...
500
...
...
500
0
500
SA-25a
...
14
...
...
0.5
...
7
...
...
7
0
7
SA-28a
...
262
...
...
0.5
...
132
...
...
132
0
132
SA-28b
...
378
...
...
0.5
...
189
...
...
189
0
189
SA-30
...
15
...
...
0.5
...
(8)
0
...
...
0
0
0
SA-32
...
106
...
...
0.5
...
(11)
43
...
...
43
0
43
SA-34
...
1,022
...
...
0.5
...
512
...
...
512
0
512
SA-35
...
4,256
...
...
0.5
...
...
2,129
...
...
2,129
0
2,129
SA-36a
...
3,870
...
...
0.5
...
...
1,935
...
...
1,935
0
1,935
SA-36C
...
7,647
...
...
0.5
...
...
3,824
...
...
3,824
0
3,824
SA-39
...
967
...
...
0.5
...
...
484
...
...
484
0
484
SA-40
...
3,797
...
...
0.5
...
...
1,899
...
...
1,899
0
1,899
SA-41
...
1,884
...
...
0.5
...
...
943
...
...
943
0
943
BA-6
2,433
...
...
2.0
...
4,866
...
4,866
3,650
1,217
BA-25
3,127
...
...
1.0
...
3,127
...
3,127
1,564
1,564
BA-2 6
7,032
...
...
1.2
...
8,439
...
8,439
4,923
3,516
7,887
...
...
6.0
...
...
62,938
62,938
57,693
5,245
Add'l Areas (MAG, AirCell, etc)
2,424
...
0.5
1.212
...
1,212
0
1,212
Total
12,169,100
3,226,000
531,800
42,400
(143,100)
1,463,400
1,557,100
255,700
3,276,100
1,577,000
1,792,900
Notes:
1. Depth of buried ACM debris at BA-1 assumed to be same as at BA-2. Both BA-1 and BA-2 are under parcel AG.
2. See Section 4.1.8.2 of Rl for ACM volumes at BA-21 (under parcel H).
3. Depth of Surface ACM Removal, FT: £ 0.5 j
4. Depth of Topsoil, FT: I 0.5 I
5. Width of Excavation Trench for Pipe, FT: L ^ J
6. Surface ACM Area is accounted with the Buried ACM Area when there is an overlap in excavation.
7. All volumes and areas are rounded up to the nearest whole number
8. Steam pipe was observed at depths ranging from 2 to 6 feet bgs and assume 3 feet wide excavation
9. Excavation of steam pipe within Surficial ACM and Buried ACM areas considered negligible.
10. Topsoil depth is 6 inches; common backfill depth varies with excavation depth.
11. Arsenic contamination is co-located with surface ACM up to 0.5 feet.
12. Existing repository will be covered with 6 inches of common backfill and 6 inches of topsoil.
* Indicates properties no longer occupied
** Burial area depth is greater than 4 feet - assume a 2.5% increase in soil excavation for sloping.
*** All pipe excavation - assume a 33% increase in soil excavation for sloping,
f Indicates that property is privately owned.
-------
Appendix D
Screening of Alternatives
The evaluations of each alternative using the three screening criteria are
presented in the following Appendix D. The common justifications have been
indicated using gray text to allow the reader to focus on the differences between
alternatives.
-------
Alternative 1
No Action
-------
Appendix D
Screening of Alternatives
Exhibit D-1. Effectiveness Screening - Alternative 1
Effectiveness Criteria
Evaluation Summary
Overall protection of human health and
the environment
¦ Source areas of contaminated materials would be left unaddressed.
¦ Unaddressed contaminated materials would allow continued release
and migration of asbestos fibers and non-asbestos COPCs to
unimpacted media (primarily soil and air) if disturbed.
¦ Contaminated materials migrating to the surface and liberating
asbestos fibers and non-asbestos COPCs after disturbance would
potentially represent an inhalation and ingestion exposure risk to
humans and ecological receptors.
Compliance with ARARs
¦ No further remedial action would be taken to address contaminated
materials and contaminated air exceeding chemical-specific ARARs;
thus this criterion is not met.
Short-term effectiveness (during the
remedial construction and
implementation period)
¦ No further remedial action would be undertaken to address
contaminated materials sources; thus, none of these criteria are met.
Long-term effectiveness and
permanence (following remedial
construction)
Reduction of toxicity, mobility, or
volume through treatment
Overall Rating
O
Table D-2. Implementability Screening - Alternative 1
Implementability Criteria
Evaluation Summary
Ability to construct, reliably operate,
and meet technology-specific
regulations for process options until a
remedial action is complete
¦ Contaminated materials would be left unaddressed. No new remedial
actions would be undertaken to address contaminated materials;
thus, these criteria are not applicable.
Ability to operate, maintain, replace,
and monitor technical components
after the remedial action is complete
Ability to obtain approvals from other
agencies
Availability and capacity of treatment,
storage, and disposal services
Availability of property, specific
materials and equipment, and technical
specialists required for a remedial
action
Overall Rating
O
Table D-3. Cost Screening - Alternative 1
Evaluation Factors for Cost
Overall Rating
Approximate Cost (Present
Value Dollars)
Present value cost
$
$190,000
CDM
NRE_Final FS_Appendix D.doc
-------
Alternative 2
Interior Cleaning and Land Use Controls with Monitoring
-------
Appendix D
Screening of Alternatives
Table D-4.
Effectiveness Screening - Alternative 2
Effectiveness Criteria
Evaluation Summary
Overall protection of human health
and the environment
¦ Contaminated materials would be addressed through institutional and
access controls on receiver-managed parcels, which restrict access and
use to these parcels since these parcels are unoccupied.
¦ Contaminated materials would be addressed through institutional and
access controls on privately owned parcels. However access controls
would not be widely implemented on privately owned parcels since many
of those parcels are currently developed and occupied.
¦ Interior cleaning would be periodically performed as needed to ensure that
indoor air is protective of human health.
¦ Land use controls would be used to restrict access and use of the existing
onsite disposal location.
¦ Contaminated materials could potentially allow continued release and
migration of asbestos fibers and non-asbestos COPCs if disturbed,
especially on privately owned parcels without access controls.
¦ Disturbed fibers would potentially represent an inhalation exposure risk to
humans and ecological receptors.
¦ Monitoring would be performed to determine protectiveness of the
remedy.
Compliance with ARARs
¦ Land use controls would not physically address contaminated materials
and contaminated air exceeding chemical-specific ARARs.
¦ Location- and action-specific ARARs for the remedy would be addressed
during implementation.
Short-term effectiveness (during
the remedial construction and
implementation period)
¦ Surface disturbance of contaminated materials could pose short-term risks
to workers performing interior cleaning and installing access controls.
¦ Safety measures such as dust suppression, use of PPE, and
establishment of work zones would protect workers and the community
during implementation.
¦ Access controls would restrict use and access and hence quickly protect
the community for receiver-managed parcels. However they do not
address short-term exposure to contaminated materials on privately
owned parcels.
¦ Temporary relocation of residents from privately owned parcels may be
required during interior cleaning.
Long-term effectiveness and
permanence (following remedial
construction)
¦ Long-term effectiveness is not entirely ensured since contaminated
materials potentially posing a risk are left exposed on site and would
continue to degrade and migrate.
¦ Exposure to contaminants may occur on privately owned parcels since
limited or no access controls would be put in place to restrict access to
contaminated materials.
¦ Contaminated materials could allow continued release and migration of
asbestos fibers and on-asbestos COPCs to unimpacted media (primarily
soil and air) if disturbed.
¦ Interior cleaning and monitoring are the primary remedial components for
ensuring protection of human health on privately owned parcels. However
interior cleaning does not ensure protectiveness within the interior of
residential structures since contaminated materials would continue to be
exposed and degrade, and could be tracked into the structures.
¦ Long-term effectiveness and permanence for covered areas of the
existing onsite waste repository would be dependent on continued integrity
of the covers and adherence to institutional and access controls.
¦ Long-term effectiveness of institutional controls and access controls would
not be ensured since humans and ecological receptors could ignore them,
especially on privately owned parcels.
Reduction of toxicity, mobility, or
volume through treatment
¦ This alternative would not treat contaminated materials impacted by
asbestos fibers and non-asbestos COPCs.
Overall Rating
o
CDM
NRE_Final FS_Appendix D.doc
-------
Appendix D
Screening of Alternatives
Table D-5. Implementability Screening - Alternative 2
Implementability Criteria
Evaluation Summary
Ability to construct, reliably operate,
and meet technology-specific
regulations for process options until a
remedial action is complete
¦ Implementation of access controls and monitoring is relatively
straightforward.
¦ Implementation of interior cleaning could be difficult because it would
involve temporary relocation of residents.
¦ Institutional controls may be more difficult to implement and reliably
operate, especially for privately owned parcels, due to various
degrees of contamination, types of ownership, and levels of
occupancy.
Ability to operate, maintain, replace,
and monitor technical components
after the remedial action is complete
¦ Inspection, maintenance, and replacement of the cover systems on
the existing waste repository are relatively easy to implement.
¦ Inspection, maintenance, and replacement of access controls and
implementation of monitoring would be easy to implement.
¦ Implementation of periodic interior cleaning could be difficult because
it would involve temporary relocation of residents.
¦ Maintenance of institutional controls may be more difficult, especially
for privately owned parcels due to various degrees of contamination,
types of ownership, and levels of occupancy.
Ability to obtain approvals from other
agencies
¦ Regulatory approvals for access controls, interior cleaning, and
monitoring should be obtainable.
¦ Regulatory approvals for institutional controls should be obtainable for
privately owned parcels. However some difficulties may be
encountered with regard to types of restrictions implemented.
Availability and capacity of treatment,
storage, and disposal services
¦ This alternative does not call for any treatment, storage, and disposal
services. Thus this criterion is not applicable.
Availability of property, specific
materials and equipment, and
technical specialists required for a
remedial action
¦ The property for implementing the remedial action has already been
obtained for receiver-managed parcels.
¦ Access permission at privately owned parcels for implementing the
remedial action may not be currently available, but could be obtained.
¦ Materials, equipment, and labor resources used for land use controls
and monitoring are easily obtainable.
¦ Technical equipment and specialists are available for implementation
of institutional controls and monitoring.
Overall Rating
o
Table D-6. Cost Screening - Alternative 2
Evaluation Factors for Cost
Overall Rating
Approximate Cost (Present
Value Dollars)
Present value cost
$
$2,280,000
CDM
NRE_Final FS_Appendix D.doc
-------
Alternative 3
Capping of Contaminated Materials on Private Parcels,
Partial Capping of Contaminated Materials on Receivership
Parcels, Interior Cleaning, and Land Use Controls
with Monitoring
-------
Appendix D
Screening of Alternatives
Table D-7. El
Ffectiveness Screening - Alternative 3
Effectiveness Criteria
Evaluation Summary
Overall protection of human health
and the environment
¦ A portion of contaminated materials on receiver-managed parcels would
be addressed through institutional and access controls, which restrict
access and use to these parcels since these parcels are unoccupied.
¦ A portion of contaminated materials on receiver-managed parcels and
all contaminated materials on privately owned parcels would be
addressed through in-place capping (covers) coupled with institutional
and access controls to protect the covers.
¦ Interior cleaning would be periodically performed to ensure that indoor
air is protective of human health.
¦ Land use controls would be used to restrict access and use of the
existing onsite waste repository.
¦ If disturbed, uncovered contaminated materials on receiver-managed
parcels could potentially allow continued release and migration of
asbestos fibers and non-asbestos COPCs.
¦ Disturbed fibers would potentially represent an inhalation exposure risk
to humans and ecological receptors.
¦ Monitoring would be performed to determine protectiveness of the
remedy.
Compliance with ARARs
¦ Contaminated materials capped in-place with covers would physically
address exposure to contaminants and discharges to air, thus meeting
chemical-specific ARARs.
¦ Uncovered areas of contaminated materials on receiver-managed
parcels would not physically address contaminants; thus contaminated
air may not comply with chemical-specific ARARs. Adherence to access
controls would be required to address exposure to contaminants on
receiver-managed parcels.
¦ Location- and action-specific ARARs for the remedy would be
addressed during implementation.
Short-term effectiveness (during the
remedial construction and imple-
mentation period)
¦ Surface disturbance of contaminated materials could pose short-term
risks to workers installing covers, performing interior cleaning, and
installing access controls.
¦ Safety measures such as dust suppression, use of PPE, and
establishment of work zones would protect workers and the community
during implementation.
¦ Access controls would restrict access and hence quickly protect the
community for receiver-managed parcels
¦ Transport of clean borrow materials for construction of covers would
increase traffic.
¦ Temporary relocation of residents from privately owned parcels may be
required during construction of covers and interior cleaning.
CDM
NRE_Final FS_Appendix D.doc
-------
Appendix D
Screening of Alternatives
Table D-7. Effectiveness Screening - Alternative 3 (continued)
Effectiveness Criteria
Evaluation Summary
Long-term effectiveness and
permanence (following remedial
construction)
¦ Long-term effectiveness is not entirely ensured since contaminated
materials potentially posing a risk are left exposed on site and can
continue to degrade and migrate.
¦ If disturbed, contaminated materials could allow continued release and
migration of asbestos fibers and non-asbestos COPCs to unimpacted
media (primarily soil and air).
¦ Long-term effectiveness and permanence for covered areas would be
dependent on continued integrity of the covers and adherence to
institutional and access controls. This is less certain on privately owned
parcels.
¦ Interior cleaning would not ensure long-term effectiveness within interior
of residential structures since contaminated materials would continue to
be exposed and degrade and migrate from receiver-managed parcels
and could be tracked into the structures.
¦ Long-term effectiveness of institutional controls and access controls
would not be ensured since humans and ecological receptors could
ignore them, especially on privately owned parcels.
¦ O&M activities would be periodically required to repair damage or
erosion to the covers and access controls.
¦ Monitoring would be performed to determine long-term effectiveness
and permanence of the remedy.
Reduction of toxicity, mobility, or
volume through treatment
¦ This alternative would not treat contaminated materials impacted by
asbestos fibers and non-asbestos COPCs.
Overall Rating
©
Table D-8. Implementability Screening - Alternative 3
Implementability Criteria
Evaluation Summary
Ability to construct, reliably operate,
and meet technology-specific
regulations for process options until
a remedial action is complete
¦ Construction of covers and access controls and implementation of
monitoring is relatively straightforward.
¦ Cover construction around homes or structures, trees, subsurface
utilities, and roads may be challenging at specific locations.
¦ Implementation of interior cleaning could be difficult because it would
involve temporary relocation of residents.
¦ Institutional controls may be more difficult to implement and reliably
operate, especially for privately owned parcels, due to various degrees
of contamination, types of ownership, and levels of occupancy.
Ability to operate, maintain, replace,
and monitor technical components
after the remedial action is complete
¦ Inspection, maintenance, and replacement of the cover systems on
receiver-managed parcels are relatively easy to implement. However
they may be more difficult for privately owned parcels.
¦ Inspection, maintenance, and replacement of access controls and
implementation of monitoring would be easy to implement.
¦ Implementation of periodic interior cleaning could be difficult because it
would involve temporary relocation of residents.
¦ Maintenance of institutional controls may be more difficult, especially for
privately owned parcels due to various degrees of contamination, types
of ownership, and levels of occupancy.
Ability to obtain approvals from
other agencies
¦ Regulatory approval for in-place capping of contaminated materials
using covers should be obtainable.
¦ Development of offsite borrow sources for cover materials would require
coordination and approval from the affected agency.
¦ Regulatory approvals for institutional and access controls should be
obtainable. However some difficulties may be encountered with regard
to types of restrictions, especially on privately owned parcels.
CDM
NRE_Final FS_Appendix D.doc
-------
Appendix D
Screening of Alternatives
Table D-8. Implementability Screening - Alternative 3 (continued)
Implementability Criteria
Evaluation Summary
Availability and capacity of
treatment, storage, and disposal
services
¦ This alternative does not call for any treatment, storage, and disposal
services. Thus this criterion is not applicable.
Availability of property, specific
materials and equipment, and
technical specialists required for a
remedial action
¦ The property for implementing the remedial action has already been
obtained for receiver managed parcels.
¦ Access permission at privately owned parcels for implementing the
remedial action may not be currently available, but could be obtained.
¦ Labor, equipment, and materials for cover construction are available.
¦ Suitable cover construction materials would be required from offsite
sources.
¦ Materials, equipment, and labor resources used for land use controls
and monitoring are easily obtainable.
¦ Technical equipment and specialists are available for implementation of
institutional controls and monitoring.
Overall Rating
o
Table D-9. Cost Screening - Alternative 3
Evaluation Factors for Cost
Overall Rating
Approximate Cost
(Present Value Dollars)
Present value cost
$$$
$10,130,000
CDM
NRE_Final FS_Appendix D.doc
-------
Alternative 4
Capping of Contaminated Materials and Land Use
Controls with Monitoring
-------
Appendix D
Screening of Alternatives
Table D-10. Effectiveness Screening - Alternative 4
Effectiveness Criteria
Evaluation Summary
Overall protection of human health and
the environment
¦ All contaminated materials on receiver-managed and privately owned
parcels would be addressed through in-place capping (covers)
coupled with institutional and access controls to protect the covers.
¦ Land use controls would be used to restrict access and use of the
existing onsite waste repository.
¦ Monitoring would be performed to determine protectiveness of the
remedy.
Compliance with ARARs
¦ Contaminated materials capped in-place with covers would physically
address exposure to contaminants and discharges to air, thus
meeting chemical-specific ARARs.
¦ Location- and action-specific ARARs for the remedy would be
addressed during implementation.
Short-term effectiveness (during the
remedial construction and imple-
mentation period)
¦ Surface disturbance of contaminated materials could pose short-term
risks to workers installing covers.
¦ Safety measures such as dust suppression, use of PPE, and
establishment of work zones would protect workers and the
community during implementation.
¦ Transport of clean borrow materials for construction of covers would
increase traffic.
¦ Temporary relocation of residents from privately owned parcels may
be required during construction of covers.
Long-term effectiveness and
permanence (following remedial
construction)
¦ Long-term effectiveness and permanence for covered areas is
dependent on continued integrity of the covers and adherence to
institutional and access controls. This is less certain on privately
owned parcels.
¦ Long-term effectiveness of institutional controls and access controls
would not be ensured since humans and ecological receptors could
ignore them, especially on privately owned parcels.
¦ O&M activities would be periodically required to repair damage or
erosion to the covers and access controls.
¦ Monitoring would be performed to determine long-term effectiveness
and permanence of the remedy.
Reduction of toxicity, mobility, or
volume through treatment
¦ This alternative would not treat contaminated materials.
Overall Rating
©
CDM
NRE_Final FS_Appendix D.doc
-------
Appendix D
Screening of Alternatives
Table D-11. Implementability Screening - Alternative 4
Implementability Criteria
Evaluation Summary
Ability to construct, reliably operate,
and meet technology-specific
regulations for process options until a
remedial action is complete
¦ Construction of covers and access controls and implementation of
monitoring is relatively straightforward. However, the larger area of
cover construction and the related increase in cover materials
required than for Alternative 3 could be problematic.
¦ Cover construction around homes or structures, trees, subsurface
utilities, and roads may be challenging at specific locations.
¦ Institutional controls may be more difficult to implement and reliably
operate, especially for privately owned parcels, due to various
degrees of contamination, types of ownership, and levels of
occupancy.
Ability to operate, maintain, replace,
and monitor technical components
after the remedial action is complete
¦ Inspection, maintenance, and replacement of the cover systems on
receiver-managed parcels are relatively easy to implement. However,
they may be more difficult for privately owned parcels.
¦ Inspection, maintenance, and replacement of access controls and
implementation of monitoring would be easy to implement.
¦ Maintenance of institutional controls may be more difficult, especially
for privately owned parcels due to various degrees of contamination,
types of ownership and levels of occupancy
Ability to obtain approvals from other
agencies
¦ Regulatory approval for in-place capping of contaminated materials
using covers should be obtainable.
¦ Development of offsite borrow sources for cover materials would
require coordination and approval from the affected agency.
¦ Regulatory approvals for monitoring should be obtainable.
¦ Regulatory approvals for institutional and access controls should be
obtainable. However, some difficulties may be encountered with
regard to types of restrictions, especially on privately owned parcels.
Availability and capacity of treatment,
storage, and disposal services
¦ This alternative does not call for any treatment, storage and disposal
services. Thus this criterion is not applicable.
Availability of property, specific
materials and equipment, and
technical specialists required for a
remedial action
¦ The property for implementing the remedial action has already been
obtained for receiver-managed parcels.
¦ Access permission at privately owned parcels for implementing the
remedial action may not be currently available, but could be obtained.
¦ Labor, equipment, and materials for cover construction are available.
¦ Suitable cover construction materials would be required from offsite
sources.
¦ Materials, equipment, and labor resources used for land use controls
and monitoring are easily obtainable.
¦ Technical equipment and specialists are available for implementation
of institutional controls and monitoring.
Overall Rating
©
Table D-12. Cost Screening - Alternative 4
Evaluation Factors for Cost
Overall Rating
Approximate Cost
(Present Value Dollars)
Present value cost
$$$
$14,060,000
CDM
NRE_Final FS_Appendix D.doc
-------
Alternative 5a
Excavation and Onsite Consolidation/Disposal of
Contaminated Surface Materials, Future Excavation and
Offsite Disposal of Contaminated Surface Materials at
Permitted Facilities, and Land Use Controls with Monitoring
-------
Appendix D
Screening of Alternatives
Table D-13. El
Ffectiveness Screening - Alternative 5a
Effectiveness Criteria
Evaluation Summary
Overall protection of human health
and the environment
¦ All contaminated surface materials on receiver-managed parcels and
privately owned parcels would be initially addressed through surface
excavation and consolidation at onsite disposal locations.
¦ Contaminated materials exposed in the future due to freeze-thaw cycles
would be periodically excavated (through future surface inspections and
pickup) and would be disposed of off site at permitted disposal facilities
authorized for asbestos.
¦ Covers constructed over onsite disposal locations would address
exposure to contaminated materials and prevent migration through frost
heave processes.
¦ Land use controls would be used to restrict access and use of the
existing and new onsite disposal locations.
¦ Backfill placed over excavations would initially address exposure to
subsurface contaminated materials. However, frost heave processes
may cause subsurface contaminated materials to become exposed at
the surface.
¦ Contaminated materials could continue to migrate during freeze-thaw
cycles and exposures could occur prior to periodic future excavations
being completed.
¦ Monitoring would be performed to determine protectiveness of the
remedy.
Compliance with ARARs
¦ Contaminated materials excavated and disposed of off site would
physically address exposure to contaminants and discharges to air, thus
meeting chemical-specific ARARs.
¦ Contaminated materials capped with covers would physically address
exposure to contaminants and discharges to air, thus meeting chemical-
specific ARARs.
¦ Backfill covering subsurface contaminated materials would initially
address exposure to contaminants and discharges to air, thus meeting
chemical-specific ARARs. However, long-term compliance is less
certain due to frost heave processes.
¦ Location- and action-specific ARARs for the remedy would be
addressed during implementation.
Short-term effectiveness (during the
remedial construction and imple-
mentation period)
¦ Excavation and relocation of contaminated materials could pose short-
term risks to workers.
¦ Surface disturbance of contaminated materials could pose short-term
risks to workers installing covers over consolidated materials and
backfill in excavations.
¦ Safety measures such as dust suppression, use of PPE, and
establishment of work zones would protect workers and the community
during implementation.
¦ Transport of clean borrow materials for construction of covers and
backfilling excavations would increase traffic.
¦ Temporary relocation of residents from privately owned parcels may be
required during construction.
CDM
NRE_Final FS_Appendix D.doc
-------
Appendix D
Screening of Alternatives
Table D-13. Effectiveness Screening - Alternative 5a (continued)
Effectiveness Criteria
Evaluation Summary
Long-term effectiveness and
permanence (following remedial
construction)
¦ Long-term effectiveness and permanence for parcels containing
subsurface contaminated materials is addressed through initial surface
excavation with onsite consolidation, disposal, and backfilling with clean
soil followed by periodic future excavation and offsite disposal of
contaminated materials that migrate to the surface during freeze-thaw
cycles.
¦ Long-term effectiveness and permanence for covered and backfilled
areas would be dependent on continued integrity of the covers and
backfill and adherence to institutional and access controls. This is less
certain on privately owned parcels.
¦ Long-term effectiveness of institutional controls and access controls is
not ensured since humans and ecological receptors could ignore them,
especially on privately owned parcels.
¦ Long-term effectiveness is not entirely ensured since subsurface
contaminated materials potentially posing a risk would be left in
backfilled excavations.
¦ Contaminated materials would continue to migrate to the surface during
freeze-thaw cycles, although the volume of contaminated materials
should decrease overtime.
¦ O&M activities would be periodically required to repair damage or
erosion to the covers and access controls.
¦ Long-term effectiveness of institutional controls is not ensured,
especially on privately owned parcels.
¦ Monitoring would be performed to determine long-term effectiveness
and permanence of the remedy.
Reduction of toxicity, mobility, or
volume through treatment
¦ This alternative would not treat contaminated materials.
Overall Rating
©
Table D-14. Implementability Screening - Alternative 5a
Implementability Criteria
Evaluation Summary
Ability to construct, reliably operate,
and meet technology-specific
regulations for process options until
a remedial action is complete
¦ Excavation and consolidation of all contaminated surface materials at
authorized onsite disposal locations and backfilling excavations with
clean soil is relatively straightforward.
¦ Excavation and backfilling around homes or structures, trees,
subsurface utilities, and roads may be challenging at specific locations.
¦ Construction of the onsite disposal facilities would require coordination
during the excavation of contaminated materials from parcels.
¦ Future excavation events would likely be needed for a long period of
time.
¦ Future excavation events should be straightforward, although difficulties
may exist for implementation on privately owned parcels.
¦ Offsite disposal of contaminated materials during periodic future
excavation events at permitted disposal facilities is relatively
straightforward.
¦ Excavated contaminated materials require transportation to offsite
disposal facilities in specialized enclosed trucks.
¦ Special management procedures may be required for disposal at the
permitted facilities.
¦ Construction of access controls around onsite disposal locations and
implementation of monitoring is relatively straightforward.
¦ Institutional controls may be more difficult to implement and reliably
operate, especially for privately owned parcels, due to various degrees
of contamination, types of ownership, and levels of occupancy.
CDM
NRE_Final FS_Appendix D.doc
-------
Appendix D
Screening of Alternatives
Table D-14. Implementability Screening - Alternative 5a (continued)
Implementability Criteria
Evaluation Summary
Ability to operate, maintain, replace,
and monitor technical components
after the remedial action is complete
¦ Periodic monitoring and future excavation of contaminated materials
across the site would be a continuous process.
¦ Inspection, maintenance, and replacement of the cover systems over
the onsite disposal facilities would be relatively easy to implement.
¦ Inspection, maintenance, and replacement of access controls and
implementation of monitoring would be easy to implement.
¦ Maintenance of institutional controls may be more difficult, especially for
privately owned parcels due to various degrees of contamination, types
of ownership, and levels of occupancy.
Ability to obtain approvals from
other agencies
¦ Regulatory approval needed for excavations and to construct onsite
disposal facilities should be obtainable.
¦ Development of offsite borrow sources for backfill would require
coordination and approval from the affected agency.
¦ Regulatory approvals for future excavation events should be obtainable,
although difficulties may exist with the privately owned parcels.
¦ Regulatory and facility approval for offsite disposal at permitted disposal
facilities should be obtainable.
¦ Regulatory approvals for monitoring should be obtainable.
¦ Regulatory approvals for institutional and access controls should be
obtainable. However, some difficulties may be encountered with regard
to types of restrictions, especially on privately owned parcels.
Availability and capacity of
treatment, storage, and disposal
services
¦ Permitted disposal facilities authorized for asbestos are available within
the State of Oregon. However, most facilities are somewhat distant from
the site.
¦ The offsite permitted disposal facilities should have sufficient capacity to
accept contaminated materials for disposal; the volume of contaminated
materials for offsite disposal in this alternative should be relatively small.
Availability of property, specific
materials and equipment, and
technical specialists required for a
remedial action
¦ The property for implementing the remedial action has already been
obtained for receiver-managed parcels.
¦ Access permission at privately owned parcels for implementing the
remedial action may not be currently available, but could be obtained.
¦ Labor, equipment, and materials for contaminated materials excavation,
cover construction, and clean soil backfilling are available.
¦ Suitable cover and backfill materials would be required from offsite
sources.
¦ Materials, equipment, and labor resources used for land use controls
and monitoring are easily obtainable
¦ Technical equipment and specialists are available for implementation of
institutional controls and monitoring.
Overall Rating
©
Table D-15. Cost Screening - Alternative 5a
Evaluation Factors for Cost
Overall Rating
Approximate Cost
(Present Value Dollars)
Present value cost
$$$
$10,460,000
CDM
NRE_Final FS_Appendix D.doc
-------
Alternative 5b
Excavation and Onsite Consolidation/Disposal of
Contaminated Materials, and Land Use Controls
with Monitoring
-------
Appendix D
Screening of Alternatives
Table D-1
5. Effectiveness Screening - Alternative 5b
Effectiveness Criteria
Evaluation Summary
Overall protection of human
health and the environment
¦ All contaminated materials on receiver-managed parcels and privately owned
parcels would be addressed through excavation and consolidation at onsite
disposal locations.
¦ Covers constructed over onsite disposal locations would address exposure to
contaminated materials and prevent migration through frost heave processes.
¦ Land use controls would be used to restrict access and use of the existing
and new onsite disposal locations.
¦ Backfill placed over excavations would address exposure to asbestos fibers.
However, frost heave processes may cause residual contaminated materials
to become exposed at the surface.
¦ Residual contaminated materials could continue to migrate during freeze-
thaw cycles and exposures could occur.
¦ Monitoring would be performed to determine protectiveness of the remedy.
Compliance with ARARs
¦ Contaminated materials capped with covers would physically address
exposure to contaminants and discharges to air, thus meeting chemical-
specific ARARs.
¦ Backfill covering residual contaminated materials would initially address
exposure to contaminants and discharges to air, thus meeting chemical-
specific ARARs. However, long-term compliance is less certain due to frost
heave processes.
¦ Location- and action-specific ARARs for the remedy would be addressed
during implementation.
Short-term effectiveness
(during the remedial
construction and imple-
mentation period)
¦ Excavation and relocation of contaminated materials could pose short-term
risks to workers.
¦ Surface disturbance of contaminated materials could pose short-term risks to
workers installing covers over consolidated materials and backfill in
excavations.
¦ Safety measures such as dust suppression, use of PPE, and establishment of
work zones would protect workers and the community during implementation.
¦ Transport of clean borrow materials for construction of covers and backfilling
excavations would increase traffic.
¦ Temporary relocation of residents from privately owned parcels may be
required during construction.
Long-term effectiveness and
permanence (following
remedial construction)
¦ Long-term effectiveness and permanence for parcels containing
contaminated materials is addressed through excavation of contaminated
materials with onsite consolidation and disposal and backfilling with clean soil.
¦ Long-term effectiveness and permanence for covered and backfilled areas
would be dependent on continued integrity of the covers and backfill and
adherence to institutional and access controls. This is less certain on
privately-owned parcels.
¦ Long-term effectiveness of institutional controls and access controls is not
ensured since humans and ecological receptors could ignore them, especially
on privately owned parcels.
¦ Long-term effectiveness is not entirely ensured since residual contaminated
materials potentially posing a risk are left in backfilled excavations.
¦ Residual contaminated materials could continue to migrate to the surface
during freeze-thaw cycles, although the volume of contaminated materials
should decrease overtime.
¦ O&M activities would be periodically required to repair damage or erosion to
the covers and access controls.
¦ Long-term effectiveness of institutional controls is not ensured, especially on
privately owned parcels.
¦ Monitoring would be performed to determine long-term effectiveness and
permanence of the remedy.
Reduction of toxicity, mobility,
or volume through treatment
¦ This alternative would not treat contaminated materials.
Overall Rating
©
CDM
NRE_Final FS_Appendix D.doc
-------
Appendix D
Screening of Alternatives
Table D-17. Implementability Screening - Alternative 5b
Implementability Criteria
Evaluation Summary
Ability to construct, reliably operate,
and meet technology-specific
regulations for process options until a
remedial action is complete
¦ Excavation and consolidation of all contaminated materials at
authorized onsite disposal locations and backfilling excavations with
clean soil is relatively straightforward.
¦ Excavation and backfilling around homes or structures, trees,
subsurface utilities, and roads may be challenging at specific
locations.
¦ Construction of the onsite disposal facilities would require
coordination during the excavation of contaminated materials from
parcels.
¦ Construction of access controls around onsite disposal locations and
implementation of monitoring is relatively straightforward.
¦ Institutional controls may be more difficult to implement and reliably
operate, especially for privately owned parcels, due to various
degrees of contamination, types of ownership, and levels of
occupancy.
Ability to operate, maintain, replace,
and monitor technical components
after the remedial action is complete
¦ Inspection, maintenance, and replacement of the cover systems over
the onsite disposal facilities would be relatively easy to implement.
¦ Inspection, maintenance, and replacement of access controls and
implementation of monitoring would be easy to implement.
¦ Maintenance of institutional controls may be more difficult, especially
for privately owned parcels, due to various degrees of contamination,
types of ownership, and levels of occupancy
Ability to obtain approvals from other
agencies
¦ Regulatory approval needed for excavations and to construct onsite
disposal facilities should be obtainable.
¦ Development of offsite borrow sources for backfill would require
coordination and approval from the affected agency.
¦ Regulatory approvals for monitoring should be obtainable.
¦ Regulatory approvals for institutional and access controls should be
obtainable. However, some difficulties may be encountered with
regard to types of restrictions, especially on privately owned parcels.
Availability and capacity of treatment,
storage, and disposal services
¦ This alternative does not call for any treatment, storage and disposal
services. Thus this criterion is not applicable.
Availability of property, specific
materials and equipment, and
technical specialists required for a
remedial action
¦ The property for implementing the remedial action has already been
obtained for receiver-managed parcels.
¦ Access permission at privately owned parcels for implementing the
remedial action may not be currently available, but could be obtained.
¦ Labor, equipment, and materials for contaminated materials
excavation, cover construction, and clean soil backfilling are
available.
¦ Suitable cover and backfill materials would be required from offsite
sources.
¦ Materials, equipment, and labor resources used for land use controls
and monitoring are easily obtainable.
¦ Technical equipment and specialists are available for implementation
of institutional controls and monitoring.
Overall Rating
©
Table D-18. Cost Screening - Alternative 5b
Evaluation Factors for Cost
Overall Rating
Approximate Cost
(Present Value Dollars)
Present value cost
$$$
$14,070,000
CDM
NRE_Final FS_Appendix D.doc
-------
Alternative 6
Excavation and Offsite Disposal of Contaminated Materials at
Permitted Facilities, and Land Use Controls with Monitoring
-------
Appendix D
Screening of Alternatives
Table D-19. Effectiveness Screening - Alternative 6
Effectiveness Criteria
Evaluation Summary
Overall protection of human health and
the environment
¦ All contaminated materials (surface and subsurface) on receiver-
managed parcels and privately owned parcels would be addressed
through excavation and offsite disposal at permitted facilities
authorized for asbestos.
¦ Covers constructed over the existing waste repository would address
exposure to contaminated materials and prevent migration through
frost heave processes.
¦ Land use controls would be used to restrict access and use of the
existing onsite waste repository.
¦ Backfill placed over excavations would address exposure to asbestos
fibers. However, frost heave processes may cause residual
contaminated materials to become exposed at the surface.
¦ Residual contaminated materials could continue to migrate during
freeze-thaw cycles and exposures could occur.
¦ Monitoring would be performed to determine protectiveness of the
remedy.
Compliance with ARARs
¦ Contaminated materials excavated and disposed of off site would
physically address exposure to contaminants and discharges to air,
thus meeting chemical-specific ARARs.
¦ Contaminated materials capped with covers would physically address
exposure to contaminants and discharges to air, thus meeting
chemical-specific ARARs.
¦ Backfill covering residual contaminated materials would initially
address exposure to contaminants and discharges to air, thus
meeting chemical-specific ARARs. However, long-term compliance is
less certain due to frost heave processes.
¦ Location- and action-specific ARARs for the remedy would be
addressed during implementation.
Short-term effectiveness (during the
remedial construction and imple-
mentation period)
¦ Excavation and offsite disposal of contaminated materials could pose
short-term risks to workers.
¦ Surface disturbance of contaminated materials could pose short-term
risks to workers installing covers over consolidated materials and
backfill in excavations.
¦ There would be significant impacts to the community under this
alternative, as additional truck traffic would be required for complete
offsite disposal of contaminated materials as well as transport of
backfill soils.
¦ Safety measures such as dust suppression, use of PPE, and
establishment of work zones would protect workers and the
community during implementation.
¦ Temporary relocation of residents from privately owned parcels may
be required during construction.
CDM
NRE_Final FS_Appendix D.doc
-------
Appendix D
Screening of Alternatives
Table D-19. Effectiveness Screening - Alternative 6 (continued)
Effectiveness Criteria
Evaluation Summary
Long-term effectiveness and
permanence (following remedial
construction)
¦ Long-term effectiveness and permanence for parcels containing
contaminated materials is addressed through excavation of
contaminated materials with offsite disposal at permitted facilities and
backfilling with clean soil.
¦ Long-term effectiveness and permanence for covered and backfilled
areas would be dependent on continued integrity of the covers and
backfill and adherence to institutional and access controls. This is
less certain on privately owned parcels.
¦ Long-term effectiveness of institutional controls and access controls
would not be ensured since humans and ecological receptors could
ignore them, especially on privately owned parcels.
¦ Long-term effectiveness would not be entirely ensured since residual
contaminated materials potentially posing a risk would be left in
backfilled excavations.
¦ Residual contaminated materials could continue to migrate to the
surface during freeze-thaw cycles, although the volume of
contaminated materials should decrease overtime.
¦ O&M activities would be periodically required to repair damage or
erosion to the covers and access controls.
¦ Long-term effectiveness of institutional controls would not be
ensured, especially on privately owned parcels.
¦ Monitoring would be performed to determine long-term effectiveness
and permanence of the remedy.
Reduction of toxicity, mobility, or
volume through treatment
¦ This alternative would not treat contaminated materials.
Overall Rating
o
Table D-20. Implementability Screening - Alternative 6
Implementability Criteria
Evaluation Summary
Ability to construct, reliably operate,
and meet technology-specific
regulations for process options until a
remedial action is complete
¦ Excavation and offsite disposal of all contaminated materials at
permitted disposal facilities and backfilling excavations with clean soil
is relatively straightforward. However the larger volume of materials
removed than for Alternative 5b and the need to coordinate traffic for
both offsite disposal and borrow soil delivery could be problematic.
¦ Excavated contaminated materials require transportation to offsite
disposal facilities in specialized enclosed trucks.
¦ Special management procedures may be required for disposal at the
permitted facilities.
¦ Excavation and backfilling around homes or structures, trees,
subsurface utilities, and roads may be challenging at specific
locations.
¦ Construction of access controls around the onsite waste repository
and implementation of monitoring is relatively straightforward.
¦ Institutional controls may be more difficult to implement and reliably
operate, especially for privately owned parcels, due to various
degrees of contamination, types of ownership, and levels of
occupancy.
Ability to operate, maintain, replace,
and monitor technical components
after the remedial action is complete
¦ Inspection, maintenance, and replacement of the cover systems on
the existing waste repository would be relatively easy to implement.
¦ Inspection, maintenance, and replacement of access controls and
implementation of monitoring would be easy to implement.
¦ Maintenance of institutional controls may be more difficult, especially
for privately owned parcels due to various degrees of contamination,
types of ownership, and levels of occupancy.
CDM
NRE_Final FS_Appendix D.doc
-------
Appendix D
Screening of Alternatives
Table D-20. Implemenl
tability Screening - Alternative 6 (continued)
Implementability Criteria
Evaluation Summary
Ability to obtain approvals from other
agencies
¦ Regulatory approval needed to excavate and transport contaminated
materials should be obtainable.
¦ Regulatory and facility approval for offsite disposal at permitted
disposal facilities should be obtainable.
¦ Development of offsite borrow sources for covers and backfill would
require coordination and approval from the affected agency.
¦ Regulatory approvals for monitoring should be obtainable.
¦ Regulatory approvals for institutional and access controls should be
obtainable. However, some difficulties may be encountered with
regard to types of restrictions, especially on privately owned parcels.
Availability and capacity of treatment,
storage, and disposal services
¦ Permitted disposal facilities authorized for asbestos are available
within the State of Oregon. However, most facilities are somewhat
distant from the site.
¦ Many of the permitted disposal facilities may not have sufficient
capacity to accept all of the contaminated materials for disposal. Use
of multiple permitted disposal facilities may be required.
Availability of property, specific
materials and equipment, and
technical specialists required for a
remedial action
¦ The property for implementing the remedial action has already been
obtained for receiver-managed parcels.
¦ Access permission at privately owned parcels for implementing the
remedial action may not be currently available, but could be obtained.
¦ Labor, equipment, and materials for contaminated materials
excavation, cover construction, and clean soil backfilling are
available.
¦ Suitable cover and backfill materials would be required from offsite
sources. However, significant volumes of clean borrow may be
required compared to other alternatives.
¦ Materials, equipment, and labor resources used for land use controls
and monitoring are easily obtainable.
¦ Technical equipment and specialists are available for implementation
of institutional controls and monitoring.
Overall Rating
©
Table D-21. Cost Screening - Alternative 6
Evaluation Factors for Cost
Overall Rating
Approximate Cost
(Present Value Dollars)
Present value cost
^ ^ ^ ^ ^
$29,890,000
CDM
NRE_Final FS_Appendix D.doc
-------
Alternative 7
Excavation and Offsite Thermo-Chemical Treatment of
Contaminated Materials at Permitted Facilities, Reuse of
Treated Material, and Land Use Controls with Monitoring
-------
Appendix D
Screening of Alternatives
Table D-22. Effectiveness Screening - Alternative 7
Effectiveness Criteria
Evaluation Summary
Overall protection of human health and
the environment
¦ All contaminated materials (surface and subsurface) on receiver-
managed parcels and privately owned parcels would be addressed
through excavation and offsite treatment at a permitted thermo-
chemical treatment facility.
¦ Asbestos within contaminated materials would be converted to an
inert form that does not pose human health risks.
¦ Covers constructed over the existing waste repository would address
exposure to contaminated materials and prevent migration through
frost heave processes.
¦ Land use controls would be used to restrict access and use of the
existing waste repository.
¦ Backfill placed over excavations would address exposure to asbestos
fibers. However, frost heave processes may cause residual
contaminated materials to become exposed at the surface.
¦ Residual contaminated materials could continue to migrate during
freeze-thaw cycles and exposures could occur.
¦ Monitoring would be performed to determine protectiveness of the
remedy.
Compliance with ARARs
¦ Contaminated materials removed and treated off site would physically
address exposure to contaminants and discharges to air, thus
meeting chemical-specific ARARs.
¦ Contaminated materials capped with covers would physically address
exposure to contaminants and discharges to air, thus meeting
chemical-specific ARARs.
¦ Backfill covering residual contaminated materials would initially
address exposure to contaminants and discharges to air, thus
meeting chemical-specific ARARs. However, long-term compliance is
less certain due to frost heave processes.
¦ Location- and action-specific ARARs for the remedy would be
addressed during implementation.
Short-term effectiveness (during the
remedial construction and imple-
mentation period)
¦ Excavation and offsite disposal of contaminated materials could pose
short-term risks to workers.
¦ Surface disturbance of contaminated materials could pose short-term
risks to workers installing covers over consolidated materials and
backfill in excavations.
¦ There would be significant impacts to the community under this
alternative, as additional truck traffic would be required for complete
offsite treatment of contaminated materials as well as transport of
treated material and backfill soils.
¦ Safety measures such as dust suppression, use of PPE, and
establishment of work zones would protect workers and the
community during implementation.
¦ Temporary relocation of residents from privately owned parcels may
be required during construction.
-------
Appendix D
Screening of Alternatives
Table D-22. Effectiveness Screening - Alternative 7(continued)
Effectiveness Criteria
Evaluation Summary
Long-term effectiveness and
permanence (following remedial
construction)
¦ Long-term effectiveness and permanence for parcels containing
contaminated materials would be addressed through excavation of
contaminated materials with offsite treatment at a permitted thermo-
chemical treatment facility and backfilling with inert treated material
and clean soil.
¦ While studies provided by ARI indicate that the treatment process
completely converts ACM to an inert form, the treatment process is
relatively new and there are not extensive data indicating whether the
treatment process has long-term effectiveness and permanence.
¦ The treatment process may not be capable of treating non-asbestos
COPCs.
¦ Long-term effectiveness and permanence for covered and backfilled
areas would be dependent on continued integrity of the covers and
backfill and adherence to institutional and access controls. This is
less certain on privately owned parcels.
¦ Long-term effectiveness of institutional controls and access controls
would not be ensured since human and ecological receptors could
ignore them, especially on privately owned parcels.
¦ Long-term effectiveness would not be entirely ensured since residual
contaminated materials potentially posing a risk are left in backfilled
excavations.
¦ Residual contaminated materials could continue to migrate to the
surface during freeze-thaw cycles, although the volume of
contaminated materials should decrease overtime.
¦ O&M activities would be periodically required to repair damage or
erosion to the covers and access controls.
¦ Long-term effectiveness of institutional controls would not be
ensured, especially on privately owned parcels.
¦ Monitoring would be performed to determine long-term effectiveness
and permanence of the remedy.
Reduction of toxicity, mobility, or
volume through treatment
¦ This alternative involves treatment, which transforms ACM to an
amorphous inert form. Thus toxicity and mobility of asbestos fibers
would be eliminated.
¦ Significant volume reduction of ACM would be achieved through
treatment, while volume reduction of associated soils would be
limited.
Overall Rating
@
CDM
NRE_Final FS_Appendix D.doc
-------
Table D-23. Im
Appendix D
Screening of Alternatives
plementability Screening - Alternative 7
Implementability Criteria
Evaluation Summary
Ability to construct, reliably operate,
and meet technology-specific
regulations for process options until
a remedial action is complete
¦ Excavation and offsite treatment of contaminated materials at a
permitted thermo-chemical treatment facility and backfilling excavations
with inert treated material and clean soil would be relatively
straightforward. However, the larger volume of materials removed than
for Alternative 5b and the need to coordinate traffic for both offsite
treatment and borrow soil/treated material delivery could be
problematic.
¦ Excavated contaminated materials require transportation to the offsite
treatment facility in specialized enclosed trucks.
¦ The treatment process (TCCT) is a patented technology and is
commercially available but not widespread.
¦ The treatment process may require size reduction of larger ACM.
¦ The treatment process may not be capable of treating non-asbestos
COPCs.
¦ Excavation and backfilling around homes or structures, trees,
subsurface utilities, and roads may be challenging at specific locations.
¦ Construction of access controls around the onsite waste repository and
implementation of monitoring is relatively straightforward.
¦ Institutional controls may be more difficult to implement and reliably
operate, especially for privately owned parcels, due to various degrees
of contamination, types of ownership, and levels of occupancy.
Ability to operate, maintain, replace,
and monitor technical components
after the remedial action is complete
¦ Inspection, maintenance, and replacement of the cover systems on the
existing waste repository are relatively easy to implement.
¦ Inspection, maintenance, and replacement of access controls and
implementation of monitoring are easy to implement.
¦ Maintenance of institutional controls may be more difficult, especially for
privately owned parcels due to various degrees of contamination, types
of ownership, and levels of occupancy.
Ability to obtain approvals from
other agencies
¦ This technology is permitted and regulated in Washington State, so the
required regulatory approval should be obtainable.
¦ Regulatory approval needed to excavate and transport contaminated
materials should be obtainable.
¦ Regulatory approval for use of treated material as backfill material my
be problematic, depending on Oregon DEQ classification of the treated
material.
¦ Development of offsite borrow sources for covers and backfill would
require coordination and approval from the affected agency.
¦ Regulatory approvals for monitoring should be obtainable.
¦ Regulatory approvals for institutional and access controls should be
obtainable. However, some difficulties may be encountered with regard
to types of restrictions, especially on privately owned parcels.
Availability and capacity of
treatment, storage, and disposal
services
¦ The treatment process (TCCT) is a patented technology and is
commercially available but not widespread.
¦ The treatment capacity of depends upon the size of the offsite treatment
facility; in general the capacity is relatively small compared to the
volume of contaminated materials that would be generated from the
site.
CDM
NRE_Final FS_Appendix D.doc
-------
Appendix D
Screening of Alternatives
Table D-23. Implementability Screening - Alternative 7 (continued)
Implementability Criteria
Evaluation Summary
Availability of property, specific
materials and equipment, and
technical specialists required for a
remedial action
¦ The property for implementing the remedial action has already been
obtained for receiver-managed parcels.
¦ Access permission at privately- owned parcels for implementing the
remedial action may not be currently available, but could be obtained.
¦ Labor, equipment, and materials for contaminated materials excavation.
Cover construction, and clean soil backfilling are available.
¦ Suitable cover and backfill materials would be required from offsite
sources.
¦ Materials, equipment, and labor resources used for land use controls
and monitoring are easily obtainable.
¦ Technical equipment and specialists for implementation of thermo-
chemical treatment are fairly limited in the United States.
¦ Technical equipment and specialists are available for implementation of
institutional controls and monitoring.
Overall Rating
o
Table D-24. Cost Screening - Alternative 7
Evaluation Factors for Cost
Overall Rating
Approximate Cost
(Present Value Dollars)
Present value cost
^ ^ ^ ^ ^
$129,270,000
CDM
NRE_Final FS_Appendix D.doc
-------
Appendix E
Alternative Screening Cost Information
-------
The cost spreadsheets included in this appendix were developed in accordance
with EPA 540-R-00-002 (OSWER 9355.0-75) July 2000.
These costs should be used to compare alternative relative costs. Costs for
project management, remedial design, and construction management were
determined as percentages of capital cost per the guidance. Costs for these work
items may not reflect costs for implementation. These costs are determined
based on specific client requirements during implementation.
-------
Present Value Analyses
-------
TABLE SPV-ADRFT
PRESENT VALUE ANALYSIS
(Annual Discount Rate Factors Table
Site:
Location:
Phase:
Base Year:
North Ridge Estates
Klamath County, Oregon
Final Feasibility Study
2010
|Discount Rate (Percent):
7.0
Year
Discount Factor1'2
Year
Discount Factor1'2
0
1.0000
26
0.1722
1
0.9346
27
0.1609
2
0.8734
28
0.1504
3
0.8163
29
0.1406
4
0.7629
30
0.1314
5
0.7130
31
0.1228
6
0.6663
32
0.1147
7
0.6227
33
0.1072
8
0.5820
34
0.1002
9
0.5439
35
0.0937
10
0.5083
36
0.0875
11
0.4751
37
0.0818
12
0.4440
38
0.0765
13
0.4150
39
0.0715
14
0.3878
40
0.0668
15
0.3624
41
0.0624
16
0.3387
42
0.0583
17
0.3166
43
0.0545
18
0.2959
44
0.0509
19
0.2765
45
0.0476
20
0.2584
46
0.0445
21
0.2415
47
0.0416
22
0.2257
48
0.0389
23
0.2109
49
0.0363
24
0.1971
50
0.0339
25
Notes:
1 Annual discount factors were calculated using the formulas and guidance presented in Section 4.0 o
"A Guide to Developing and Documenting Cost Estimates During the Feasibility Study", EPA 2000.
2 The real discount rate of 7.0% was obtained from "A Guide to Developing and Documenting Cost
Estimates During the Feasibility Study", EPA 2000, Page 4-5.
FINAL
Page 1 of 27
-------
TABLE SPV-1
PRESENT VALUE ANALYSIS
Alternative
No Action
1
Site:
Location:
Phase:
Base Year:
North Ridge Estates
Klamath County, Oregon
Final Feasibility Study
2010
Year1
Capital Costs2
Periodic Costs
(Five-Year Site
Reviews)
Total Annual
Expenditure3
Discount Factor
(7.0%)
Present Value4
0
$0
$0
$0
1.0000
$0
1
$0
$0
$0
0.9346
$0
2
$0
$0
$0
0.8734
$0
3
$0
$0
$0
0.8163
$0
4
$0
$0
$0
0.7629
$0
5
$0
$90,000
$90,000
0.7130
$64,170
6
$0
$0
$0
0.6663
$0
7
$0
$0
$0
0.6227
$0
8
$0
$0
$0
0.5820
$0
9
$0
$0
$0
0.5439
$0
10
$0
$90,000
$90,000
0.5083
$45,747
11
$0
$0
$0
0.4751
$0
12
$0
$0
$0
0.4440
$0
13
$0
$0
$0
0.4150
$0
14
$0
$0
$0
0.3878
$0
15
$0
$90,000
$90,000
0.3624
$32,616
16
$0
$0
$0
0.3387
$0
17
$0
$0
$0
0.3166
$0
18
$0
$0
$0
0.2959
$0
19
$0
$0
$0
0.2765
$0
20
$0
$90,000
$90,000
0.2584
$23,256
21
$0
$0
$0
0.2415
$0
22
$0
$0
$0
0.2257
$0
23
$0
$0
$0
0.2109
$0
24
$0
$0
$0
0.1971
$0
25
$0
$90,000
$90,000
0.1842
$16,578
26
$0
$0
$0
0.1722
$0
27
$0
$0
$0
0.1609
$0
28
$0
$0
$0
0.1504
$0
29
$0
$0
$0
0.1406
$0
30
$0
$90,000
$90,000
0.1314
$11,826
TOTALS:
$0
$540,000
$540,000
$194,193
TOTAL PRESENT VALUE OF ALTERNATIVE f
$190,000
Notes:
1 Duration is assumed to be 31 years (Years 0 through 30) for present value analysis.
2 Capital costs, for purposes of this analysis, are assumed to be distributed as indicated on Table SCS-1.
3 Total annual expenditure is the total cost per year with no discounting.
4 Present value is the total cost per year including a 7.0% discount factor for that year. See Table SPV-ADRIFT for c
5 Total present value is rounded to the nearest $10,000. Inflation and depreciation are excluded from the present va
FINAL
Page 2 of 27
-------
TABLE SPV-2
PRESENT VALUE ANALYSIS
Alternative 2
Interior Cleaning and Land Use Controls with Monitorini
Site: North Ridge Estates
Location: Klamath County, Oregon
Phase: Final Feasibility Study
Base Year: 2010
Year1
Capital Costs
(Land Use
Controls)2
Annual O&M
Costs (Access
Controls)
Periodic Costs
(Interior House
Cleanings and Five-
Year Site Reviews)
Total Annual
Expenditure3
Discount Factor
(7.0%)
Present Value4
0
$0
$0
$0
$0
1.0000
$0
1
$1,066,000
$15,000
$0
$1,081,000
0.9346
$1,010,303
2
$0
$15,000
$0
$15,000
0.8734
$13,101
3
$0
$15,000
$0
$15,000
0.8163
$12,245
4
$0
$15,000
$0
$15,000
0.7629
$11,444
5
$0
$15,000
$150,000
$165,000
0.7130
$117,645
6
$0
$15,000
$0
$15,000
0.6663
$9,995
7
$0
$15,000
$0
$15,000
0.6227
$9,341
8
$0
$15,000
$0
$15,000
0.5820
$8,730
9
$0
$15,000
$0
$15,000
0.5439
$8,159
10
$0
$15,000
$1,014,000
$1,029,000
0.5083
$523,041
11
$0
$15,000
$0
$15,000
0.4751
$7,127
12
$0
$15,000
$0
$15,000
0.4440
$6,660
13
$0
$15,000
$0
$15,000
0.4150
$6,225
14
$0
$15,000
$0
$15,000
0.3878
$5,817
15
$0
$15,000
$150,000
$165,000
0.3624
$59,796
16
$0
$15,000
$0
$15,000
0.3387
$5,081
17
$0
$15,000
$0
$15,000
0.3166
$4,749
18
$0
$15,000
$0
$15,000
0.2959
$4,439
19
$0
$15,000
$0
$15,000
0.2765
$4,148
20
$0
$15,000
$1,014,000
$1,029,000
0.2584
$265,894
21
$0
$15,000
$0
$15,000
0.2415
$3,623
22
$0
$15,000
$0
$15,000
0.2257
$3,386
23
$0
$15,000
$0
$15,000
0.2109
$3,164
24
$0
$15,000
$0
$15,000
0.1971
$2,957
25
$0
$15,000
$150,000
$165,000
0.1842
$30,393
26
$0
$15,000
$0
$15,000
0.1722
$2,583
27
$0
$15,000
$0
$15,000
0.1609
$2,414
28
$0
$15,000
$0
$15,000
0.1504
$2,256
29
$0
$15,000
$0
$15,000
0.1406
$2,109
30
$0
$15,000
$1,014,000
$1,029,000
0.1314
$135,211
TOTALS:
$1,066,000
$450,000
$3,492,000
$5,008,000
$2,282,036
TOTAL PRESENT VALUE OF ALTERNATIVE 23 | $2,280,000
Notes:
1 Duration is assumed to be 31 years (Years 0 through 30) for present value analysis.
2 Capital costs, for purposes of this analysis, are assumed to be distributed as indicated on Table SCS-2.
3 Total annual expenditure is the total cost per year with no discounting.
4 Present value is the total cost per year including a 7.0% discount factor for that year. See Table SPV-ADRIFT for details.
5 Total present value is rounded to the nearest $10,000. Inflation and depreciation are excluded from the present value cost.
FINAL
Page 3 of 27
-------
TABLE SPV-3
PRESENT VALUE ANALYSIS
Alternative 3
Capping of Contaminated Materials on Private Parcels, Partial Capping of Contaminated Materials on Receivership
Parcels, Interior Cleaning, and Land Use Controls with Monitoring
Site: North Ridge Estates
Location: Klamath County, Oregon
Phase: Final Feasibility Study
Base Year: 2010
Year1
Capital Costs
(Land Use
Controls)2
Capital Costs
(Construction)2
Annual O&M
Costs (Cover
and Access
Controls)
Periodic Costs
(Interior House
Cleanings and Five-
Year Site Reviews)
Total Annual
Expenditure3
Discount Factor
(7.0%)
Present Value4
0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
1.0000
$0
1
$1,066,000
$4,261,000
$27,000
$0
$5,354,000
0.9346
$5,003,848
2
$0
$4,261,000
$27,000
$0
$4,288,000
0.8734
$3,745,139
3
$0
$0
$27,000
$0
$27,000
0.8163
$22,040
4
$0
$0
$27,000
$0
$27,000
0.7629
$20,598
5
$0
$0
$27,000
$150,000
$177,000
0.7130
$126,201
6
$0
$0
$27,000
$0
$27,000
0.6663
$17,990
7
$0
$0
$27,000
$0
$27,000
0.6227
$16,813
8
$0
$0
$27,000
$0
$27,000
0.5820
$15,714
9
$0
$0
$27,000
$0
$27,000
0.5439
$14,685
10
$0
$0
$27,000
$1,014,000
$1,041,000
0.5083
$529,140
11
$0
$0
$27,000
$0
$27,000
0.4751
$12,828
12
$0
$0
$27,000
$0
$27,000
0.4440
$11,988
13
$0
$0
$27,000
$0
$27,000
0.4150
$11,205
14
$0
$0
$27,000
$0
$27,000
0.3878
$10,471
15
$0
$0
$27,000
$150,000
$177,000
0.3624
$64,145
16
$0
$0
$27,000
$0
$27,000
0.3387
$9,145
17
$0
$0
$27,000
$0
$27,000
0.3166
$8,548
18
$0
$0
$27,000
$0
$27,000
0.2959
$7,989
19
$0
$0
$27,000
$0
$27,000
0.2765
$7,466
20
$0
$0
$27,000
$1,014,000
$1,041,000
0.2584
$268,994
21
$0
$0
$27,000
$0
$27,000
0.2415
$6,521
22
$0
$0
$27,000
$0
$27,000
0.2257
$6,094
23
$0
$0
$27,000
$0
$27,000
0.2109
$5,694
24
$0
$0
$27,000
$0
$27,000
0.1971
$5,322
25
$0
$0
$27,000
$150,000
$177,000
0.1842
$32,603
26
$0
$0
$27,000
$0
$27,000
0.1722
$4,649
27
$0
$0
$27,000
$0
$27,000
0.1609
$4,344
28
$0
$0
$27,000
$0
$27,000
0.1504
$4,061
29
$0
$0
$27,000
$0
$27,000
0.1406
$3,796
30
$0
$0
$27,000
$1,014,000
$1,041,000
0.1314
$136,787
TOTALS:
$1,066,000
$8,522,000
$810,000
$3,492,000
$13,890,000
$10,134,818
TOTAL PRESENT VALUE OF ALTERNATIVE 3°
$10,130,000
Notes:
1 Duration is assumed to be 31 years (Years 0 through 30) for present value analysis.
2 Capital costs, for purposes of this analysis, are assumed to be distributed as indicated on Table SCS-3.
3 Total annual expenditure is the total cost per year with no discounting.
4 Present value is the total cost per year including a 7.0% discount factor for that year. See Table SPV-ADRIFT for details.
5 Total present value is rounded to the nearest $10,000. Inflation and depreciation are excluded from the present value cost.
FINAL
Page 4 of 27
-------
TABLE SPV-4
PRESENT VALUE ANALYSIS
Alternative 4
Capping of Contaminated Materials and Land Use Controls with Monitoring
Site: North Ridge Estates
Location: Klamath County, Oregon
Phase: Final Feasibility Study
Base Year: 2010
Year1
Capital Costs
(Land Use
Controls)2
Capital Costs
(Construction)2
Annual O&M
Costs (Cover
and Access
Controls)
Periodic Costs
(Five-Year Site
Reviews)
Total Annual
Expenditure3
Discount Factor
(7.0%)
Present Value4
0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
1.0000
$0
1
$1,042,000
$6,969,500
$27,000
$0
$8,038,500
0.9346
$7,512,782
2
$0
$6,969,500
$27,000
$0
$6,996,500
0.8734
$6,110,743
3
$0
$0
$27,000
$0
$27,000
0.8163
$22,040
4
$0
$0
$27,000
$0
$27,000
0.7629
$20,598
5
$0
$0
$27,000
$68,000
$95,000
0.7130
$67,735
6
$0
$0
$27,000
$0
$27,000
0.6663
$17,990
7
$0
$0
$27,000
$0
$27,000
0.6227
$16,813
8
$0
$0
$27,000
$0
$27,000
0.5820
$15,714
9
$0
$0
$27,000
$0
$27,000
0.5439
$14,685
10
$0
$0
$27,000
$68,000
$95,000
0.5083
$48,289
11
$0
$0
$27,000
$0
$27,000
0.4751
$12,828
12
$0
$0
$27,000
$0
$27,000
0.4440
$11,988
13
$0
$0
$27,000
$0
$27,000
0.4150
$11,205
14
$0
$0
$27,000
$0
$27,000
0.3878
$10,471
15
$0
$0
$27,000
$68,000
$95,000
0.3624
$34,428
16
$0
$0
$27,000
$0
$27,000
0.3387
$9,145
17
$0
$0
$27,000
$0
$27,000
0.3166
$8,548
18
$0
$0
$27,000
$0
$27,000
0.2959
$7,989
19
$0
$0
$27,000
$0
$27,000
0.2765
$7,466
20
$0
$0
$27,000
$68,000
$95,000
0.2584
$24,548
21
$0
$0
$27,000
$0
$27,000
0.2415
$6,521
22
$0
$0
$27,000
$0
$27,000
0.2257
$6,094
23
$0
$0
$27,000
$0
$27,000
0.2109
$5,694
24
$0
$0
$27,000
$0
$27,000
0.1971
$5,322
25
$0
$0
$27,000
$68,000
$95,000
0.1842
$17,499
26
$0
$0
$27,000
$0
$27,000
0.1722
$4,649
27
$0
$0
$27,000
$0
$27,000
0.1609
$4,344
28
$0
$0
$27,000
$0
$27,000
0.1504
$4,061
29
$0
$0
$27,000
$0
$27,000
0.1406
$3,796
30
$0
$0
$27,000
$68,000
$95,000
0.1314
$12,483
TOTALS:
$1,042,000
$13,939,000
$810,000
$408,000
$16,199,000
$14,056,468
TOTAL PRESENT VALUE OF ALTERNATIVE 4°
$14,060,000
Notes:
1 Duration is assumed to be 31 years (Years 0 through 30) for present value analysis.
2 Capital costs, for purposes of this analysis, are assumed to be distributed as indicated on Table SCS-4.
3 Total annual expenditure is the total cost per year with no discounting.
4 Present value is the total cost per year including a 7.0% discount factor for that year. See Table SPV-ADRIFT for details.
5 Total present value is rounded to the nearest $10,000. Inflation and depreciation are excluded from the present value cost.
FINAL
Page 5 of 27
-------
TABLE SPV-5a
PRESENT VALUE ANALYSIS
Alternative 5a
Excavation and Onsite Consolidation/Disposal of Contaminated Surface Materials, Future Excavation and Offsite
Disposal of Contaminated Surface Materials at Permitted Facilities, and Land Use Controls with Monitoring
Site: North Ridge Estates
Location: Klamath County, Oregon
Phase: Final Feasibility Study
Base Year: 2010
Year1
Capital Costs
(Land Use
Controls)2
Capital Costs
(Construction
and Future
Excavation)2
Annual O&M
Costs (Cover
and Access
Controls)
Periodic Costs
(Five-Year Site
Reviews)
Total Annual
Expenditure3
Discount Factor
(7.0%)
Present Value4
0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
1.0000
$0
1
$1,050,000
$4,503,000
$27,000
$0
$5,580,000
0.9346
$5,215,068
2
$0
$4,503,000
$27,000
$0
$4,530,000
0.8734
$3,956,502
3
$0
$81,000
$27,000
$0
$108,000
0.8163
$88,160
4
$0
$81,000
$27,000
$0
$108,000
0.7629
$82,393
5
$0
$81,000
$27,000
$68,000
$176,000
0.7130
$125,488
6
$0
$81,000
$27,000
$0
$108,000
0.6663
$71,960
7
$0
$81,000
$27,000
$0
$108,000
0.6227
$67,252
8
$0
$81,000
$27,000
$0
$108,000
0.5820
$62,856
9
$0
$81,000
$27,000
$0
$108,000
0.5439
$58,741
10
$0
$81,000
$27,000
$68,000
$176,000
0.5083
$89,461
11
$0
$81,000
$27,000
$0
$108,000
0.4751
$51,311
12
$0
$81,000
$27,000
$0
$108,000
0.4440
$47,952
13
$0
$81,000
$27,000
$0
$108,000
0.4150
$44,820
14
$0
$81,000
$27,000
$0
$108,000
0.3878
$41,882
15
$0
$81,000
$27,000
$68,000
$176,000
0.3624
$63,782
16
$0
$81,000
$27,000
$0
$108,000
0.3387
$36,580
17
$0
$81,000
$27,000
$0
$108,000
0.3166
$34,193
18
$0
$81,000
$27,000
$0
$108,000
0.2959
$31,957
19
$0
$81,000
$27,000
$0
$108,000
0.2765
$29,862
20
$0
$81,000
$27,000
$68,000
$176,000
0.2584
$45,478
21
$0
$81,000
$27,000
$0
$108,000
0.2415
$26,082
22
$0
$81,000
$27,000
$0
$108,000
0.2257
$24,376
23
$0
$81,000
$27,000
$0
$108,000
0.2109
$22,777
24
$0
$81,000
$27,000
$0
$108,000
0.1971
$21,287
25
$0
$81,000
$27,000
$68,000
$176,000
0.1842
$32,419
26
$0
$81,000
$27,000
$0
$108,000
0.1722
$18,598
27
$0
$81,000
$27,000
$0
$108,000
0.1609
$17,377
28
$0
$81,000
$27,000
$0
$108,000
0.1504
$16,243
29
$0
$81,000
$27,000
$0
$108,000
0.1406
$15,185
30
$0
$81,000
$27,000
$68,000
$176,000
0.1314
$23,126
TOTALS:
$1,050,000
$11,274,000
$810,000
$408,000
$13,542,000
$10,463,168
TOTAL PRESENT VALUE OF ALTERNATIVE 5a0
$10,460,000
Notes:
1 Duration is assumed to be 31 years (Years 0 through 30) for present value analysis.
2 Capital costs, for purposes of this analysis, are assumed to be distributed as indicated on Table SCS-5a.
3 Total annual expenditure is the total cost per year with no discounting.
4 Present value is the total cost per year including a 7.0% discount factor for that year. See Table SPV-ADRIFT for details.
5 Total present value is rounded to the nearest $10,000. Inflation and depreciation are excluded from the present value cost.
FINAL
Page 6 of 27
-------
TABLE SPV-5b
PRESENT VALUE ANALYSIS
Alternative 5b
Excavation and Onsite Consolidation/Disposal of Contaminated Materials, and Land Use Controls with
Monitoring
Site: North Ridge Estates
Location: Klamath County, Oregon
Phase: Final Feasibility Study
Base Year: 2010
Year1
Capital Costs
(Land Use
Controls)2
Capital Costs
(Construction)2
Annual O&M
Costs (Cover
and Access
Controls)
Periodic Costs
(Five-Year Site
Reviews)
Total Annual
Expenditure3
Discount Factor
(7.0%)
Present Value4
0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
1.0000
$0
1
$1,050,000
$4,804,667
$27,000
$0
$5,881,667
0.9346
$5,497,006
2
$0
$4,804,667
$27,000
$0
$4,831,667
0.8734
$4,219,978
3
$0
$4,804,667
$27,000
$0
$4,831,667
0.8163
$3,944,090
4
$0
$0
$27,000
$0
$27,000
0.7629
$20,598
5
$0
$0
$27,000
$68,000
$95,000
0.7130
$67,735
6
$0
$0
$27,000
$0
$27,000
0.6663
$17,990
7
$0
$0
$27,000
$0
$27,000
0.6227
$16,813
8
$0
$0
$27,000
$0
$27,000
0.5820
$15,714
9
$0
$0
$27,000
$0
$27,000
0.5439
$14,685
10
$0
$0
$27,000
$68,000
$95,000
0.5083
$48,289
11
$0
$0
$27,000
$0
$27,000
0.4751
$12,828
12
$0
$0
$27,000
$0
$27,000
0.4440
$11,988
13
$0
$0
$27,000
$0
$27,000
0.4150
$11,205
14
$0
$0
$27,000
$0
$27,000
0.3878
$10,471
15
$0
$0
$27,000
$68,000
$95,000
0.3624
$34,428
16
$0
$0
$27,000
$0
$27,000
0.3387
$9,145
17
$0
$0
$27,000
$0
$27,000
0.3166
$8,548
18
$0
$0
$27,000
$0
$27,000
0.2959
$7,989
19
$0
$0
$27,000
$0
$27,000
0.2765
$7,466
20
$0
$0
$27,000
$68,000
$95,000
0.2584
$24,548
21
$0
$0
$27,000
$0
$27,000
0.2415
$6,521
22
$0
$0
$27,000
$0
$27,000
0.2257
$6,094
23
$0
$0
$27,000
$0
$27,000
0.2109
$5,694
24
$0
$0
$27,000
$0
$27,000
0.1971
$5,322
25
$0
$0
$27,000
$68,000
$95,000
0.1842
$17,499
26
$0
$0
$27,000
$0
$27,000
0.1722
$4,649
27
$0
$0
$27,000
$0
$27,000
0.1609
$4,344
28
$0
$0
$27,000
$0
$27,000
0.1504
$4,061
29
$0
$0
$27,000
$0
$27,000
0.1406
$3,796
30
$0
$0
$27,000
$68,000
$95,000
0.1314
$12,483
TOTALS:
$1,050,000
$14,414,000
$810,000
$408,000
$16,682,000
$14,071,977
TOTAL PRESENT VALUE OF ALTERNATIVE 5b0
$14,070,000
Notes:
1 Duration is assumed to be 31 years (Years 0 through 30) for present value analysis.
2 Capital costs, for purposes of this analysis, are assumed to be distributed as indicated on Table SCS-5b.
3 Total annual expenditure is the total cost per year with no discounting.
4 Present value is the total cost per year including a 7.0% discount factor for that year. See Table SPV-ADRIFT for details.
5 Total present value is rounded to the nearest $10,000. Inflation and depreciation are excluded from the present value cost.
FINAL
Page 7 of 27
-------
TABLE SPV-6
PRESENT VALUE ANALYSIS
Alternative 6
Excavation and Offsite Disposal of Contaminated Materials at Permitted Facilities, and Land Use Controls with
Monitoring
Site: North Ridge Estates
Location: Klamath County, Oregon
Phase: Final Feasibility Study
Base Year: 2010
Year1
Capital Costs
(Land Use
Controls)2
Capital Costs
(Construction)2
Annual O&M
Costs (Cover
and Access
Controls)
Periodic Costs
(Five-Year Site
Reviews)
Total Annual
Expenditure3
Discount Factor
(7.0%)
Present Value4
0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
1.0000
$0
1
$1,042,000
$8,395,250
$27,000
$0
$9,464,250
0.9346
$8,845,288
2
$0
$8,395,250
$27,000
$0
$8,422,250
0.8734
$7,355,993
3
$0
$8,395,250
$27,000
$0
$8,422,250
0.8163
$6,875,083
4
$0
$8,395,250
$27,000
$0
$8,422,250
0.7629
$6,425,335
5
$0
$0
$27,000
$68,000
$95,000
0.7130
$67,735
6
$0
$0
$27,000
$0
$27,000
0.6663
$17,990
7
$0
$0
$27,000
$0
$27,000
0.6227
$16,813
8
$0
$0
$27,000
$0
$27,000
0.5820
$15,714
9
$0
$0
$27,000
$0
$27,000
0.5439
$14,685
10
$0
$0
$27,000
$68,000
$95,000
0.5083
$48,289
11
$0
$0
$27,000
$0
$27,000
0.4751
$12,828
12
$0
$0
$27,000
$0
$27,000
0.4440
$11,988
13
$0
$0
$27,000
$0
$27,000
0.4150
$11,205
14
$0
$0
$27,000
$0
$27,000
0.3878
$10,471
15
$0
$0
$27,000
$68,000
$95,000
0.3624
$34,428
16
$0
$0
$27,000
$0
$27,000
0.3387
$9,145
17
$0
$0
$27,000
$0
$27,000
0.3166
$8,548
18
$0
$0
$27,000
$0
$27,000
0.2959
$7,989
19
$0
$0
$27,000
$0
$27,000
0.2765
$7,466
20
$0
$0
$27,000
$68,000
$95,000
0.2584
$24,548
21
$0
$0
$27,000
$0
$27,000
0.2415
$6,521
22
$0
$0
$27,000
$0
$27,000
0.2257
$6,094
23
$0
$0
$27,000
$0
$27,000
0.2109
$5,694
24
$0
$0
$27,000
$0
$27,000
0.1971
$5,322
25
$0
$0
$27,000
$68,000
$95,000
0.1842
$17,499
26
$0
$0
$27,000
$0
$27,000
0.1722
$4,649
27
$0
$0
$27,000
$0
$27,000
0.1609
$4,344
28
$0
$0
$27,000
$0
$27,000
0.1504
$4,061
29
$0
$0
$27,000
$0
$27,000
0.1406
$3,796
30
$0
$0
$27,000
$68,000
$95,000
0.1314
$12,483
TOTALS:
$1,042,000
$33,581,000
$810,000
$408,000
$35,841,000
$29,892,004
TOTAL PRESENT VALUE OF ALTERNATIVE 6°
$29,890,000
Notes:
1 Duration is assumed to be 31 years (Years 0 through 30) for present value analysis.
2 Capital costs, for purposes of this analysis, are assumed to be distributed as indicated on Table SCS-6.
3 Total annual expenditure is the total cost per year with no discounting.
4 Present value is the total cost per year including a 7.0% discount factor for that year. See Table SPV-ADRIFT for details.
5 Total present value is rounded to the nearest $10,000. Inflation and depreciation are excluded from the present value cost.
FINAL
Page 8 of 27
-------
TABLE SPV-7
PRESENT VALUE ANALYSIS
Alternative 7
Excavation and Offsite Thermo-Chemicai Treatment of Contaminated Materials at Permitted Facilities, Reuse of
Treated Material, and Land Use Controls with Monitoring
Site: North Ridge Estates
Location: Klamath County, Oregon
Phase: Final Feasibility Study
Base Year: 2010
Year1
Capital Costs
(Land Use
Controls)2
Capital Costs
(Construction)2
Annual O&M
Costs (Cover
and Access
Controls)
Periodic Costs
(Five-Year Site
Reviews)
Total Annual
Expenditure3
Discount Factor
(7.0%)
Present Value4
0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
1.0000
$0
1
$1,042,000
$31,173,200
$27,000
$0
$32,242,200
0.9346
$30,133,560
2
$0
$31,173,200
$27,000
$0
$31,200,200
0.8734
$27,250,255
3
$0
$31,173,200
$27,000
$0
$31,200,200
0.8163
$25,468,723
4
$0
$31,173,200
$27,000
$0
$31,200,200
0.7629
$23,802,633
5
$0
$31,173,200
$27,000
$68,000
$31,268,200
0.7130
$22,294,227
6
$0
$0
$27,000
$0
$27,000
0.6663
$17,990
7
$0
$0
$27,000
$0
$27,000
0.6227
$16,813
8
$0
$0
$27,000
$0
$27,000
0.5820
$15,714
9
$0
$0
$27,000
$0
$27,000
0.5439
$14,685
10
$0
$0
$27,000
$68,000
$95,000
0.5083
$48,289
11
$0
$0
$27,000
$0
$27,000
0.4751
$12,828
12
$0
$0
$27,000
$0
$27,000
0.4440
$11,988
13
$0
$0
$27,000
$0
$27,000
0.4150
$11,205
14
$0
$0
$27,000
$0
$27,000
0.3878
$10,471
15
$0
$0
$27,000
$68,000
$95,000
0.3624
$34,428
16
$0
$0
$27,000
$0
$27,000
0.3387
$9,145
17
$0
$0
$27,000
$0
$27,000
0.3166
$8,548
18
$0
$0
$27,000
$0
$27,000
0.2959
$7,989
19
$0
$0
$27,000
$0
$27,000
0.2765
$7,466
20
$0
$0
$27,000
$68,000
$95,000
0.2584
$24,548
21
$0
$0
$27,000
$0
$27,000
0.2415
$6,521
22
$0
$0
$27,000
$0
$27,000
0.2257
$6,094
23
$0
$0
$27,000
$0
$27,000
0.2109
$5,694
24
$0
$0
$27,000
$0
$27,000
0.1971
$5,322
25
$0
$0
$27,000
$68,000
$95,000
0.1842
$17,499
26
$0
$0
$27,000
$0
$27,000
0.1722
$4,649
27
$0
$0
$27,000
$0
$27,000
0.1609
$4,344
28
$0
$0
$27,000
$0
$27,000
0.1504
$4,061
29
$0
$0
$27,000
$0
$27,000
0.1406
$3,796
30
$0
$0
$27,000
$68,000
$95,000
0.1314
$12,483
TOTALS:
$1,042,000
$155,866,000
$810,000
$408,000
$158,126,000
$129,271,968
TOTAL PRESENT VALUE OF ALTERNATIVE 7°
$129,270,000
Notes:
1 Duration is assumed to be 31 years (Years 0 through 30) for present value analysis.
2 Capital costs, for purposes of this analysis, are assumed to be distributed as indicated on Table SCS-7.
3 Total annual expenditure is the total cost per year with no discounting.
4 Present value is the total cost per year including a 7.0% discount factor for that year. See Table SPV-ADRIFT for details.
5 Total present value is rounded to the nearest $10,000. Inflation and depreciation are excluded from the present value cost.
FINAL
Page 9 of 27
-------
Screening Cost Estimate Summaries
-------
TABLE SCS-1
Alternative 1
No Action
SCREENING COST ESTIMATE SUMMARY
Site: North Ridge Estates
Location: Klamath County, Oregon
Phase: Final Feasibility Study
Base Year: 2010
Date: March 24, 2010
Alternative 1 would leave removal action activities previously performed in their current conditions. No new remedial action activities would be initiated at
the site to address contaminated materials or otherwise mitigate the associated risks to human health and the environment. A no action alternative is
required by the NCP to provide an environmental baseline against which impacts of the various remedial alternatives can be compared. Five-year site
reviews would be performed as required by the NCP to evaluate whether adequate protection of human health and the environment is provided since
contaminated materials would remain at the site. Monitoring (consisting of non-intrusive visual inspections and sample collection with laboratory
analysis) would be performed as necessary to complete the 5-year site reviews.
5-YEAR SITE REVIEW PERIODIC COSTS (Years 5, 10,15, 20, 25 and 30)
DESCRIPTION
5-Year Site Review
QTY UNIT(S) UNIT COST TOTAL
1 LS $60,000 $60,000
NOTES
Includes 5-year site review inspection and report.
SUBTOTAL
$60,000
Contingency (Scope and Bid)
20% $12,000
10% Scope, 10% Bid (Low end of the recommended range).
SUBTOTAL
$72,000
Project Management
Technical Support
10% $7,200
15% $10,800
Percentage from Exhibit 5-8 was used.
Middle value of the recommended range was used.
TOTAL
$90,000
TOTAL PERIODIC COST
| $90,000 |
| Total capital cost is rounded to the nearest $1,000.
Notes:
Refer to Table SCS-Notes for cost sources and explanation for various unit costs.
Percentages used for indirect costs are based on guidance from Section 5.0 of "A Guide to Developing and Documenting Cost Estimates During the Feasibility Study", EPA 2000.
Abbreviations:
EA Each
LS LumpSum
QTY Quantity
FINAL
Page 10 of 27
-------
TABLE SCS-2
Alternative 2
Interior Cleaning and Land Use Controls with Monitoring
SCREENING COST ESTIMATE SUMMARY
Site: North Ridge Estates
Location: Klamath County, Oregon
Phase: Final Feasibility Study
Base Year: 2010
Date: March 24, 2010
Alternative 2 uses a remedial strategy that emphasizes periodic interior cleaning of homes and residential structures on private parcels. Residential structures on receiver-
managed parcels would be relocated or demolished. This alternative leaves the existing onsite waste repository intact, but does not otherwise modify the interim cover over the
repository. Interior cleaning would be performed on a periodic basis using vacuum extraction to remove asbestos fibers within residential structures on privately owned parcels.
Residential structures on receiver-managed parcels would not be cleaned under this alternative since they would be left unoccupied and would be demolished or relocated
during implementation of the remedy. Land use controls would be implemented to restrict access and use of contaminated areas and provide awareness of risks from
potential exposure to contaminated materials. Monitoring would be conducted to ensure that interior cleanings and land use controls are protective of human health and the
environment. Five-year site reviews would be performed since contaminated materials would remain at the site.
LAND USE CONTROLS CAPITAL COSTS: (Assumed to be Incurred During Year 1)
DESCRIPTION
Institutional Controls
Access Controls
QTY
56
78
UNIT(S) UNIT COST
EA $11,000
EA $180
TOTAL
$616,000
$14,040
NOTES
Institutional controls for private and receivership parcels, 45 parcels.
Includes access controls (signage) around the site boundary.
SUBTOTAL
$630,040
Contingency (Scope and Bid)
20%
$126,008
10% Scope, 10% Bid (Low end of the recommended range).
SUBTOTAL
$756,048
Project Management
Remedial Design
Construction Management
Technical Support
6%
12%
8%
15%
$45,363
$90,726
$60,484
$113,407
Percentage from Exhibit 5-8 in EPA 540-R-00-002 was used.
Percentage from Exhibit 5-8 in EPA 540-R-00-002 was used.
Percentage from Exhibit 5-8 in EPA 540-R-00-002 was used.
Middle value of the recommended range was used.
TOTAL
$1,066,028
TOTAL CAPITAL COST
c
$1,066,000
| Total capital cost is rounded to the nearest $1,000.
INTERIOR HOUSE CLEANING (Years 10, 20, and 30)
DESCRIPTION
Interior Cleaning of Houses
QTY
24
UNIT(S) UNIT COST
EA $24,000
TOTAL
$576,000
NOTES
SUBTOTAL
$576,000
Contingency (Scope and Bid)
20%
$115,200
10% Scope, 10% Bid (Low end of the recommended range).
SUBTOTAL
$691,200
Project Management
Technical Support
10%
15%
$69,120
$103,680
Percentage from Exhibit 5-8 in EPA 540-R-00-002 was used.
Middle value of the recommended range was used.
TOTAL
$864,000
TOTAL PERIODIC COST
C
$864,000
| Total capital cost is rounded to the nearest $1,000.
ANNUAL OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE (O&M) COSTS (Years 1 through 30
DESCRIPTION
Annual Operations and Maintenance
QTY
1
UNIT(S) UNIT COST
LS $10,000
TOTAL
$10,000
NOTES
Includes access controls maintenance and inspections.
SUBTOTAL
$10,000
Contingency (Scope and Bid)
20%
$2,000
10% Scope, 10% Bid (Low end of the recommended range).
SUBTOTAL
$12,000
Project Management
Technical Support
10%
15%
$1,200
$1,800
Percentage from Exhibit 5-8 in EPA 540-R-00-002 was used.
Middle value of the recommended range was used.
TOTAL
$15,000
TOTAL PERIODIC COST
c
$15,000
| Total capital cost is rounded to the nearest $1,000.
FINAL
Page 11 of 27
-------
TABLE SCS-2
Alternative 2
Interior Cleaning and Land Use Controls with Monitoring
SCREENING COST ESTIMATE SUMMARY
Site: North Ridge Estates
Location: Klamath County, Oregon
Phase: Final Feasibility Study
Base Year: 2010
Date: March 24, 2010
Alternative 2 uses a remedial strategy that emphasizes periodic interior cleaning of homes and residential structures on private parcels. Residential structures on receiver-
managed parcels would be relocated or demolished. This alternative leaves the existing onsite waste repository intact, but does not otherwise modify the interim cover over the
repository. Interior cleaning would be performed on a periodic basis using vacuum extraction to remove asbestos fibers within residential structures on privately owned parcels.
Residential structures on receiver-managed parcels would not be cleaned under this alternative since they would be left unoccupied and would be demolished or relocated
during implementation of the remedy. Land use controls would be implemented to restrict access and use of contaminated areas and provide awareness of risks from
potential exposure to contaminated materials. Monitoring would be conducted to ensure that interior cleanings and land use controls are protective of human health and the
environment. Five-year site reviews would be performed since contaminated materials would remain at the site.
5-YEAR SITE REVIEW PERIODIC COSTS (Years 5, 10,15, 20, 25 and 30)
DESCRIPTION
5-Year Site Review
QTY UNIT(S) UNIT COST TOTAL
1 LS $100,000 $100,000
NOTES
Includes 5-year site review inspection and report.
SUBTOTAL
$100,000
Contingency (Scope and Bid)
20% $20,000
10% Scope, 10% Bid (Low end of the recommended range).
SUBTOTAL
$120,000
Project Management
Technical Support
10% $12,000
15% $18,000
Percentage from Exhibit 5-8 in EPA 540-R-00-002 was used.
Middle value of the recommended range was used.
TOTAL
$150,000
TOTAL PERIODIC COST
| $150,000
| Total capital cost is rounded to the nearest $1,000.
Notes:
Refer to Table SCS-Notes for cost sources and explanation for various unit costs.
Percentages used for indirect costs are based on guidance from Section 5.0 of "A Guide to Developing and Documenting Cost Estimates During the Feasibility Study", EPA 2000.
Abbreviations:
ABS Activity Based Sampling
EA Each
FT Feet
LS LumpSum
QTY Quantity
FINAL
Page 12 of 27
-------
TABLE SCS-3
Alternative 3
Capping of Contaminated Materials on Private Parcels, Partial Capping of Contaminated Materials on Receivership
Parcels, Interior Cleaning, and Land Use Controls with Monitoring
SCREENING COST ESTIMATE SUMMARY
Site: North Ridge Estates
Location: Klamath County, Oregon
Phase: Final Feasibility Study
Base Year: 2010
Date: March 24, 2010
Alternative 3 includes in-place capping (covering) of contaminated materials identified on privately owned parcels and a portion of the contaminated materials
on receiver managed parcels (assumed to be 50% of identified contaminated materials for cost purposes). Covers used to cap contaminated materials are
assumed to be constructed from clean soil transported from offsite borrow areas to ensure that contamination is not present. Current residential structures on
receiver managed parcels would be relocated or demolished (assumed to be demolished for cost purposes). Interior cleaning would be performed on a periodic
basis using vacuum extraction to remove asbestos fibers within residential structures on privately owned parcels. Land use controls would be used to protect
covered areas as well as restrict access and use of contaminated areas, and provide awareness of risks from potential exposure to contaminated materials.
Monitoring would be conducted to ensure that covers, interior cleanings, and land use controls are protective of human health and the environment. Five-year
site reviews would be performed since contaminated materials would remain at the site.
INSTITUTIONAL AND ACCESS CONTROLS CAPITAL COSTS: (Assumed to be Incurred During Year 1)
DESCRIPTION
Institutional Controls
Access Controls
SUBTOTAL
QTY UNIT(S) UNIT COST
56 EA $11,000
78 EA $180
TOTAL
$616,000
$14,040
$630,040
NOTES
Institutional controls for private and receivership parcels, 45 parcels.
Includes access controls (signage) around the site boundary, assumed
to be 50% of the total boundary length.
Contingency (Scope and Bid)
SUBTOTAL
20%
$126,008
$756,048
10% Scope, 10% Bid (Low end of the recommended range).
Project Management
Remedial Design
Construction Management
Technical Support
TOTAL
6%
12%
8%
15%
$45,363
$90,726
$60,484
$113,407
$1,066,028
Percentage from Exhibit 5-8 in EPA 540-R-00-002 was used.
Percentage from Exhibit 5-8 in EPA 540-R-00-002 was used.
Percentage from Exhibit 5-8 in EPA 540-R-00-002 was used.
Middle value of the recommended range was used.
TOTAL CAPITAL COST
$1,066,000 |
Total capital cost is rounded to the nearest $1,000.
CONSTRUCTION CAPITAL COSTS: (Assumed to be Incurred During Year 1
DESCRIPTION
Contaminated Materials Capping
SUBTOTAL
QTY UNIT(S) UNIT COST
53 ACR $100,000
TOTAL
$5,300,000
$5,300,000
NOTES
Includes site clearing, mob/demob, in-place capping, revegetation,
inspection and monitoring.
Contingency (Scope and Bid)
SUBTOTAL
20%
$1,060,000
$6,360,000
10% Scope, 10% Bid (Low end of the recommended range).
Project Management
Remedial Design
Construction Management
Technical Support
TOTAL
5%
8%
6%
15%
$318,000
$508,800
$381,600
$954,000
$8,522,400
Percentage from Exhibit 5-8 in EPA 540-R-00-002 was used.
Percentage from Exhibit 5-8 in EPA 540-R-00-002 was used.
Percentage from Exhibit 5-8 in EPA 540-R-00-002 was used.
Middle value of the recommended range was used.
TOTAL CAPITAL COST
I
| $8,522,000 |
Total capital cost is rounded to the nearest $1,000.
FINAL
Page 13 of 27
-------
TABLE SCS-3
Alternative 3
Capping of Contaminated Materials on Private Parcels, Partial Capping of Contaminated Materials on Receivership
Parcels, Interior Cleaning, and Land Use Controls with Monitoring
SCREENING COST ESTIMATE SUMMARY
Site: North Ridge Estates
Location: Klamath County, Oregon
Phase: Final Feasibility Study
Base Year: 2010
Date: March 24, 2010
Alternative 3 includes in-place capping (covering) of contaminated materials identified on privately owned parcels and a portion of the contaminated materials
on receiver managed parcels (assumed to be 50% of identified contaminated materials for cost purposes). Covers used to cap contaminated materials are
assumed to be constructed from clean soil transported from offsite borrow areas to ensure that contamination is not present. Current residential structures on
receiver managed parcels would be relocated or demolished (assumed to be demolished for cost purposes). Interior cleaning would be performed on a periodic
basis using vacuum extraction to remove asbestos fibers within residential structures on privately owned parcels. Land use controls would be used to protect
covered areas as well as restrict access and use of contaminated areas, and provide awareness of risks from potential exposure to contaminated materials.
Monitoring would be conducted to ensure that covers, interior cleanings, and land use controls are protective of human health and the environment. Five-year
site reviews would be performed since contaminated materials would remain at the site.
INTERIOR HOUSE CLEANING PERIODIC COSTS (Years 10, 20, and 30)
DESCRIPTION
Interior Cleaning of Houses
SUBTOTAL
QTY
24
UNIT(S) UNIT COST
EA $24,000
TOTAL
$576,000
$576,000
NOTES
Contingency (Scope and Bid)
SUBTOTAL
20%
$115,200
$691,200
10% Scope, 10% Bid (Low end of the recommended range).
Project Management
Technical Support
TOTAL
10%
15%
$69,120
$103,680
$864,000
Percentage from Exhibit 5-8 in EPA 540-R-00-002 was used.
Middle value of the recommended range was used.
TOTAL PERIODIC COST
$864,000 |
Total capital cost is rounded to the nearest $1,000.
ANNUAL OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE (O&M) COSTS (Years 1 through 30
DESCRIPTION
Annual Operations and Maintenance
SUBTOTAL
QTY
1
UNIT(S) UNIT COST
LS $18,000
TOTAL
$18,000
$18,000
NOTES
Includes cover and signage maintenance, and inspections.
Contingency (Scope and Bid)
SUBTOTAL
20%
$3,600
$21,600
10% Scope, 10% Bid (Low end of the recommended range).
Project Management
Technical Support
TOTAL
10%
15%
$2,160
$3,240
$27,000
Percentage from Exhibit 5-8 in EPA 540-R-00-002 was used.
Middle value of the recommended range was used.
TOTAL PERIODIC COST
[
$27,000 |
Total capital cost is rounded to the nearest $1,000.
FINAL
Page 14 of 27
-------
TABLE SCS-3
Alternative 3
Capping of Contaminated Materials on Private Parcels, Partial Capping of Contaminated Materials on Receivership 30REENING OOST ESTI MATE SU M MARY
Parcels, Interior Cleaning, and Land Use Controls with Monitoring
Site: North Ridge Estates
Location: Klamath County, Oregon
Phase: Final Feasibility Study
Base Year: 2010
Date: March 24, 2010
Alternative 3 includes in-place capping (covering) of contaminated materials identified on privately owned parcels and a portion of the contaminated materials
on receiver managed parcels (assumed to be 50% of identified contaminated materials for cost purposes). Covers used to cap contaminated materials are
assumed to be constructed from clean soil transported from offsite borrow areas to ensure that contamination is not present. Current residential structures on
receiver managed parcels would be relocated or demolished (assumed to be demolished for cost purposes). Interior cleaning would be performed on a periodic
basis using vacuum extraction to remove asbestos fibers within residential structures on privately owned parcels. Land use controls would be used to protect
covered areas as well as restrict access and use of contaminated areas, and provide awareness of risks from potential exposure to contaminated materials.
Monitoring would be conducted to ensure that covers, interior cleanings, and land use controls are protective of human health and the environment. Five-year
site reviews would be performed since contaminated materials would remain at the site.
5-YEAR SITE REVIEW PERIODIC COSTS (Years 5, 10,15, 20, 25, and 30)
DESCRIPTION
5-Year Site Review
SUBTOTAL
QTY UNIT(S) UNIT COST TOTAL
1 LS $100,000 $100,000
$100,000
NOTES
Includes 5-year site review inspection and report.
Contingency (Scope and Bid)
SUBTOTAL
20% $20,000
$120,000
10% Scope, 10% Bid (Low end of the recommended range).
Project Management
Technical Support
TOTAL
10% $12,000
15% $18,000
$150,000
Percentage from Exhibit 5-8 in EPA 540-R-00-002 was used.
Middle value of the recommended range was used.
TOTAL PERIODIC COST
| $150,000 |
Total capital cost is rounded to the nearest $1,000.
Notes:
Refer to Table SCS-Notes for cost sources and explanation for various unit costs.
Percentages used for indirect costs are based on guidance from Section 5.0 of "A Guide to Developing and Documenting Cost Estimates During the Feasibility Study", EPA 2000.
Abbreviations:
ABS Activity Based Sampling
ACR Acre
EA Each
FT Feet
LS LumpSum
QTY Quantity
FINAL
Page 15 of 27
-------
TABLE SCS-4
Alternative 4
Capping of Contam inated Materials and Land Use Controls with Monitoring
SCREENING COST ESTIMATE SUMMARY
Site: North Ridge Estates
Location: Klamath County, Oregon
Phase: Final Feasibility Study
Base Year: 2010
Date: March 24, 2010
Alternative 4 uses a remedial strategy that emphasizes in-place capping (covering) of contaminated materials identified on all parcels, regardless of whether
they are privately owned or receiver-managed parcels. This alternative includes installation of a permanent cover over the existing onsite waste repository.
Covers used to contain contaminated materials are assumed to be constructed from clean soil transported from offsite borrow areas tested for contamination.
Land use controls would be used to protect and restrict use of covered areas, and provide awareness of risks from potential exposure to contaminated
materials. Monitoring would be conducted to ensure that covers and land use controls are protective of human health and the environment. Five-year site
reviews would be performed since contaminated materials would remain at the site.
LAND USE CONTROLS CAPITAL COSTS: (Assumed to be Incurred During Year 1)
DESCRIPTION
Institutional Controls
QTY UNIT(S) UNIT COST
56 EA $11,000
TOTAL
$616,000
NOTES
Institutional controls for private and receivership parcels, 45 parcels.
SUBTOTAL
$616,000
Contingency (Scope and Bid)
20%
$123,200
10% Scope, 10% Bid (Low end of the recommended range).
SUBTOTAL
$739,200
Project Management
Remedial Design
Construction Management
Technical Support
6%
12%
8%
15%
$44,352
$88,704
$59,136
$110,880
Percentage from Exhibit 5-8 in EPA 540-R-00-002 was used.
Percentage from Exhibit 5-8 in EPA 540-R-00-002 was used.
Percentage from Exhibit 5-8 in EPA 540-R-00-002 was used.
Middle value of the recommended range was used.
TOTAL
$1,042,272
TOTAL CAPITAL COST
$1,042,000 |
Total capital cost is rounded to the nearest $1,000.
CONSTRUCTION CAPITAL COSTS: (Assumed to be Incurred During Year 1 and 2
DESCRIPTION
Contaminated Materials Capping
QTY UNIT(S) UNIT COST
88 ACR $100,000
TOTAL
$8,800,000
NOTES
Includes site clearing, mob/demob, in-place capping, revegetation,
inspection and monitoring.
SUBTOTAL
$8,800,000
Contingency (Scope and Bid)
20%
$1,760,000
10% Scope, 10% Bid (Low end of the recommended range).
SUBTOTAL
$10,560,000
Project Management
Remedial Design
Construction Management
Technical Support
5%
6%
6%
15%
$528,000
$633,600
$633,600
$1,584,000
Percentage from Exhibit 5-8 in EPA 540-R-00-002 was used.
Percentage from Exhibit 5-8 in EPA 540-R-00-002 was used.
Percentage from Exhibit 5-8 in EPA 540-R-00-002 was used.
Middle value of the recommended range was used.
TOTAL
$13,939,200
TOTAL CAPITAL COST
I
$13,939,000 |
Total capital cost is rounded to the nearest $1,000.
FINAL
Page 16 of 27
-------
TABLE SCS-4
Alternative 4
Capping of Contam inated Materials and Land Use Controls with Monitoring
SCREENING COST ESTIMATE SUMMARY
Site: North Ridge Estates Alternative 4 uses a remedial strategy that emphasizes in-place capping (covering) of contaminated materials identified on all parcels, regardless of whether
Location: Klamath County, Oregon they are privately owned or receiver-managed parcels. This alternative includes installation of a permanent cover over the existing onsite waste repository.
Phase: Final Feasibility Study Covers used to contain contaminated materials are assumed to be constructed from clean soil transported from offsite borrow areas tested for contamination.
Base Year: 2010 Land use controls would be used to protect and restrict use of covered areas, and provide awareness of risks from potential exposure to contaminated
Date: March 24, 2010 materials. Monitoring would be conducted to ensure that covers and land use controls are protective of human health and the environment. Five-year site
reviews would be performed since contaminated materials would remain at the site.
ANNUAL OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE (O&M) COSTS (Years 1 through 30
DESCRIPTION QTY UNIT(S) UNIT COST
Annual Operations and Maintenance 1 LS $18,000
TOTAL
$18,000
NOTES
Includes cover maintenance and inspections.
SUBTOTAL
$18,000
Contingency (Scope and Bid) 20%
$3,600
10% Scope, 10% Bid (Low end of the recommended range).
SUBTOTAL
$21,600
Project Management 10%
Technical Support 15%
$2,160
$3,240
Percentage from Exhibit 5-8 in EPA 540-R-00-002 was used.
Middle value of the recommended range was used.
TOTAL
$27,000
TOTAL PERIODIC COST [
$27,000 |
Total capital cost is rounded to the nearest $1,000.
5-YEAR SITE REVIEW PERIODIC COSTS (Years 5, 10,15, 20, 25, and 30)
DESCRIPTION QTY UNIT(S) UNIT COST
5-Year Site Review 1 LS $45,000
TOTAL
$45,000
NOTES
Includes 5-year site review inspection and report.
SUBTOTAL
$45,000
Contingency (Scope and Bid) 20%
$9,000
10% Scope, 10% Bid (Low end of the recommended range).
SUBTOTAL
$54,000
Project Management 10%
Technical Support 15%
$5,400
$8,100
Percentage from Exhibit 5-8 in EPA 540-R-00-002 was used.
Middle value of the recommended range was used.
TOTAL
$67,500
TOTAL PERIODIC COST [
$68,000 |
Total capital cost is rounded to the nearest $1,000.
Notes:
Refer to Table SCS-Notes for cost sources and explanation for various unit costs.
Percentages used for indirect costs are based on guidance from Section 5.0 of "A Guide to Developing and Documenting Cost Estimates During the Feasibility Study", EPA 2000.
Abbreviations:
ABS Activity Based Sampling
ACR Acre
EA Each
FT Feet
LS LumpSum
QTY Quantity
FINAL
Page 17 of 27
-------
TABLE SCS-5a
Alternative 5a
Excavation and Onsite Consolidation/Disposal of Contaminated Surface Materials, Future Excavation and Offsite
Disposal of Contaminated Surface Materials at Permitted Facilities, and Land Use Controls with Monitoring
SCREENING COST ESTIMATE SUMMARY
Site: North Ridge Estates
Location: Klamath County, Oregon
Phase: Final Feasibility Study
Base Year: 2010
Date: March 24, 2010
Alternative 5a uses a remedial strategy that emphasizes excavation of contaminated surface materials identified on all parcels, regardless of whether they are
privately owned or receiver-managed parcels. This alternative includes installation of a permanent cover over the existing onsite waste repository. Excavated
contaminated materials would be consolidated at an onsite disposal location. Clean soil would be used to backfill removal areas and is assumed to be transported
from offsite borrow areas tested for contamination. Future excavation events (i.e. surface excavation/pickup of contaminated materials) would be performed on a
regular basis and would be disposed of at a permitted offsite disposal facility specifically authorized by Oregon DEQ to receive asbestos and other non-asbestos
COPCs. Land use controls would be used to protect and restrict use of covered and backfilled areas, and provide awareness of risks from potential exposure to
contaminated materials. Monitoring would be conducted to ensure that covers, excavation backfill, and land use controls are protective of human health and the
environment. Five-year site reviews would be performed since contaminated materials would remain at the site.
LAND USE CONTROLS CAPITAL COSTS: (Assumed to be Incurred During Year 1)
DESCRIPTION
Institutional Controls
Access Controls
QTY UNIT(S) UNIT COST
56 EA $11,000
25 EA $180
TOTAL
$616,000
$4,500
NOTES
Institutional controls for private and receivership parcels, 45 parcels.
Includes access controls (signage).
SUBTOTAL
$620,500
Contingency (Scope and Bid)
20%
$124,100
10% Scope, 10% Bid (Low end of the recommended range).
SUBTOTAL
$744,600
Project Management
Remedial Design
Construction Management
Technical Support
6%
12%
8%
15% _
$44,676
$89,352
$59,568
$111,690
Percentage from Exhibit 5-8 in EPA 540-R-00-002 was used.
Percentage from Exhibit 5-8 in EPA 540-R-00-002 was used.
Percentage from Exhibit 5-8 in EPA 540-R-00-002 was used.
Middle value of the recommended range was used.
TOTAL
$1,049,886
TOTAL CAPITAL COST
C
$1,050,000
| Total capital cost is rounded to the nearest $1,000.
FINAL
Page 18 of 27
-------
TABLE SCS-5a
Alternative 5a
Excavation and Onsite Consolidation/Disposal of Contaminated Surface Materials, Future Excavation and Offsite
Disposal of Contaminated Surface Materials at Permitted Facilities, and Land Use Controls with Monitoring
SCREENING COST ESTIMATE SUMMARY
Site: North Ridge Estates Alternative 5a uses a remedial strategy that emphasizes excavation of contaminated surface materials identified on all parcels, regardless of whether they are
Location: Klamath County, Oregon privately owned or receiver-managed parcels. This alternative includes installation of a permanent cover over the existing onsite waste repository. Excavated
Phase: Final Feasibility Study contaminated materials would be consolidated at an onsite disposal location. Clean soil would be used to backfill removal areas and is assumed to be transported
Base Year: 2010 from offsite borrow areas tested for contamination. Future excavation events (i.e. surface excavation/pickup of contaminated materials) would be performed on a
Date: March 24, 2010 regular basis and would be disposed of at a permitted offsite disposal facility specifically authorized by Oregon DEQ to receive asbestos and other non-asbestos
COPCs. Land use controls would be used to protect and restrict use of covered and backfilled areas, and provide awareness of risks from potential exposure to
contaminated materials. Monitoring would be conducted to ensure that covers, excavation backfill, and land use controls are protective of human health and the
environment. Five-year site reviews would be performed since contaminated materials would remain at the site.
CONSTRUCTION CAPITAL COSTS: (Assumed to be Incurred During Year 1 and 2)
DESCRIPTION QTY UNIT(S) UNIT COST
Contaminated Surface Materials Excavation, Transport and
Disposal (Onsite) 100,000 CY $55
TOTAL
$5,500,000
NOTES
Includes site clearing, mob/demob, contaminated surface materials excavation
and onsite consolidation/disposal, backfilling and revegetation, inspection and
monitoring.
SUBTOTAL
$5,500,000
Contingency (Scope and Bid) 20%
$1,100,000
10% Scope, 10% Bid (Low end of the recommended range).
SUBTOTAL
$6,600,000
Project Management 5%
Remedial Design 8%
Construction Management 6%
Technical Support 15%
$330,000
$528,000
$396,000
$990,000
Percentage from Exhibit 5-8 in EPA 540-R-00-002 was used.
Percentage from Exhibit 5-8 in EPA 540-R-00-002 was used.
Percentage from Exhibit 5-8 in EPA 540-R-00-002 was used.
Middle value of the recommended range was used.
TOTAL
$8,844,000
TOTAL CAPITAL COST Q
$8,844,000
Total capital cost is rounded to the nearest $1,000.
FUTURE EXCAVATION CAPITAL COSTS: (Assumed to be Incurred Every Year
DESCRIPTION QTY UNIT(S) UNIT COST
Future Contaminated Surface Materials Excavation, Transport and
Disposal (Offsite) 1 YR $42,000
TOTAL
$42,000
NOTES
Includes future excavation/pickup of contaminated surface materials and disposal.
SUBTOTAL
$42,000
Contingency (Scope and Bid) 20%
$8,400
10% Scope, 10% Bid (Low end of the recommended range).
SUBTOTAL
$50,400
Project Management 10%
Remedial Design 20%
Construction Management 15%
Technical Support 15%
$5,040
$10,080
$7,560
$7,560
Percentage from Exhibit 5-8 in EPA 540-R-00-002 was used.
Percentage from Exhibit 5-8 in EPA 540-R-00-002 was used.
Percentage from Exhibit 5-8 in EPA 540-R-00-002 was used.
Middle value of the recommended range was used.
TOTAL ~
$80,640
TOTAL CAPITAL COST Q
$81,000
| Total capital cost is rounded to the nearest $1,000.
FINAL
Page 19 of 27
-------
TABLE SCS-5a
Alternative 5a
Excavation and Onsite Consolidation/Disposal of Contaminated Surface Materials, Future Excavation and Offsite
Disposal of Contaminated Surface Materials at Permitted Facilities, and Land Use Controls with Monitoring
SCREENING COST ESTIMATE SUMMARY
Site: North Ridge Estates Alternative 5a uses a remedial strategy that emphasizes excavation of contaminated surface materials identified on all parcels, regardless of whether they are
Location: Klamath County, Oregon privately owned or receiver-managed parcels. This alternative includes installation of a permanent cover over the existing onsite waste repository. Excavated
Phase: Final Feasibility Study contaminated materials would be consolidated at an onsite disposal location. Clean soil would be used to backfill removal areas and is assumed to be transported
Base Year: 2010 from offsite borrow areas tested for contamination. Future excavation events (i.e. surface excavation/pickup of contaminated materials) would be performed on a
Date: March 24, 2010 regular basis and would be disposed of at a permitted offsite disposal facility specifically authorized by Oregon DEQ to receive asbestos and other non-asbestos
COPCs. Land use controls would be used to protect and restrict use of covered and backfilled areas, and provide awareness of risks from potential exposure to
contaminated materials. Monitoring would be conducted to ensure that covers, excavation backfill, and land use controls are protective of human health and the
environment. Five-year site reviews would be performed since contaminated materials would remain at the site.
ANNUAL OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE (O&M) COSTS (Years 1 through 30
DESCRIPTION QTY UNIT(S) UNIT COST
Annual Operations and Maintenance 1 LS $18,000
TOTAL
$18,000
NOTES
Includes cover and signage maintenance, and inspections.
SUBTOTAL
$18,000
Contingency (Scope and Bid) 20%
$3,600
10% Scope, 10% Bid (Low end of the recommended range).
SUBTOTAL
$21,600
Project Management 10%
Technical Support 15%
$2,160
$3,240
Percentage from Exhibit 5-8 in EPA 540-R-00-002 was used.
Middle value of the recommended range was used.
TOTAL
$27,000
TOTAL PERIODIC COST f~
$27,000
1 Total capital cost is rounded to the nearest $1,000.
I
5-YEAR SITE REVIEW PERIODIC COSTS (Years 5, 10,15, 20, 25, and 30)
DESCRIPTION QTY UNIT(S) UNIT COST
5-Year Site Review 1 LS $45,000
TOTAL
$45,000
NOTES
Includes 5-year site review inspection and report.
SUBTOTAL
$45,000
Contingency (Scope and Bid) 20%
$9,000
10% Scope, 10% Bid (Low end of the recommended range).
SUBTOTAL
$54,000
Project Management 10%
Technical Support 15%
$5,400
$8,100
Percentage from Exhibit 5-8 in EPA 540-R-00-002 was used.
Middle value of the recommended range was used.
TOTAL
$67,500
TOTAL PERIODIC COST f~
$68,000
1 Total capital cost is rounded to the nearest $1,000.
I I
Notes:
Refer to Table SCS-Notes for cost sources and explanation for various unit costs.
Percentages used for indirect costs are based on guidance from Section 5.0 of "A Guide to Developing and Documenting Cost Estimates During the Feasibility Study", EPA 2000.
Abbreviations:
ABS Activity Based Sampling
ACR Acre
CY Cubic Yard
EA Each
FT Feet
LS LumpSum
QTY Quantity
FINAL
Page 20 of 27
-------
TABLE SCS-5b
Alternative 5b
Excavation and Onsite Consolidation/Disposal of Contaminated Materials, and Land Use Controls with Monitoring
SCREENING COST ESTIMATE SUMMARY
Site: North Ridge Estates
Location: Klamath County, Oregon
Phase: Final Feasibility Study
Base Year: 2010
Date: March 24, 2010
Alternative 5b uses a remedial strategy that emphasizes excavation of surface and subsurface contaminated materials identified on all parcels, regardless of whether they
are privately owned or receiver-managed parcels. This alternative includes installation of a permanent cover over the existing onsite waste repository. Excavated
contaminated materials would be consolidated at onsite disposal locations specifically constructed to accept the excavated wastes. Clean soil would be used to backfill
excavation areas and would be transported from offsite borrow areas tested for contamination. Land use controls would be used to protect and restrict use of covered and
backfilled areas, and provide awareness of risks from potential exposure to contaminated materials. Monitoring would be conducted to ensure that covers, excavation
backfill, and land use controls are protective of human health and the environment. Five-year site reviews would be performed since contaminated materials would remain
at the site.
LAND USE CONTROLS CAPITAL COSTS: (Assumed to be Incurred During Year 1)
DESCRIPTION
Institutional Controls
Access Controls
QTY UNIT(S) UNIT COST
56 EA $11,000
25 EA $180
TOTAL
$616,000
$4,500
NOTES
Institutional controls for private and receivership parcels, 45 parcels.
Includes access controls (signage).
SUBTOTAL
$620,500
Contingency (Scope and Bid)
20%
$124,100
10% Scope, 10% Bid (Low end of the recommended range).
SUBTOTAL
$744,600
Project Management
Remedial Design
Construction Management
Technical Support
6%
12%
8%
15%
$44,676
$89,352
$59,568
$111,690
Percentage from Exhibit 5-8 in EPA 540-R-00-002 was used.
Percentage from Exhibit 5-8 in EPA 540-R-00-002 was used.
Percentage from Exhibit 5-8 in EPA 540-R-00-002 was used.
Middle value of the recommended range was used.
TOTAL
$1,049,886
TOTAL CAPITAL COST
[
$1,050,000
Total capital cost is rounded to the nearest $1,000.
CONSTRUCTION CAPITAL COSTS: (Assumed to be Incurred During Year 1, 2, and 3
DESCRIPTION
Contaminated Materials Excavation, Transport and Disposal (Onsite
QTY UNIT(S) UNIT COST
130,000 CY $70
TOTAL
$9,100,000
NOTES
Includes site clearing, mob/demob, contaminated materials excavation and
onsite consolidation/disposal, backfilling and revegetation, inspection and
monitoring.
SUBTOTAL
$9,100,000
Contingency (Scope and Bid)
20%
$1,820,000
10% Scope, 10% Bid (Low end of the recommended range).
SUBTOTAL
$10,920,000
Project Management
Remedial Design
Construction Management
Technical Support
5%
6%
6%
15%
$546,000
$655,200
$655,200
$1,638,000
Percentage from Exhibit 5-8 in EPA 540-R-00-002 was used.
Percentage from Exhibit 5-8 in EPA 540-R-00-002 was used.
Percentage from Exhibit 5-8 in EPA 540-R-00-002 was used.
Middle value of the recommended range was used.
TOTAL
$14,414,400
TOTAL CAPITAL COST
c
$14,414,000 |
Total capital cost is rounded to the nearest $1,000.
FINAL
Page 21 of 27
-------
TABLE SCS-5b
Alternative 5b
Excavation and Onsite Consolidation/Disposal of Contaminated Materials, and Land Use Controls with Monitoring
SCREENING COST ESTIMATE SUMMARY
Site: North Ridge Estates Alternative 5b uses a remedial strategy that emphasizes excavation of surface and subsurface contaminated materials identified on all parcels, regardless of whether they
Location: Klamath County, Oregon are privately owned or receiver-managed parcels. This alternative includes installation of a permanent cover over the existing onsite waste repository. Excavated
Phase: Final Feasibility Study contaminated materials would be consolidated at onsite disposal locations specifically constructed to accept the excavated wastes. Clean soil would be used to backfill
Base Year: 2010 excavation areas and would be transported from offsite borrow areas tested for contamination. Land use controls would be used to protect and restrict use of covered and
Date: March 24, 2010 backfilled areas, and provide awareness of risks from potential exposure to contaminated materials. Monitoring would be conducted to ensure that covers, excavation
backfill, and land use controls are protective of human health and the environment. Five-year site reviews would be performed since contaminated materials would remain
at the site.
ANNUAL OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE (O&M) COSTS (Years 1 through 30
DESCRIPTION QTY UNIT(S) UNIT COST
Annual Operations and Maintenance 1 LS $18,000
TOTAL
$18,000
NOTES
Includes cover and signage maintenance, and inspections.
SUBTOTAL
$18,000
Contingency (Scope and Bid) 20%
$3,600
10% Scope, 10% Bid (Low end of the recommended range).
SUBTOTAL
$21,600
Project Management 10%
Technical Support 15%
$2,160
$3,240
Percentage from Exhibit 5-8 in EPA 540-R-00-002 was used.
Middle value of the recommended range was used.
TOTAL
$27,000
TOTAL PERIODIC COST P
$27,000
1 Total capital cost is rounded to the nearest $1,000.
I
5-YEAR SITE REVIEW PERIODIC COSTS (Years 5, 10,15, 20, 25, and 30)
DESCRIPTION QTY UNIT(S) UNIT COST
5-Year Site Review 1 LS $45,000
TOTAL
$45,000
NOTES
Includes 5-year site review inspection and report.
SUBTOTAL
$45,000
Contingency (Scope and Bid) 20%
$9,000
10% Scope, 10% Bid (Low end of the recommended range).
SUBTOTAL
$54,000
Project Management 10%
Technical Support 15%
$5,400
$8,100
Percentage from Exhibit 5-8 in EPA 540-R-00-002 was used.
Middle value of the recommended range was used.
TOTAL
$67,500
TOTAL PERIODIC COST P
$68,000
1 Total capital cost is rounded to the nearest $1,000.
I I
Notes:
Refer to Table SCS-Notes for cost sources and explanation for various unit costs.
Percentages used for indirect costs are based on guidance from Section 5.0 of "A Guide to Developing and Documenting Cost Estimates During the Feasibility Study", EPA 2000.
Abbreviations:
ABS Activity Based Sampling
ACR Acre
CY Cubic Yard
EA Each
FT Feet
LS LumpSum
QTY Quantity
FINAL
Page 22 of 27
-------
TABLE SCS-6
Alternative 6
Excavation and Offsite Disposal of Contaminated Materials at Permitted Facilities, and Land Use Controls with
Monitoring
SCREENING COST ESTIMATE SUMMARY
Site: North Ridge Estates
Location: Klamath County, Oregon
Phase: Final Feasibility Study
Base Year: 2010
Date: March 24, 2010
Alternative 6 uses a remedial strategy that emphasizes excavation of surface and subsurface contaminated materials identified on all parcels, regardless of whether
they are privately owned or receiver-managed parcels. This alternative includes installation of a permanent cover over the existing onsite waste repository. Excavated
contaminated materials would be transported offsite and placed within one or more permitted offsite disposal facilities specifically authorized by Oregon DEQ to
receive asbestos and other non-asbestos COPCs. Clean soil would be used to backfill removal areas. Clean soil is assumed to be transported from offsite borrow
areas tested for contamination. Land use controls would be used to protect and restrict use of covered and backfilled areas, and provide awareness of risks from
potential exposure to contaminated materials. Monitoring would be conducted to ensure that covers, excavation backfill, and land use controls are protective of
human health and the environment. Five-year site reviews would be performed since contaminated materials would remain at the site.
LAND USE CONTROLS CAPITAL COSTS: (Assumed to be Incurred During Year 1
DESCRIPTION
Institutional Controls
QTY UNIT(S) UNIT COST
56 EA $11,000
TOTAL
$616,000
NOTES
Institutional controls for private and receivership parcels, 45 parcels.
SUBTOTAL
$616,000
Contingency (Scope and Bid)
20%
$123,200
10% Scope, 10% Bid (Low end of the recommended range).
SUBTOTAL
$739,200
Project Management
Remedial Design
Construction Management
Technical Support
6%
12%
8%
15%
$44,352
$88,704
$59,136
$110,880
Percentage from Exhibit 5-8 in EPA 540-R-00-002 was used.
Percentage from Exhibit 5-8 in EPA 540-R-00-002 was used.
Percentage from Exhibit 5-8 in EPA 540-R-00-002 was used.
Middle value of the recommended range was used.
TOTAL
$1,042,272
TOTAL CAPITAL COST
| $1,042,000
Total capital cost is rounded to the nearest $1,000.
CONSTRUCTION CAPITAL COSTS: (Assumed to be Incurred During Year 1, 2, 3, and 4
DESCRIPTION
QTY UNIT(S) UNIT COST
TOTAL
NOTES
Contaminated Materials Excavation and Transport
Contaminated Materials Disposal (Offsite)
140,000 CY $70
190,000 TN $60
$9,800,000
$11,400,000
Includes site clearing, mob/demob, contaminated materials excavation and
transportation, backfilling and revegetation, inspection and monitoring.
Includes waste disposal at offsite permitted disposal facility.
SUBTOTAL
$21,200,000
Contingency (Scope and Bid)
20%
$4,240,000
10% Scope, 10% Bid (Low end of the recommended range).
SUBTOTAL
$25,440,000
Project Management
Remedial Design
Construction Management
Technical Support
5%
6%
6%
15%
$1,272,000
$1,526,400
$1,526,400
$3,816,000
Percentage from Exhibit 5-8 in EPA 540-R-00-002 was used.
Percentage from Exhibit 5-8 in EPA 540-R-00-002 was used.
Percentage from Exhibit 5-8 in EPA 540-R-00-002 was used.
Middle value of the recommended range was used.
TOTAL
$33,580,800
TOTAL CAPITAL COST
| $33,581,000 |
Total capital cost is rounded to the nearest $1,000.
FINAL
Page 23 of 27
-------
TABLE SCS-6
Alternative 6
Excavation and Offsite Disposal of Contaminated Materials at Permitted Facilities, and Land Use Controls with
Monitoring
SCREENING COST ESTIMATE SUMMARY
Site: North Ridge Estates Alternative 6 uses a remedial strategy that emphasizes excavation of surface and subsurface contaminated materials identified on all parcels, regardless of whether
Location: Klamath County, Oregon they are privately owned or receiver-managed parcels. This alternative includes installation of a permanent cover over the existing onsite waste repository. Excavated
Phase: Final Feasibility Study contaminated materials would be transported offsite and placed within one or more permitted offsite disposal facilities specifically authorized by Oregon DEQ to
Base Year: 2010 receive asbestos and other non-asbestos COPCs. Clean soil would be used to backfill removal areas. Clean soil is assumed to be transported from offsite borrow
Date: March 24, 2010 areas tested for contamination. Land use controls would be used to protect and restrict use of covered and backfilled areas, and provide awareness of risks from
potential exposure to contaminated materials. Monitoring would be conducted to ensure that covers, excavation backfill, and land use controls are protective of
human health and the environment. Five-year site reviews would be performed since contaminated materials would remain at the site.
ANNUAL OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE (O&M) COSTS (Years 1 through 30
DESCRIPTION QTY UNIT(S) UNIT COST
Annual Operations and Maintenance 1 LS $18,000
TOTAL
$18,000
NOTES
Includes cover and signage maintenance, and inspections.
SUBTOTAL
$18,000
Contingency (Scope and Bid) 20%
$3,600
10% Scope, 10% Bid (Low end of the recommended range).
SUBTOTAL
$21,600
Project Management 10%
Technical Support 15%
$2,160
$3,240
Percentage from Exhibit 5-8 in EPA 540-R-00-002 was used.
Middle value of the recommended range was used.
TOTAL
$27,000
TOTAL PERIODIC COST |~
$27,000
1 Total capital cost is rounded to the nearest $1,000.
I
5-YEAR SITE REVIEW PERIODIC COSTS (Years 5, 10,15, 20, 25, and 30)
DESCRIPTION QTY UNIT(S) UNIT COST
5-Year Site Review 1 LS $45,000
TOTAL
$45,000
NOTES
Includes 5-year site review inspection and report.
SUBTOTAL
$45,000
Contingency (Scope and Bid) 20%
$9,000
10% Scope, 10% Bid (Low end of the recommended range).
SUBTOTAL
$54,000
Project Management 10%
Technical Support 15%
$5,400
$8,100
Percentage from Exhibit 5-8 in EPA 540-R-00-002 was used.
Middle value of the recommended range was used.
TOTAL
$67,500
TOTAL PERIODIC COST |~
$68,000
1 Total capital cost is rounded to the nearest $1,000.
I I
Notes:
Refer to Table SCS-Notes for cost sources and explanation for various unit costs.
Percentages used for indirect costs are based on guidance from Section 5.0 of "A Guide to Developing and Documenting Cost Estimates During the Feasibility Study", EPA 2000.
Abbreviations:
ABS Activity Based Sampling
ACR Acre
CY Cubic Yard
EA Each
FT Feet
LS LumpSum
QTY Quantity
TN Ton
FINAL
Page 24 of 27
-------
TABLE SCS-7
Alternative 7
Excavation and Offsite Thermo-Chemical Treatment of Contaminated Materials at Permitted Facilities, Reuse of Treated
Material, and Land Use Controls with Monitoring
SCREENING COST ESTIMATE SUMMARY
Site: North Ridge Estates
Location: Klamath County, Oregon
Phase: Final Feasibility Study
Base Year: 2010
Date: March 24, 2010
Alternative 7 uses a remedial strategy that emphasizes excavation of surface and subsurface contaminated materials identified on all parcels, regardless of whether
they are privately owned parcels or receiver-managed parcels. This alternative includes installation of a permanent cover over the existing onsite waste repository.
Excavated contaminated materials would be transported offsite for treatment at a permitted offsite facility that demineralizes asbestos fibers using thermo-chemical
conversion. TCCT, patented by ARI, is a commercial form of this technology. This technology has not been demonstrated to treat non-asbestos COPCs such as
arsenic. The treated inert material would then be transported back to the site and used as backfill along with clean soil. Clean soil is assumed to be transported from
offsite borrow areas tested for contamination. Land use controls would be implemented to restrict access and use of contaminated areas and provide awareness of
risks from potential exposure to contaminated materials. Monitoring would be conducted to ensure that covers, excavation backfill, and land use controls are
protective of human health and the environment. Five-year site reviews would be performed since contaminated materials would remain at the site.
LAND USE CONTROLS CAPITAL COSTS: (Assumed to be Incurred During Year 1
DESCRIPTION
Institutional Controls
QTY UNIT(S)
56 EA
UNIT COST
$11,000
TOTAL
$616,000
NOTES
Institutional controls for private and receivership parcels, 45 parcels.
SUBTOTAL
$616,000
Contingency (Scope and Bid)
20%
$123,200
10% Scope, 10% Bid (Low end of the recommended range).
SUBTOTAL
$739,200
Project Management
Remedial Design
Construction Management
Technical Support
6%
12%
8%
15%
$44,352
$88,704
$59,136
$110,880
Percentage from Exhibit 5-8 in EPA 540-R-00-002 was used.
Percentage from Exhibit 5-8 in EPA 540-R-00-002 was used.
Percentage from Exhibit 5-8 in EPA 540-R-00-002 was used.
Middle value of the recommended range was used.
TOTAL
$1,042,272
TOTAL CAPITAL COST
[
$1,042,000 |
Total capital cost is rounded to the nearest $1,000.
CONSTRUCTION CAPITAL COSTS: (Assumed to be Incurred During Year 1, 2, 3,4, and 5
DESCRIPTION
Contaminated Materials Excavation and Transport
Contaminated Materials Treatment
QTY UNIT(S)
140,000 CY
190,000 TN
UNIT COST
$65
$470
TOTAL
$9,100,000
$89,300,000
NOTES
Includes site clearing, mob/demob, contaminated materials excavation and
transportation, backfilling and revegetation, inspection and monitoring.
Includes treatment of contaminated materials by thermo-chemical processes (TCCT).
SUBTOTAL
$98,400,000
Contingency (Scope and Bid)
20%
$19,680,000
10% Scope, 10% Bid (Low end of the recommended range).
SUBTOTAL
$118,080,000
Project Management
Remedial Design
Construction Management
Technical Support
5%
6%
6%
15%
$5,904,000
$7,084,800
$7,084,800
$17,712,000
Percentage from Exhibit 5-8 in EPA 540-R-00-002 was used.
Percentage from Exhibit 5-8 in EPA 540-R-00-002 was used.
Percentage from Exhibit 5-8 in EPA 540-R-00-002 was used.
Middle value of the recommended range was used.
TOTAL
$155,865,600
TOTAL CAPITAL COST
[
$155,866,000 |
Total capital cost is rounded to the nearest $1,000.
FINAL
Page 25 of 27
-------
TABLE SCS-7
Alternative 7
Excavation and Offsite Thermo-Chemical Treatment of Contaminated Materials at Permitted Facilities, Reuse of Treated
Material, and Land Use Controls with Monitoring
SCREENING COST ESTIMATE SUMMARY
Site: North Ridge Estates Alternative 7 uses a remedial strategy that emphasizes excavation of surface and subsurface contaminated materials identified on all parcels, regardless of whether
Location: Klamath County, Oregon they are privately owned parcels or receiver-managed parcels. This alternative includes installation of a permanent cover over the existing onsite waste repository.
Phase: Final Feasibility Study Excavated contaminated materials would be transported offsite for treatment at a permitted offsite facility that demineralizes asbestos fibers using thermo-chemical
Base Year: 2010 conversion. TCCT, patented by ARI, is a commercial form of this technology. This technology has not been demonstrated to treat non-asbestos COPCs such as
Date: March 24, 2010 arsenic. The treated inert material would then be transported back to the site and used as backfill along with clean soil. Clean soil is assumed to be transported from
offsite borrow areas tested for contamination. Land use controls would be implemented to restrict access and use of contaminated areas and provide awareness of
risks from potential exposure to contaminated materials. Monitoring would be conducted to ensure that covers, excavation backfill, and land use controls are
protective of human health and the environment. Five-year site reviews would be performed since contaminated materials would remain at the site.
ANNUAL OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE (O&M) COSTS (Years 1 through 30
DESCRIPTION QTY UNIT(S)
Annual Operations and Maintenance 1 LS
UNIT COST
$18,000
TOTAL
$18,000
NOTES
Includes cover maintenance and inspections.
SUBTOTAL
$18,000
Contingency (Scope and Bid) 20%
$3,600
10% Scope, 10% Bid (Low end of the recommended range).
SUBTOTAL
$21,600
Project Management 10%
Technical Support 15%
$2,160
$3,240
Percentage from Exhibit 5-8 in EPA 540-R-00-002 was used.
Middle value of the recommended range was used.
TOTAL
$27,000
TOTAL PERIODIC COST
~
$27,000
] Total capital cost is rounded to the nearest $1,000.
5-YEAR SITE REVIEW PERIODIC COSTS (Years 5, 10,15, 20, 25, and 30)
DESCRIPTION QTY UNIT(S)
5-Year Site Review 1 LS
UNIT COST
$45,000
TOTAL
$45,000
NOTES
Includes 5-year site review inspection and report.
SUBTOTAL
$45,000
Contingency (Scope and Bid) 20%
$9,000
10% Scope, 10% Bid (Low end of the recommended range).
SUBTOTAL
$54,000
Project Management 10%
Technical Support 15%
$5,400
$8,100
Percentage from Exhibit 5-8 in EPA 540-R-00-002 was used.
Middle value of the recommended range was used.
TOTAL
$67,500
TOTAL PERIODIC COST
~
$68,000
] Total capital cost is rounded to the nearest $1,000.
Notes:
Refer to Table SCS-Notes for cost sources and explanation for various unit costs.
Percentages used for indirect costs are based on guidance from Section 5.0 of "A Guide to Developing and Documenting Cost Estimates During the Feasibility Study", EPA 2000.
Abbreviations:
ABS Activity Based Sampling
ACR Acre
CY Cubic Yard
EA Each
FT Feet
LS LumpSum
QTY Quantity
TN Ton
FINAL
Page 26 of 27
-------
TABLE SCS - NOTES
SCREENING COST ESTIMATE SUMMARY
Unit Cost Basis for Various Work Elements/Activities Under Alternative 1, 2, 3, 4, 5a, 5b, 6, and 7
I
Site: North Ridge Estates
Location: Klamath County, Oregon
Phase: Final Feasibility Study
Base Year: 2010
WORK ELEMENT DESCRIPTION
GENERAL RESPONSE
ACTION(S) REPRESNTED
ALTERNATIVE(S)
UNIT COST
UNIT(S)
COST SOURCE
NOTES
5-Year Site Review
Monitoring
1
$60,000
LS
Detailed Estimate
Refer to Appendix H, Table CS-1
5-Year Site Review
Monitoring
2 & 3
$100,000
LS
Detailed Estimate
Refer to Appendix H, Table CW3-3A, -3B, -3C, -3D, and -3E
5-Year Site Review
Monitoring
4, 5a, 5b, 6, & 7
$45,000
LS
Detailed Estimate
Refer to Appendix H, Table CW4-3A, -3B, and -14
Institutional Controls
Land Use Controls
2, 3, 4, 5a, 5b, 6, & 8
$11,000
EA
Detailed Estimate
Refer to Appendix H, Table CW3-1
Access Controls
Land Use Controls
2, 3, 5a, & 5b
$180
EA
Detailed Estimate
Refer to Appendix H, Table CW3-2
Interior Cleaning of Houses
Removal/T ransport/Disposal
2 & 3
$24,000
EA
Detailed Estimate
Refer to Appendix H, Table CW3-16
Annual Operations and Maintenance
Monitoring, Land Use
Controls, Containment
2
$10,000
LS
Detailed Estimate
Detailed estimate prepared for Alternative 2 (not included)
Annual Operations and Maintenance
Monitoring, Land Use
Controls, Containment
3, 4, 5a, 5b, 6, & 7
$18,000
LS
Detailed Estimate
Refer to Appendix H, Table CW3-4B and -5B
Contaminated Materials Capping
Containment
3 & 4
$100,000
ACR
Detailed Estimate
Refer to Appendix H, Table CW3-4, -8, -9, -10, -13, and -15
Contaminated Surface Materials Excavation,
Transport and Disposal (Onsite)
Removal/T ransport/Disposal
5a
$55
CY
Detailed Estimate
Refer to Appendix H, Table CW5a-4, -6, -8, -9, -10, -12, -13, and -14
Future Contaminated Surface Materials Excavation,
Transport and Disposal (Offsite)
Removal/T ransport/Disposal
5a
$42,000
YR
Detailed Estimate
Refer to Appendix H, Table CW5a-7a and -7b
Contaminated Materials Excavation, Transport and
Disposal (Onsite)
Removal/T ransport/Disposal
5b
$70
CY
Detailed Estimate
Refer to Appendix H, Table CW5b-3. -4, -8, -9, -10, -11, -12, -14, -15, and -16
Contaminated Materials Excavation and Transport
Removal/T ransport/Disposal
6
$70
CY
Detailed Estimate
Refer to Appendix H, Table CW6-4, -5, -6, -7, -8A, -9, -10, -11, -13, and -14
Contaminated Materials Disposal (Offsite)
Removal/T ransport/Disposal
6
$60
TN
Detailed Estimate
Refer to Appendix H, Table CW6-8B
Contaminated Materials Excavation and Transport
Removal/T ransport/Disposal
7
$65
CY
Detailed Estimate
Contaminated Materials Treatment
T reatment
7
$470
TN
Vendor Quote -
ARI Technologies
Thermo-Chemical Treatment (TCCT), patented by ARI, is a commercial form of
thermo-chemical treatment technologies.
Notes: Unit costs in this table are rounded to the nearest $1,000 (large unit costs) or nearest $10 or $1 (small unit costs)
Abbreviations:
ACR
Acre
CY
Cubic Yard
EA
Each
LS
Lump Sum
TN
Tons
YR
Year
FINAL
Page 27 of 27
-------
Appendix F
Remedy Component Information for
Retained Alternatives
-------
Part I
Summary of Institutional Controls Applicable to the
North Ridge Estates Site
-------
Appendix F
Summary of Institutional Controls
Applicable to the North Ridge Estates Site
Institutional controls for the site would consist primarily of governmental controls
and proprietary controls, and potentially informational notices. The following
paragraphs provide detailed descriptions for these specific legal and administrative
instruments that could be used in implementation of an alternative for the site that
requires the use of institutional controls to ensure protectiveness.
Governmental controls impose land or resource restrictions under the authority of an
existing unit of government. Such controls may include use or changes in local
zoning, permits, codes, or regulations. The site is located in Klamath County, Oregon.
Klamath County has demonstrated legal authority to pass ordinances respecting the
use and development of land. Such authority might also be used to pass ordinances
requiring the safe handling or management of soils from the site that are or may be
contaminated with ACM. Consistent with Oregon law (ORS Chapter 195), the
Klamath County Board of Commissioners maintains jurisdiction over specific local
land use decisions with legal authority to approve proposed changes in zoning that
may be necessary to accommodate remedial alternatives and ensure the
protectiveness of any selected remedy. EPA and Oregon DEQ representatives have
already met with the county commissioners and discussed the potential need for
changes in zoning to support or protect potential remedies, and have a reasonable
basis to believe that specific and reasonable proposals to the county commissioners
would be approved. This reasonable belief is supported by recent experience of the
NRE receiver in seeking and obtaining a desired land use decision from the county
commissioners.
Proprietary controls are various legal instruments based on state law, such as
easements or covenants, to prohibit activities that could pose an unacceptable risk or
compromise the effectiveness of a remedy. Consistent with State of Oregon property
law, land use restrictions may be effected by the use of an Easement and Equitable
Servitude. Creation of such legal instruments can be facilitated through use of a
standard form developed for such purpose by Oregon DEQ. Through such
instruments, an owner of property (grantor) may convey to another party (grantee) an
easement for access. In the past, Oregon DEQ has agreed to serve as a grantee for
purposes of effectuating an Equitable Servitude. Grantors may also, simultaneously,
accept placement of equitable servitudes upon the property. Such equitable servitudes
may include restrictions on land use, such as prohibitions of residential or agricultural
use. Equitable servitudes may also prohibit grantors from conduct, such as
excavation, that would impair the protectiveness of a constructed remedy, such as a
soil cover. An executed Easement and Equitable Servitude will be filed with the
county records and is intended to run with the land, so that any future owners will
also take the property subject to the conditions of the instrument. Through such
instruments, grantees, including Oregon DEQ, may hold perpetual rights to enforce
the conditions and restrictions of such instrument.
CDM F-i
NRE_Final FS_Appendix F_Part 1.doc
-------
Appendix F
Summary of Institutional Controls Applicable to the North Ridge Estates Site
For the site, much of the contaminated property is held by the NRE receiver
designated by Consent Decree No. 03-3021-H0 (U.S. District Court, District of Oregon
2006). Under the Consent Decree, the NRE receiver is required to manage the
properties "in a manner consistent with response actions taken, to be taken, or
otherwise required by EPA...." (Consent Decree 11.a). Consistent with that direction,
should a developer or other party desire to acquire the receivership controlled parcels
at any time, EPA may require the NRE receiver to convey the NRE receiver's parcels
subject to land use restrictions that are included within response actions selected for
the site. As indicated above, such restrictions may be placed upon the NRE receiver's
parcels through use of an Easement and Equitable Servitude and may prohibit future
owners of such properties from disturbing covers over contaminated materials buried
in place, contaminated materials consolidated and placed within an onsite disposal
facility, or otherwise within the area of real property subject to the instrument.
Land use restrictions may also be effected within the site through use of private
"Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions" (CC&Rs) that are recorded with the
property deed. CC&Rs are commonly established for new residential subdivisions,
and have already been established for residential parcels within the site, setting such
requirements as minimum lot size. At the request of EPA, under authority of the
Consent Decree, the NRE receiver could propose to amend the CC&Rs for the NRE
subdivision to incorporate selected land use restrictions necessary to protect human
health from exposure to remaining asbestos-containing materials. Proposed
amendments to the CC&Rs may be facilitated through the NRE receiver's majority
ownership of parcels within the subdivision. Once in place, CC&Rs are typically
enforced by homeowners acting through a homeowners' association. Activities of
homeowners' association are typically funded through assessment of maintenance
fees upon homeowners subject to the CC&Rs. This self-enforcing mechanism may
provide enhanced reliability.
Informational notices may also be utilized in order to provide notice of contamination
on the property and to discourage uses that could lead to unacceptable exposures to
such contamination. In the State of Oregon, informational notices may take the form
of a Notice of Environmental Contamination which Oregon DEQ may issue
unilaterally, consistent with ORS 465.200 et seq. Consistent with ORS 205.130(2), such
notices may be presented by Oregon DEQ to the county clerk for recording in the
county records. With respect to certain parcels within the site, such notices have
already been recorded to provide notice of asbestos contamination. Future notices for
parcels within the site would be coordinated with Agency for Toxic Substances and
Disease Registry (ATSDR) and the Oregon Environmental Health Assessment
Program (EHAP).
Institutional controls may be selected and employed individually, or used in concert
with other land use controls consistent with the concept of "layering" promoted by
EPA (EPA 2000b). Institutional controls may be implemented on a parcel by parcel
basis, depending on the risks posed to human health and the environment from
contaminated materials within the particular parcel.
F-2 CDM
NRE_Final FS_Appendix F_Part 1.doc
-------
Part II
Monitoring and Inspection Protocol for
Retained Alternatives
-------
Alternative:
Description:
No Action
Detailed Description
Parcel Ownership
Contaminated Materials Status
Active General Response Action Components
Monitoring and Inspection Requirements
No Action
Land Use Controls
Containment
Removal, Transport, and Disposal
Remedial Action (RA) Construction/ Operations and Maintenance (O&M)
5-Year Site Reviews
Institutional
Controls
Access
Controls
Community
Awareness
Activities
Cover
Excavation
and Backfill
Future
Surface
Excavation
Onsite
Transport
and Disposal
Offsite
Transport
and Disposal
Interior
Cleaning
Structure
Relocation or
Demolition
Borrow Source
Testing (Intrusive
Visual Inspection,
ABS, and Non-
Asbestos COPC
Analysis)
Cover and/or
Backfill Inspection
(Non-Intrusive
Visual Inspection)
Excavation
Confirmatory
Sampling
(Intrusive Visual
Inspection and
ABS)
Ambient Air
Sampling
Inspection of Areas
without Identified
Contamination
(Intrusive Visual
Inspection and ABS) 1
Non-Intrusive
Visual
Inspection
Ambient Air
Sampling
Indoor Air
Sampling
Private
Developed
identified Surface/Subsurface Contaminated Materials
S
s
Identified Steam Pipe
s
No identified Contaminated Materials at Surface/Subsurface
s
Undeveloped
identified Surface/Subsurface Contaminated Materials
s
Identified Steam Pipe
s
No identified Contaminated Materials at Surface/Subsurface
s
Receivership
Developed
identified Surface/Subsurface Contaminated Materials
s
s
Identified Steam Pipe
s
No identified Contaminated Materials at Surface/Subsurface
s
Undeveloped
identified Surface/Subsurface Contaminated Materials
s
Identified Steam Pipe
s
No identified Contaminated Materials at Surface/Subsurface
s
Note:
A. Rows or columns shaded in grey indicate item is not a component of the remedy for the corresponding parcel ownership and contaminated materials status categories.
B. Description of the various analytical methods for asbestos are presented in Section 2.5 of the FS.
C. The "Monitoring and Inspection Requirements" are for feasibility study evaluation purposes only. The specific monitoring and inspection requirements for the selected remedy would be determined during the remedial design(RD)/remedial action(RA) phase.
1 These areas have no historic or current indication or evidence of asbestos or non-asbestos COPCs.
No Action m This alternative would leave removal action activities in their current condition and no new remedial actions would be initiated at the site to address contaminated materials or otherwise mitigate the associated risks to human health and the environment.
5-Year Site Reviews
Non-Intrusive Visual Inspection ¦ Non-intrusive visual inspections (i.e. surface inspections) performed in support of 5-year site reviews would be made on all parcels within the site boundary regardless of ownership.
Ambient Air Sampling ¦ Ambient air samples would be collected and analyzed from various locations of the site to assess whether there are current exposure risks to asbestos fibers and non-asbestos COPCs in ambient air. Five locations (TBD) would be selected for sampling and samples would be analyzed by TEM Method. Weather data would be collected to correlate weather
conditions with measured releases of asbestos fibers. Non-asbestos COPCs that would also be sampled and analyzed include arsenic.
FINAL
-------
Alternative:
Description:
Capping of Contaminated Materials on Private Parcels, Partial Capping of Contaminated Materials on Receivership Parcels, Interior Cleaning, and Land Use Controls with Monitoring
Detailed Description
Active General Response Action Components
Monitoring and Inspection Requirements
Land Use Controls
Containment
Removal, Transport, and Disposal
Remedial Action (RA) Construction/ Operations and Maintenance (O&M)
5-Year Site Reviews
Parcel Ownership
Contaminated Materials Status
No Action
Institutional
Contois
Access
Controls
Community
Awareness
Activities
Cover
Excavation
and Backfill
Future
Surface
Excavation
Onsite
Transport
and Disposal
Offsite
Transport
and Disposal
interior
Cleaning
Structure
Relocation or
Demolition
Borrow Source
Testing (intrusive
Visual Inspection,
ABS, and Non-
Asbestos COPC
Analysis)
Cover and/or
Backfill Inspection
(Non-Intrusive
Visual Inspection)
Excavation
Confirmatory
Sampling
(Intrusive Visual
Inspection and
ABS)
Ambient Air
Sampling
Inspection of Areas
with out Iden tified
Contamination
(Intrusive Visual
Inspection and
ABS)1
Non-
Intrusi/e
Visual
Inspection
Ambient Air
Sampling
Indoor Air
Sampling
Identified Surface/Subsurface Contaminated Materials
s
s
Developed
Identified Steam Pipe
S2
s
s
s
s*
s
Private
No Identified Contaminated Materials at Surface/Subsurface
s
s
s
s
s
Identified Surface/Subsurface Contaminated Materials
s
s
Undeveloped
Identified Steam Pipe
S2
s
s
s*
No Identified Contaminated Materials at Surface/Subsurface
s
Identified Surface/Subsurface Contaminated Materials
s
Developed
Identified Steam Pipe
s
s
s*
Receivership
No Identified Contaminated Materials at Surface/Subsurface
s
s
s
s
Identified Surface/Subsurface Contaminated Materials
s
Undeveloped
Identified Steam Pipe
s
s*
No Identified Contaminated Materials at Surface/Subsurface
Note:
A. Rows or columns shaded in grey indicate item is not a component of the remedy for the corresponding parcel ownership and contaminated materials status categories.
B. Description of the various monitoring activities for asbestos are presented in Section 2.5 of the FS.
C. The "Monitoring and inspection Requirements" are for feasibility study evaluation purposes only. The specific monitoring and inspection requirements for the selected remedy would be determined during the remedial design(RD)/remedial action(RA) phase.
1 These areas have no historic or current indication or evidence of asbestos or non-asbestos COPCs.
2 Subsurface ACM steam pipe beneath privately-owned parcels on Thicket Court and other locations east of Old Fort Road would be demarcated using posted warnings.
3 Partial in-place capping of identified contaminated materials on receiver-managed parcels.
4 Further actions would be implemented following visual inspection if remedy components were deemed to be compromised or were determined to not be protective of human health or the environment.
Land Use Controls
Institutional Controls ¦ Institutional controls would consist of a combination of governmental controls, proprietary controls, and/or informational devices that would be selected on a parcel by parcel basis depending on the ownership status (privately owned parcels versus receiver-managed parcels) and the degree of contamination present on the parcel.
/Access Controls
Community Awareness Activities
Access controls (specifically posted warnings) would be implemented primarily on the uncovered portions of receiver-managed parcels to discourage access and warn people of exposed contaminated materials and the current onsite repository existing on receiver-managed parcels.
Community awareness activities include informational and educational programs to inform the public about site risks and the activities being performed to reduce these risks.
Containment
Cover
¦ All contaminated materials identified on privately owned parcels and a portion of contaminated materials on the receiver-managed parcels would be capped in-place with at least 24 inches of cover materials (assumed to be a minimum of 18 inches of subsoil and 6 inches of topsoil) to provide a barrier from exposure to contaminated materials and protection
from frost heave processes.
Removal, Transport and Disposal
Interior Cleaning ¦ Interior cleaning would be performed on a periodic basis using vacuum extraction to remove asbestos fibers within residential structures on privately owned parcels. It is assumed that interior cleaning would involve temporarily relocating residents, enclosing the residence to prevent escape of asbestos fibers, aggressive disturbance of home surfaces with
blowers to dislodge fibers, and vacuum extraction/pumping to remove the fibers. A total of five clearance samples would be collected per house and would be analyzed by TEM Method. This process would be repeated until no asbestos fibers are detected.
Structure Relocation or Demolition ¦ Unoccupied homes within receiver-managed parcels would require removal (either relocation or demolition) to avoid becoming safety hazards to nearby homes on privately owned parcels.
RA Construction/O&M Monitoring
Borrow Source Testing (Intrusive ¦ Samples would be collected from potential soil borrow areas and analyzed for asbestos and non-asbestos COPCs. Visual inspection and ABS activities would be conducted to determine asbestos contamination. The most conservative ABS scenario (e.g. raking) would be conducted once every 10.000 cv of fill and the sample area would be integrated to
Visual Inspection, ABS, and Non- include the potential borrow area. The ABS samples would be analyzed by TEM Method. Non-asbestos contamination would include organic/inorganic analysis for VOCs. SVOCs. PCBs. TPH. herbicides, pesticides, and target analvte list metals.
Asbestos COPC Analysis)
Cover and/or Backfill Inspection (Non- ¦ Monitoring protocol for covered portions of privately owned and receiver-managed parcels would include routine non-intrusive visual inspections (i.e. surface inspections) to ensure integrity of the covers.
Intrusive Visual Inspection)
Ambient Air Sampling ¦ Ambient air samples would be collected and analyzed from various locations of the site to assess whether there are current exposure risks to asbestos fibers and non-asbestos COPCs in ambient air during the construction activities. Five locations (TBD) would be selected for sampling and samples would be analyzed by TEM Method. Weather data would be
collected to correlate weather conditions with measured releases of asbestos fibers. Non-asbestos COPCs that would also be sampled and analyzed include arsenic.
Inspection of Areas without Identified ¦ Monitoring for areas of the site with no historical or current contamination would be performed after construction is complete. The monitoring would be performed using a tiered approach with visual inspection, followed by ABS to provide a point-in-time determination whether these areas were adversely impacted by dispersion of contamination during
Contamination (Intrusive Visual construction activities on adjacent areas. The most conservative ABS scenario (e.g. raking) would be conducted for areas no greater than 40.000 sguare feet and samples would be analyzed by TEM Method.
Inspection and ABS)1
5-Year Site Reviews
Non-Intrusive Visual Inspection ¦ Monitoring protocol for covered portions of privately owned and receiver-managed parcels would include routine non-intrusive visual inspections (i.e. surface inspections) to ensure integrity of the covers and protectiveness of the remedy. See Note 4.
Ambient Air Sampling ¦ Ambient air samples would be collected and analyzed from various locations of the site to assess whether there are current exposure risks to asbestos fibers and non-asbestos COPCs in ambient air. Five locations (TBD) would be selected for sampling and samples would be analyzed by TEM Method. Weather data would be collected to correlate weather
conditions with measured releases of asbestos fibers. Non-asbestos COPCs that would also be sampled and analyzed include arsenic.
Indoor Air Sampling m Indoor air sampling would be conducted at each 5-vear review. A total of five samples would be collected per house and would be analyzed by TEM Method. If samples contain asbestos fibers, interior cleaning would be performed within the house.
FINAL
-------
Alternative:
Description:
Capping of Contaminated Materials and Land Use Controls with Monitoring
Detailed Description
Parcel Ownership
Contaminated Materials Status
Active General Response Action Components
Monitoring and Inspection Requirements
No Action
Land Use Controls
Containment
Removal, Transport, and Disposal
Remedial Action (RA) Construction/ Operations and Maintenance (O&M)
5-Year Site Reviews
Institutional
Controls
Access
Controls
Community
Awareness
Activities
Cover
Excavation
and Backfill
Future
Surface
Excavation
Onsite
Transport
and Disposal
Offsite
Transport
and Disposal
Interior
Cleaning
Structure
Relocation or
Demolition
Borrow Source
Testing (Intrusive
Visual Inspection,
ABS, and Non-
Asbestos COPC
Analysis)
Cover and/or
Backfill Inspection
(Non-Intrusive
Visual Inspection)
Excavation
Confirmatory
Sampling
(Intrusive Visual
Inspection and
ABS)
Ambient Air
Sampling
Inspection of Areas
without Identified
Contamination
(Intrusive Visual
Inspection and ABS) 1
Non-Intrusive
Visual
Inspection
Ambient Air
Sampling
indoor Air
Sampling
Private
Developed
Identified Surface/Subsurface Contaminated Materials
s
s
s
s
•/*
Identified Steam Pipe
S2
s
No Identified Contaminated Materials at Surface/Subsurface
s
s
Undeveloped
Identified Surface/Subsurface Contaminated Materials
s
V*
Identified Steam Pipe
S2
s
No Identified Contaminated Materials at Surface/Subsurface
s
Receivership
Developed
Identified Surface/Subsurface Contaminated Materials
s
s
^3
s
s
•/*
Identified Steam Pipe
No Identified Contaminated Materials at Surface/Subsurface
s
Undeveloped
Identified Surface/Subsurface Contaminated Materials
s
s*
Identified Steam Pipe
s
No Identified Contaminated Materials at Surface/Subsurface
s
Note:
A. Rows or columns shaded in grey indicate item is not a component of the remedy for the corresponding parcel ownership and contaminated materials status categories.
B. Description of the various monitoring activities for asbestos are presented in Section 2.5 of the FS.
C. The "Monitoring and Inspection Requirements" are for feasibility study evaluation purposes only. The specific monitoring and inspection requirements for the selected remedy would be determined during the remedial design(RD)/remedial action(RA) phase.
1 These areas have no historic or current indication or evidence of asbestos or non-asbestos COPCs.
2 Subsurface ACM steam pipe beneath privately owned parcels on Thicket Court and other locations east of Old Fort Road would be demarcated using posted warnings.
3 Assumes placement of an additional 12 inches of clean cover material on the existing repository to ensure that the permanent cover has the required minimum thickness to provide protection against frost heave processes.
4 Further actions would be implemented following visual inspection if remedy components were deemed to be compromised or were determined to not be protective of human health or the environment.
Land Use Controls
Institutional Controls ¦ Institutional controls would consist of a combination of governmental controls, proprietary controls, and/or informational devices that would be selected on a parcel by parcel basis depending on the ownership status (privately owned parcels versus receiver-managed parcels) and the degree of contamination present on the parcel.
/Access Controls ¦ Access controls (specifically posted warnings) would be implemented primarily at the exisitng onsite disposal location to discourage access and people of the current repository on receiver-managed parcels.
Community Awareness Activities m Community awareness activities include informational and educational programs to inform the public about site risks and the activities being performed to reduce these risks.
Containment
Cover ¦ All contaminated materials identified on privately owned parcels and receiver-managed parcels would be capped in-place with at least 24 inches of cover materials (assumed to be a minimum of 18 inches of subsoil and 6 inches of topsoil) to provide a barrier from exposure to contaminated materials and protection from frost heave processes. Also, see Note 3.
RA Construction/O&M Monitoring
Borrow Source Testing (Intrusive ¦ Samples would be collected from potential soil borrow areas and analyzed for asbestos and non-asbestos COPCs. Visual inspection and ABS activities would be conducted to determine asbestos contamination. The most conservative ABS scenario (e.g. raking) would be conducted once every 10.000 cv of fill and the sample area would be integrated to include
Visual Inspection, ABS, and Non- the potential borrow area. The ABS samples would be analyzed by TEM Method. Non-asbestos contamination would include organic/inorganic analysis for VOCs. SVOCs. PCBs. TPH. herbicides, pesticides, and target analvte list metals.
Asbestos COPC Analysis)
Cover and/or Backfill Inspection (Non- ¦ Monitoring protocol for covered portions of privately owned and receiver-managed parcels would include routine non-intrusive visual inspections (i.e. surface inspections) to ensure integrity of the covers.
Intrusive Visual Inspection)
Ambient Air Sampling ¦ Ambient air samples would be collected and analyzed from various locations of the site to assess whether there are current exposure risks to asbestos fibers and non-asbestos COPCs in ambient air during the construction activities. Five locations (TBD) would be selected for sampling and samples would be analyzed by TEM Method. Weather data would be
collected to correlate weather conditions with measured releases of asbestos fibers. Non-asbestos COPCs that would also be sampled and analyzed include arsenic.
Inspection of Areas without Identified ¦ Monitoring for areas of the site with no historical or current contamination would be performed after construction is complete. The monitoring would be performed using a tiered approach with visual inspection, followed by ABS to provide a point-in-time determination whether these areas were adversely impacted by dispersion of contamination during
Contamination (Intrusive Visual construction activities on adjacent areas. The most conservative ABS scenario (e.g. raking) would be conducted for areas no greater than 40.000 sguare feet and samples would be analyzed by TEM Method.
Inspection and ABS)1
5-Year Site Reviews
Non-Intrusive Visual Inspection ¦ Monitoring protocol for covered portions of privately owned and receiver-managed parcels would include routine non-intrusive visual inspections (i.e. surface inspections) to ensure integrity of the covers and protectiveness of the remedy. See Note 4.
FINAL
-------
Alternative:
Description:
5a
Excavation and Onsite Consolidation/Disposal of Contaminated Surface Materials, Future Excavation and Offsite Disposal of Contaminated Surface Materials at Permitted Facilities, and Land Use Controls with Monitoring
Detailed Description
Active General Response Action Components
Monitoring and Inspection Requirements
Land Use Controls
Containment
Removal, Transport, and Disposal
Remedial Action (RA) Construction/ Operations and Maintenance (O&M)
5-Year Site Reviews
Parcel Ownership
Contaminated Materials Status
No Action
Institutional
Controls
Access
Controls
Community
Awareness
Activities
Cover
Excavation
and Backfill
Future
Surface
Excavation
Onsite
Transport
and Disposal
Offsite
Transport,
and Disposal
In tenor
Cleaning
Structure
Relocation or
Demolition
Borrow Source
Testing (Intrusive
Visual Inspection,
ABS, and Non-
Asbestos COPC
Analysis)
Cover and/or
Backfill Inspection
(Non-Intrusive
Visual Inspection)
Excavation
Confirmatory
Sampling
(Intrusive Visual
Inspection and
ABS)
Ambient Air
Sampling
Inspection of Areas
without Identified
Contamination
(Intrusive Visual
Inspection and
ABS)1
Non-
Intrusive
Visual
Inspectbn
Ambient Air
Sampling
Indoor Air
Sampling
Identified Surface/Subsurface Contaminated Materials
¦/
¦/
¦/
¦/
¦/
¦/
¦/
Developed
Identified Steam Pipe
s-
s
s
s
~
~
s
ys
Private
No Identified Contaminated Materials at Surface/Subsurface
¦/
•/
¦/
•/
Identified Surface/Subsurface Contaminated Materials
s
s
s
s
Undeveloped
Identified Steam Pipe
s
¦/
¦/
¦/
¦/
¦/
¦/
¦/
No Identified Contaminated Materials at Surface/Subsurface
-------
Alternative:
Description:
5b
Excavation and Onsite Consolidation/Disposal of Contaminated Materials, and Land Use Controls with Monitoring
Detailed Description
Active General Response Action Components
Monitoring and Inspection Requirements
Land Use Controls
Containment
Removal, Transport, and Disposal
Remedial Action (RA) Construction/ Operations and Maintenance (O&M)
5-Year Site Reviews
Parcel Ownership
Contaminated Materials Status
No Action
Institutional
Contois
Access
Controls
Community
Awareness
Activities
Cover
Excavation
and Backfill
Future
Surface
Excavation
Onsite
Transport
and Disposal
Offsite
Transport
and Disposal
interior
Cleaning
Structure
Relocation or
Demolition
Borrow Source
Testing (intrusive
Visual Inspection,
ABS, and Non-
Asbestos COPC
Analysis)
Cover and/or
Backfill Inspection
(Non-Intrusive
Visual Inspection)
Excavation
Confirmatory
Sampling
(Intrusive Visual
Inspection and
ABS)
Ambient Air
Sampling
Inspection of Areas
with out Iden tified
Contamination
(Intrusive Visual
Inspection and
ABS)1
Non-
Intrusi/e
Visual
Inspection
Ambient Air
Sampling
Indoor Air
Sampling
Identified Surface/Subsurface Contaminated Materials
s
s
s
s
s
Developed
Identified Steam Pipe
S2
s
s
s*
Private
No Identified Contaminated Materials at Surface/Subsurface
s
s
Identified Surface/Subsurface Contaminated Materials
s
s
Undeveloped
Identified Steam Pipe
S2
s
s
s*
No Identified Contaminated Materials at Surface/Subsurface
s
Identified Surface/Subsurface Contaminated Materials
s
s
Developed
Identified Steam Pipe
s
s
s*
Receivership
No Identified Contaminated Materials at Surface/Subsurface
s
s
s
Identified Surface/Subsurface Contaminated Materials
s
s
Undeveloped
Identified Steam Pipe
y/lA
s
s
s*
No Identified Contaminated Materials at Surface/Subsurface
s
Note:
A. Rows or columns shaded in grey indicate item is not a component of the remedy for the corresponding parcel ownership and contaminated materials status categories.
B. Description of the various monitoring activities for asbestos are presented in Section 2.5 of the FS.
C. The "Monitoring and Inspection Requirements" are for feasibility study evaluation purposes only. The specific monitoring and inspection requirements for the selected remedy would be determined during the remedial design(RD)/remedial action(RA) phase.
These areas have no historic or current indication or evidence of asbestos or non-asbestos COPCs.
2 Subsurface ACM steam pipe beneath privately owned parcels on Thicket Court and other locations east of Old Fort Road would be demarcated using posted warnings.
3 Assumes placement of an additional 12 inches of clean cover material on the existing repository to ensure that the permanent cover has the required minimum thickness to provide protection against frost heave processes.
4Contaminated materials placed at the disposal locations would be consolidated and capped with at least 24 inches of cover materials (assumed to be a minimum of 18 inches of subsoil and 6 inches of topsoiD to provide a barrier from exposure to contaminated materials and protection from frost heave processes.
5 Further actions would be implemented following visual inspection if remedy components were deemed to be compromised or were determined to not be protective of human health or the environment.
Land Use Controls
Institutional Controls
Institutional controls would consist of a combination of governmental controls, proprietary controls, and/or informational devices that would be selected on a parcel by parcel basis depending on the ownership status (privately owned parcels versus receiver-managed parcels) and the degree of contamination present on the parcel.
/Access Controls
Community Awareness Activities
Access controls (specifically posted warnings) would be implemented primarily at the onsite disposal locations to discourage access and warn people of the current and new onsite repositories on receiver-managed parcels.
Community awareness activities include informational and educational programs to inform the public about site risks and the activities being performed to reduce these risks.
Containment
Cover
See Note 3.
Removal, Transport and Disposal
Excavation and Backfill
Onsite Transport and Disposal4
¦ Surface and subsurface contaminated materials would be fully excavated to the identified depth of contamination on privately owned parcels and receiver-managed parcels. Clean soil would be used for backfill up to 6 inches bas and the remaining 6 inches would be covered with topsoil. Clean soil is assumed to be transported from offsite borrow areas tested
for contamination.
¦ The excavated contaminated surface materials would be consolidated at an authorized onsite locations specifically for disposal of the contaminated materials, including ACM. The disposal locations will be consolidated and capped with at least 24 inches of cover materials (assumed to be a minimum of 18 inches of subsoil and 6 inches of topsoil) to provide a
barrier from exposure to contaminated materials and protection from frost heave processes.
RA Construction/O&M Monitoring
Borrow Source Testing (Intrusive ¦ Samples would be collected from potential soil borrow areas and analyzed for asbestos and non-asbestos COPCs. Visual inspection and ABS activities would be conducted to determine asbestos contamination. The most conservative ABS scenario (e.g. raking) would be conducted once every 10,000 cy of fill and the sample area
Visual Inspection, ABS, and Non- would be integrated to include the potential borrow source area. The ABS samples would be analyzed by TEM Method. Non-asbestos contamination would include organic/inorganic analysis for VOCs, SVOCs, PCBs, TPH, herbicides, pesticides, and target analyte list metals.
Asbestos COPC Analysis)
Cover and/or Backfill Inspection (Non- ¦ Monitoring protocol for covered and/or backfilled portions of privately owned and receiver-managed parcels would include routine non-intrusive visual inspections (i.e. surface inspections) to ensure integrity of the covers and/or backfilled excavations during construction activities.
Intrusive Visual Inspection)
Excavation Confirmatory Sampling ¦ A tiered approach using intrusive visual inspections coupled with ABS analysis would be conducted to confirm that contaminated materials have been completely excavated from the area to the extent they can be detected. The most conservative ABS scenario (e.g. raking) would be conducted for areas no greater than 40.000 square feet and would be
(Intrusive Visual Inspection and ABS) analyzed bvTEM Method. ABS activities would not be conducted where visual contamination would remain in place (e.g. at 2 feet bgs) and the extent of contamination left in place would be documented. Arsenic sampling would be conducted at a frequency of one sample per 2,500 square feet along the bottom and side-walls of the excavation area of the former
power plant.
Ambient Air Sampling ¦ Ambient air samples would be collected and analyzed from various locations of the site to assess whether there are current exposure risks to asbestos fibers and non-asbestos COPCs in ambient air during the construction activities. Five locations (TBD) would be selected for sampling and samples would be analyzed by TEM Method. Weather data would be
collected to correlate weather conditions with measured releases of asbestos fibers. Non-asbestos COPCs that would also be sampled and analyzed include arsenic.
Inspection of Areas without Identified ¦ Monitoring for areas of the site with no historical or current contamination would be performed after construction is complete. The monitoring would be performed using a tiered approach with intrusive visual inspection, followed by ABS to provide a point-in-time determination whether these areas were adversely impacted by dispersion of contamination during
Contamination (Intrusive Visual construction activities on adjacent areas. The most conservative ABS scenario (e.g. raking) would be conducted for areas no greater than 40.000 square feet and samples would be analyzed by TEM Method.
Inspection and ABS)1
5-Year Site Reviews
Non-Intrusive Visual Inspection ¦ Monitoring protocol for covered portions of privately owned and receiver-managed parcels would include routine non-intrusive visual inspections (i.e. surface inspections) to ensure integrity of the covers and backfill, and protectiveness of the remedy. See Note 5.
FINAL
-------
Alternative:
Description:
Excavation and Offsite Disposal of Contaminated Materials at Permitted Facilities, and Land Use Controls with Monitoring
Detailed Description
Active General Response Action Components
Monitoring and Inspection Requirements
Land Use Controls
Containment
Removal, Transport, and Disposal
Remedial Action (RA) Construction/ Operations and Maintenance (O&M)
5-Year Site Reviews
Parcel Ownership
Contaminated Materials Status
No Action
Institutional
Controls
Access
Controls
Community
Awareness
Activities
Cover
Excavation
and Backfill
Future
Surface
Excavathn
Onsite
Transport
and Disposal
Offsite
Transport
and Disposal
Interior
Cleaning
Structure
Relocation or
Demolition
Borrow Source
Testing (Intrusive
Visual Inspection,
ABS, and Non-
Asbestos COPC
Analysis)
Cover and/or
Backfill Inspection
(Non-Intrusive
Visual Inspection)
Excavation
Confirmatory
Sampling
(Intrusive Visual
Inspection and
ABS)
Ambient Air
Sampling
Inspection of Areas
without Identified
Contamination
(Intrusive Visual
Inspection and ABS) 1
Non-Intrusive
Visual
Inspection
Ambient Air
Sampling
Indoor Air
Sampling
Identified Surface/Subsurface Contaminated Materials
s
s
s
Developed
Identified Steam Pipe
S2
s
s
s*
Private
No Identified Contaminated Materials at Surface/Subsurface
s
s
s
s
Identified Surface/Subsurface Contaminated Materials
s
s
Undeveloped
Identified Steam Pipe
S2
s
s
s*
No Identified Contaminated Materials at Surface/Subsurface
s
Identified Surface/Subsurface Contaminated Materials
s
s
Developed
Identified Steam Pipe
s
s*
Receivership
No Identified Contaminated Materials at Surface/Subsurface
s
s
s
s
Identified Surface/Subsurface Contaminated Materials
s
s
Undeveloped
Identified Steam Pipe
^3
s
s
s*
No Identified Contaminated Materials at Surface/Subsurface
s
Note:
A. Rows or columns shaded in grey indicate item is not a component of the remedy for the corresponding parcel ownership and contaminated materials status categories.
B. Description of the various monitoring activities for asbestos are presented in Section 2.5 of the FS.
C. The "Monitoring and Inspection Requirements" are for feasibility study evaluation purposes only. The specific monitoring and inspection requirements for the selected remedy would be determined during the remedial design(RD)/remedial action(RA) phase.
1 These areas have no historic or current indication or evidence of asbestos or non-asbestos COPCs.
2 Subsurface ACM steam pipe beneath privately owned parcels on Thicket Court and other locations east of Old Fort Road would be demarcated using posted warnings.
3 Assumes placement of an additional 12 inches of clean cover material on the existing repository to ensure that the permanent cover has the required minimum thickness to provide protection against frost heave processes.
4 Further actions would be implemented following visual inspection if remedy components were deemed to be compromised or were determined to not be protective of human health or the environment.
Land Use Controls
Institutional Controls
/Access Controls
Community Awareness Activities
Institutional controls would consist of a combination of governmental controls, proprietary controls, and/or informational devices that would be selected on a parcel by parcel basis depending on the ownership status (privately owned parcels versus receiver-managed parcels) and the degree of contamination present on the parcel.
Access controls (specifically posted warnings) would be implemented primarily at the onsite disposal locations to discourage access and warn people of the current and new onsite repositories on receiver-managed parcels.
Community awareness activities include informational and educational programs to inform the public about site risks and the activities being performed to reduce these risks.
Containment
Cover
See Note 3.
Removal, Transport and Disposal
Excavation and Backfill
Offsite Transport and Disposal
¦ Surface and subsurface contaminated materials would be fully excavated to the identified depth of contamination on privately owned parcels and receiver-managed parcels. Clean soil would be used for backfill up to 6 inches bas and the remaining 6 inches would be covered with topsoil. Clean soil is assumed to be transported from offsite borrow areas tested for
contamination.
¦ Excavated contaminated materials would be transported offsite for disposal. Disposal facilities include permitted municipal-owned landfills, construction debris landfills, and/or commercially or privately owned landfills authorized by Oregon DEQ for asbestos.
RA Construction/O&M Monitoring
Borrow Source Testing (Intrusive ¦ Samples would be collected from potential soil borrow areas and analyzed for asbestos and non-asbestos COPCs. Visual inspection and ABS activities would be conducted to determine asbestos contamination. The most conservative ABS scenario (e.g. rakincO would be conducted once every 10.000 cv of fill and the sample area would be integrated to include
Visual inspection, ABS, and Non- the potential borrow source area. The ABS samples would be analyzed by TEM Method. Non-asbestos contamination would include organic/inorganic analysis for VOCs. SVOCs. PCBs. TPH. herbicides, pesticides, and target analvte list metals.
Asbestos COPC Sampling)
Cover and/or Backfill Inspection (Non- ¦ Monitoring protocol for covered and/or backfilled portions of privately owned and receiver-managed parcels would include routine non-intrusive visual inspections (i.e. surface inspections) to ensure integrity of the covers and/or backfilled excavations during construction activities.
Intrusive Visual Inspection)
Excavation Confirmatory Sampling ¦ A tiered approach using intrusive visual inspections coupled with ABS analysis would be conducted to confirm that contaminated materials have been completely excavated from the area to the extent they can be detected. The most conservative ABS scenario (e.g. raking) would be conducted for areas no greater than 40.000 sguare feet and would be analyzed
(Intrusive Visual Inspection and ABS) by TEM Method. ABS activities would not be conducted where visual contamination would remain in place (e.g. at 2 feet bgs) and the extent of contamination left in place would be documented. Arsenic sampling would be conducted at a frequency of one sample per 2,500 square feet along the bottom and side-walls of the excavation area of the former power plant.
Ambient Air Sampling
¦ Ambient air samples would be collected and analyzed from various locations of the site to assess whether there are current exposure risks to asbestos fibers and non-asbestos COPCs in ambient air during the construction activities. Five locations (TBD) would be selected for sampling and samples would be analyzed by TEM Method. Weather data would be
collected to correlate weather conditions with measured releases of asbestos fibers. Non-asbestos COPCs that would also be sampled and analyzed include arsenic.
Inspection of Areas without Identified ¦ Monitoring for areas of the site with no historical or current contamination would be performed after construction is complete. The monitoring would be performed using a tiered approach with visual inspection, followed by ABS to provide a point-in-time determination whether these areas were adversely impacted by dispersion of contamination during construction
Contamination (Intrusive Visual activities on adjacent areas. The most conservative ABS scenario (e.g. raking) would be conducted for areas no greater than 40.000 square feet and samples would be analyzed by TEM Method.
Inspection and ABS)1
5-Year Site Reviews
Non-Intrusive Visual Inspection
Monitoring protocol for covered portions of privately owned and receiver-managed parcels would include routine non-intrusive visual inspections (i.e. surface inspections) to ensure integrity of the covers and backfill, and protectiveness of the remedy. See Note 4.
FINAL
-------
Appendix G
Detailed Analysis of Retained Alternatives
The detailed evaluation and analysis of each alternative is assessed using the
two threshold criteria and five balancing criteria are presented in the following
Appendix G. The common justifications have been indicated using gray text to
allow the reader to focus on the differences between alternatives.
-------
Alternative 1
No Action
-------
Appendix G
Detailed Analysis of Retained Alternative
Table G-1. Evaluation Summary for Overall Protection of Human Health
and the Environment - Alternative 1
Evaluation Factors for Overall Protection
of Human Health and the Environment
Evaluation Summary
Adequate protection of human health and the
environment (short- and long-term) from
unacceptable risks posed by hazardous
substances, pollutants, or contaminants present
at the site
¦ Source areas of contaminated materials would be left
unaddressed.
¦ Unaddressed contaminated materials would allow continued
release and migration of asbestos fibers and non-asbestos
COPCs to unimpacted media (primarily soil and air) if
disturbed.
¦ Contaminated materials migrating to the surface and liberating
asbestos fibers and non-asbestos COPCs after disturbance
could represent an inhalation and ingestion exposure risk to
humans and/or ecological receptors.
¦ PRAOs would be unaddressed.
Table G-2. Evaluation Summary for Compliance with ARARs -
Alternative 1
Evaluation Factors for Compliance with
ARARs
Evaluation Summary
Compliance with chemical-specific ARARs
¦ No action would be taken to address contaminated materials
and contaminated air that would likely exceed acceptable risk
standards specified in Oregon Environmental Cleanup Law
and Oregon Hazardous Substance Remedial Action Rules.
Thus this criterion is not met.
Compliance with location-specific ARARs
¦ Location-specific ARARs would not be triggered since no new
remedial measures would be undertaken.
Compliance with action-specific ARARs
¦ Action-specific ARARs would not be triggered since no new
remedial measures would be undertaken.
Table G-3. Evaluation Summary for Long-Term Effectiveness and
Permanence - Alternative 1
Evaluation Factors for Long-Term
Effectiveness and Permanence
Evaluation Summary
Magnitude of residual risk remaining from
untreated waste or treatment residuals remaining
at the conclusion of the remedial activities
¦ No new remedial actions would be undertaken to address
contaminated materials. Contaminated materials and
contaminated air would likely exceed acceptable risk
standards specified in Oregon Environmental Cleanup Law
and Oregon Hazardous Substance Remedial Action Rules.
¦ Contaminated materials would be left exposed to humans and
ecological receptors.
Adequacy and reliability of controls that are used
to manage treatment residuals and untreated
waste remaining at the site
¦ No controls are put in place under the no action alternative.
Thus contaminated materials would be left uncontrolled.
¦ Contaminated materials could migrate to other media and
could pose unacceptable risks to humans and ecological
receptors.
CDM
NRE_Final FS_ Appendix G.doc
-------
Appendix G
Detailed Analysis of Alternatives
Table G-4. Evaluation Summary for Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, or
Volume throug
hi Treatment - Alternative 1
Evaluation Factors for Reduction of
Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume through
Treatment
Evaluation Summary
The treatment processes, the alternative uses,
and materials they will treat
¦ This alternative would not treat contaminated materials. Thus
there would be no reduction of toxicity, mobility, or volume of
contamination through treatment.
¦ The statutory preference for treatment as a principal element
of the remedial action would not be met.
The amount of hazardous substances, pollutants,
or contaminants that will be destroyed or treated,
including how the principal threat(s) will be
addressed
The degree of expected reduction in toxicity,
mobility, or volume of the waste due to treatment
The degree to which the treatment is irreversible
The type and quantity of residuals that will
remain following treatment, considering the
persistence, toxicity, mobility, and propensity to
bioaccumulate such hazardous substances and
their constituents
Whether the alternative would satisfy the
statutory preference for treatment as a principal
element of the remedial action
Table G-5. Short-Term Effectiveness Evaluation Summary -
Alternative 1
Evaluation Factors for Short-Term
Effectiveness
Evaluation Summary
Short-term risks that might be posed to the
community during implementation of an
alternative
¦ Contaminated materials could pose potential short-term risks
at the site, which are unaddressed under this alternative.
¦ Continued release and migration of contaminated materials to
unimpacted media (primarily soil and air) could pose a risk to
humans and ecological receptors.
Potential impacts on workers during remedial
action and the effectiveness and reliability of
protective measures
¦ Workers performing site inspections during 5-year site reviews
would potentially be exposed to contaminated materials that
pose unacceptable risks.
¦ These risks could be mitigated through the use of monitoring
and personal protective equipment.
Potential adverse environmental impacts
resulting from construction and implementation of
an alternative and the reliability of the available
mitigation measures during implementation in
preventing or reducing the potential impacts
¦ No further remedial action would be undertaken. Thus there
would be no potential adverse impacts resulting from the
alternative.
Time until protection is achieved
¦ No further remedial action would be undertaken to address
contaminated materials. Thus protection would not be
achieved under this alternative.
CDM
NRE_Final FS_ Appendix G.doc
-------
Appendix G
Detailed Analysis of Alternatives
Table G-6. Implementability Evaluation Summary - Alternative 1
Evaluation Factors for Implementability
Evaluation Summary
Technical feasibility
Technical difficulties and unknowns
associated with the construction and
operation of a technology
¦ Contaminated materials would be left
unaddressed. No new remedial actions
would be undertaken to address
contaminated materials. Thus these
criteria are not applicable.
¦ Non-intrusive visual inspections, which are
part of Alternative 1 would be performed
during 5-year reviews and could be easily
implemented with available labor, material,
and technical resources.
Reliability of the technology, focusing on
technical problems that will lead to
schedule delays
Ease of undertaking additional remedial
actions including what, if any, future
remedial actions would be needed and
the difficulty to implement additional
remedial actions
Ability to monitor the effectiveness of
the remedy, including an evaluation of
risks of exposure should monitoring be
insufficient to detect a system failure
Administrative feasibility
Activities needed to coordinate with
other offices and agencies
¦ Contaminated materials would be left
unaddressed.
¦ No remedial actions would be undertaken
to address the site. Thus there would be
no need to obtain approvals from other
regulatory agencies.
The ability and time required to obtain
any necessary approvals and permits
from other agencies (for offsite actions)
¦ No offsite remedial activities would be
conducted under this alternative.
Availability of services and
materials
Availability of adequate offsite
treatment, storage capacity, and
disposal capacity and services
¦ No new remedial actions would be
undertaken. Thus this criterion is not
applicable.
Availability of necessary equipment and
specialists and provisions to ensure any
necessary additional resources
¦ Technical equipment and specialists are
available for conducting inspections during
5-year site reviews.
Availability of services and materials
plus the potential for obtaining
competitive bids, which is particularly
important for innovative technologies
Availability of prospective technologies
Table G-7. Cost Evaluation Summary - Alternative 1
Evaluation Factors for Cost
Approximate Cost (Dollars)
Total capital cost
None
Total annual O&M cost
None
Total periodic cost
$516,000
Total cost (excluding present value discounting)
$516,000
Total present value cost
$186,000
Note: Total costs are for the assumed period of evaluation (Years 0 through 30). Costs are rounded
to the nearest $1,000.
CDM
NRE_Final FS_ Appendix G.doc
-------
Alternative 3
Capping of Contaminated Materials on Private Parcels,
Partial Capping of Contaminated Materials on Receivership
Parcels, Interior Cleaning, and Land Use Controls
with Monitoring
-------
Appendix G
Detailed Analysis of Retained Alternative
Table G-8. Evaluation Summary for Overall Protection of Human Health
and the Environment - Alternative 3
Evaluation Factors for Overall
Protection of Human Health and the
Environment
Evaluation Summary
Adequate protection of human health and
the environment (short- and long-term)
from unacceptable risks posed by
hazardous substances, pollutants, or
contaminants present at the site
¦ A portion of contaminated materials on receiver-managed parcels
would be addressed through institutional and access controls, which
restrict access and use since these parcels are unoccupied.
¦ A portion of contaminated materials on receiver-managed parcels
and all contaminated materials on privately owned parcels would be
addressed through in-place capping (covers) coupled with
institutional and access controls to protect the covers.
¦ Capping (covering) of all identified surface and subsurface
contaminated materials would eliminate continued release and
migration of asbestos fibers and non-asbestos COPCs to
unimpacted media (primarily soil and air).
¦ Only covered areas/portions of the site where capping of
contaminated materials is implemented would be fully protective of
future non-residential or residential uses.
¦ Interior cleaning would be periodically performed, as needed, to
ensure that indoor air is protective of human health.
¦ Land use controls would be used to restrict access and use of the
existing onsite waste repository.
¦ If disturbed, uncovered contaminated materials on receiver-managed
parcels could allow continued release and migration of asbestos
fibers and non-asbestos COPCs. Institutional and access controls
would limit activities that could cause disturbances.
¦ Disturbed fibers would potentially represent an inhalation exposure
risk to humans and ecological receptors.
¦ Monitoring would be performed to determine protectiveness of the
remedy.
¦ PRAOs would be partially addressed through land use controls
where contaminated materials are left exposed. PRAOs would be
met where in-place capping is implemented.
Table G-9. Evaluation Summary for Compliance with ARARs -
Alternative 3
Evaluation Factors for Compliance
with ARARs
Evaluation Summary
Compliance with chemical-specific ARARs
¦ Soil covers placed over contaminated materials would physically
truncate the exposure pathways to humans and most ecological
receptors and eliminate discharges to air, thus meeting acceptable
risk standards specified in Oregon Environmental Cleanup Law and
Oregon Hazardous Substance Remedial Action Rules.
¦ Uncovered areas of contamination on receiver-managed parcels
would not be physically addressed. Contaminated materials and
contaminated air would likely exceed acceptable risk standards
specified in Oregon Environmental Cleanup Law and Oregon
Hazardous Substance Remedial Action Rules.
Compliance with location-specific ARARs
¦ Location-specific ARARs for the remedy would be addressed during
implementation of the remedial action.
Compliance with action-specific ARARs
¦ Action-specific ARARs for the remedy would be addressed during
implementation of the remedial action.
CDM
NRE_Final FS_ Appendix G.doc
-------
Appendix G
Detailed Analysis of Alternatives
Table G-10. Evaluation Summary for Long-Term Effectiveness and
Permanence - Alternative 3
Evaluation Factors for Long-
Term Effectiveness and
Permanence
Evaluation Summary
Magnitude of residual risk remaining
from untreated waste or treatment
residuals remaining at the conclusion of
the remedial activities
¦ Long-term effectiveness would not be entirely ensured since
contaminated materials potentially posing a risk would be left
exposed on site and could continue to degrade and migrate.
¦ If disturbed, contaminated materials could allow continued release
and migration of asbestos fibers and non-asbestos COPCs to
unimpacted media (primarily soil and air).
¦ Much of the contaminated materials would be left unaddressed. Total
surface area of contaminated materials left unaddressed would be
approximately 53 acres (assumed to be 50 percent of exposed
contaminated materials on receiver-managed parcels).
¦ Interior cleaning would not ensure protectiveness within the interior
of residential structures since contaminated materials would continue
to be exposed and degrade and migrate from receiver-managed
parcels and could be tracked into the structures.
¦ Monitoring would be performed to determine long-term effectiveness
and permanence of the remedy.
Adequacy and reliability of controls that
are used to manage treatment
residuals and untreated waste
remaining at the site
¦ Long-term effectiveness and permanence for covered areas would
be dependent on continued integrity of the covers and adherence to
institutional and access controls. This is less certain on privately
owned parcels.
¦ Interior cleaning would not ensure protectiveness within interiors of
residential structures since contaminated materials would continue to
be exposed and degrade and migrate from receiver-managed
parcels and could be tracked into the structures.
¦ Long-term effectiveness of institutional controls and access controls
would not be ensured since humans and ecological receptors could
ignore them, especially on privately owned parcels. Legal
enforcement of institutional controls may be necessary.
¦ O&M activities would be periodically required to repair damage or
erosion to the covers and access controls.
¦ Monitoring would be performed to determine long-term effectiveness
and permanence of the remedy.
CDM
NRE_Final FS_ Appendix G.doc
-------
Appendix G
Detailed Analysis of Alternatives
Table G-11. Evaluation Summary for Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, or
Volume through Treatment - Alternative 3
Evaluation Factors for Reduction of
Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume through
Treatment
Evaluation Summary
The treatment processes, the alternative uses,
and materials they will treat
¦ This alternative would not treat contaminated materials. Thus
there would be no reduction of toxicity, mobility, or volume of
contamination through treatment.
¦ The statutory preference for treatment as a principal element of
the remedial action would not be met.
The amount of hazardous substances,
pollutants, or contaminants that will be
destroyed or treated, including how the
principal threat(s) will be addressed
The degree of expected reduction in toxicity,
mobility, or volume of the waste due to
treatment
The degree to which the treatment is
irreversible
The type and quantity of residuals that will
remain following treatment, considering the
persistence, toxicity, mobility, and propensity to
bioaccumulate such hazardous substances and
their constituents
Whether the alternative would satisfy the
statutory preference for treatment as a principal
element of the remedial action
Table G-12. Short-Term Effectiveness Evaluation Summary -
Alternative 3
Evaluation Factors for Short-Term
Effectiveness
Evaluation Summary
Short-term risks that might be posed to
the community during implementation of
an alternative
¦ The alternative would involve surface disturbance of contaminated
materials which could pose short-term risks to the community living
close to the site boundary from inhalation of asbestos fibers or dust.
Protective measures, such as dust suppression (water- or chemical-
based) would be used to address those risks.
¦ Work area restrictions (such as exclusion zones) would be
implemented during construction to reduce short-term exposure risks
to the community.
¦ Transport of clean borrow materials for construction of covers would
pose short-term risks to the community from increased traffic.
¦ Residents of privately owned parcels could be exposed to
contaminated materials during implementation of the remedial action.
Temporary relocation of residents from privately owned parcels may be
required during construction of covers and interior cleaning.
¦ Access controls would restrict access and hence quickly protect the
community for receiver-managed parcels. However, they do not
address short-term exposure to contaminated materials on privately
owned parcels.
¦ Short-term risks posed to the community during implementation of the
alternative for receiver-managed parcels mainly relate to trespassers.
CDM
NRE_Final FS_ Appendix G.doc
-------
Appendix G
Detailed Analysis of Alternatives
Table G-12. Short-Term Effectiveness Evaluation Summary -
Alternative 3 (continued)
Evaluation Factors for Short-Term
Effectiveness
Evaluation Summary
Potential impacts on workers during
remedial action and the effectiveness
and reliability of protective measures
¦ Surface disturbance of contaminated materials could pose short-term
risks to workers installing covers, performing interior cleaning, and
installing access controls.
¦ Protective measures, such as dust suppression (water- or chemical-
based) and PPE would be used to address those risks.
¦ Work area restrictions (such as exclusion zones) would be
implemented during construction to reduce short-term exposure risks
to workers.
¦ Transport of clean borrow materials for construction of covers would
pose short-term risks to workers from increased traffic.
¦ Other potential impacts could be from safety hazards during remedial
implementation, such as falls, electrical hazards, and mechanical
hazards.
Potential adverse environmental impacts
resulting from construction and
implementation of an alternative and the
reliability of the available mitigation
measures during implementation in
preventing or reducing the potential
impacts
¦ The alternative involves surface disturbance of contaminated materials
which could pose potential adverse impacts through dispersion of
asbestos fibers or dust.
¦ There could also be some impacts to the environment during
implementation of the remedial action due to use of heavy construction
and hauling equipment. Use of fuel efficient and low emission
equipment could mitigate these impacts.
¦ Development of offsite borrow areas could adversely impact the
environment. Mitigation measures could include selection of easily
accessible borrow locations and reclamation of borrow areas after use.
¦ Water- or chemical- based suppression would be used for controlling
contaminated materials and dust during construction.
Time until protection is achieved
¦ The proposed remedial action and land use controls could be
implemented in less than 1 year, especially for privately owned
parcels.
¦ The duration may be extended if a greater extent of cover construction
would be selected for receiver-managed parcels.
Table G-13. Implementability Evaluation Summary - Alternative 3
Evaluation Factors for Implementability
Evaluation Summary
Technical feasibility
Technical difficulties and
unknowns associated with the
construction and operation of a
technology
¦ Cover construction around homes or structures, trees,
subsurface utilities, and roads may be challenging at
specific locations.
¦ Implementation of interior cleaning could be difficult
because it would involve temporary relocation of residents.
¦ Institutional controls may be more difficult to implement and
reliably operate, especially for privately owned parcels, due
to various degrees of contamination, types of ownership,
and levels of occupancy.
¦ Sampling and analysis for low concentration asbestos
contamination in soil would be difficult with current
technologies.
Reliability of the technology,
focusing on technical problems
that will lead to schedule
delays
¦ Partial in-place capping (covers) over contaminated
materials on receiver-managed parcels and on privately
owned parcels is reliable and could be easily constructed.
¦ Suitable uncontaminated materials for soil cover system
construction are not available on site. Soil cover
construction materials would be required from offsite
sources which might delay the schedule.
CDM
NRE_Final FS_ Appendix G.doc
-------
Appendix G
Detailed Analysis of Alternatives
Table G-13. Implementability Evaluation Summary - Alternative 3
(continued)
Evaluation Factors for Implementability
Evaluation Summary
Technical feasibility
(continued)
Reliability of the technology,
focusing on technical problems
that will lead to schedule
delays (continued)
¦ Interior cleaning would require temporary relocation of
residents which could lead to schedule delays.
¦ Monitoring, implementation, and enforcement of institutional
controls may be more difficult, especially for privately
owned parcels due to various degrees of contamination,
types of ownership, and levels of occupancy.
¦ Access permission at privately owned parcels for
implementing the remedial alternative is not currently
available, but could be obtained. This could cause some
delays in the schedule.
Ease of undertaking additional
remedial actions, including
what, if any, future remedial
actions would be needed and
the difficulty to implement
additional remedial actions
¦ Placing additional soil cover could be implemented with
relative ease if required in the future, especially on receiver-
managed parcels.
¦ Interior cleanings could be performed on a more regular
basis, if needed.
¦ Additional remedial action may be more difficult to
implement on privately owned parcels.
Ability to monitor the
effectiveness of the remedy,
including an evaluation of risks
of exposure should monitoring
be insufficient to detect a
system failure
¦ A comprehensive inspection, monitoring, and maintenance
program would be implemented to maintain the integrity of
covers and effectiveness of land use controls.
¦ Monitoring and maintenance of covers and institutional
controls may be more difficult for privately owned parcels
due to various degrees of contamination, types of
ownership, and levels of occupancy.
¦ Frequent/periodic monitoring and sampling would be
conducted to ensure overall protection of human health and
environment, including effectiveness of interior cleanings.
Administrative
feasibility
Activities needed to coordinate
with other offices and agencies
¦ Regulatory approval for in-place capping of contaminated
materials using covers and interior cleanings should be
obtainable.
¦ Regulatory approvals for institutional and access controls
should be obtainable. However, some difficulties may be
encountered with regard to types of restrictions, especially
on privately owned parcels.
The ability and time required to
obtain any necessary
approvals and permits from
other agencies (for offsite
actions)
¦ Development of offsite borrow sources for cover materials
would require coordination and approval from the affected
agency.
CDM
NRE_Final FS_ Appendix G.doc
-------
Appendix G
Detailed Analysis of Alternatives
Table G-13. Implementability Evaluation Summary - Alternative 3
(continued)
Evaluation Factors for Implementability
Evaluation Summary
Availability of
services and
materials
Availability of adequate offsite
treatment, storage capacity,
and disposal capacity and
services
¦ This remedial alternative would not require treatment,
storage and disposal services. Thus this criterion is not
applicable.
Availability of necessary
equipment and specialists and
provisions to ensure any
necessary additional resources
¦ The property for implementing the remedial action has
already been obtained for receiver-managed parcels.
¦ Access permission at privately owned parcels for
implementing the remedial action may not be currently
available, but could be obtained.
¦ Labor, equipment, and materials for cover construction are
available.
Suitable cover construction materials would be required
from offsite sources.
¦ Total volume of suitable soil cover material required is
approximately 193,300 cy.
¦ Approximately 6,900 truck loads of suitable soil would be
required to haul in from offsite borrow sources.
¦ Materials, equipment, and labor resources used for land
use controls and monitoring are easily obtainable.
¦ Technical equipment and specialists are available for
implementation of institutional controls and monitoring.
Availability of services and
materials plus the potential for
obtaining competitive bids,
which is particularly important
for innovative technologies
Availability of
services and
materials
(continued)
Availability of prospective
technologies
Table G-14. Cost Evaluation Summary - Alternative 3
Evaluation Factors for Cost
Approximate Cost (Dollars)
Total capital cost
$9,592,000
Total annual O&M cost
$892,000
Total periodic cost
$3,426,000
Total cost (excluding present value discounting)
$13,910,000
Total present value cost
$10,152,000
Note: Total costs are for the assumed period of evaluation (Years 0 through 30). Costs are rounded
to the nearest $1,000.
CDM
NRE_Final FS_ Appendix G.doc
-------
Alternative 4
Capping of Contaminated Materials and Land Use Controls
with Monitoring
-------
Appendix G
Detailed Analysis of Alternatives
Table G-15. Evaluation Summary for Overall Protection of Human Health
and the Environment - Alternative 4
Evaluation Factors for Overall
Protection of Human Health and
the Environment
Evaluation Summary
Adequate protection of human health and
the environment (short- and long-term)
from unacceptable risks posed by
hazardous substances, pollutants, or
contaminants present at the site
¦ All contaminated materials on receiver-managed and privately owned
parcels would be addressed through in-place capping (covers)
coupled with institutional and access controls to protect the covers.
¦ Capping (covering) of all identified surface and subsurface
contaminated materials would eliminate continued release and
migration of asbestos fibers and non-asbestos COPCs to unimpacted
media (primarily soil and air).
¦ Properly constructed soil covers over contaminated materials would
eliminate exposure risks from asbestos and non-asbestos COPCs to
human and ecological receptors.
¦ Land use controls would be used to protect and restrict use of
covered areas, and provide awareness of risks from potential
exposure to contaminated materials.
¦ Land use controls would be used to restrict access and use of the
existing onsite waste repository.
¦ Monitoring would be performed to determine protectiveness of the
remedy.
¦ PRAOs would be addressed where in-place capping is implemented.
Table G-16. Evaluation Summary for Compliance with ARARs -
Alternative 4
Evaluation Factors for Compliance
with ARARs
Evaluation Summary
Compliance with chemical-specific ARARs
¦ Soil covers placed over contaminated materials would physically
truncate the exposure pathway to humans and most ecological
receptors and eliminate discharges to air, thus meeting acceptable
risk standards specified in Oregon Environmental Cleanup Law
and Oregon Hazardous Substance Remedial Action Rules.
Compliance with location-specific ARARs
¦ Location-specific ARARs for the remedy would be addressed
during implementation of the remedial action.
Compliance with action-specific ARARs
¦ Action-specific ARARs for the remedy would be addressed during
implementation of the remedial action.
CDM
NRE_Final FS_ Appendix G.doc
-------
Appendix G
Detailed Analysis of Alternatives
Table G-17. Evaluation Summary for Long-Term Effectiveness and
Permanence - Alternative 4
Evaluation Factors for Long-
Term Effectiveness and
Permanence
Evaluation Summary
Magnitude of residual risk remaining
from untreated waste or treatment
residuals remaining at the conclusion of
the remedial activities
¦ All of the identified contaminated materials would be covered in place (81
acres).
¦ Long-term effectiveness would not be entirely ensured since
contaminated materials potentially posing a risk are left on site (although
covered). Protection to human health and the environment is partially
dependent on legal enforcement and people's adherence to institutional
controls.
¦ Monitoring would be performed to determine long-term effectiveness and
permanence of the remedy.
Adequacy and reliability of controls
that are used to manage treatment
residuals and untreated waste
remaining at the site
¦ Long-term effectiveness and permanence for covered areas would be
dependent on continued integrity of the covers and adherence to
institutional and access controls. This is less certain on privately owned
parcels.
¦ Long-term effectiveness of institutional controls and access controls
would not be ensured since human and ecological receptors could ignore
them, especially on privately owned parcels. Legal enforcement of
institutional controls may be necessary.
¦ O&M activities would be periodically required to repair damage or
erosion to the covers and access controls.
¦ Monitoring would be performed to determine long-term effectiveness and
permanence of the remedy.
Table G-18. Evaluation Summary for Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, or
Volume through Treatment - Alternative 4
Evaluation Factors for Reduction of
Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume through
Treatment
Evaluation Summary
The treatment processes, the alternative
uses, and materials they will treat
¦ This alternative would not treat contaminated materials. Thus there
would be no reduction of toxicity, mobility, or volume of
contamination through treatment.
¦ The statutory preference for treatment as a principal element of the
remedial action would not be met.
The amount of hazardous substances,
pollutants, or contaminants that will be
destroyed or treated, including how the
principal threat(s) will be addressed
The degree of expected reduction in toxicity,
mobility, or volume of the waste due to
treatment
The degree to which the treatment is
irreversible
The type and quantity of residuals that will
remain following treatment, considering the
persistence, toxicity, mobility, and propensity
to bioaccumulate such hazardous
substances and their constituents
Whether the alternative would satisfy the
statutory preference for treatment as a
principal element of the remedial action
CDM
NRE_Final FS_ Appendix G.doc
-------
Appendix G
Detailed Analysis of Alternatives
Table G-19. Short-Term Effectiveness Evaluation Summary -
Alternative 4
Evaluation Factors for Short-Term
Effectiveness
Evaluation Summary
Short-term risks that might be posed to
the community during implementation of
an alternative
¦ The alternative would involve surface disturbance of contaminated
materials which could pose short-term risks to the community living
close to the site boundary from inhalation of asbestos fibers or dust.
Protective measures, such as dust suppression (water- or chemical-
based) would be used to address those risks.
¦ Work area restrictions (such as exclusion zones) would be
implemented during construction to reduce short-term exposure risks
to the community.
¦ Transport of clean borrow materials for construction of covers would
pose short-term risks to the community from increased traffic.
¦ Residents of privately owned parcels could be exposed to
contaminated materials during implementation of the remedial action.
Temporary relocation of residents from privately owned parcels may
be required during construction of covers.
¦ Access controls would restrict access and hence quickly protect the
community for receiver-managed parcels; however, they do not
address short-term exposure to contaminated materials on privately
owned parcels.
¦ Short-term risks posed to the community during implementation of the
alternative for receiver-managed parcels mainly relate to trespassers.
Potential impacts on workers during
remedial action and the effectiveness and
reliability of protective measures
¦ Surface disturbance of contaminated materials could pose short-term
risks to workers installing covers and access controls.
¦ Protective measures, such as dust suppression (water- or chemical-
based) and PPE would be used to address those risks.
¦ Work area restrictions (such as exclusion zones) would be
implemented during construction to reduce short-term exposure risks
to workers.
¦ Transport of clean borrow materials for construction of covers would
pose short-term risks to workers from increased traffic.
¦ Other potential impacts could be from safety hazards during remedial
implementation, such as falls, electrical hazards, and mechanical
hazards.
Potential adverse environmental impacts
resulting from construction and
implementation of an alternative and the
reliability of the available mitigation
measures during implementation in
preventing or reducing the potential
impacts
¦ The alternative would involve surface disturbance of contaminated
materials which could pose potential adverse impacts through
dispersion of asbestos fibers or dust.
¦ There could also be some impacts to the environment during
implementation of the remedial action due to use of heavy
construction and hauling equipment. Use of fuel efficient and low
emission equipment could mitigate these impacts.
¦ Development of offsite borrow areas could adversely impact the
environment. Mitigation measures could include selection of easily
accessible borrow locations and reclamation of borrow areas after
use.
¦ Water- or chemical- based suppression would be used for controlling
contaminated materials and dust during construction.
Time until protection is achieved
¦ The proposed remedial action and land use controls could be
implemented in approximately 2 years.
¦ The proposed remedial action and land use controls could be
implemented in less than 1 year for privately owned parcels.
CDM
NRE_Final FS_ Appendix G.doc
-------
Appendix G
Detailed Analysis of Alternatives
Table G-20. Implementability Evaluation Summary - Alternative 4
Evaluation Factors for
Implementability
Evaluation Summary
Technical
feasibility
Technical difficulties and
unknowns associated with
the construction and
operation of a technology
¦ Cover construction around homes or structures, trees, subsurface
utilities, and roads may be challenging at specific locations.
¦ Logistics for working with large number of heavy equipment and
trucks at the site would be difficult to manage.
¦ Institutional controls may be more difficult to implement and
reliably operate, especially for privately owned parcels, due to
various degrees of contamination, types of ownership, and levels
of occupancy.
¦ Sampling and analysis for low concentration asbestos
contamination in soils would be difficult with current technologies.
Reliability of the
technology, focusing on
technical problems that
will lead to schedule
delays
¦ In-place capping (covering) of contaminated materials on
receiver-managed parcels and privately owned parcels is reliable
and could be easily constructed.
¦ Suitable uncontaminated materials for soil cover system
construction are not available on site. Soil cover construction
materials would be required from offsite sources which might
delay the schedule.
¦ Monitoring, implementation, and enforcement of institutional
controls may be more difficult, especially for privately owned
parcels due to various degrees of contamination, types of
ownership, and levels of occupancy.
¦ Access permission at privately owned parcels for implementing
the remedial alternative is not currently available, but could be
obtained. This could cause some delays in the schedule.
Ease of undertaking
additional remedial
actions, including what, if
any, future remedial
actions would be needed
and the difficulty to
implement additional
remedial actions
¦ Placing additional soil cover could be implemented with relative
ease if required in the future, especially on receiver-managed
parcels.
¦ Additional remedial action may be more difficult to implement on
privately owned parcels.
Ability to monitor the
effectiveness of the
remedy, including an
evaluation of risks of
exposure should
monitoring be insufficient
to detect a system failure
¦ A comprehensive inspection, monitoring, and maintenance
program would be implemented to maintain the integrity of covers
and effectiveness of land use controls.
¦ Monitoring and maintenance of covers and institutional controls
may be more difficult for privately owned parcels due to various
degrees of contamination, types of ownership, and levels of
occupancy.
¦ Frequent/periodic monitoring and sampling would be conducted
to ensure overall protection of human health and environment.
CDM
NRE_Final FS_ Appendix G.doc
-------
Appendix G
Detailed Analysis of Alternatives
Table G-20. Implementability Evaluation Summary - Alternative 4
(continued)
Evaluation Factors for
Implementability
Evaluation Summary
Administrative
feasibility
Activities needed to
coordinate with other
offices and agencies
¦ Regulatory approval for in-place capping of contaminated
materials using covers should be obtainable.
¦ Regulatory approvals for institutional and access controls should
be obtainable. However, some difficulties may be encountered
with regard to types of restrictions, especially on privately owned
parcels.
The ability and time
required to obtain any
necessary approvals and
permits from other
agencies (for offsite
actions)
¦ Development of offsite borrow sources for cover materials would
require coordination and approval from the affected agency.
Availability of
services and
materials
Availability of adequate
offsite treatment, storage
capacity, and disposal
capacity and services
¦ This remedial action would not require treatment, storage and
disposal services. Thus this criterion is not applicable.
Availability of necessary
equipment and specialists
and provisions to ensure
any necessary additional
resources
¦ The property for implementing the remedial action has already
been obtained for receiver-managed parcels.
¦ Access permission at privately owned parcels for implementing
the remedial action may not be currently available, but could be
obtained.
¦ Labor, equipment, and materials for cover construction are
available.
¦ Suitable cover construction materials would be required from
offsite sources.
¦ Total volume of suitable soil cover material required would be
approximately 319,700 cy.
¦ Approximately 11,400 truck loads of suitable soil would be
required to haul in from offsite borrow sources.
¦ Materials, equipment, and labor resources used for land use
controls and monitoring are easily obtainable.
¦ Technical equipment and specialists are available for
implementation of institutional controls and monitoring.
Availability of services
and materials plus the
potential for obtaining
competitive bids, which is
particularly important for
innovative technologies
Availability of prospective
technologies
Table G-21. Cost Evaluation Summary - Alternative 4
Evaluation Factors for Cost
Approximate Cost (Dollars)
Total capital cost
$13,500,000
Total annual O&M cost
$1,064,000
Total periodic cost
$360,000
Total cost (excluding present value discounting)
$14,924,000
Total present value cost
$12,798,000
Note: Total costs are for the assumed period of evaluation (Years 0 through 30). Costs are rounded
to the nearest $1,000.
CDM
NRE_Final FS_ Appendix G.doc
-------
Alternative 5a
Excavation and Onsite Consolidation/Disposal of
Contaminated Surface Materials, Future Excavation and
Offsite Disposal of Contaminated Surface Materials at
Permitted Facilities, and Land Use Controls with Monitoring
-------
Appendix G
Detailed Analysis of Alternatives
Table G-22. Evaluation Summary for Overall Protection of Human Health
and the Environment - Alternative 5a
Evaluation Factors for Overall
Protection of Human Health and
the Environment
Evaluation Summary
Adequate protection of human health and
the environment (short- and long-term)
from unacceptable risks posed by
hazardous substances, pollutants, or
contaminants present at the site
¦ All contaminated surface materials on receiver-managed parcels and
privately owned parcels would be initially addressed through
excavation and consolidation at onsite disposal locations.
¦ Contaminated materials could be exposed in the future due to freeze-
thaw cycles would be periodically excavated (through future surface
inspections and pickup) and would be disposed of off site at permitted
disposal facilities authorized for asbestos.
¦ Offsite transportation and disposal of contaminated materials would
pose short-term risks to the community and the environment. These
risks would be mitigated through dust suppression (water- or
chemical-based) and proper packaging and transportation procedures
during implementation.
¦ Covers constructed over onsite disposal locations would address
exposure to contaminated materials and prevent migration through
frost heave processes.
¦ Land use controls would be used to restrict access and use of the
existing and new onsite disposal locations.
¦ Backfill placed over excavations would initially address exposure to
subsurface contaminated materials. However, frost heave processes
may cause subsurface contaminated materials to become exposed at
the surface.
¦ Contaminated materials could continue to migrate during freeze-thaw
cycles and exposures could occur prior to periodic future excavations
being completed.
¦ Monitoring would be performed to determine protectiveness of the
remedy.
¦ PRAOs would be partially addressed through containment of
contaminated materials using covers or excavation backfill. However,
subsurface contaminated materials could become exposed in the
future by upward migration through backfill and pose human health
and ecological risks.
Table G-23. Evaluation Summary for Compliance with ARARs -
Alternative 5a
Evaluation Factors for Compliance
with ARARs
Evaluation Summary
Compliance with chemical-specific ARARs
¦ Soil covers placed over consolidated contaminated materials
would physically truncate the exposure pathways to human and
most ecological receptors and eliminate discharges to air. These
approaches would meet acceptable risk standards specified in
Oregon Environmental Cleanup Law and Oregon Hazardous
Substance Remedial Action Rules.
¦ Backfill placed over subsurface contaminated materials would
initially truncate the exposure pathways to human and most
ecological receptors and eliminate discharges to air. However,
long-term compliance with acceptable risk standards specified in
Oregon Environmental Cleanup Law and Oregon Hazardous
Substance Remedial Action Rule is less certain due to frost heave
processes.
Compliance with location-specific ARARs
¦ Location-specific ARARs for the remedy would be addressed
during implementation of the remedial action.
Compliance with action-specific ARARs
¦ Action-specific ARARs for the remedy would be addressed during
implementation of the remedial action.
CDM
NRE_Final FS_AppendixG.doc
-------
Appendix G
Detailed Analysis of Alternatives
Table G-24. Evaluation Summary for Long-Term Effectiveness and
Permanence - Alternative 5a
Evaluation Factors for Long-
Term Effectiveness and
Permanence
Evaluation Summary
Magnitude of residual risk remaining
from untreated waste or treatment
residuals remaining at the conclusion
of the remedial activities
¦ All of the contaminated surface materials would be excavated and
consolidated on site. The total area excavated under this alternative would
be approximately 81 acres.
¦ Contaminated materials could continue to migrate during freeze-thaw
cycles and exposures could occur prior to periodic future excavations
being completed. However, the volume of contaminated materials
exposed at the surface should decrease overtime.
¦ Long-term effectiveness is not entirely ensured since contaminated
materials potentially posing a risk are left on site (although consolidated
and covered). Protection to human health and the environment would
partially dependent on legal enforcement and people's adherence to
institutional controls.
¦ Long-term effectiveness would not be entirely ensured since subsurface
contaminated materials potentially posing a risk are left in backfilled
excavations.
¦ Monitoring would be performed to determine long-term effectiveness and
permanence of the remedy.
Adequacy and reliability of controls
that are used to manage treatment
residuals and untreated waste
remaining at the site
¦ Future excavation of contaminated materials would be a periodic action
requiring monitoring of the source areas for new migration of subsurface
contaminated materials, especially during colder periods due to freeze-
thaw cycles. However, the volume of contaminated materials exposed at
the surface should decrease overtime.
¦ Long-term effectiveness and permanence for parcels containing
subsurface contaminated materials would be addressed through initial
surface excavation with onsite consolidation, disposal, and backfilling with
clean soil. Periodic future excavation and offsite disposal of contaminated
materials that migrate to the surface during freeze-thaw cycles would be
performed as necessary to ensure protectiveness.
¦ Long-term effectiveness and permanence for covered and backfilled
areas would be dependent on continued integrity of the covers and
backfill. This is less certain on privately owned parcels.
¦ Long-term effectiveness of institutional controls and access controls would
not be ensured since humans and ecological receptors could ignore them,
especially on privately owned parcels. Legal enforcement of institutional
controls may be necessary.
¦ O&M activities would be periodically required to repair damage or erosion
to the covers and access controls.
¦ Monitoring would be performed to determine long-term effectiveness and
permanence of the remedy.
CDM
NRE_Final FS_ Appendix G.doc
-------
Appendix G
Detailed Analysis of Alternatives
Table G-25. Evaluation Summary for Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, or
Volume through Treatment - Alternative 5a
Evaluation Factors for Reduction of
Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume through
Treatment
Evaluation Summary
The treatment processes, the alternative uses,
and materials they will treat
The amount of hazardous substances,
pollutants, or contaminants that will be
destroyed or treated, including how the
principal threat(s) will be addressed
This alternative would not treat contaminated materials. Thus
there would be no reduction of toxicity, mobility, or volume of
contamination through treatment.
The statutory preference for treatment as a principal element of
the remedial action would not be met.
The degree of expected reduction in toxicity,
mobility, or volume of the waste due to
treatment
The degree to which the treatment is
irreversible
The type and quantity of residuals that will
remain following treatment, considering the
persistence, toxicity, mobility, and propensity to
bioaccumulate such hazardous substances and
their constituents
Whether the alternative would satisfy the
statutory preference for treatment as a principal
element of the remedial action
Table G-26. Short-Term Effectiveness Evaluation Summary -
Alternative 5a
Evaluation Factors for Short-
Term Effectiveness
Evaluation Summary
Short-term risks that might be posed
to the community during
implementation of an alternative
¦ The alternative would involve excavation of contaminated surface materials
which could pose short-term risks to the community living close to the site
boundary from inhalation of asbestos fibers or dust. Protective measures,
such as dust suppression (water- or chemical-based) would be used to
address those risks.
¦ Work area restrictions (such as exclusion zones) would be implemented
during construction to reduce short-term exposure risks to the community.
¦ Transport of clean borrow materials for construction of covers and
backfilling excavations would pose short-term risks to the community from
increased traffic.
¦ Residents of privately owned parcels could be exposed to contaminated
materials during implementation of the remedial action. Temporary
relocation of residents from privately owned parcels may be required during
excavation of contaminated materials.
¦ Access controls would restrict access and hence quickly protect the
community for receiver-managed parcels. However, they do not address
short-term exposure to contaminated materials on privately owned parcels.
¦ Short-term risks posed to the community during implementation of the
alternative for receiver-managed parcels mainly relate to trespassers.
CDM
NRE_Final FS_ Appendix G.doc
-------
Appendix G
Detailed Analysis of Alternatives
Table G-26. Short-Term Effectiveness Evaluation Summary -
Alternative 5a (continued)
Evaluation Factors for Short-
Term Effectiveness
Evaluation Summary
Potential impacts on workers during
remedial action and the
effectiveness and reliability of
protective measures
¦ The alternative involves excavation and relocation of contaminated
materials which could pose short-term risks to workers from inhalation of
asbestos fibers and non-asbestos COPCs. Protective measures, such as
dust suppression (water- or chemical-based) and personal PPE would be
used to address those risks.
¦ Work area restrictions (such as exclusion zones) would be implemented
during construction to reduce short-term exposure risks to the community.
¦ Transport of clean borrow materials for construction of covers and
backfilling excavations would pose short-term risks to the community from
increased traffic.
¦ Residents of privately owned parcels could be exposed to contaminated
materials during implementation of the remedial action. Temporary
relocation of residents from privately owned parcels may be required during
excavation of contaminated materials.
¦ Access controls would restrict access and hence quickly protect the
community for receiver-managed parcels. However, they do not address
short-term exposure to contaminated materials on privately owned parcels.
¦ Short-term risks posed to the community during implementation of the
alternative for receiver-managed parcels mainly relate to trespassers.
Potential adverse environmental
impacts resulting from construction
and implementation of an alternative
and the reliability of the available
mitigation measures during
implementation in preventing or
reducing the potential impacts
¦ The alternative would involve excavation of contaminated materials which
could pose potential adverse impacts through dispersion of asbestos fibers
or dust.
¦ There could also be some impacts to the environment during
implementation of the remedial action due to use of heavy construction and
hauling equipment. Use of fuel efficient and low emission equipment could
mitigate these impacts.
¦ Development of offsite borrow areas could adversely impact the
environment. Mitigation measures could include selection of easily
accessible borrow locations and reclamation of borrow areas after use.
¦ Water- or chemical- based suppression would be used for controlling
contaminated materials and dust during construction.
Time until protection is achieved
¦ The proposed remedial action and land use controls could be implemented
in approximately 2 years.
¦ The proposed remedial action and land use controls could be implemented
in less than 1 year for privately owned parcels.
¦ The subsequent future excavations (i.e., periodic incremental excavations)
would be a continuous process which should lessen over a long period of
time.
CDM
NRE_Final FS_ Appendix G.doc
-------
Appendix G
Detailed Analysis of Alternatives
Table G-27. Implementability Evaluation Summary - Alternative 5a
Evaluation Factors for
Implementability
Evaluation Summary
Technical
feasibility
Technical difficulties and
unknowns associated
with the construction
and operation of a
technology
¦ Excavation and backfilling around homes or structures, trees,
subsurface utilities, and roads may be challenging at specific locations.
¦ Logistics for working with large number of heavy equipment and trucks
at site would be difficult to manage.
¦ Surface contaminated materials initially excavated would be
consolidated at authorized onsite locations. Contaminated surface
materials excavated during future excavation events would be
disposed of at a permitted offsite facility.
¦ Construction of the onsite disposal facilities would require coordination
during the excavation of contaminated materials from parcels.
¦ Future excavation events would likely be needed for a long period of
time, although the volume of contaminated materials should decrease
overtime. This would require continuous monitoring of the
contaminated materials migrating through the surface due to freeze-
thaw cycles.
¦ Periodic inspection and future excavation of contaminated materials
across the site would be conducted annually or more frequently
requiring mobilizations of materials, equipment, and labor. Future
excavations should be straightforward, although difficulties may exist
for implementation on privately owned parcels.
¦ Special management procedures may be required for disposal at the
permitted facilities.
¦ Institutional controls may be more difficult to implement and reliably
operate, especially for privately owned parcels, due to various degrees
of contamination, types of ownership, and levels of occupancy.
¦ Sampling and analysis for low concentration asbestos contamination in
soils would be difficult with current technologies.
Reliability of the
technology, focusing on
technical problems that
will lead to schedule
delays
¦ Excavation and backfilling around homes or structures, trees,
subsurface utilities, and roads may be challenging at specific locations.
¦ Construction of the onsite disposal facilities would require coordination
during the excavation of contaminated materials from parcels.
¦ Future excavation events are likely to be needed for a long period of
time, although the volume of contaminated materials should decrease
overtime. This would require continuous monitoring of the
contaminated materials migrating through the surface due to freeze-
thaw cycles.
¦ Offsite disposal of contaminated materials during periodic future
excavation events at permitted disposal facilities would be relatively
straightforward.
¦ Excavated contaminated materials would require transportation to
offsite disposal facilities in specialized enclosed trucks.
¦ Special management procedures may be required for disposal at the
permitted facilities.
¦ Suitable uncontaminated materials for soil cover system construction
at the authorized onsite disposal location and backfilling excavation
areas are not available on site. Soil cover construction and backfill
materials would be required from off site which might delay the
schedule.
¦ Monitoring, implementation, and enforcement of institutional controls
may be more difficult, especially for privately owned parcels due to
various degrees of contamination, types of ownership, and levels of
occupancy.
¦ Access permission at privately owned parcels for implementing the
remedial alternative is not currently available, but could be obtained.
This could cause some delays in the schedule.
CDM
NRE_Final FS_ Appendix G.doc
-------
Appendix G
Detailed Analysis of Alternatives
Table G-27. Implementability Evaluation Summary - Alternative 5a
(continued)
Evaluation Factors for
Implementability
Evaluation Summary
Technical
feasibility
(continued)
Ease of undertaking
additional remedial
actions, including what,
if any, future remedial
actions would be
needed and the difficulty
to implement additional
remedial actions
¦ Excavation and consolidation of all contaminated surface materials
from receiver-managed parcels and privately owned parcels at
authorized onsite locations could be easily constructed.
¦ Periodic monitoring and future excavation of contaminated materials
across the site would be a continuous process.
¦ Additional remedial action may be more difficult to implement on
privately owned parcels.
Ability to monitor the
effectiveness of the
remedy, including an
evaluation of risks of
exposure should
monitoring be
insufficient to detect a
system failure
¦ A comprehensive inspection, monitoring, and maintenance program
would be implemented to maintain the integrity of covers, backfilled
excavations, and effectiveness of land use controls.
¦ Monitoring and maintenance of covers, backfilled areas, and
institutional controls may be more difficult for privately owned parcels
due to various degrees of contamination, types of ownership, and
levels of occupancy.
¦ Frequent/periodic monitoring and sampling would be conducted to
ensure overall protection of human health and environment.
Administrative
feasibility
Activities needed to
coordinate with other
offices and agencies
¦ Regulatory approval needed for excavations and to construct onsite
disposal facilities should be obtainable.
¦ Regulatory approvals for future excavation events should be
obtainable, although difficulties may exist with the privately owned
parcels.
¦ Development of offsite borrow sources for covers and backfill would
require coordination and approval from the affected agency.
¦ Regulatory and facility approval for offsite disposal at permitted
disposal facilities should be obtainable.
¦ Regulatory approvals for institutional and access controls should be
obtainable. However, some difficulties may be encountered with regard
to types of restrictions, especially on privately owned parcels.
¦ Regulatory approvals for monitoring should be obtainable.
The ability and time
required to obtain any
necessary approvals
and permits from other
agencies (for offsite
actions)
¦ Development of offsite borrow sources for soil covers over the onsite
disposal facilities and backfill would require coordination and approval
from the affected agency.
¦ Regulatory and facility approval for offsite disposal at permitted
disposal facilities should be obtainable.
Availability of
services and
materials
Availability of adequate
offsite treatment,
storage capacity, and
disposal capacity and
services
¦ Permitted disposal facilities authorized for asbestos are available
within the State of Oregon. However, most facilities are somewhat
distant from the site.
¦ The offsite permitted disposal facilities should have sufficient capacity
to accept contaminated materials for disposal; the volume of
contaminated materials for offsite disposal in this alternative should be
relatively small.
¦ Total volume of contaminated materials for offsite disposal from future
excavation events would be approximately 190 cy.
¦ Minimally sized truck loads would be required to haul contaminated
materials to offsite disposal facilities.
CDM
NRE_Final FS_ Appendix G.doc
-------
Appendix G
Detailed Analysis of Alternatives
Table G-27. Implementability Evaluation Summary - Alternative 5a
(continued)
Evaluation Factors for
Implementability
Evaluation Summary
Availability of
services and
materials
(continued)
Availability of necessary
equipment and
specialists and
provisions to ensure any
necessary additional
resources
¦ The property for implementing the remedial action has already been
obtained for receiver-managed parcels.
¦ Access permission at privately owned parcels for implementing the
remedial action may not be currently available, but could be obtained.
¦ Labor, equipment, and materials for cover construction are available.
¦ Suitable cover construction materials would be required from offsite
sources.
¦ Labor, equipment, and materials for contaminated surface materials
excavation and clean soil backfilling are available.
¦ Suitable backfill materials would be required from offsite sources.
¦ Total volume of suitable soil cover and backfill material required would
be approximately 158,300 cy.
¦ Approximately 5,650 truck loads would be required to haul in the
suitable material.
¦ Materials, equipment, and labor resources used for land use controls
and monitoring are easily obtainable.
¦ Technical equipment and specialists are available for implementation
of institutional controls and monitoring.
Availability of services
and materials plus the
potential for obtaining
competitive bids, which
is particularly important
for innovative
technologies
Availability of
prospective technologies
Table G-28. Cost Evaluation Summary - Alternative 5a
Evaluation Factors for Cost
Approximate Cost (Dollars)
Total capital cost
$9,977,000
Total annual O&M cost
$3,304,000
Total periodic cost
$360,000
Total cost (excluding present value discounting)
$13,641,000
Total present value cost
$10,467,000
Note: Total costs are for the assumed period of evaluation (Years 0 through 30). Costs are rounded
to the nearest $1,000.
CDM
NRE_Final FS_ Appendix G.doc
-------
Alternative 5b
Excavation and Onsite Consolidation/Disposal of
Contaminated Materials, and Land Use Controls with
Monitoring
-------
Appendix G
Detailed Analysis of Alternatives
Table G-29. Evaluation Summary for Overall Protection of Human Health
and the Environment - Alternative 5b
Evaluation Factors for Overall
Protection of Human Health and
the Environment
Evaluation Summary
Adequate protection of human health and
the environment (short- and long-term)
from unacceptable risks posed by
hazardous substances, pollutants, or
contaminants present at the site
¦ All contaminated materials on receiver-managed parcels and privately
owned parcels are addressed through excavation and consolidation at
onsite disposal locations.
¦ Covers constructed over onsite disposal locations would address
exposure to contaminated materials and prevent migration through
frost heave processes.
¦ Land use controls would be used to restrict access and use of the
existing and new onsite disposal locations.
¦ Backfill placed over excavations would initially address exposure to
residual subsurface contaminated materials. However, frost heave
processes may cause residual subsurface contaminated materials to
become exposed at the surface.
¦ Monitoring would be performed to determine protectiveness of the
remedy.
¦ PRAOs would be addressed through containment of contaminated
materials using covers or excavation backfill. However, residual
contaminated materials could become exposed in the future by
upward migration through backfill and pose human health and
ecological risks.
Table G-30. Evaluation Summary for Compliance with ARARs -
Alternative 5b
Evaluation Factors for Compliance
with ARARs
Evaluation Summary
Compliance with chemical-specific ARARs
¦ Soil covers placed over consolidated contaminated materials
would physically truncate the exposure pathway to human and
most ecological receptors and eliminate discharges to air. These
approaches would meet acceptable risk standards specified in
Oregon Environmental Cleanup Law and Oregon Hazardous
Substance Remedial Action Rules.
¦ Backfill placed over residual subsurface contaminated materials
would initially truncate the exposure pathway to human and most
ecological receptors and eliminate discharges to air. However,
long-term compliance with acceptable risk standards specified in
Oregon Environmental Cleanup Law and Oregon Hazardous
Substance Remedial Action Rule is less certain due to frost heave
processes.
Compliance with location-specific ARARs
¦ Location-specific ARARs for the remedy would be addressed
during implementation of the remedial action.
Compliance with action-specific ARARs
¦ Action-specific ARARs for the remedy would be addressed during
implementation of the remedial action.
CDM
NRE_Final FS_AppendixG.doc
-------
Appendix G
Detailed Analysis of Alternatives
Table G-31. Evaluation Summary for Long-Term Effectiveness and
Permanence - Alternative 5b
Evaluation Factors for Long-
Term Effectiveness and
Permanence
Evaluation Summary
Magnitude of residual risk remaining
from untreated waste or treatment
residuals remaining at the conclusion
of the remedial activities
¦ All of the contaminated surface materials would be excavated and
consolidated onsite. The total area excavated under this alternative would
be approximately 82 acres.
¦ Residual contaminated materials could continue to migrate during freeze-
thaw cycles and exposures could occur. However, the volume of residual
contaminated materials exposed at the surface should be minimal.
¦ Long-term effectiveness would not be entirely ensured since
contaminated materials potentially posing a risk are left onsite (although
consolidated and covered). Protection to human health and the
environment is partially dependent on legal enforcement and people's
adherence to institutional controls.
¦ Long-term effectiveness would not be entirely ensured since residual
subsurface contaminated materials potentially posing a risk would be left
in backfilled excavations.
¦ Monitoring would be performed to determine long-term effectiveness and
permanence of the remedy.
¦ Large portions of the site would be remediated to allow residential use
with limited land use controls.
Adequacy and reliability of controls
that are used to manage treatment
residuals and untreated waste
remaining at the site.
¦ Long-term effectiveness and permanence for parcels containing
contaminated materials would be addressed through excavation with
onsite consolidation, disposal, and backfilling with clean soil.
¦ Long-term effectiveness and permanence for covered and backfilled
areas would be dependent on continued integrity of the covers and
backfill. This is less certain on privately owned parcels.
¦ Long-term effectiveness of institutional controls and access controls would
not be ensured since human and ecological receptors could ignore them,
especially on privately owned parcels. Legal enforcement of institutional
controls may be necessary.
¦ O&M activities would be periodically required to repair damage or erosion
to the covers and access controls.
¦ Monitoring would be performed to determine long-term effectiveness and
permanence of the remedy.
CDM
NRE_Final FS_ Appendix G.doc
-------
Appendix G
Detailed Analysis of Alternatives
Table G-32. Evaluation Summary for Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, or
Volume through Treatment - Alternative 5b
Evaluation Factors for Reduction of
Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume through
Treatment
Evaluation Summary
The treatment processes, the alternative
uses, and materials they will treat
¦ This alternative would not treat contaminated materials. Thus there
would be no reduction of toxicity, mobility, or volume of
contamination through treatment.
¦ The statutory preference for treatment as a principal element of the
remedial action would not be met.
The amount of hazardous substances,
pollutants, or contaminants that will be
destroyed or treated, including how the
principal threat(s) will be addressed
The degree of expected reduction in toxicity,
mobility, or volume of the waste due to
treatment
The degree to which the treatment is
irreversible
The type and quantity of residuals that will
remain following treatment, considering the
persistence, toxicity, mobility, and propensity
to bioaccumulate such hazardous
substances and their constituents
Whether the alternative would satisfy the
statutory preference for treatment as a
principal element of the remedial action
Table G-33. Short-Term Effectiveness Evaluation Summary -
Alternative 5b
Evaluation Factors for Short-
Term Effectiveness
Evaluation Summary
Short-term risks that might be posed
to the community during
implementation of an alternative
¦ The alternative involves excavation of contaminated materials which could
pose short-term risks to the community living close to the site boundary
from inhalation of asbestos fibers or dust. Protective measures, such as
dust suppression (water- or chemical-based) would be used to address
those risks.
¦ Work area restrictions (such as exclusion zones) would be implemented
during construction to reduce short-term exposure risks to the community.
¦ Transport of clean borrow materials for construction of covers and
backfilling excavations would pose short-term risks to the community from
increased traffic.
¦ Residents of privately owned parcels could be exposed to contaminated
materials during implementation of the remedial action. Temporary
relocation of residents from privately owned parcels may be required during
excavation of contaminated materials.
¦ Access controls would restrict access and hence quickly protect the
community for receiver-managed parcels. However, they do not address
short-term exposure to contaminated materials on privately owned parcels.
¦ Short-term risks posed to the community during implementation of the
alternative for receiver-managed parcels mainly relate to trespassers.
CDM
NRE_Final FS_ Appendix G.doc
-------
Appendix G
Detailed Analysis of Alternatives
Table G-33. Short-Term Effectiveness Evaluation Summary -
Alternative 5b (continued)
Evaluation Factors for Short-
Term Effectiveness
Evaluation Summary
Potential impacts on workers during
remedial action and the
effectiveness and reliability of
protective measures
¦ The alternative involves excavation and relocation of contaminated
materials which could pose short-term risks to workers from inhalation of
asbestos fibers and non-asbestos COPCs. Protective measures, such as
dust suppression (water- or chemical-based) and PPE would be used to
address those risks.
¦ Work area restrictions (such as exclusion zones) would be implemented
during construction to reduce short-term exposure risks to the community.
¦ Transport of clean borrow materials for construction of covers and
backfilling excavations would pose short-term risks to the community from
increased traffic.
¦ Residents of privately owned parcels could be exposed to contaminated
materials during implementation of the remedial action. Temporary
relocation of residents from privately owned parcels may be required during
excavation of contaminated materials.
¦ Access controls would restrict access and hence quickly protect the
community for receiver-managed parcels. However, they do not address
short-term exposure to contaminated materials on privately owned parcels.
¦ Short-term risks posed to the community during implementation of the
alternative for receiver-managed parcels mainly relate to trespassers.
Potential adverse environmental
impacts resulting from construction
and implementation of an alternative
and the reliability of the available
mitigation measures during
implementation in preventing or
reducing the potential impacts
¦ The alternative involves excavation of contaminated materials which could
pose potential adverse impacts through dispersion of asbestos fibers or
dust.
¦ There could also be some impacts to the environment during
implementation of the remedial action due to use of heavy construction and
hauling equipment. Use of fuel efficient and low emission equipment could
mitigate these impacts.
¦ Development of offsite borrow areas could adversely impact the
environment. Mitigation measures could include selection of easily
accessible borrow locations and reclamation of borrow areas after use.
¦ Water- or chemical- based suppression would be used for controlling
contaminated materials and dust during construction.
Time until protection is achieved
¦ The proposed remedial action and land use controls could be implemented
in approximately 3 years.
¦ The proposed remedial action and land use controls could be implemented
in 1 year for privately owned parcels.
CDM
NRE_Final FS_ Appendix G.doc
-------
Appendix G
Detailed Analysis of Alternatives
Table G-34. Implementability Evaluation Summary - Alternative 5b
Evaluation Factors for
Implementability
Evaluation Summary
Technical
feasibility
Technical difficulties and
unknowns associated with
the construction and
operation of a technology
¦ Excavation and backfilling around homes or structures, trees,
subsurface utilities, and roads may be challenging at specific
locations.
¦ Logistics for working with large number of heavy equipment and
trucks at site would be difficult to manage.
¦ Excavated contaminated materials would be consolidated at
authorized onsite locations.
¦ Construction of the onsite disposal facilities would require
coordination during the excavation of contaminated materials
from parcels.
¦ Institutional controls may be more difficult to implement and
reliably operate, especially for privately owned parcels, due to
various degrees of contamination, types of ownership, and levels
of occupancy.
¦ Sampling and analysis for low concentration asbestos
contamination in soils would be difficult with current technologies.
Reliability of the
technology, focusing on
technical problems that
will lead to schedule
delays
¦ Excavation and backfilling around homes or structures, trees,
subsurface utilities, and roads may be challenging at specific
locations.
¦ Construction of the onsite disposal facilities would require
coordination during the excavation of contaminated materials
from parcels.
¦ Suitable uncontaminated materials for soil cover system
construction at the authorized onsite disposal location and
backfilling excavation areas are not available on site. Soil cover
construction and backfill materials would be required from off site
which might delay the schedule.
¦ Monitoring, implementation, and enforcement of institutional
controls may be more difficult, especially for privately owned
parcels due to various degrees of contamination, types of
ownership, and levels of occupancy.
¦ Access permission at privately owned parcels for implementing
the remedial alternative is not currently available, but could be
obtained. This could cause some delays in the schedule.
Ease of undertaking
additional remedial
actions, including what, if
any, future remedial
actions would be needed
and the difficulty to
implement additional
remedial actions
¦ Excavation and consolidation of all contaminated materials from
receiver-managed parcels and privately owned parcels at
authorized onsite locations could be easily constructed.
¦ Additional remedial action may be more difficult to implement on
privately owned parcels.
Ability to monitor the
effectiveness of the
remedy, including an
evaluation of risks of
exposure should
monitoring be insufficient
to detect a system failure
¦ A comprehensive inspection, monitoring, and maintenance
program would be implemented to maintain the integrity of
covers, backfilled excavations, and effectiveness of land use
controls.
¦ Monitoring and maintenance of covers, backfilled areas, and
institutional controls may be more difficult for privately owned
parcels due to various degrees of contamination, types of
ownership, and levels of occupancy.
¦ Frequent/periodic monitoring and sampling would be conducted
to ensure overall protection of human health and environment.
CDM
NRE_Final FS_ Appendix G.doc
-------
Appendix G
Detailed Analysis of Alternatives
Table G-34. Implementability Evaluation Summary - Alternative 5b
(continued)
Evaluation Factors for
Implementability
Evaluation Summary
Administrative
feasibility
Activities needed to
coordinate with other
offices and agencies
¦ Regulatory approval needed for excavations and to construct
onsite disposal facilities should be obtainable.
¦ Development of offsite borrow sources for covers and backfill
would require coordination and approval from the affected
agency.
¦ Regulatory approvals for institutional and access controls should
be obtainable. However, some difficulties may be encountered
with regard to types of restrictions, especially on privately owned
parcels.
¦ Regulatory approvals for monitoring should be obtainable.
The ability and time
required to obtain any
necessary approvals and
permits from other
agencies (for offsite
actions)
¦ Development of offsite borrow sources for soil covers over the
onsite disposal facilities and backfill would require coordination
and approval from the affected agency.
Availability of
services and
materials
Availability of adequate
offsite treatment, storage
capacity, and disposal
capacity and services
¦ This remedial action would not call for any offsite treatment,
storage, and disposal services. Thus this criterion is not
applicable.
Availability of necessary
equipment and specialists
and provisions to ensure
any necessary additional
resources
¦ The property for implementing the remedial action has already
been obtained for receiver-managed parcels.
¦ Access permission at privately owned parcels for implementing
the remedial action may not be currently available, but could be
obtained.
¦ Labor, equipment, and materials for cover construction are
available.
¦ Suitable cover construction materials would be required from
offsite sources.
¦ Labor, equipment, and materials for contaminated materials
excavation and clean soil backfilling are available.
¦ Suitable backfill materials would be required from offsite sources.
¦ Total volume of suitable soil cover and backfill material required
would be approximately 200,200 cy.
¦ Approximately 7,150 truck loads would be required to haul in the
suitable material.
¦ Materials, equipment, and labor resources used for land use
controls and monitoring are easily obtainable.
¦ Technical equipment and specialists are available for
implementation of institutional controls and monitoring.
Availability of services
and materials plus the
potential for obtaining
competitive bids, which is
particularly important for
innovative technologies
Availability of prospective
technologies
Table G-35. Cost Evaluation Summary - Alternative 5b
Evaluation Factors for Cost
Approximate Cost (Dollars)
Total capital cost
$15,335,000
Total annual O&M cost
$1,050,000
Total periodic cost
$360,000
Total cost (excluding present value discounting)
$16,745,000
Total present value cost
$14,028,000
Note: Total costs are for the assumed period of evaluation (Years 0 through 30). Costs are
rounded to the nearest $1,000.
CDM
NRE_Final FS_ Appendix G.doc
-------
Alternative 6
Excavation and Offsite Disposal of Contaminated Materials at
Permitted Facilities, and Land Use Controls with Monitoring
-------
Appendix G
Detailed Analysis of Alternatives
Table G-36. Evaluation Summary for Overall Protection of Human Health
and the Environment - Alternative 6
Evaluation Factors for Overall
Protection of Human Health and
the Environment
Evaluation Summary
Adequate protection of human health and
the environment (short- and long-term)
from unacceptable risks posed by
hazardous substances, pollutants, or
contaminants present at the site
¦ All contaminated surface materials on receiver-managed parcels and
privately owned parcels would be addressed through excavation and
offsite disposal at permitted facilities authorized for asbestos.
¦ Offsite disposal would eliminate continued release and migration of
asbestos fibers and non-asbestos COPCs to unimpacted media
(primarily soil and air).
¦ Offsite transportation and disposal of contaminated materials would
pose short-term risks to the community and the environment. These
risks would be mitigated through dust suppression (water- or
chemical-based) and proper packaging and transportation procedures
during implementation.
¦ Covers constructed over the existing onsite waste repository would
address exposure to contaminated materials and prevent migration
through frost heave processes.
¦ Land use controls would be used to restrict access and use of the
existing onsite disposal location.
¦ Backfill placed over excavations would address exposure to residual
subsurface contaminated materials. However, frost heave processes
may cause residual subsurface contaminated materials to become
exposed at the surface.
¦ Monitoring would be performed to determine protectiveness of the
remedy.
¦ PRAOs would be addressed through containment of contaminated
materials using covers or excavation backfill. However, residual
contaminated materials could become exposed in the future and pose
human health and ecological risks.
Table G-37. Evaluation Summary for Compliance with ARARs -
Alternative 6
Evaluation Factors for
Compliance with ARARs
Evaluation Summary
Compliance with chemical-specific
ARARs
¦ Offsite disposal of contaminated materials would physically truncate
the exposure pathway to human and most ecological receptors and
eliminate discharges to air. These approaches would meet acceptable
risk standards specified in Oregon Environmental Cleanup Law and
Oregon Hazardous Substance Remedial Action Rules.
¦ Soil cover placed over the existing onsite waste repository would
physically truncate the exposure pathway to human and most
ecological receptors and eliminate discharges to air. These
approaches would meet acceptable risk standards specified in Oregon
Environmental Cleanup Law and Oregon Hazardous Substance
Remedial Action Rules.
¦ Backfill placed over residual subsurface contaminated materials would
initially truncate the exposure pathway to human and most ecological
receptors and eliminate discharges to air. However, long-term
compliance with acceptable risk standards specified in Oregon
Environmental Cleanup Law and Oregon Hazardous Substance
Remedial Action Rule is less certain due to frost heave processes.
Compliance with location-specific
ARARs
¦ Location-specific ARARs for the remedy would be addressed during
implementation of the remedial action.
Compliance with action-specific ARARs
¦ Action-specific ARARs for the remedy would be addressed during
implementation of the remedial action.
CDM
NRE_Final FS_AppendixG.doc
-------
Appendix G
Detailed Analysis of Alternatives
Table G-38. Evaluation Summary for Long-Term Effectiveness and
Permanence - Alternative 6
Evaluation Factors for Long-
Term Effectiveness and
Permanence
Evaluation Summary
Magnitude of residual risk remaining
from untreated waste or treatment
residuals remaining at the conclusion
of the remedial activities
¦ All of the contaminated materials would be excavated and disposed of off
site. The total area excavated under this alternative would be approximately
89 acres.
¦ Long-term effectiveness would be greatly increased over Alternatives 5a
and 5b since the majority of contaminated materials posing a risk are
contained and managed of at authorized offsite disposal facilities.
¦ Residual contaminated materials could continue to migrate during freeze-
thaw cycles and exposures could occur. However, the volume of residual
contaminated materials exposed at the surface should be minimal.
¦ Long-term effectiveness is not entirely ensured since contaminated
materials potentially posing a risk are left on site in the existing onsite
waste repository (although consolidated and covered). Protection to
human health and the environment would be partially dependent on legal
enforcement and people's adherence to institutional controls.
¦ Long-term effectiveness would not be entirely ensured since residual
subsurface contaminated materials potentially posing a risk would be left
in backfilled excavations.
¦ Monitoring would be performed to determine long-term effectiveness and
permanence of the remedy.
¦ Large portions of the site would be remediated to allow residential use
with limited land use controls.
Adequacy and reliability of controls
that are used to manage treatment
residuals and untreated waste
remaining at the site.
¦ The majority of excavated contaminated materials would be contained at
an authorized offsite permitted facility for asbestos to eliminate continued
release and migration of asbestos fibers and non-asbestos COPCs to
unimpacted media (soil and air).
¦ Long-term effectiveness and permanence for covered and backfilled
areas would be dependent on continued integrity of the covers and
backfill. This is less certain on privately owned parcels.
¦ Long-term effectiveness of institutional controls and access controls would
not be ensured since humans and ecological receptors could ignore them,
especially on privately owned parcels. Legal enforcement of institutional
controls may be necessary.
¦ O&M activities would be periodically required to repair damage or erosion
to the covers and access controls.
¦ Monitoring would be performed to determine long-term effectiveness and
permanence of the remedy.
CDM
NRE_Final FS_ Appendix G.doc
-------
Appendix G
Detailed Analysis of Alternatives
Table G-39. Evaluation Summary for Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, or
Volume through Treatment - Alternative 6
Evaluation Factors for Reduction of
Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume through
Treatment
Evaluation Summary
The treatment processes, the alternative
uses, and materials they will treat
¦ This alternative would not treat contaminated materials. Thus there
would be no reduction of toxicity, mobility, or volume of
contamination through treatment.
¦ The statutory preference for treatment as a principal element of the
remedial action would not be met.
The amount of hazardous substances,
pollutants, or contaminants that will be
destroyed or treated, including how the
principal threat(s) will be addressed
The degree of expected reduction in toxicity,
mobility, or volume of the waste due to
treatment
The degree to which the treatment is
irreversible
The type and quantity of residuals that will
remain following treatment, considering the
persistence, toxicity, mobility, and propensity
to bioaccumulate such hazardous
substances and their constituents
Whether the alternative would satisfy the
statutory preference for treatment as a
principal element of the remedial action
CDM
NRE_Final FS_ Appendix G.doc
-------
Appendix G
Detailed Analysis of Alternatives
Table G-40. Short-Term Effectiveness Evaluation Summary -
Alternative 6
Evaluation Factors for
Short-Term Effectiveness
Evaluation Summary
Short-term risks that might be
posed to the community during
implementation of an
alternative
¦ The alternative involves excavation of contaminated materials which could pose
short-term risks to the community living close to the site boundary from inhalation
of asbestos fibers or dust. Protective measures, such as dust suppression
(water- or chemical-based) would be used to address those risks.
¦ Offsite transportation and disposal of contaminated materials would pose short-
term risks to the community. These risks would be mitigated through source
control, such as dust suppression (water- or chemical-based) and proper
packaging and transportation procedures during implementation.
¦ Work area restrictions (such as exclusion zones) would be implemented during
construction to reduce short-term exposure risks to the community.
¦ Transport of clean borrow materials for construction of covers and backfilling
excavations would pose short-term risks to the community from increased traffic.
¦ Residents of privately owned parcels could be exposed to contaminated
materials during implementation of the remedial action. Temporary relocation of
residents from privately owned parcels may be required during excavation of
contaminated materials.
¦ Access controls would restrict access and hence quickly protect the community
for receiver-managed parcels. However, they do not address short-term
exposure to contaminated materials on privately owned parcels.
¦ Short-term risks posed to the community during implementation of the alternative
for receiver-managed parcels mainly relate to trespassers.
Potential impacts on workers
during remedial action and the
effectiveness and reliability of
protective measures
¦ The alternative would involve excavation and offsite disposal of contaminated
materials which could pose short-term risks to workers from inhalation of
asbestos fibers and non-asbestos COPCs. Protective measures, such as dust
suppression (water- or chemical-based) and PPE would be used to address
those risks.
¦ Work area restrictions (such as exclusion zones) would be implemented during
construction to reduce short-term exposure risks to the community.
¦ There would be significant impacts to the workers under this alternative, as
additional truck traffic would be required for complete offsite disposal of
contaminated materials as well as transport of cover and backfill soils.
¦ Transport of clean borrow materials for construction of covers and backfilling
excavations would pose short-term risks to the community from increased traffic.
¦ Residents of privately owned parcels could be exposed to contaminated
materials during implementation of the remedial action. Temporary relocation of
residents from privately owned parcels may be required during excavation of
contaminated materials.
¦ Access controls would restrict access and hence quickly protect the community
for receiver-managed parcels. However, they do not address short-term
exposure to contaminated materials on privately owned parcels.
¦ Short-term risks posed to the community during implementation of the alternative
for receiver-managed parcels mainly relate to trespassers.
Potential adverse
environmental impacts
resulting from construction and
implementation of an
alternative and the reliability of
the available mitigation
measures during
implementation in preventing
or reducing the potential
impacts
¦ The alternative involves excavation of contaminated materials which could pose
potential adverse impacts through dispersion of asbestos fibers or dust.
¦ There could also be some impacts to the environment during implementation of
the remedial action due to use of heavy construction and hauling equipment. Use
of fuel efficient and low emission equipment could mitigate these impacts.
¦ Development of offsite borrow areas could adversely impact the environment.
Mitigation measures could include selection of easily accessible borrow locations
and reclamation of borrow areas after use.
¦ Water- or chemical- based suppression would be used for controlling
contaminated materials and dust during construction.
Time until protection is
achieved
¦ The proposed remedial action and institutional controls could be implemented in
approximately 4 years.
¦ The proposed remedial action and land use controls could be implemented in 1
to 2 years for privately owned parcels.
CDM
NRE_Final FS_ Appendix G.doc
-------
Appendix G
Detailed Analysis of Alternatives
Table G-41. Implementability Evaluation Summary - Alternative 6
Evaluation Factors for Implementability
Evaluation Summary
Technical
feasibility
Technical difficulties and
unknowns associated with the
construction and operation of
a technology
¦ Excavated contaminated materials would require transportation
to offsite disposal facilities in specialized enclosed trucks to
minimize the exposure risks from asbestos fibers to the
community.
¦ Large volumes of contaminated materials would need to be
transported offsite for disposal.
¦ Special management procedures may be required for disposal
at the permitted facilities.
¦ Total volume to be excavated and transported off site for
disposal would be approximately 139,600 cy.
¦ Approximately 4,985 truck loads would be required to haul the
whole excavated volume of contaminated materials.
¦ Excavation and backfilling around homes or structures, trees,
subsurface utilities, and roads may be challenging at specific
locations.
¦ Logistics for working with large number of heavy equipment
and trucks at site would be difficult to manage.
¦ Institutional controls may be more difficult to implement and
reliably operate, especially for privately owned parcels, due to
various degrees of contamination, types of ownership, and
levels of occupancy.
¦ Sampling and analysis for low concentration asbestos
contamination in soils would be difficult with current
technologies.
Reliability of the technology,
focusing on technical
problems that will lead to
schedule delays
¦ Excavation and backfilling around homes or structures, trees,
subsurface utilities, and roads may be challenging at specific
locations.
¦ Offsite disposal of excavated contaminated materials at
permitted disposal facilities is relatively straightforward.
However, the larger volume of materials removed than for
Alternative 5b and the need to coordinate traffic for both offsite
disposal and borrow soil delivery could be problematic.
¦ A large volume of suitable backfilling material would be
required, thus multiple offsite sources might be required, which
might delay the schedule.
¦ Excavated contaminated materials would require transportation
to offsite disposal facilities in specialized enclosed trucks.
¦ Special management procedures may be required for disposal
at the permitted facilities.
¦ Suitable uncontaminated materials for soil cover system
construction at the authorized onsite disposal location and
backfilling excavation areas are not available on site. Soil
cover construction and backfill materials would be required
from off site which might delay the schedule.
¦ Monitoring, implementation, and enforcement of institutional
controls may be more difficult, especially for privately owned
parcels due to various degrees of contamination, types of
ownership, and levels of occupancy.
¦ Access permission at privately owned parcels for implementing
the remedial alternative is not currently available, but could be
obtained. This could cause some delays in the schedule.
Ease of undertaking additional
remedial actions, including
what, if any, future remedial
actions would be needed and
the difficulty to implement
additional remedial actions
¦ Future excavation and offsite disposal of contaminated
materials could be implemented.
¦ Additional remedial action may be more difficult to implement
on privately owned parcels.
CDM
NRE_Final FS_ Appendix G.doc
-------
Appendix G
Detailed Analysis of Alternatives
Table G-41. Implementability Evaluation Summary - Alternative 6
(continued)
Evaluation Factors for Implementability
Evaluation Summary
Technical
feasibility -
continued
Ability to monitor the
effectiveness of the remedy,
including an evaluation of
risks of exposure should
monitoring be insufficient to
detect a system failure
¦ A comprehensive inspection, monitoring, and maintenance
program would be implemented to maintain the integrity of
covers, backfilled excavations, and effectiveness of land use
controls.
¦ Monitoring and maintenance of covers, backfilled areas, and
institutional controls may be more difficult for privately owned
parcels due to various degrees of contamination, types of
ownership, and levels of occupancy.
¦ Frequent/periodic monitoring and sampling would be
conducted to ensure overall protection of human health and
environment.
Administrative
feasibility
Activities needed to
coordinate with other offices
and agencies
¦ Regulatory and facility approval for offsite disposal at permitted
disposal facilities should be obtainable.
¦ Regulatory approvals for institutional and access controls
should be obtainable. However, some difficulties may be
encountered with regard to types of restrictions, especially on
privately owned parcels.
¦ Regulatory approvals for monitoring should be obtainable.
The ability and time required
to obtain any necessary
approvals and permits from
other agencies (for offsite
actions)
¦ Regulatory and facility approval for offsite disposal at permitted
disposal facilities should be obtainable.
¦ Special management procedures may be required for disposal
at the permitted facilities.
¦ Development of offsite borrow sources for soil covers over the
onsite disposal facilities and backfill would require coordination
and approval from the affected agency.
Availability of
services and
materials
Availability of adequate offsite
treatment, storage capacity,
and disposal capacity and
services
¦ Permitted disposal facilities authorized for asbestos are
available within the State of Oregon. However, most facilities
are somewhat distant from the site.
¦ Many of the permitted disposal facilities may not have sufficient
capacity to accept all of the contaminated materials. Use of
multiple permitted disposal facilities may be required.
¦ Total volume of contaminated materials for offsite disposal
would be approximately 139,600 cy.
¦ Approximately 4,985 truck loads would be required to haul
contaminated materials to offsite disposal facilities.
Availability of necessary
equipment and specialists and
provisions to ensure any
necessary additional
resources
¦ The property for implementing the remedial action has already
been obtained for receiver-managed parcels.
¦ Access permission at privately owned parcels for implementing
the remedial action may not be currently available, but could
be obtained.
¦ Labor, equipment, and materials for cover construction are
available.
¦ Suitable cover construction materials would be required from
offsite sources.
¦ Labor, equipment, and materials for contaminated materials
excavation and clean soil backfilling are available.
¦ Suitable backfill materials would be required from offsite
sources; significant volumes of clean borrow may be required
compared to other alternatives.
¦ Total volume of suitable soil cover and backfill material
required would be approximately 143,600 cy.
¦ Approximately 5,130 truck loads would be required to haul in
the suitable material.
¦ Materials, equipment, and labor resources used for land use
controls and monitoring are easily obtainable.
¦ Technical equipment and specialists are available for
implementation of institutional controls and monitoring.
Availability of services and
materials plus the potential for
obtaining competitive bids,
which is particularly important
for innovative technologies
Availability of prospective
technologies
CDM
NRE_Final FS_ Appendix G.doc
-------
Appendix G
Detailed Analysis of Alternatives
Table G-42. Cost Evaluation Summary - Alternative 6
Evaluation Factors for Cost
Approximate Cost (Dollars)
Total capital cost
$32,990,000
Total annual O&M cost
$1,050,000
Total periodic cost
$360,000
Total cost (excluding present value discounting)
$34,400,000
Total present value cost
$29,472,000
Note: Total costs are for the assumed period of evaluation (Years 0 through 30). Costs are rounded
to the nearest $1,000.
CDM
NRE_Final FS_ Appendix G.doc
-------
Appendix H
Detailed Alternative Analysis Cost Information
-------
The cost spreadsheets included in this appendix were developed in accordance
with EPA 540-R-00-002 (OSWER 9355.0-75) July 2000.
These costs should be used to compare alternative relative costs. Costs for
project management, remedial design, and construction management were
determined as percentages of capital cost per the guidance. Costs for these work
items may not reflect costs for implementation. These costs are determined
based on specific client requirements during implementation.
-------
Present Value and Cost Estimate Summary
Alternative 1
No Action
-------
TABLE PV-1
PRESENT VALUE ANALYSIS
Alternative
No Action
Site:
Location:
Phase:
Base Year:
North Ridge Estates
Klamath County, Oregon
Final Feasibility Study
2010
Year1
Capital Costs2
Annual O&M Costs
Periodic Costs
(Five-Year Site
Reviews)
Total Annual
Expenditure3
Discount Factor
(7.0%)
Present Value4
0
$0
$0
$0
$0
1.0000
$0
1
$0
$0
$0
$0
0.9346
$0
2
$0
$0
$0
$0
0.8734
$0
3
$0
$0
$0
$0
0.8163
$0
4
$0
$0
$0
$0
0.7629
$0
5
$0
$0
$86,000
$86,000
0.7130
$61,318
6
$0
$0
$0
$0
0.6663
$0
7
$0
$0
$0
$0
0.6227
$0
8
$0
$0
$0
$0
0.5820
$0
9
$0
$0
$0
$0
0.5439
$0
10
$0
$0
$86,000
$86,000
0.5083
$43,714
11
$0
$0
$0
$0
0.4751
$0
12
$0
$0
$0
$0
0.4440
$0
13
$0
$0
$0
$0
0.4150
$0
14
$0
$0
$0
$0
0.3878
$0
15
$0
$0
$86,000
$86,000
0.3624
$31,166
16
$0
$0
$0
$0
0.3387
$0
17
$0
$0
$0
$0
0.3166
$0
18
$0
$0
$0
$0
0.2959
$0
19
$0
$0
$0
$0
0.2765
$0
20
$0
$0
$86,000
$86,000
0.2584
$22,222
21
$0
$0
$0
$0
0.2415
$0
22
$0
$0
$0
$0
0.2257
$0
23
$0
$0
$0
$0
0.2109
$0
24
$0
$0
$0
$0
0.1971
$0
25
$0
$0
$86,000
$86,000
0.1842
$15,841
26
$0
$0
$0
$0
0.1722
$0
27
$0
$0
$0
$0
0.1609
$0
28
$0
$0
$0
$0
0.1504
$0
29
$0
$0
$0
$0
0.1406
$0
30
$0
$0
$86,000
$86,000
0.1314
$11,300
TOTALS:
$0
$0
$516,000
$516,000
$185,561
TOTAL PRESENT VALUE OF ALTERNATIVE 13
$186,000
Notes:
1 Duration is assumed to be 31 years (Years 0 through 30) for present value analysis.
2 Capital costs, for purposes of this analysis, are assumed to be distributed as indicated on Table CS-1.
3 Total annual expenditure is the total cost per year with no discounting.
4 Present value is the total cost per year including a 7.0% discount factor for that year. See Table PV-ADRFT for details.
5 Total present value is rounded to the nearest $1,000. Inflation and depreciation are excluded from the present value cost.
Costs presented for this alternative are expected to have an accuracy between -30% to +50% of actual costs, based on the scope presented.
They are prepared solely to facilitate relative comparisons between alternatives for FS evaluation purposes.
FINAL
Page 1 of 3
-------
TABLE PV-ADRFT
PRESENT VALUE ANALYSIS
Annual Discount Rate Factors Table
Site:
Location:
Phase:
Base Year:
North Ridge Estates
Klamath County, Oregon
Final Feasibility Study
2010
Discount Rate (Percent):
7.0
Year
Discount Factor3,2
Year
Discount Factor3,2
0
1.0000
26
0.1722
1
0.9346
27
0.1609
2
0.8734
28
0.1504
3
0.8163
29
0.1406
4
0.7629
30
0.1314
5
0.7130
6
0.6663
7
0.6227
8
0.5820
9
0.5439
10
0.5083
11
0.4751
12
0.4440
13
0.4150
14
0.3878
15
0.3624
16
0.3387
17
0.3166
18
0.2959
19
0.2765
20
0.2584
21
0.2415
22
0.2257
23
0.2109
24
0.1971
25
0.1842
Notes:
1 Annual discount factors were calculated using the formulas and guidance presented in Section 4.0 of
"A Guide to Developing and Documenting Cost Estimates During the Feasibility Study", EPA 2000.
2 The real discount rate of 7.0% was obtained from "A Guide to Developing and Documenting Cost
Estimates During the Feasibility Study", EPA 2000, Page 4-5.
Page 2 of 3
-------
TABLE CS-1
Alternative 1
No Action
COST ESTIMATE SUMMARY
Site: North Ridge Estates
Location: Klamath County, Oregon
Phase: Final Feasibility Study
Base Year: 2010
Date: March 24, 2010
Description:
Alternative 1 would leave removal action activities previously performed in their current conditions. No new remedial action activities would be initiated at the
site to address contaminated materials or otherwise mitigate the associated risks to human health and the environment. A no action alternative is required by
the NCP to provide an environmental baseline against which impacts of the various remedial alternatives can be compared. Five-year site reviews would be
performed as required by the NCP to evaluate whether adequate protection of human health and the environment is provided since contaminated materials
would remain at the site. Monitoring (consisting of non-intrusive visual inspections and sample collection with laboratory analysis) would be performed as
necessary to complete the 5-year site reviews.
5-YEAR SITE REVIEW PERIODIC COSTS (Years 5, 10,15, 20, 25 and 30)
DESCRIPTION
5-Year Site Reviews
Community Awareness Activities
Non-Intrusive Visual Inspection
Ambient Air Sampling
WORKSHEET
CW1-1
CW1-2
CW1-3A
CW1-3B
QTY
1
1
1
1
UNIT(S)
LS
LS
LS
LS
UNIT COST
$26,957
$6,039
$5,212
$19,000
TOTAL
$26,957
$6,039
$5,212
$19,000
NOTES
SUBTOTAL
$57,208
Contingency (Scope and Bid)
20%
$11,442
10% Scope, 10% Bid (Low end of recommended range in EPA 540-R-00-002).
SUBTOTAL
$68,650
Project Management
Technical Support
10%
15%
$6,865
$10,298
Percentage from Exhibit 5-8 in EPA 540-R-00-002 was used.
Middle value of the recommended range in EPA 540-R-00-002 was used.
TOTAL
$85,813
TOTAL PERIODIC COST
| $86,000
] Total capital cost is rounded to the nearest $1,000.
Notes:
Percentages used for indirect costs are based on guidance from Section 5.0 of "A Guide to Developing and Documenting Cost Estimates During the Feasibility Study", EPA 540-R-00-002 (July 2000).
Costs presented for this alternative are expected to have an accuracy between -30% to +50% of actual costs, based on the scope presented. They are prepared solely to facilitate relative comparisons between alternatives for FS evaluation
purposes.
Abbreviations:
EA Each
LS LumpSum
QTY Quantity
FINAL
Page 3 of 3
-------
Present Value and Cost Estimate Summary
Alternative 3
Capping of Contaminated Materials on Private Parcels,
Partial Capping of Contaminated Materials on Receivership
Parcels, Interior Cleaning, and Land Use Controls with
Monitoring
-------
TABLE PV-3
PRESENT VALUE ANALYSIS
Alternative 3
Capping of Contaminated Materials on Private Parcels, Partial Capping of Contaminated Materials on Receivership
Parcels, Interior Cleaning, and Land Use Controls with Monitoring
Site: North Ridge Estates
Location: Klamath County, Oregon
Phase: Final Feasibility Study
Base Year: 2010
Year1
Capital Costs
(Land Use
Controls)2
Capital Costs
(Construction)2
Annual O&M
Costs (Cover
and Access
Controls)
Kerioaic uosts
(Interior House
Cleanings and
Five-Year Site
Reviews)
Total Annual
Expenditure3
Discount Factor
(7.0%)
Present Value4
0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
1.0000
$0
1
$1,076,000
$4,258,000
$26,000
$0
$5,360,000
0.9346
$5,009,456
2
$0
$4,258,000
$26,000
$0
$4,284,000
0.8734
$3,741,646
3
$0
$0
$30,000
$0
$30,000
0.8163
$24,489
4
$0
$0
$30,000
$0
$30,000
0.7629
$22,887
5
$0
$0
$30,000
$159,000
$189,000
0.7130
$134,757
6
$0
$0
$30,000
$0
$30,000
0.6663
$19,989
7
$0
$0
$30,000
$0
$30,000
0.6227
$18,681
8
$0
$0
$30,000
$0
$30,000
0.5820
$17,460
9
$0
$0
$30,000
$0
$30,000
0.5439
$16,317
10
$0
$0
$30,000
$983,000
$1,013,000
0.5083
$514,908
11
$0
$0
$30,000
$0
$30,000
0.4751
$14,253
12
$0
$0
$30,000
$0
$30,000
0.4440
$13,320
13
$0
$0
$30,000
$0
$30,000
0.4150
$12,450
14
$0
$0
$30,000
$0
$30,000
0.3878
$11,634
15
$0
$0
$30,000
$159,000
$189,000
0.3624
$68,494
16
$0
$0
$30,000
$0
$30,000
0.3387
$10,161
17
$0
$0
$30,000
$0
$30,000
0.3166
$9,498
18
$0
$0
$30,000
$0
$30,000
0.2959
$8,877
19
$0
$0
$30,000
$0
$30,000
0.2765
$8,295
20
$0
$0
$30,000
$983,000
$1,013,000
0.2584
$261,759
21
$0
$0
$30,000
$0
$30,000
0.2415
$7,245
22
$0
$0
$30,000
$0
$30,000
0.2257
$6,771
23
$0
$0
$30,000
$0
$30,000
0.2109
$6,327
24
$0
$0
$30,000
$0
$30,000
0.1971
$5,913
25
$0
$0
$30,000
$159,000
$189,000
0.1842
$34,814
26
$0
$0
$30,000
$0
$30,000
0.1722
$5,166
27
$0
$0
$30,000
$0
$30,000
0.1609
$4,827
28
$0
$0
$30,000
$0
$30,000
0.1504
$4,512
29
$0
$0
$30,000
$0
$30,000
0.1406
$4,218
30
$0
$0
$30,000
$983,000
$1,013,000
0.1314
$133,108
TOTALS:
$1,076,000
$8,516,000
$892,000
$3,426,000
$13,910,000
$10,152,232
TOTAL PRESENT VALUE OF ALTERNATIVE 35
$10,152,000
Notes:
1 Duration is assumed to be 31 years (Years 0 through 30) for present value analysis.
2 Capital costs, for purposes of this analysis, are assumed to be distributed as indicated on Table CS-3.
3 Total annual expenditure is the total cost per year with no discounting.
4 Present value is the total cost per year including a 7.0% discount factor for that year. See Table PV-ADRFT for details.
5 Total present value is rounded to the nearest $1,000. Inflation and depreciation are excluded from the present value cost.
Costs presented for this alternative are expected to have an accuracy between -30% to +50% of actual costs, based on the scope presented.
They are prepared solely to facilitate relative comparisons between alternatives for FS evaluation purposes.
FINAL
Page 1 of 5
-------
TABLE PV-ADRFT
PRESENT VALUE ANALYSIS
(Annual Discount Rate Factors Table
Site:
Location:
Phase:
Base Year:
North Ridge Estates
Klamath County, Oregon
Final Feasibility Study
2010
|Discount Rate (Percent):
7.0
Year
Discount Factor1'^
Year
Discount Factor1'^
0
1.0000
26
0.1722
1
0.9346
27
0.1609
2
0.8734
28
0.1504
3
0.8163
29
0.1406
4
0.7629
30
0.1314
5
0.7130
6
0.6663
7
0.6227
8
0.5820
9
0.5439
10
0.5083
11
0.4751
12
0.4440
13
0.4150
14
0.3878
15
0.3624
16
0.3387
17
0.3166
18
0.2959
19
0.2765
20
0.2584
21
0.2415
22
0.2257
23
0.2109
24
0.1971
25
0.1842
Notes:
1 Annual discount factors were calculated using the formulas and guidance presented in Section 4.0 i
"A Guide to Developing and Documenting Cost Estimates During the Feasibility Study", EPA 2000.
2 The real discount rate of 7.0% was obtained from "A Guide to Developing and Documenting Cost
Estimates During the Feasibility Study", EPA 2000, Page 4-5.
Page 2 of 5
-------
TABLE CS-3
Alternative 3
Capping of Contaminated Materials on Private Parcels, Partial Capping of Contaminated Materials on Receivership
Parcels, Interior Cleaning, and Land Use Controls with Monitoring
COST ESTIMATE SUMMARY
Site: North Ridge Estates
Location: Klamath County, Oregon
Phase: Final Feasibility Study
Base Year: 2010
Date: March 24, 2010
Description* Alternative 3 includes in-place capping (covering) of contaminated materials identified on privately owned parcels and a portion of the contaminated materials
on receiver managed parcels (assumed to be 50% of identified contaminated materials for cost purposes). Covers used to cap contaminated materials are
assumed to be constructed from clean soil transported from offsite borrow areas to ensure that contamination is not present. Current residential structures on
receiver managed parcels would be relocated or demolished (assumed to be demolished for cost purposes). Interior cleaning would be performed on a
periodic basis using vacuum extraction to remove asbestos fibers within residential structures on privately owned parcels. Land use controls would be used to
protect covered areas as well as restrict access and use of contaminated areas, and provide awareness of risks from potential exposure to contaminated
materials. Monitoring would be conducted to ensure that covers, interior cleanings, and land use controls are protective of human health and the environment.
Five-year site reviews would be performed since contaminated materials would remain at the site.
LAND USE CONTROLS CAPITAL COSTS: (Assumed to be Incurred During Year 1)
DESCRIPTION
Institutional Controls
Access Controls
SUBTOTAL
Contingency (Scope and Bid)
SUBTOTAL
Project Management
Remedial Design
Construction Management
Technical Support
TOTAL
TOTAL CAPITAL COST
WORKSHEET
CW3-1
CW3-2
QTY
1
1
UNIT(S)
LS
LS
UNIT COST
$622,800
$13,369
$763,403
TOTAL
$622,800
$13,369
$636,169
$127,234
12%
8%
15%
$45,804
$91,608
$61,072
$114,510
$1,076,397
10% Scope, 10% Bid (Low end of recommended range in EPA 540-R-00-002).
Percentage from Exhibit 5-8 in EPA 540-R-00-002 was used.
Percentage from Exhibit 5-8 in EPA 540-R-00-002 was used.
Percentage from Exhibit 5-8 in EPA 540-R-00-002 was used.
Middle value of the recommended range in EPA 540-R-00-002 was used.
$1,076,000
] Total capital cost is rounded to the nearest $1,000.
CONSTRUCTION CAPITAL COSTS: (Assumed to be Incurred During Years 1 and 2)
DESCRIPTION
WORKSHEET
QTY
UNIT(S)
UNIT COST
TOTAL
NOTES
Site Clearing and Grubbing
CW3-7
1
LS
$75,287
$75,287
Mobilization/Demobilization
CW3-10
2
EA
$56,158
$112,316
Includes mobilization/demobilization for each construction year
Temporary Laydown Area Installation
CW3-6
1
LS
$6,106
$6,106
Construction of Soil Cover
CW3-8
1
LS
$4,044,253
$4,044,253
Revegetation of Soil Cover
CW3-9
1
LS
$123,569
$123,569
Surveying for Construction Control
CW3-11
1
LS
$15,993
$15,993
Equipment Decontamination
CW3-12
1
LS
$53,806
$53,806
Site Maintenance and Control During Construction
CW3-13
1
LS
$197,501
$197,501
House Demolition and Disposal
CW3-15
1
LS
$390,946
$390,946
Borrow Source Testing
CW3-4A
1
LS
$70,329
$70,329
Ambient Air Sampling (1 Year)
CW3-4C
YR
$62,857
$125,714
Ambient air sampling over the period of construction
Inspection of Areas without Identified Contamination
CW3-4D
1
LS
$30,997
$30,997
Temporary Site Facilitites During Construction
CW3-14
1
LS
$49,497
$49,497
SUBTOTAL
$5,296,314
Contingency (Scope and Bid)
20%
$1,059,263
10% Scope, 10% Bid (Low end of recommended range in EPA 540-R-00-002).
SUBTOTAL
$6,355,577
Project Management
5%
$317,779
Percentage from Exhibit 5-8 in EPA 540-R-00-002 was used.
Remedial Design
8%
$508,446
Percentage from Exhibit 5-8 in EPA 540-R-00-002 was used.
Construction Management
6%
$381,335
Percentage from Exhibit 5-8 in EPA 540-R-00-002 was used.
Technical Support
15%
$953,337
Middle value of the recommended range in EPA 540-R-00-002 was used.
TOTAL
$8,516,474
TOTAL CAPITAL COST
| $8,516,000
Total capital cost is rounded to the nearest $1,000.
FINAL
Page 3 of 5
-------
TABLE CS-3
Alternative 3
Capping of Contaminated Materials on Private Parcels, Partial Capping of Contaminated Materials on Receivership
Parcels, Interior Cleaning, and Land Use Controls with Monitoring
COST ESTIMATE SUMMARY
Site: North Ridge Estates Description* Alternative 3 includes in-place capping (covering) of contaminated materials identified on privately owned parcels and a portion of the contaminated materials
. .. ... _ . _ on receiver managed parcels (assumed to be 50% of identified contaminated materials for cost purposes). Covers used to cap contaminated materials are
Location: Klamath County, Oregon lx , , , ,r , ^ ,r « , , , ^
assumed to be constructed from clean soil transported from offsite borrow areas to ensure that contamination is not present. Current residential structures on
Phase: Final Feasibility Study receiver managed parcels would be relocated or demolished (assumed to be demolished for cost purposes). Interior cleaning would be performed on a
Base Year: 2010 periodic basis using vacuum extraction to remove asbestos fibers within residential structures on privately owned parcels. Land use controls would be used to
paje. March 24 2010 protect covered areas as well as restrict access and use of contaminated areas, and provide awareness of risks from potential exposure to contaminated
materials. Monitoring would be conducted to ensure that covers, interior cleanings, and land use controls are protective of human health and the environment.
Five-year site reviews would be performed since contaminated materials would remain at the site.
COVER AND ACCESS CONTROLS ANNUAL OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE (O&M) COSTS (Years 1 through 2)
DESCRIPTION WORKSHEET QTY UNIT(S)
Cover and Access Controls O&M During Construction CW3-5A 1 LS
Cover and Backfill Inspection CW3-4B 1 LS
UNIT COST
$10,150
$5,212
TOTAL
$10,150
$5,212
NOTES
Includes labor for cover maintenance
Includes annual site inspection
SUBTOTAL
$15,362
Contingency (Scope and Bid) 20%
$3,072
10% Scope, 10% Bid (Low end of recommended range in EPA 540-R-00-002).
SUBTOTAL
$18,434
Project Management 10%
Construction Management 15%
Technical Support 15%
$1,843
$2,765
$2,765
Percentage from Exhibit 5-8 in EPA 540-R-00-002 was used.
Percentage from Exhibit 5-8 in EPA 540-R-00-002 was used.
Middle value of the recommended range in EPA 540-R-00-002 was used.
TOTAL
$25,807
TOTAL ANNUAL O&M COST
| $26,000
] Total O&M cost is rounded to the nearest $1,000.
COVER AND ACCESS CONTROLS ANNUAL OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE (O&M) COSTS (Years 3 through 30)
DESCRIPTION WORKSHEET QTY UNIT(S)
Cover and Access Controls O&M CW3-5B 1 LS
Cover and Backfill Inspection CW3-4B 1 LS
UNIT COST
$12,800
$5,212
TOTAL
$12,800
$5,212
NOTES
Includes labor for cover and warning signs maintenance
Includes annual site inspection
SUBTOTAL
$18,012
Contingency (Scope and Bid) 20%
$3,602
10% Scope, 10% Bid (Low end of recommended range in EPA 540-R-00-002).
SUBTOTAL
$21,614
Project Management 10%
Construction Management 15%
Technical Support 15%
$2,161
$3,242
$3,242
Percentage from Exhibit 5-8 in EPA 540-R-00-002 was used.
Percentage from Exhibit 5-8 in EPA 540-R-00-002 was used.
Middle value of the recommended range in EPA 540-R-00-002 was used.
TOTAL
$30,259
TOTAL ANNUAL O&M COST
| $30,000
] Total O&M cost is rounded to the nearest $1,000.
INTERIOR HOUSE CLEANING (Years 10, 20, and 30)
DESCRIPTION WORKSHEET QTY UNIT(S)
Interior Cleaning of Houses CW3-16 1 LS
UNIT COST
$549,502
TOTAL
$549,502
NOTES
SUBTOTAL
$549,502
Contingency (Scope and Bid) 20%
$109,900
10% Scope, 10% Bid (Low end of recommended range in EPA 540-R-00-002).
SUBTOTAL
$659,402
Project Management 10%
Technical Support 15%
$65,940
$98,910
Percentage from Exhibit 5-8 in EPA 540-R-00-002 was used.
Middle value of the recommended range in EPA 540-R-00-002 was used.
TOTAL
$824,252
TOTAL PERIODIC COST
| $824,000
] Total capital cost is rounded to the nearest $1,000.
FINAL
Page 4 of 5
-------
TABLE CS-3
Alternative 3
Capping of Contaminated Materials on Private Parcels, Partial Capping of Contaminated Materials on Receivership
COST ESTIMATE SUMMARY
Parcels, Interior Cleaning, and Land Use Controls with Monitoring
Site: North Ridge Estates
Description:
Alternative 3 includes in-place capping (covering) of contaminated materials identified on privately owned parcels and a portion of the contaminated materials
Location* Klamath County Oregon
on receiver managed parcels (assumed to be 50% of identified contaminated materials for cost purposes). Covers used to cap contaminated materials are
assumed to be constructed from clean soil transported from offsite borrow areas to ensure that contamination is not present. Current residential structures on
Phase: Final Feasibility Study
receiver managed parcels would be relocated or demolished (assumed to be demolished for cost purposes). Interior cleaning would be performed on a
Base Year: 2010
periodic basis using vacuum extraction to remove asbestos fibers within residential structures on privately owned parcels. Land use controls would be used to
Dato- Marrh OA 9fl1fl
protect covered areas as well as restrict access and use of contaminated areas, and provide awareness of risks from potential exposure to contaminated
LSalC. IVIdl Ol I I U
materials. Monitoring would be conducted to ensure that covers, interior cleanings, and land use controls are protective of human health and the environment.
Five-year site reviews would be performed since contaminated materials would remain at the site.
5-YEAR SITE REVIEW PERIODIC COSTS (Years 5, 10,15, 20, 25, and 30)
DESCRIPTION
WORKSHEET
QTY UNIT(S)
UNIT COST
TOTAL
NOTES
5-Year Site Reviews
CW3-3A
1 LS
$29,042
$29,042
Indoor Air Sampling
CW3-3B
1 LS
$46,429
$46,429
Visual Non-Intrusive Inspection
CW3-3C
1 LS
$5,212
$5,212
Ambient Air Sampling (5 Year Review)
CW3-3D
1 LS
$19,000
$19,000
Community Awareness Activities
CW3-3E
1 LS
$6,039
$6,039
SUBTOTAL
$105,722
Contingency (Scope and Bid)
20%
$21,144
10% Scope, 10% Bid (Low end of recommended range in EPA 540-R-00-002).
SUBTOTAL
$126,866
Project Management
10%
$12,687
Percentage from Exhibit 5-8 in EPA 540-R-00-002 was used.
Technical Support
15%
$19,030
Middle value of the recommended range in EPA 540-R-00-002 was used.
TOTAL
$158,583
TOTAL PERIODIC COST
| $159,000
] Total capital cost is rounded to the nearest $1,000.
Notes:
Percentages used for indirect costs are based on guidance from Section 5.0 of "A Guide to Developing and Documenting Cost Estimates During the Feasibility Study", EPA 540-R-00-002 (July 2000).
Costs presented for this alternative are expected to have an accuracy between -30% to +50% of actual costs, based on the scope presented. They are prepared solely to facilitate relative comparisons between alternatives for FS evaluation purposes.
Abbreviations:
ABS Activity Based Sampling
EA Each
LS LumpSum
QTY Quantity
FINAL
Page 5 of 5
-------
Present Value and Cost Estimate Summary
Alternative 4
Capping of Contaminated Materials and Land Use Controls
with Monitoring
-------
TABLE PV-4
PRESENT VALUE ANALYSIS
Alternative 4
Capping of Contaminated Materials and Land Use Controls with Monitoring
Site: North Ridge Estates
Location: Klamath County, Oregon
Phase: Final Feasibility Study
Base Year: 2010
Year1
Capital Costs
(Land Use
Controls)2
Capital Costs
(Construction)2
Annual O&M
Costs (Cover
and Access
Controls)
Periodic Costs
(Five-Year Site
Reviews)
Total Annual
Expenditure3
Discount Factor
(7.0%)
Present Value4
0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
1.0000
$0
1
$1,062,000
$6,219,000
$28,000
$0
$7,309,000
0.9346
$6,830,991
2
$0
$6,219,000
$28,000
$0
$6,247,000
0.8734
$5,456,130
3
$0
$0
$36,000
$0
$36,000
0.8163
$29,387
4
$0
$0
$36,000
$0
$36,000
0.7629
$27,464
5
$0
$0
$36,000
$60,000
$96,000
0.7130
$68,448
6
$0
$0
$36,000
$0
$36,000
0.6663
$23,987
7
$0
$0
$36,000
$0
$36,000
0.6227
$22,417
8
$0
$0
$36,000
$0
$36,000
0.5820
$20,952
9
$0
$0
$36,000
$0
$36,000
0.5439
$19,580
10
$0
$0
$36,000
$60,000
$96,000
0.5083
$48,797
11
$0
$0
$36,000
$0
$36,000
0.4751
$17,104
12
$0
$0
$36,000
$0
$36,000
0.4440
$15,984
13
$0
$0
$36,000
$0
$36,000
0.4150
$14,940
14
$0
$0
$36,000
$0
$36,000
0.3878
$13,961
15
$0
$0
$36,000
$60,000
$96,000
0.3624
$34,790
16
$0
$0
$36,000
$0
$36,000
0.3387
$12,193
17
$0
$0
$36,000
$0
$36,000
0.3166
$11,398
18
$0
$0
$36,000
$0
$36,000
0.2959
$10,652
19
$0
$0
$36,000
$0
$36,000
0.2765
$9,954
20
$0
$0
$36,000
$60,000
$96,000
0.2584
$24,806
21
$0
$0
$36,000
$0
$36,000
0.2415
$8,694
22
$0
$0
$36,000
$0
$36,000
0.2257
$8,125
23
$0
$0
$36,000
$0
$36,000
0.2109
$7,592
24
$0
$0
$36,000
$0
$36,000
0.1971
$7,096
25
$0
$0
$36,000
$60,000
$96,000
0.1842
$17,683
26
$0
$0
$36,000
$0
$36,000
0.1722
$6,199
27
$0
$0
$36,000
$0
$36,000
0.1609
$5,792
28
$0
$0
$36,000
$0
$36,000
0.1504
$5,414
29
$0
$0
$36,000
$0
$36,000
0.1406
$5,062
30
$0
$0
$36,000
$60,000
$96,000
0.1314
$12,614
TOTALS:
$1,062,000
$12,438,000
$1,064,000
$360,000
$14,924,000
$12,798,206
TOTAL PRESENT VALUE OF ALTERNATIVE 45
$12,798,000
Notes:
1 Duration is assumed to be 31 years (Years 0 through 30) for present value analysis.
2 Capital costs, for purposes of this analysis, are assumed to be distributed as indicated on Table CS-4.
3 Total annual expenditure is the total cost per year with no discounting.
4 Present value is the total cost per year including a 7.0% discount factor for that year. See Table PV-ADRFT for details.
5 Total present value is rounded to the nearest $1,000. Inflation and depreciation are excluded from the present value cost.
Costs presented for this alternative are expected to have an accuracy between -30% to +50% of actual costs, based on the scope presented.
They are prepared solely to facilitate relative comparisons between alternatives for FS evaluation purposes.
FINAL
Page 1 of 5
-------
TABLE PV-ADRFT
PRESENT VALUE ANALYSIS
(Annual Discount Rate Factors Table
Site:
Location:
Phase:
Base Year:
North Ridge Estates
Klamath County, Oregon
Final Feasibility Study
2010
|Discount Rate (Percent):
7.0
Year
Discount Factor1'^
Year
Discount Factor1'^
0
1.0000
26
0.1722
1
0.9346
27
0.1609
2
0.8734
28
0.1504
3
0.8163
29
0.1406
4
0.7629
30
0.1314
5
0.7130
6
0.6663
7
0.6227
8
0.5820
9
0.5439
10
0.5083
11
0.4751
12
0.4440
13
0.4150
14
0.3878
15
0.3624
16
0.3387
17
0.3166
18
0.2959
19
0.2765
20
0.2584
21
0.2415
22
0.2257
23
0.2109
24
0.1971
25
0.1842
Notes:
1 Annual discount factors were calculated using the formulas and guidance presented in Section 4.0 i
"A Guide to Developing and Documenting Cost Estimates During the Feasibility Study", EPA 2000.
2 The real discount rate of 7.0% was obtained from "A Guide to Developing and Documenting Cost
Estimates During the Feasibility Study", EPA 2000, Page 4-5.
Page 2 of 5
-------
TABLE CS-4
Alternative 4
Capping of Contam inated Materials and Land Use Controls with Monitoring
Description* Alternative 4 uses a remedial strategy that emphasizes in-place capping (covering) of contaminated materials identified on all parcels, regardless of whether
they are privately owned or receiver-managed parcels. This alternative includes installation of a permanent cover over the existing onsite waste repository.
Covers used to contain contaminated materials are assumed to be constructed from clean soil transported from offsite borrow areas tested for contamination.
Land use controls would be used to protect and restrict use of covered areas, and provide awareness of risks from potential exposure to contaminated
materials. Monitoring would be conducted to ensure that covers and land use controls are protective of human health and the environment. Five-year site
reviews would be performed since contaminated materials would remain at the site.
COST ESTIMATE SUMMARY
Site: North Ridge Estates
Location: Klamath County, Oregon
Phase: Final Feasibility Study
Base Year: 2010
Date: March 24, 2010
LAND USE CONTROLS CAPITAL COSTS: (Assumed to be Incurred During Year 1)
DESCRIPTION
Institutional Controls
Access Controls
SUBTOTAL
Contingency (Scope and Bid)
SUBTOTAL
Project Management
Remedial Design
Construction Management
Technical Support
TOTAL
TOTAL CAPITAL COST
WORKSHEET
CW4-1
CW4-2
QTY
1
1
UNIT(S)
LS
LS
UNIT COST
$622,800
$4,954
$753,305
TOTAL
$622,800
$4,954
$627,754
$125,551
12%
8%
15%
$45,198
$90,397
$60,264
$112,996
$1,062,160
10% Scope, 10% Bid (Low end of recommended range in EPA 540-R-00-002).
Percentage from Exhibit 5-8 in EPA 540-R-00-002 was used.
Percentage from Exhibit 5-8 in EPA 540-R-00-002 was used.
Percentage from Exhibit 5-8 in EPA 540-R-00-002 was used.
Middle value of the recommended range in EPA 540-R-00-002 was used.
$1,062,000
] Total capital cost is rounded to the nearest $1,000.
CONSTRUCTION CAPITAL COSTS: (Assumed to be Incurred During Years 1 and 2)
DESCRIPTION
WORKSHEET
QTY
UNIT(S)
UNIT COST
TOTAL
NOTES
Site Clearing and Grubbing
CW4-6
1
LS
$150,574
$150,574
Mobilization/Demobilization
CW4-9
2
EA
$56,158
$112,316
Includes mobilization/demobilization for each construction year.
Temporary Laydown Area Installation
CW4-5
1
LS
$6,106
$6,106
Construction of Soil Cover
CW4-7
1
LS
$6,677,773
$6,677,773
Revegetation of Soil Cover
CW4-8
1
LS
$205,161
$205,161
Surveying for Construction Control
CW4-10
1
LS
$22,353
$22,353
Equipment Decontamination
CW4-11
1
LS
$87,317
$87,317
Site Maintenance and Control During Construction
CW4-12
1
LS
$323,520
$323,520
Temporary Site Facilitites During Construction
CW4-13
1
LS
$60,594
$60,594
Borrow Source Testing
CW4-15A
1
LS
$89,270
$89,270
Ambient Air Sampling (1 Year)
CW4-15B
2
YR
$62,857
$125,714
Ambient air sampling over the period of construction.
Inspection of Areas without Identified Contamination
CW4-15C
1
LS
$30,997
$30,997
SUBTOTAL
$7,734,984
Contingency (Scope and Bid)
20%
$1,546,997
10% Scope, 10% Bid (Low end of recommended range in EPA 540-R-00-002).
SUBTOTAL
$9,281,981
Project Management
5%
$464,099
Percentage from Exhibit 5-8 in EPA 540-R-00-002 was used.
Remedial Design
8%
$742,558
Percentage from Exhibit 5-8 in EPA 540-R-00-002 was used.
Construction Management
6%
$556,919
Percentage from Exhibit 5-8 in EPA 540-R-00-002 was used.
Technical Support
15%
$1,392,297
Middle value of the recommended range in EPA 540-R-00-002 was used.
TOTAL
$12,437,854
TOTAL CAPITAL COST
| $12,438,000
Total capital cost is rounded to the nearest $1,000.
FINAL
Page 3 of 5
-------
TABLE CS-4
Alternative 4
Capping of Contam inated Materials and Land Use Controls with Monitoring
COST ESTIMATE SUMMARY
Site: North Ridge Estates Description:
Location: Klamath County, Oregon
Phase: Final Feasibility Study
Base Year: 2010
Date: March 24, 2010
Alternative 4 uses a remedial strategy that emphasizes in-place capping (covering) of contaminated materials identified on all parcels, regardless of whether
they are privately owned or receiver-managed parcels. This alternative includes installation of a permanent cover over the existing onsite waste repository.
Covers used to contain contaminated materials are assumed to be constructed from clean soil transported from offsite borrow areas tested for contamination.
Land use controls would be used to protect and restrict use of covered areas, and provide awareness of risks from potential exposure to contaminated
materials. Monitoring would be conducted to ensure that covers and land use controls are protective of human health and the environment. Five-year site
reviews would be performed since contaminated materials would remain at the site.
COVER AND ACCESS CONTROLS ANNUAL OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE (O&M) COSTS (Years 1 through 2)
DESCRIPTION WORKSHEET
Cover and Access Controls O&M During Construction CW4-4A
Cover and Backfill Inspection CW4-4C
SUBTOTAL
QTY
1
1
UNIT(S)
LS
LS
UNIT COST
$11,690
$5,212
TOTAL
$11,690
$5,212
$16,902
NOTES
Includes annual site inspection.
Contingency (Scope and Bid)
SUBTOTAL
20%
$20,282
$3,380
10% Scope, 10% Bid (Low end of recommended range in EPA 540-R-00-002).
Project Management
Construction Management
Technical Support
TOTAL
10%
15%
15%
$2,028
$3,042
$3,042
$28,394
Percentage from Exhibit 5-8 in EPA 540-R-00-002 was used.
Percentage from Exhibit 5-8 in EPA 540-R-00-002 was used.
Middle value of the recommended range in EPA 540-R-00-002 was used.
TOTAL ANNUAL O&M COST
| $28,000 |
Total O&M cost is rounded to the nearest $1,000.
COVER AND ACCESS CONTROLS ANNUAL OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE (O&M) COSTS (Years 3 through 30)
DESCRIPTION WORKSHEET
Cover and Access Controls O&M CW4-4B
Cover and Backfill Inspection CW4-4C
SUBTOTAL
QTY
1
1
UNIT(S)
LS
LS
UNIT COST
$16,300
$5,212
TOTAL
$16,300
$5,212
$21,512
NOTES
Includes annual site inspection.
Contingency (Scope and Bid)
SUBTOTAL
20%
$25,814
$4,302
10% Scope, 10% Bid (Low end of recommended range in EPA 540-R-00-002).
Project Management
Construction Management
Technical Support
TOTAL
10%
15%
15%
$2,581
$3,872
$3,872
$36,139
Percentage from Exhibit 5-8 in EPA 540-R-00-002 was used.
Percentage from Exhibit 5-8 in EPA 540-R-00-002 was used.
Middle value of the recommended range in EPA 540-R-00-002 was used.
TOTAL ANNUAL O&M COST
| $36,000 |
Total O&M cost is rounded to the nearest $1,000.
FINAL
Page 4 of 5
-------
TABLE CS-4
Alternative 4
Capping of Contam inated Materials and Land Use Controls with Monitoring
COST ESTIMATE SUMMARY
Site: North Ridge Estates
Location: Klamath County, Oregon
Phase: Final Feasibility Study
Base Year: 2010
Date: March 24, 2010
Description:
Alternative 4 uses a remedial strategy that emphasizes in-place capping (covering) of contaminated materials identified on all parcels, regardless of whether
they are privately owned or receiver-managed parcels. This alternative includes installation of a permanent cover over the existing onsite waste repository.
Covers used to contain contaminated materials are assumed to be constructed from clean soil transported from offsite borrow areas tested for contamination.
Land use controls would be used to protect and restrict use of covered areas, and provide awareness of risks from potential exposure to contaminated
materials. Monitoring would be conducted to ensure that covers and land use controls are protective of human health and the environment. Five-year site
reviews would be performed since contaminated materials would remain at the site.
5-YEAR SITE REVIEW PERIODIC COSTS (Years 5, 10,15, 20, 25, and 30)
DESCRIPTION
5-Year Site Reviews
Non-Intrusive Visual Inspection
Community Awareness Activities
SUBTOTAL
WORKSHEET
CW4-3A
CW4-3B
CW4-14
QTY
1
1
1
UNIT(S) UNIT COST
LS $29,042
LS $5,212
LS $6,039
TOTAL
$29,042
$5,212
$6,039
$40,293
NOTES
Contingency (Scope and Bid)
SUBTOTAL
20%
$48,352
$8,059
10% Scope, 10% Bid (Low end of recommended range in EPA 540-R-00-002).
Project Management
Technical Support
TOTAL
10%
15%
$4,835
$7,253
$60,440
Percentage from Exhibit 5-8 in EPA 540-R-00-002 was used.
Middle value of the recommended range in EPA 540-R-00-002 was used.
TOTAL PERIODIC COST
| $60,000 |
Total capital cost is rounded to the nearest $1,000.
Notes:
Percentages used for indirect costs are based on guidance from Section 5.0 of "A Guide to Developing and Documenting Cost Estimates During the Feasibility Study", EPA 540-R-00-002 (July 2000).
Costs presented for this alternative are expected to have an accuracy between -30% to +50% of actual costs, based on the scope presented. They are prepared solely to facilitate relative comparisons between alternatives for FS evaluation purposes.
Abbreviations:
ABS Activity Based Sampling
EA Each
LS LumpSum
QTY Quantity
FINAL
Page 5 of 5
-------
Present Value and Cost Estimate Summary
Alternative 5a
Excavation and Onsite Consolidation/Disposal of
Contaminated Surface Materials, Future Excavation and
Offsite Disposal of Contaminated Surface Materials at
Permitted Facilities, and Land Use Controls with Monitoring
-------
TABLE PV-5a
PRESENT VALUE ANALYSIS
Alternative 5a
Excavation and Onsite Consolidation/Disposal of Contaminated Surface Materials, Future Excavation and Offsite Disposal of
Contaminated Surface Materials at Permitted Facilities, and Land Use Controls with Monitoring
Site: North Ridge Estates
Location: Klamath County, Oregon
Phase: Final Feasibility Study
Base Year: 2010
Capital Costs
(Land Use
Capital Costs
(Initial
Annual O&M
Costs (Future
Surface
Annual O&M
Costs (Cover,
Backfill, and
Access
Periodic Costs
(Five-Year Site
Total Annual
Discount
Year1
Controls)2
Construction)2
Excavation)2
Controls)
Reviews)
Expenditure3
Factor (7.0%)
Present Value4
0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
1.0000
$0
1
$1,062,000
$4,457,500
$0
$29,000
$0
$5,548,500
0.9346
$5,185,628
2
$0
$4,457,500
$0
$29,000
$0
$4,486,500
0.8734
$3,918,509
3
$0
$0
$81,000
$36,000
$0
$117,000
0.8163
$95,507
4
$0
$0
$81,000
$36,000
$0
$117,000
0.7629
$89,259
5
$0
$0
$81,000
$36,000
$60,000
$177,000
0.7130
$126,201
6
$0
$0
$81,000
$36,000
$0
$117,000
0.6663
$77,957
7
$0
$0
$81,000
$36,000
$0
$117,000
0.6227
$72,856
8
$0
$0
$81,000
$36,000
$0
$117,000
0.5820
$68,094
9
$0
$0
$81,000
$36,000
$0
$117,000
0.5439
$63,636
10
$0
$0
$81,000
$36,000
$60,000
$177,000
0.5083
$89,969
11
$0
$0
$80,000
$36,000
$0
$116,000
0.4751
$55,112
12
$0
$0
$80,000
$36,000
$0
$116,000
0.4440
$51,504
13
$0
$0
$80,000
$36,000
$0
$116,000
0.4150
$48,140
14
$0
$0
$80,000
$36,000
$0
$116,000
0.3878
$44,985
15
$0
$0
$80,000
$36,000
$60,000
$176,000
0.3624
$63,782
16
$0
$0
$80,000
$36,000
$0
$116,000
0.3387
$39,289
17
$0
$0
$80,000
$36,000
$0
$116,000
0.3166
$36,726
18
$0
$0
$80,000
$36,000
$0
$116,000
0.2959
$34,324
19
$0
$0
$80,000
$36,000
$0
$116,000
0.2765
$32,074
20
$0
$0
$80,000
$36,000
$60,000
$176,000
0.2584
$45,478
21
$0
$0
$79,000
$36,000
$0
$115,000
0.2415
$27,773
22
$0
$0
$79,000
$36,000
$0
$115,000
0.2257
$25,956
23
$0
$0
$79,000
$36,000
$0
$115,000
0.2109
$24,254
24
$0
$0
$79,000
$36,000
$0
$115,000
0.1971
$22,667
25
$0
$0
$79,000
$36,000
$60,000
$175,000
0.1842
$32,235
26
$0
$0
$79,000
$36,000
$0
$115,000
0.1722
$19,803
27
$0
$0
$79,000
$36,000
$0
$115,000
0.1609
$18,504
28
$0
$0
$79,000
$36,000
$0
$115,000
0.1504
$17,296
29
$0
$0
$79,000
$36,000
$0
$115,000
0.1406
$16,169
30
$0
$0
$79,000
$36,000
$60,000
$175,000
0.1314
$22,995
TOTALS:
$1,062,000
$8,915,000
$2,238,000
$1,066,000
$360,000
$13,641,000
$10,466,682
TOTAL PRESENT VALUE OF ALTERNATIVE 5a 5
$10,467,000
Notes:
1 Duration is assumed to be 31 years (Years 0 through 30) for present value analysis.
2 Capital costs, for purposes of this analysis, are assumed to be distributed as indicated on Table CS-5a.
3 Total annual expenditure is the total cost per year with no discounting.
4 Present value is the total cost per year including a 7.0% discount factor for that year. See Table PV-ADRFT for details.
5 Total present value is rounded to the nearest $1,000. Inflation and depreciation are excluded from the present value cost.
Costs presented for this alternative are expected to have an accuracy between -30% to +50% of actual costs, based on the scope presented.
They are prepared solely to facilitate relative comparisons between alternatives for FS evaluation purposes.
FINAL
Page 1 of 6
-------
TABLE PV-ADRFT
PRESENT VALUE ANALYSIS
Annual Discount Rate Factors Table
Site:
Location:
Phase:
Base Year:
North Ridge Estates
Klamath County, Oregon
Final Feasibility Study
2010
Discount Rate (Percent):
7.0
Year
Discount Factor3,2
Year
Discount Factor3,2
0
1.0000
26
0.1722
1
0.9346
27
0.1609
2
0.8734
28
0.1504
3
0.8163
29
0.1406
4
0.7629
30
0.1314
5
0.7130
6
0.6663
7
0.6227
8
0.5820
9
0.5439
10
0.5083
11
0.4751
12
0.4440
13
0.4150
14
0.3878
15
0.3624
16
0.3387
17
0.3166
18
0.2959
19
0.2765
20
0.2584
21
0.2415
22
0.2257
23
0.2109
24
0.1971
25
0.1842
Notes:
1 Annual discount factors were calculated using the formulas and guidance presented in Section 4.0 of
"A Guide to Developing and Documenting Cost Estimates During the Feasibility Study", EPA 2000.
2 The real discount rate of 7.0% was obtained from "A Guide to Developing and Documenting Cost
Estimates During the Feasibility Study", EPA 2000, Page 4-5.
Page 2 of 6
-------
TABLE CS-5a
Alternative 5a
Excavation and Onsite Consolidation/Disposal of Contaminated Surface Materials, Future Excavation and Offsite Disposal of
Contaminated Surface Materials at Permitted Facilities, and Land Use Controls with Monitoring
COST ESTIMATE SUMMARY
Site:
Location:
Phase:
Base Year:
Date:
North Ridge Estates
Klamath County, Oregon
Final Feasibility Study
2010
March 24, 2010
Description- Alternative 5a uses a remedial strategy that emphasizes excavation of contaminated surface materials identified on all parcels, regardless of whether they are privately
owned or receiver-managed parcels. This alternative includes installation of a permanent cover over the existing onsite waste repository. Excavated contaminated materials
would be consolidated at an onsite disposal location. Clean soil would be used to backfill removal areas and is assumed to be transported from offsite borrow areas tested
for contamination. Future excavation events (i.e. surface excavation/pickup of contaminated materials) would be performed on a regular basis and would be disposed of at a
permitted offsite disposal facility specifically authorized by Oregon DEQ to receive asbestos and other non-asbestos COPCs. Land use controls would be used to protect
and restrict use of covered and backfilled areas, and provide awareness of risks from potential exposure to contaminated materials. Monitoring would be conducted to
ensure that covers, excavation backfill, and land use controls are protective of human health and the environment. Five-year site reviews would be performed since
contaminated materials would remain at the site.
LAND USE CONTROLS CAPITAL COSTS: (Assumed to be Incurred During Year 1)
DESCRIPTION
Institutional Controls
Access Controls
SUBTOTAL
Contingency (Scope and Bid)
SUBTOTAL
Project Management
Remedial Design
Construction Management
Technical Support
TOTAL
TOTAL CAPITAL COST
WORKSHEET
CW5a-1
CW5a-2
QTY
1
1
6%
12%
UNIT(S)
LS
LS
UNIT COST
$622,800
$4,954
$753,305
TOTAL
$622,800
$4,954
$627,754
$125,551
$45,198
$90,397
$60,264
$112,996
$1,062,160
$1,062,000
10% Scope, 10% Bid (Low end of recommended range in EPA 540-R-00-002).
Percentage from Exhibit 5-8 in EPA 540-R-00-002 was used.
Percentage from Exhibit 5-8 in EPA 540-R-00-002 was used.
Percentage from Exhibit 5-8 in EPA 540-R-00-002 was used.
Middle value of the recommended range in EPA 540-R-00-002 was used.
Total capital cost is rounded to the nearest $1,000.
INITIAL CONSTRUCTION CAPITAL COSTS: (Years 1 and 2)
DESCRIPTION
WORKSHEET
QTY
UNIT(S)
Site Clearing and Grubbing
CW5a-6
1
LS
Mobilization/Demobilization
CW5a-13
2
EA
Temporary Laydown and Access Road Installation
CW5a-17
1
LS
Contaminated Surface Materials Excavation and Hauling
CW5a-8
1
LS
Construction of On-Site Consolidation Area
CW5a-9
1
LS
Revegetation of On-Site Consolidation Area
CW5a-10
1
LS
Excavation Backfilling
CW5a-10A
1
LS
Revegetation of Disturbed Areas
CW5a-11
1
LS
Borrow Source Testing
CW5a-4A
1
LS
Ambient Air Sampling (1 Year)
CW5a-4B
YR
Inspection of Areas without Identified Contamination
CW5a-4C
1
LS
Excavation Confirmatory Sampling
CW5a-4D
1
LS
Site Maintenance and Control During Construction
CW5a-14
1
LS
Temporary Site Facilitites During Construction
CW5a-15
1
LS
Surveying for Construction Control
CW5a-16
1
LS
Equipment Decontamination
CW5a-12
1
LS
SUBTOTAL
Contingency (Scope and Bid)
20%
SUBTOTAL
Project Management
5%
Remedial Design
8%
Construction Management
6%
Technical Support
15%
TOTAL
TOTAL CAPITAL COST
UNIT COST
TOTAL
NOTES
$150,574
$150,574
$67,586
$135,172
Includes mobilization/demobilization for each construction year.
$64,752
$64,752
$776,533
$776,533
$1,996,450
$1,996,450
$18,650
$18,650
$1,246,719
$1,246,719
$188,845
$188,845
$51,726
$51,726
$62,857
$125,714
Ambient air sampling over the period of construction.
$30,997
$30,997
$208,812
$208,812
$315,318
$315,318
$59,741
$59,741
$23,533
$23,533
$150,653
$150,653
$5,544,189
$1,108,838
10% Scope, 10% Bid (Low end of recommended range in EPA 540-R-00-002).
56,653,027
$332,651
Percentage from Exhibit 5-8 in EPA 540-R-00-002 was used.
$532,242
Percentage from Exhibit 5-8 in EPA 540-R-00-002 was used.
$399,182
Percentage from Exhibit 5-8 in EPA 540-R-00-002 was used.
$997,954
Middle value of the recommended range in EPA 540-R-00-002 was used.
$8,915,056
I $8,915,000
| Total capital cost is rounded to the nearest $1,000.
FINAL
Page 3 of 6
-------
TABLE CS-5a
Alternative 5a
Excavation and Onsite Consolidation/Disposal of Contaminated Surface Materials, Future Excavation and Offsite Disposal of
Contaminated Surface Materials at Permitted Facilities, and Land Use Controls with Monitoring
COST ESTIMATE SUMMARY
Site: North Ridge Estates Description:
Location: Klamath County, Oregon
Phase: Final Feasibility Study
Base Year: 2010
Date: March 24, 2010
Alternative 5a uses a remedial strategy that emphasizes excavation of contaminated surface materials identified on all parcels, regardless of whether they are privately
owned or receiver-managed parcels. This alternative includes installation of a permanent cover over the existing onsite waste repository. Excavated contaminated materials
would be consolidated at an onsite disposal location. Clean soil would be used to backfill removal areas and is assumed to be transported from offsite borrow areas tested
for contamination. Future excavation events (i.e. surface excavation/pickup of contaminated materials) would be performed on a regular basis and would be disposed of at a
permitted offsite disposal facility specifically authorized by Oregon DEQ to receive asbestos and other non-asbestos COPCs. Land use controls would be used to protect
and restrict use of covered and backfilled areas, and provide awareness of risks from potential exposure to contaminated materials. Monitoring would be conducted to
ensure that covers, excavation backfill, and land use controls are protective of human health and the environment. Five-year site reviews would be performed since
contaminated materials would remain at the site.
FUTURE SURFACE EXCAVATION ANNUAL O&M COSTS: (Years 3 through 10)
DESCRIPTION WORKSHEET
Contaminated Surface Materials Excavation Events CW5a-7A
Contaminated Materials Disposal At Permitted Disposal Facilities CW5a-7B
QTY
1
1
UNIT(S)
LS
LS
UNIT COST
$39,807
$2,491
TOTAL
$39,807
$2,491
NOTES
Assume 1 surface excavation/pickup event per year.
Assume 1 surface excavation/pickup event per year.
SUBTOTAL
$42,298
Contingency (Scope and Bid)
20%
$8,460
10% Scope, 10% Bid (Low end of recommended range in EPA 540-R-00-002).
SUBTOTAL
$50,758
Project Management
Remedial Design
Construction Management
Technical Support
10%
20%
15%
15%
$5,076
$10,152
$7,614
$7,614
Percentage from Exhibit 5-8 in EPA 540-R-00-002 was used.
Percentage from Exhibit 5-8 in EPA 540-R-00-002 was used.
Percentage from Exhibit 5-8 in EPA 540-R-00-002 was used.
Middle value of the recommended range in EPA 540-R-00-002 was used.
TOTAL
$81,214
TOTAL ANNUAL O&M COST
$81,000
] Total capital cost is rounded to the nearest $1,000.
FUTURE SURFACE EXCAVATION ANNUAL O&M COSTS: (Years 11 through 20)
DESCRIPTION WORKSHEET
Contaminated Surface Materials Excavation Events CW5a-7A
Contaminated Materials Disposal At Permitted Disposal Facilities CW5a-7B
QTY
1
1
UNIT(S)
LS
LS
UNIT COST
$39,807
$1,882
TOTAL
$39,807
$1,882
NOTES
Assume 1 surface excavation/pickup event per year.
Assume 1 surface excavation/pickup event per year.
SUBTOTAL
$41,689
Contingency (Scope and Bid)
20%
$8,338
10% Scope, 10% Bid (Low end of recommended range in EPA 540-R-00-002).
SUBTOTAL
$50,027
Project Management
Remedial Design
Construction Management
Technical Support
10%
20%
15%
15%
$5,003
$10,005
$7,504
$7,504
Percentage from Exhibit 5-8 in EPA 540-R-00-002 was used.
Percentage from Exhibit 5-8 in EPA 540-R-00-002 was used.
Percentage from Exhibit 5-8 in EPA 540-R-00-002 was used.
Middle value of the recommended range in EPA 540-R-00-002 was used.
TOTAL
$80,043
TOTAL ANNUAL O&M COST
$80,000
] Total capital cost is rounded to the nearest $1,000.
FUTURE SURFACE EXCAVATION O&M COSTS: (Years 21 through 30)
DESCRIPTION WORKSHEET
Contaminated Surface Materials Excavation Events CW5a-7A
Contaminated Materials Disposal At Permitted Disposal Facilities CW5a-7B
QTY
1
1
UNIT(S)
LS
LS
UNIT COST
$39,807
$1,152
TOTAL
$39,807
$1,152
NOTES
Assume 1 surface excavation/pickup event per year.
Assume 1 surface excavation/pickup event per year.
SUBTOTAL
$40,959
Contingency (Scope and Bid)
20%
$8,192
10% Scope, 10% Bid (Low end of recommended range in EPA 540-R-00-002).
SUBTOTAL
$49,151
Project Management
Remedial Design
Construction Management
Technical Support
10%
20%
15%
15%
$4,915
$9,830
$7,373
$7,373
Percentage from Exhibit 5-8 in EPA 540-R-00-002 was used.
Percentage from Exhibit 5-8 in EPA 540-R-00-002 was used.
Percentage from Exhibit 5-8 in EPA 540-R-00-002 was used.
Middle value of the recommended range in EPA 540-R-00-002 was used.
TOTAL
$78,642
TOTAL ANNUAL O&M COST
I $79,000
] Total capital cost is rounded to the nearest $1,000.
FINAL
Page 4 of 6
-------
TABLE CS-5a
Alternative 5a
Excavation and Onsite Consolidation/Disposal of Contaminated Surface Materials, Future Excavation and Offsite Disposal of
Contaminated Surface Materials at Permitted Facilities, and Land Use Controls with Monitoring
COST ESTIMATE SUMMARY
Site: North Ridge Estates Description:
Location: Klamath County, Oregon
Phase: Final Feasibility Study
Base Year: 2010
Date: March 24, 2010
Alternative 5a uses a remedial strategy that emphasizes excavation of contaminated surface materials identified on all parcels, regardless of whether they are privately
owned or receiver-managed parcels. This alternative includes installation of a permanent cover over the existing onsite waste repository. Excavated contaminated materials
would be consolidated at an onsite disposal location. Clean soil would be used to backfill removal areas and is assumed to be transported from offsite borrow areas tested
for contamination. Future excavation events (i.e. surface excavation/pickup of contaminated materials) would be performed on a regular basis and would be disposed of at a
permitted offsite disposal facility specifically authorized by Oregon DEQ to receive asbestos and other non-asbestos COPCs. Land use controls would be used to protect
and restrict use of covered and backfilled areas, and provide awareness of risks from potential exposure to contaminated materials. Monitoring would be conducted to
ensure that covers, excavation backfill, and land use controls are protective of human health and the environment. Five-year site reviews would be performed since
contaminated materials would remain at the site.
COVER, BACKFILL, AND ACCESS CONTROLS ANNUAL OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE (O&M) COSTS (Years 1 through 2)
DESCRIPTION WORKSHEET
Cover, Backfill, and Access Controls O&M During Construction CW5a-5A
Cover and Backfill Inspection CW5a-5C
QTY
1
1
UNIT(S) UNIT COST
LS $11,950
LS $5,212
TOTAL
$11,950
$5,212
NOTES
Includes annual site inspection.
SUBTOTAL
$17,162
Contingency (Scope and Bid)
20%
$3,432
10% Scope, 10% Bid (Low end of recommended range in EPA 540-R-00-002).
SUBTOTAL
$20,594
Project Management
Construction Management
Technical Support
10%
15%
15%
$2,059
$3,089
$3,089
Percentage from Exhibit 5-8 in EPA 540-R-00-002 was used.
Percentage from Exhibit 5-8 in EPA 540-R-00-002 was used.
Middle value of the recommended range in EPA 540-R-00-002 was used.
TOTAL
$28,831
TOTAL ANNUAL O&M COST
$29,000
] Total O&M cost is rounded to the nearest $1,000.
COVER, BACKFILL, AND ACCESS CONTROLS ANNUAL OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE (O&M) COSTS (Years 3 through 30)
DESCRIPTION WORKSHEET
Cover, Backfill, and Access Controls O&M CW5a-5B
Cover and Backfill Inspection CW5a-5C
QTY
1
1
UNIT(S) UNIT COST
LS $16,400
LS $5,212
TOTAL
$16,400
$5,212
NOTES
Includes labor for reclamation maintenance
Includes annual site inspection
SUBTOTAL
$21,612
Contingency (Scope and Bid)
20%
$4,322
10% Scope, 10% Bid (Low end of recommended range in EPA 540-R-00-002).
SUBTOTAL
$25,934
Project Management
Construction Management
Technical Support
10%
15%
15%
$2,593
$3,890
$3,890
Percentage from Exhibit 5-8 in EPA 540-R-00-002 was used.
Percentage from Exhibit 5-8 in EPA 540-R-00-002 was used.
Middle value of the recommended range in EPA 540-R-00-002 was used.
TOTAL
$36,307
TOTAL ANNUAL O&M COST
I $36,000
] Total O&M cost is rounded to the nearest $1,000.
FINAL
Page 5 of 6
-------
TABLE CS-5a
Alternative 5a
Excavation and Onsite Consolidation/Disposal of Contaminated Surface Materials, Future Excavation and Offsite Disposal of
Contaminated Surface Materials at Permitted Facilities, and Land Use Controls with Monitoring
COST ESTIMATE SUMMARY
Site: North Ridge Estates
Location: Klamath County, Oregon
Phase: Final Feasibility Study
Base Year: 2010
Date: March 24, 2010
Description:
Alternative 5a uses a remedial strategy that emphasizes excavation of contaminated surface materials identified on all parcels, regardless of whether they are privately
owned or receiver-managed parcels. This alternative includes installation of a permanent cover over the existing onsite waste repository. Excavated contaminated materials
would be consolidated at an onsite disposal location. Clean soil would be used to backfill removal areas and is assumed to be transported from offsite borrow areas tested
for contamination. Future excavation events (i.e. surface excavation/pickup of contaminated materials) would be performed on a regular basis and would be disposed of at a
permitted offsite disposal facility specifically authorized by Oregon DEQ to receive asbestos and other non-asbestos COPCs. Land use controls would be used to protect
and restrict use of covered and backfilled areas, and provide awareness of risks from potential exposure to contaminated materials. Monitoring would be conducted to
ensure that covers, excavation backfill, and land use controls are protective of human health and the environment. Five-year site reviews would be performed since
contaminated materials would remain at the site.
5-YEAR SITE REVIEW PERIODIC COSTS (Years 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, and 30)
DESCRIPTION
5-Year Site Reviews
Non-Intrusive Visual Inspection
Community Awareness Activities
WORKSHEET
CW5a-3A
CW5a-3C
CW5a-3B
QTY
1
1
1
UNIT(S) UNIT COST
LS $29,042
LS $5,212
LS $6,039
TOTAL
$29,042
$5,212
$6,039
NOTES
SUBTOTAL
$40,293
Contingency (Scope and Bid)
20%
$8,059
10% Scope, 10% Bid (Low end of recommended range in EPA 540-R-00-002).
SUBTOTAL
$48,352
Project Management
Technical Support
10%
15%
$4,835
$7,253
Percentage from Exhibit 5-8 in EPA 540-R-00-002 was used.
Middle value of the recommended range in EPA 540-R-00-002 was used.
TOTAL
$60,440
TOTAL PERIODIC COST
I $60,000
] Total capital cost is rounded to the nearest $1,000.
Notes:
Percentages used for indirect costs are based on guidance from Section 5.0 of "A Guide to Developing and Documenting Cost Estimates During the Feasibility Study", EPA 540-R-00-002 (July 2000).
Costs presented for this alternative are expected to have an accuracy between -30% to +50% of actual costs, based on the scope presented. They are prepared solely to facilitate relative comparisons between alternatives for FS evaluation purposes.
Abbreviations:
ABS Activity Based Sampling
EA Each
LS Lump Sum
QTY Quantity
FINAL
Page 6 of 6
-------
Present Value and Cost Estimate Summary
Alternative 5b
Excavation and Onsite Consolidation/Disposal of
Contaminated Materials, and Land Use Controls with
Monitoring
-------
TABLE PV-5b
PRESENT VALUE ANALYSIS
Alternative 5b
Excavation and Onsite Consolidation/Disposal of Contaminated Materials, and Land Use Controls with Monitoring
Site: North Ridge Estates
Location: Klamath County, Oregon
Phase: Final Feasibility Study
Base Year: 2010
Year1
Capital Costs
(Land Use
Controls)2
Capital Costs
(Construction)2
Annual O&M
Costs (Cover,
Backfill, and
Access Controls)
Periodic Costs
(Five-Year Site
Reviews)
Total Annual
Expenditure3
Discount Factor
(7.0%)
Present Value4
0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
1.0000
$0
1
$1,062,000
$4,757,667
$26,000
$0
$5,845,667
0.9346
$5,463,360
2
$0
$4,757,667
$26,000
$0
$4,783,667
0.8734
$4,178,054
3
$0
$4,757,667
$26,000
$0
$4,783,667
0.8163
$3,904,907
4
$0
$0
$36,000
$0
$36,000
0.7629
$27,464
5
$0
$0
$36,000
$60,000
$96,000
0.7130
$68,448
6
$0
$0
$36,000
$0
$36,000
0.6663
$23,987
7
$0
$0
$36,000
$0
$36,000
0.6227
$22,417
8
$0
$0
$36,000
$0
$36,000
0.5820
$20,952
9
$0
$0
$36,000
$0
$36,000
0.5439
$19,580
10
$0
$0
$36,000
$60,000
$96,000
0.5083
$48,797
11
$0
$0
$36,000
$0
$36,000
0.4751
$17,104
12
$0
$0
$36,000
$0
$36,000
0.4440
$15,984
13
$0
$0
$36,000
$0
$36,000
0.4150
$14,940
14
$0
$0
$36,000
$0
$36,000
0.3878
$13,961
15
$0
$0
$36,000
$60,000
$96,000
0.3624
$34,790
16
$0
$0
$36,000
$0
$36,000
0.3387
$12,193
17
$0
$0
$36,000
$0
$36,000
0.3166
$11,398
18
$0
$0
$36,000
$0
$36,000
0.2959
$10,652
19
$0
$0
$36,000
$0
$36,000
0.2765
$9,954
20
$0
$0
$36,000
$60,000
$96,000
0.2584
$24,806
21
$0
$0
$36,000
$0
$36,000
0.2415
$8,694
22
$0
$0
$36,000
$0
$36,000
0.2257
$8,125
23
$0
$0
$36,000
$0
$36,000
0.2109
$7,592
24
$0
$0
$36,000
$0
$36,000
0.1971
$7,096
25
$0
$0
$36,000
$60,000
$96,000
0.1842
$17,683
26
$0
$0
$36,000
$0
$36,000
0.1722
$6,199
27
$0
$0
$36,000
$0
$36,000
0.1609
$5,792
28
$0
$0
$36,000
$0
$36,000
0.1504
$5,414
29
$0
$0
$36,000
$0
$36,000
0.1406
$5,062
30
$0
$0
$36,000
$60,000
$96,000
0.1314
$12,614
TOTALS:
$1,062,000
$14,273,000
$1,050,000
$360,000
$16,745,000
$14,028,019
TOTAL PRESENT VALUE OF ALTERNATIVE 5b
$14,028,000
Notes:
1 Duration is assumed to be 31 years (Years 0 through 30) for present value analysis.
2 Capital costs, for purposes of this analysis, are assumed to be distributed as indicated on Table CS-5b.
3 Total annual expenditure is the total cost per year with no discounting.
4 Present value is the total cost per year including a 7.0% discount factor for that year. See Table PV-ADRFT for details.
5 Total present value is rounded to the nearest $1,000. Inflation and depreciation are excluded from the present value cost.
Costs presented for this alternative are expected to have an accuracy between -30% to +50% of actual costs, based on the scope presented.
They are prepared solely to facilitate relative comparisons between alternatives for FS evaluation purposes.
FINAL
Page 1 of 5
-------
TABLE PV-ADRFT
PRESENT VALUE ANALYSIS
(Annual Discount Rate Factors Table
Site:
Location:
Phase:
Base Year:
North Ridge Estates
Klamath County, Oregon
Final Feasibility Study
2010
|Discount Rate (Percent):
7.0
Year
Discount Factor1'^
Year
Discount Factor1'^
0
1.0000
26
0.1722
1
0.9346
27
0.1609
2
0.8734
28
0.1504
3
0.8163
29
0.1406
4
0.7629
30
0.1314
5
0.7130
6
0.6663
7
0.6227
8
0.5820
9
0.5439
10
0.5083
11
0.4751
12
0.4440
13
0.4150
14
0.3878
15
0.3624
16
0.3387
17
0.3166
18
0.2959
19
0.2765
20
0.2584
21
0.2415
22
0.2257
23
0.2109
24
0.1971
25
0.1842
Notes:
1 Annual discount factors were calculated using the formulas and guidance presented in Section 4.0 i
"A Guide to Developing and Documenting Cost Estimates During the Feasibility Study", EPA 2000.
2 The real discount rate of 7.0% was obtained from "A Guide to Developing and Documenting Cost
Estimates During the Feasibility Study", EPA 2000, Page 4-5.
Page 2 of 5
-------
TABLE CS-5b
Alternative 5b
Excavation and Onsite Consolidation/Disposal of Contaminated Materials, and Land Use Controls with Monito
COST ESTIMATE SUMMARY
Site:
Location:
Phase:
Base Year:
Date:
North Ridge Estates
Klamath County, Oregon
Final Feasibility Study
2010
March 24, 2010
Description:
Alternative 5b uses a remedial strategy that emphasizes excavation of surface and subsurface contaminated materials identified on all parcels, regardless of
whether they are privately owned or receiver-managed parcels. This alternative includes installation of a permanent cover over the existing onsite waste
repository. Excavated contaminated materials would be consolidated at onsite disposal locations specifically constructed to accept the excavated wastes.
Clean soil would be used to backfill excavation areas and would be transported from offsite borrow areas tested for contamination. Land use controls would be
used to protect and restrict use of covered and backfilled areas, and provide awareness of risks from potential exposure to contaminated materials. Monitoring
would be conducted to ensure that covers, excavation backfill, and land use controls are protective of human health and the environment. Five-year site reviews
would be performed since contaminated materials would remain at the site.
LAND USE CONTROLS CAPITAL COSTS: (Assumed to be Incurred During Year 1)
DESCRIPTION
Institutional Controls
Access Controls
SUBTOTAL
Contingency (Scope and Bid)
SUBTOTAL
Project Management
Remedial Design
Construction Management
Technical Support
TOTAL
TOTAL CAPITAL COST
WORKSHEET
CW5b-1
CW5b-2
QTY
1
1
6%
12%
UNIT(S)
LS
LS
UNIT COST
$622,800
$4,954
$753,305
TOTAL
$622,800
$4,954
$627,754
$45,198
$90,397
$60,264
$112,996
$1,062,160
$1,062,000
10% Scope, 10% Bid (Low end of recommended range in EPA 540-R-00-002).
Percentage from Exhibit 5-8 in EPA 540-R-00-002 was used.
Percentage from Exhibit 5-8 in EPA 540-R-00-002 was used.
Percentage from Exhibit 5-8 in EPA 540-R-00-002 was used.
Middle value of the recommended range in EPA 540-R-00-002 was used.
Total capital cost is rounded to the nearest $1,000.
CONSTRUCTION CAPITAL COSTS: (Assumed to be Incurred During Years 1, 2 and 3)
DESCRIPTION
WORKSHEET
QTY
UNIT(S)
UNIT COST
TOTAL
NOTES
Site Clearing and Grubbing
CW5b-8
1
LS
$150,574
$150,574
Mobilization/Demobilization
CW5b-16
3
EA
$67,586
$202,758
Includes mobilization/demobilization for each construction year.
Temporary Laydown and Access Road Installation
CW5b-7
1
LS
$64,752
$64,752
Contaminated Surface Materials Excavation and Hauling
CW5b-9
1
LS
$776,533
$776,533
Steam Pipe Excavation and Hauling
CW5b-10
1
LS
$412,394
$412,394
Buried Contaminated Materials Excavation and Hauling
CW5b-11
1
LS
$1,127,698
$1,127,698
Construction of Onsite Consolidation Area
CW5b-12
1
LS
$3,189,094
$3,189,094
Revegetation of Onsite Consolidation Area
CW5b-13
1
LS
$18,650
$18,650
Excavation Backfilling
CW5b-14
1
LS
$1,600,711
$1,600,711
Revegetation of Disturbed Areas
CW5b-15
1
LS
$191,185
$191,185
Surveying for Construction Control
CW5b-17
1
LS
$23,533
$23,533
Equipment Decontamination
CW5b-18
1
LS
$191,896
$191,896
Site Maintenance and Control During Construction
CW5b-19
1
LS
$470,418
$470,418
Excavation Confirmatory Sampling
CW5b-4A
1
LS
$210,036
$210,036
Confirmatory Sampling Data Evaluation Report
CW5b-4B
1
LS
$22,519
$22,519
Borrow Source Testing
CW5b-3A
1
LS
$64,953
$64,953
Ambient Air Sampling (1 Year)
CW5b-3B
YR
$62,857
$188,571
Ambient air sampling over the period of construction.
Inspection of Areas without Identified Contamination
CW5b-3C
1
LS
$30,997
$30,997
Temporary Site Facilitites During Construction
CW5b-20
1
LS
$73,397
$73,397
SUBTOTAL
$9,010,669
Contingency (Scope and Bid)
20%
$1,802,134
10% Scope, 10% Bid (Low end of recommended range in EPA 540-R-00-002).
SUBTOTAL
$10,812,803
Project Management
5%
$540,640
Percentage from Exhibit 5-8 in EPA 540-R-00-002 was used.
Remedial Design
6%
$648,768
Percentage from Exhibit 5-8 in EPA 540-R-00-002 was used.
Construction Management
6%
$648,768
Percentage from Exhibit 5-8 in EPA 540-R-00-002 was used.
Technical Support
15%
$1,621,920
Middle value of the recommended range in EPA 540-R-00-002 was used.
TOTAL
$14,272,899
TOTAL CAPITAL COST
| $14,273,000
Total capital cost is rounded to the nearest $1,000.
FINAL
Page 3 of 5
-------
TABLE CS-5b
Alternative 5b
Excavation and Onsite Consolidation/Disposal of Contaminated Materials, and Land Use Controls with Monito
COST ESTIMATE SUMMARY
Site: North Ridge Estates Description1 Alternative 5b uses a remedial strategy that emphasizes excavation of surface and subsurface contaminated materials identified on all parcels, regardless of
Location- Klamath Count Ore on whether they are privately owned or receiver-managed parcels. This alternative includes installation of a permanent cover over the existing onsite waste
repository. Excavated contaminated materials would be consolidated at onsite disposal locations specifically constructed to accept the excavated wastes.
Phase: Final Feasibility Study Clean soil would be used to backfill excavation areas and would be transported from offsite borrow areas tested for contamination. Land use controls would be
Base Year: 2010 used to protect and restrict use of covered and backfilled areas, and provide awareness of risks from potential exposure to contaminated materials. Monitoring
_ . .. . would be conducted to ensure that covers, excavation backfill, and land use controls are protective of human health and the environment. Five-year site reviews
Date: March 24,2010 . . . . . . ' . , ,. '. . .. .. K 3
would be performed since contaminated materials would remain at the site.
COVER, BACKFILL, AND ACCESS CONTROLS ANNUAL OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE (O&M) COSTS (Years 1 through 3)
DESCRIPTION WORKSHEET QTY
Cover, Backfill, and Access Controls O&M During Construction CW5b-6A 1
Cover and Backfill Inspection CW5b-6C 1
UNIT(S) UNIT COST
LS $10,500
LS $5,212
TOTAL
$10,500
$5,212
NOTES
Includes annual site inspection.
SUBTOTAL
$15,712
Contingency (Scope and Bid) 20%
$3,142
10% Scope, 10% Bid (Low end of recommended range in EPA 540-R-00-002).
SUBTOTAL
$18,854
Project Management 10%
Construction Management 15%
Technical Support 15%
$1,885
$2,828
$2,828
Percentage from Exhibit 5-8 in EPA 540-R-00-002 was used.
Percentage from Exhibit 5-8 in EPA 540-R-00-002 was used.
Middle value of the recommended range in EPA 540-R-00-002 was used.
TOTAL
$26,395
TOTAL ANNUAL O&M COST
$26,000
] Total O&M cost is rounded to the nearest $1,000.
COVER, BACKFILL, AND ACCESS CONTROLS ANNUAL OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE (O&M) COSTS (Years 4 through 30)
DESCRIPTION WORKSHEET QTY
Cover, Backfill, and Access Controls O&M CW5b-6B 1
Cover and Backfill Inspection CW5b-6C 1
UNIT(S) UNIT COST
LS $16,500
LS $5,212
TOTAL
$16,500
$5,212
NOTES
Includes annual site inspection.
SUBTOTAL
$21,712
Contingency (Scope and Bid) 20%
$4,342
10% Scope, 10% Bid (Low end of recommended range in EPA 540-R-00-002).
SUBTOTAL
$26,054
Project Management 10%
Construction Management 15%
Technical Support 15%
$2,605
$3,908
$3,908
Percentage from Exhibit 5-8 in EPA 540-R-00-002 was used.
Percentage from Exhibit 5-8 in EPA 540-R-00-002 was used.
Middle value of the recommended range in EPA 540-R-00-002 was used.
TOTAL
$36,475
TOTAL ANNUAL O&M COST
| $36,000
] Total O&M cost is rounded to the nearest $1,000.
FINAL
Page 4 of 5
-------
TABLE CS-5b
Alternative 5b
Excavation and Onsite Consolidation/Disposal of Contaminated Materials, and Land Use Controls with Monito
COST ESTIMATE SUMMARY
Site: North Ridge Estates
Location: Klamath County, Oregon
Phase: Final Feasibility Study
Base Year: 2010
Date: March 24, 2010
Description:
Alternative 5b uses a remedial strategy that emphasizes excavation of surface and subsurface contaminated materials identified on all parcels, regardless of
whether they are privately owned or receiver-managed parcels. This alternative includes installation of a permanent cover over the existing onsite waste
repository. Excavated contaminated materials would be consolidated at onsite disposal locations specifically constructed to accept the excavated wastes.
Clean soil would be used to backfill excavation areas and would be transported from offsite borrow areas tested for contamination. Land use controls would be
used to protect and restrict use of covered and backfilled areas, and provide awareness of risks from potential exposure to contaminated materials. Monitoring
would be conducted to ensure that covers, excavation backfill, and land use controls are protective of human health and the environment. Five-year site reviews
would be performed since contaminated materials would remain at the site.
5-YEAR SITE REVIEW PERIODIC COSTS (Years 5,10, 15, 20, 25, and 30)
DESCRIPTION
5-Year Site Reviews
Non-Intrusive Visual Inspection
Community Awareness Activities
WORKSHEET
CW5b-5A
CW5b-5C
CW5b-5B
QTY
1
1
1
UNIT(S)
LS
LS
LS
UNIT COST
$29,042
$5,212
$6,039
TOTAL
$29,042
$5,212
$6,039
NOTES
SUBTOTAL
$40,293
Contingency (Scope and Bid)
20%
$8,059
10% Scope, 10% Bid (Low end of recommended range in EPA 540-R-00-002).
SUBTOTAL
$48,352
Project Management
Technical Support
10%
15%
$4,835
$7,253
Percentage from Exhibit 5-8 in EPA 540-R-00-002 was used.
Middle value of the recommended range in EPA 540-R-00-002 was used.
TOTAL
$60,440
TOTAL PERIODIC COST
I $60,000
^ Total capital cost is rounded to the nearest $1,000.
Notes:
Percentages used for indirect costs are based on guidance from Section 5.0 of "A Guide to Developing and Documenting Cost Estimates During the Feasibility Study", EPA 540-R-00-002 (July 2000).
Costs presented for this alternative are expected to have an accuracy between -30% to +50% of actual costs, based on the scope presented. They are prepared solely to facilitate relative comparisons between alternatives for FS evaluation purposes.
Abbreviations:
ABS Activity Based Sampling
EA Each
LS Lump Sum
QTY Quantity
FINAL
Page 5 of 5
-------
Present Value and Cost Estimate Summary
Alternative 6
Excavation and Offsite Disposal of Contaminated Materials at
Permitted Facilities, and Land Use Controls with Monitoring
-------
TABLE PV-6
PRESENT VALUE ANALYSIS
Alternative 6
Excavation and Offsite Disposal of Contaminated Materials at Permitted Facilities, and Land Use Controls with
Monitoring
Site: North Ridge Estates
Location: Klamath County, Oregon
Phase: Final Feasibility Study
Base Year: 2010
Year1
Capital Costs
(Land Use
Controls)2
Capital Costs
(Construction)2
Annual O&M
Costs (Cover,
Backfill, and
Access
Controls)
Periodic Costs
(Five-Year Site
Reviews)
Total Annual
Expenditure3
Discount Factor
(7.0%)
Present Value4
0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
1.0000
$0
1
$1,062,000
$10,642,667
$26,000
$0
$11,730,667
0.9346
$10,963,481
2
$0
$10,642,667
$26,000
$0
$10,668,667
0.8734
$9,318,013
3
$0
$10,642,667
$26,000
$0
$10,668,667
0.8163
$8,708,833
4
$0
$0
$36,000
$0
$36,000
0.7629
$27,464
5
$0
$0
$36,000
$60,000
$96,000
0.7130
$68,448
6
$0
$0
$36,000
$0
$36,000
0.6663
$23,987
7
$0
$0
$36,000
$0
$36,000
0.6227
$22,417
8
$0
$0
$36,000
$0
$36,000
0.5820
$20,952
9
$0
$0
$36,000
$0
$36,000
0.5439
$19,580
10
$0
$0
$36,000
$60,000
$96,000
0.5083
$48,797
11
$0
$0
$36,000
$0
$36,000
0.4751
$17,104
12
$0
$0
$36,000
$0
$36,000
0.4440
$15,984
13
$0
$0
$36,000
$0
$36,000
0.4150
$14,940
14
$0
$0
$36,000
$0
$36,000
0.3878
$13,961
15
$0
$0
$36,000
$60,000
$96,000
0.3624
$34,790
16
$0
$0
$36,000
$0
$36,000
0.3387
$12,193
17
$0
$0
$36,000
$0
$36,000
0.3166
$11,398
18
$0
$0
$36,000
$0
$36,000
0.2959
$10,652
19
$0
$0
$36,000
$0
$36,000
0.2765
$9,954
20
$0
$0
$36,000
$60,000
$96,000
0.2584
$24,806
21
$0
$0
$36,000
$0
$36,000
0.2415
$8,694
22
$0
$0
$36,000
$0
$36,000
0.2257
$8,125
23
$0
$0
$36,000
$0
$36,000
0.2109
$7,592
24
$0
$0
$36,000
$0
$36,000
0.1971
$7,096
25
$0
$0
$36,000
$60,000
$96,000
0.1842
$17,683
26
$0
$0
$36,000
$0
$36,000
0.1722
$6,199
27
$0
$0
$36,000
$0
$36,000
0.1609
$5,792
28
$0
$0
$36,000
$0
$36,000
0.1504
$5,414
29
$0
$0
$36,000
$0
$36,000
0.1406
$5,062
30
$0
$0
$36,000
$60,000
$96,000
0.1314
$12,614
TOTALS:
$1,062,000
$31,928,000
$1,050,000
$360,000
$34,400,000
$29,472,025
TOTAL PRESENT VALUE OF ALTERNATIVE 6°
$29,472,000
Notes:
1 Duration is assumed to be 31 years (Years 0 through 30) for present value analysis.
2 Capital costs, for purposes of this analysis, are assumed to be distributed as indicated on Table CS-6.
3 Total annual expenditure is the total cost per year with no discounting.
4 Present value is the total cost per year including a 7.0% discount factor for that year. See Table PV-ADRIFT for details.
5 Total present value is rounded to the nearest $1,000. Inflation and depreciation are excluded from the present value cost.
Costs presented for this alternative are expected to have an accuracy between -30% to +50% of actual costs, based on the scope presented.
They are prepared solely to facilitate relative comparisons between alternatives for FS evaluation purposes.
FINAL
Page 1 of 5
-------
TABLE PV-ADRFT
PRESENT VALUE ANALYSIS
(Annual Discount Rate Factors Table
Site:
Location:
Phase:
Base Year:
North Ridge Estates
Klamath County, Oregon
Final Feasibility Study
2010
|Discount Rate (Percent):
7.0
Year
Discount Factor1'^
Year
Discount Factor1'^
0
1.0000
26
0.1722
1
0.9346
27
0.1609
2
0.8734
28
0.1504
3
0.8163
29
0.1406
4
0.7629
30
0.1314
5
0.7130
6
0.6663
7
0.6227
8
0.5820
9
0.5439
10
0.5083
11
0.4751
12
0.4440
13
0.4150
14
0.3878
15
0.3624
16
0.3387
17
0.3166
18
0.2959
19
0.2765
20
0.2584
21
0.2415
22
0.2257
23
0.2109
24
0.1971
25
0.1842
Notes:
1 Annual discount factors were calculated using the formulas and guidance presented in Section 4.0 i
"A Guide to Developing and Documenting Cost Estimates During the Feasibility Study", EPA 2000.
2 The real discount rate of 7.0% was obtained from "A Guide to Developing and Documenting Cost
Estimates During the Feasibility Study", EPA 2000, Page 4-5.
Page 2 of 5
-------
TABLE CS-6
Alternative 6
Excavation and Offsite Disposal of Contaminated Materials at Permitted Facilities, and Land Use Controls with
COST ESTIMATE SUMMARY
Monitoring
Site: North Ridge Estates
Description:
Alternative 6 uses a remedial strategy that emphasizes excavation of surface and subsurface contaminated materials identified on all parcels, regardless of whether they
Location* Klamath County Oregon
are privately owned or receiver-managed parcels. This alternative includes installation of a permanent cover over the existing onsite waste repository. Excavated
contaminated materials would be transported offsite and placed within one or more permitted offsite disposal facilities specifically authorized by Oregon DEQ to receive
Phase: Final Feasibility Study
asbestos and other non-asbestos COPCs. Clean soil would be used to backfill removal areas. Clean soil is assumed to be transported from offsite borrow areas tested
Base Year: 2010
for contamination
Land use controls would be used to protect and restrict use of covered and backfilled areas, and provide awareness of risks from potential exposure to I
Dato- Marrh OA 9fl1fl
contaminated materials. Monitoring would be conducted to ensure that covers, excavation backfill, and land use controls are protective of human health and the
LSalC. IVIdl Ol I I U
environment. Five-year site reviews would be performed since contaminated materials would remain at the site.
LAND USE CONTROLS CAPITAL COSTS: (Assumed to be Incurred During Year 1)
DESCRIPTION
WORKSHEET
QTY
UNIT(S)
UNIT COST
TOTAL
NOTES
Institutional Controls
CW6-1C
1
LS
$622,800
$622,800
Access Controls
CW6-1D
1
LS
$4,954
$4,954
Includes labor and material for installing posted warning.
SUBTOTAL
$627,754
Contingency (Scope and Bid)
20%
$125,551
10% Scope, 10% Bid (Low end of recommended range in EPA 540-R-00-002).
SUBTOTAL
$753,305
Project Management
6%
$45,198
Percentage from Exhibit 5-8 in EPA 540-R-00-002 was used.
Remedial Design
12%
$90,397
Percentage from Exhibit 5-8 in EPA 540-R-00-002 was used.
Construction Management
8%
$60,264
Percentage from Exhibit 5-8 in EPA 540-R-00-002 was used.
Technical Support
15%
$112,996
Middle value of the recommended range in EPA 540-R-00-002 was used.
TOTAL
$1,062,160
TOTAL CAPITAL COST
| $1,062,000
~"| Total capital cost is rounded to the nearest $1,000.
CONSTRUCTION CAPITAL COSTS: (Assumed to be Incurred During Years 1, 2, and 3)
DESCRIPTION
WORKSHEET
QTY
UNIT(S)
UNIT COST
TOTAL
NOTES
Site Clearing and Grubbing
CW6-4B
1
LS
$150,574
$150,574
Mobilization/Demobilization
CW6-11
3
EA
$67,586
$202,758
Includes mobilization/demobilization for each construction year
Temporary Laydown and Access Road Installation
CW6-4A
1
LS
$64,751
$64,751
Contaminated Surface Materials Excavation
CW6-5
1
LS
$573,536
$573,536
Steam Pipe Excavation
CW6-6
1
LS
$383,020
$383,020
Buried Contaminated Materials Excavation
CW6-7
1
LS
$882,892
$882,892
Hauling of Contaminated Materials for Offsite Disposal
CW6-8A
1
LS
$3,163,978
$3,163,978
Disposal Charges for Permitted Facility
CW6-8B
1
LS
$11,545,736
$11,545,736
Excavation Backfilling
CW6-9
1
LS
$1,715,246
$1,715,246
Revegetation of Disturbed Areas
CW6-10
1
LS
$207,502
$207,502
Surveying for Construction Control
CW6-12
1
LS
$23,533
$23,533
Equipment Decontamination
CW6-13
1
LS
$191,896
$191,896
Site Maintenance and Control During Construction
CW6-14
1
LS
$470,418
$470,418
Excavation Confirmatory Sampling
CW6-1A
1
LS
$218,601
$218,601
Confirmatory Sampling Data Evaluation Report
CW6-1B
1
LS
$22,519
$22,519
Borrow Source Testing
CW6-3A
1
LS
$46,434
$46,434
Ambient Air Sampling (1 Year)
CW6-3B
YR
$62,857
$188,571
Inspection of Areas without Identified Contamination
CW6-3C
1
LS
$30,997
$30,997
Temporary Site Facilitites During Construction
CW6-15
1
LS
$73,397
$73,397
SUBTOTAL
$20,156,359
Contingency (Scope and Bid)
20%
$4,031,272
10% Scope, 10% Bid (Low end of recommended range in EPA 540-R-00-002).
SUBTOTAL
$24,187,631
Project Management
5%
$1,209,382
Percentage from Exhibit 5-8 in EPA 540-R-00-002 was used.
Remedial Design
6%
$1,451,258
Percentage from Exhibit 5-8 in EPA 540-R-00-002 was used.
Construction Management
6%
$1,451,258
Percentage from Exhibit 5-8 in EPA 540-R-00-002 was used.
Technical Support
15%
$3,628,145
Middle value of the recommended range in EPA 540-R-00-002 was used.
TOTAL
$31,927,674
TOTAL CAPITAL COST
| $31,928,000
~"| Total capital cost is rounded to the nearest $1,000.
FINAL
Page 3 of 5
-------
TABLE CS-6
Alternative 6
Excavation and Offsite Disposal of Contaminated Materials at Permitted Facilities, and Land Use Controls with
Monitoring
COST ESTIMATE SUMMARY
Site: North Ridge Estates
Location: Klamath County, Oregon
Phase: Final Feasibility Study
Base Year: 2010
Date: March 24, 2010
Description* Alternative 6 uses a remedial strategy that emphasizes excavation of surface and subsurface contaminated materials identified on all parcels, regardless of whether they
are privately owned or receiver-managed parcels. This alternative includes installation of a permanent cover over the existing onsite waste repository. Excavated
contaminated materials would be transported offsite and placed within one or more permitted offsite disposal facilities specifically authorized by Oregon DEQ to receive
asbestos and other non-asbestos COPCs. Clean soil would be used to backfill removal areas. Clean soil is assumed to be transported from offsite borrow areas tested
for contamination. Land use controls would be used to protect and restrict use of covered and backfilled areas, and provide awareness of risks from potential exposure to
contaminated materials. Monitoring would be conducted to ensure that covers, excavation backfill, and land use controls are protective of human health and the
environment. Five-year site reviews would be performed since contaminated materials would remain at the site.
COVER, BACKFILL, AND ACCESS CONTROLS ANNUAL OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE (O&M) COSTS (Years 1 through 3)
DESCRIPTION
Cover, Backfill, and Access Controls O&M During Construction
Cover and Backfill Inspection
WORKSHEET QTY
CW6-16A 1
CW6-16C 1
UNIT(S) UNIT COST
LS $10,467
LS $5,212
TOTAL
$10,467
$5,212
NOTES
Includes labor for reclamation maintenance
Includes annual site inspection
SUBTOTAL
$15,679
Contingency (Scope and Bid)
20%
$3,136
10% Scope, 10% Bid (Low end of recommended range in EPA 540-R-00-002).
SUBTOTAL
$18,815
Project Management
Construction Management
Technical Support
10%
15%
15%
$1,882
$2,822
$2,822
Percentage from Exhibit 5-8 in EPA 540-R-00-002 was used.
Percentage from Exhibit 5-8 in EPA 540-R-00-002 was used.
Middle value of the recommended range in EPA 540-R-00-002 was used.
TOTAL
$26,341
TOTAL ANNUAL O&M COST
$26,000
] Total O&M cost is rounded to the nearest $1,000.
COVER, BACKFILL, AND ACCESS CONTROLS ANNUAL OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE (O&M) COSTS (Years 4 through 30)
DESCRIPTION
Cover, Backfill, and Access Controls O&M
Cover and Backfill Inspection
WORKSHEET QTY
CW6-16B 1
CW6-16C 1
UNIT(S) UNIT COST
LS $16,400
LS $5,212
TOTAL
$16,400
$5,212
NOTES
Includes labor for reclamation maintenance
Includes annual site inspection
SUBTOTAL
$21,612
Contingency (Scope and Bid)
20%
$4,322
10% Scope, 10% Bid (Low end of recommended range in EPA 540-R-00-002).
SUBTOTAL
$25,934
Project Management
Construction Management
Technical Support
10%
15%
15%
$2,593
$3,890
$3,890
Percentage from Exhibit 5-8 in EPA 540-R-00-002 was used.
Percentage from Exhibit 5-8 in EPA 540-R-00-002 was used.
Middle value of the recommended range in EPA 540-R-00-002 was used.
TOTAL
$36,307
TOTAL ANNUAL O&M COST
| $36,000
] Total O&M cost is rounded to the nearest $1,000.
FINAL
Page 4 of 5
-------
TABLE CS-6
Alternative 6
Excavation and Offsite Disposal of Contaminated Materials at Permitted Facilities, and Land Use Controls with
Monitoring
COST ESTIMATE SUMMARY
Site: North Ridge Estates
Location: Klamath County, Oregon
Phase: Final Feasibility Study
Base Year: 2010
Date: March 24, 2010
Description:
Alternative 6 uses a remedial strategy that emphasizes excavation of surface and subsurface contaminated materials identified on all parcels, regardless of whether they
are privately owned or receiver-managed parcels. This alternative includes installation of a permanent cover over the existing onsite waste repository. Excavated
contaminated materials would be transported offsite and placed within one or more permitted offsite disposal facilities specifically authorized by Oregon DEQ to receive
asbestos and other non-asbestos COPCs. Clean soil would be used to backfill removal areas. Clean soil is assumed to be transported from offsite borrow areas tested
for contamination. Land use controls would be used to protect and restrict use of covered and backfilled areas, and provide awareness of risks from potential exposure to
contaminated materials. Monitoring would be conducted to ensure that covers, excavation backfill, and land use controls are protective of human health and the
environment. Five-year site reviews would be performed since contaminated materials would remain at the site.
5-YEAR SITE REVIEW PERIODIC COSTS (Years 5, 10,15, 20, 25, and 30)
DESCRIPTION
5-Year Site Reviews
Non-Intrusive Visual Inspection
Community Awareness Activities
WORKSHEET
CW6-2A
CW6-2C
CW6-2B
QTY UNIT(S) UNIT COST
1 LS $29,042
1 LS $5,212
1 LS $6,039
TOTAL
$29,042
$5,212
$6,039
NOTES
SUBTOTAL
$40,293
Contingency (Scope and Bid)
20%
$8,059
10% Scope, 10% Bid (Low end of recommended range in EPA 540-R-00-002).
SUBTOTAL
$48,352
Project Management
Technical Support
10%
15%
$4,835
$7,253
Percentage from Exhibit 5-8 in EPA 540-R-00-002 was used.
Middle value of the recommended range in EPA 540-R-00-002 was used.
TOTAL
$60,440
TOTAL PERIODIC COST
| $60,000
] Total capital cost is rounded to the nearest $1,000.
Notes:
Percentages used for indirect costs are based on guidance from Section 5.0 of "A Guide to Developing and Documenting Cost Estimates During the Feasibility Study", EPA 540-R-00-002 (July 2000).
Costs presented for this alternative are expected to have an accuracy between -30% to +50% of actual costs, based on the scope presented. They are prepared solely to facilitate relative comparisons between alternatives for FS evaluation purposes.
Abbreviations:
ABS Activity Based Sampling
EA Each
LS LumpSum
QTY Quantity
FINAL
Page 5 of 5
-------
Cost Worksheets
Alternative 1
-------
TABLE CW1-1
Alternative 1
Capital Cost Sub-Element
5-Year Site Reviews
Cost Worksheet: CW1-1
COST WORKSHEET
Site: North Ridge Estates
Location: Klamath County, Oregon
Phase: Final Feasibility Study
Base Year: 2010
Prepared By: AS Date: 3/16/2010
Checked By: GH Date: 3/24/2010
Work Statement:
This sub-element involves the 5-year site visits and 5-year site review report. The following cost includes labor, material and shipping costs for site visits and 5-year site review reports.
Cost Analysis:
Cost for 5-Year Site Review (Lump Sum)
COST
DATABASE
conF
DESCRIPTION
QTY
UNIT(S)
HPF
LABOR
ADJ
LABOR
EQUIP
ADJ EQUIP
MATL
OTHER
UNMOD UC
UNMOD LIC
PC OH
PC PF
BUR LIC
COST SOURCE
CITATION
COMMENTS
A6A
Site Inspection - 2 Person Crew
3
DY
1.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$640.91
$640.91
$1,922.72
8%
9%
$2,263
Mil Mil Assemblies
0.5 hrs per parcel, 45 parcels
M56
Per Diem for 2 People
3
DY
1.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$288.00
$288.00
$864.00
0%
0%
$864
GSAwww.gsa.gov
L13
Project Manager
40
HR
1.00
$46.53
$46.53
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$46.53
$1,861.20
100%
9%
$4,057
SE SalaryExpert.con
Hours for 5-year rev
ew report
L5
Environmental Engineer
80
HR
1.00
$31.39
$31.39
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$31.39
$2,511.20
100%
9%
$5,474
SE SalaryExpert.con
Hours for 5-year rev
ew report
11
Environmental Scientist
120
HR
1.00
$27.87
$27.87
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$27.87
$3,344.40
100%
9%
$7,291
SE SalaryExpert.con
Hours for 5-year rev
ew report
L14
Quality Control Engineer
16
HR
1.00
$46.04
$46.04
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$46.04
$736.64
100%
9%
$1,606
SE SalaryExpert.con
Hours for 5-year rev
ew report
L1
CAD Drafter
40
HR
1.00
$25.70
$25.70
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$25.70
$1,028.00
100%
9%
$2,241
SE SalaryExpert.con
Hours for 5-year rev
ew report
L3
Clerks, Typist, Bookkeeper & Receptionist
40
HR
1.00
$19.05
$19.05
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$19.05
$762.00
100%
9%
$1,661
SE SalaryExpert.con
Hours for 5-year rev
ew report
M10A
Copy and Shipping Allowance
1
LS
1.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$1,500.00
$1,500.00
$1,500.00
0%
0%
$1,500
A Allowance
TOTAL UNIT COST:
$26,957
Abbreviations:
HTRW productivity factor is from Exhibit B-3 or B-4 of "A Guide to Developing and Documenting Cost Estimates During the Feasibility Study", EPA 2000
The Cost Database Code is a reference code for linking with line item cost information with the cost source database and is not otherwise used within these cost worksheets.
Source of Cost Data:
NA Not Applicable - costs are from previous work or vendor quote
For citation references, the following sources apply:
Mil (Mil Assemblies), GSA (www.gsa.gov), SE (www.salaryexpert.com), A (Allowance), V (Vendor Quote), CW09 (Means CostWorks 2009), P (Previous Work), and FRTR (www.frtr.gov)
Cost Adjustment Checklist:
FACTOR:
H&S Productivity (labor and equipment only)
Escalation to Base Year
Area Cost Factor
Subcontractor Overhead and Profit
Prime Contractor Overhead and Profit
QTY
EQUIP
MATL
HPF
ADJ LABOR
ADJ EQUIP
UNMOD UC
UNMOD LIC
NOTES: UNBURLIC
Field work will be in Level "C" PPE. PC OH
Mil assembly costs include HPF adjustments. PC PF
2009 cost sources are not escalated (EF=1.00). All other costs are escalated based on the USACE CWCCIS, EM 1110-2-1304, Mar 2009. BUR LIC
An AF of 1.13 is used for Oregon, except that an AF of 1.00 (national unmodified average) is used for Mil assembly costs and local vendor quotes.
It is assumed that Subcontractor O&P is either included in the PC O&P or has been factored into vendor quotes or previous work.
It is assumed that home office OH is 8% and profit is 9% for the Prime Contractor. Professional labor overhead is 100%. Allowances and items with mandated costs such as per diem do not have overhead and profit applied.
Quantity
Equipment
Material
HTRW Productivity Factor
Adjusted LaborforHFP
Adjusted Equipment for H FP
Unmodified Unit Cost
Unmodified Line Item Cost
Unburdened Line Item Cost
Prime Contractor Overhead
Prime Contractor Profit
Burdened Line Item Cost
ACR
BCY
CLF
DY
EA
LF
HR
LB
LCY
LS
RL
SY
TN
Acres
Bank Cubic Yard
100 Linear Foot
Days
Each
Linear Foot
Hours
Pounds
Loose Cubic Yard
Lump Sum
Roll
Square Yard
Tons
3/24/20102:12 PM
FINAL
-------
TABLE CW1-2
Alternative 1
Capital Cost Sub-Element
Community Awareness Activities
Cost Worksheet: CW1-2
COST WORKSHEET
Site: North Ridge Estates
Location: Klamath County, Oregon
Phase: Final Feasibility Study
Base Year: 2010
Prepared By: AS Date: 3/16/2010
Checked By: GH Date: 3/24/2010
Work Statement:
This sub-element involves setting up a community meeting to inform the local community about the status of site. The following includes the labor, material and other cost required for setting up the community awareness meeting which includes costs for renting a meeting hall, court reporter, and publishing and sending notices or
informational flyers.
Cost Analysis:
Cost for Community Awareness (Lump Sum)
COST
DATABASE
CODE
DESCRIPTION
UNIT(S)
ADJ
LABOR
COST SOURCE
CITATION
COMMENTS
General Superintendent (P.M.)
SE SalaryExpert.con
8 hrs per day, 2 days
Project Manager
SE SalaryExpert.con
8 hrs per day, 2 days
Per Diem for 2 People
GSA www.gsa.gov
Community Awareness Activities Allowance
A Allowance
1 event per 5-yr review.
TOTAL UNIT COST:
Abbreviations:
HTRW productivity factor is from Exhibit B-3 or B-4 of "A Guide to Developing and Documenting Cost Estimates During the Feasibility Study", EPA 2000
The Cost Database Code is a reference code for linking with line item cost information with the cost source database and is not otherwise used within these cost worksheets.
Source of Cost Data:
NA Not Applicable - costs are from previous work or vendor quote
For citation references, the following sources apply:
Mil (Mil Assemblies), GSA (www.gsa.gov), SE (www.salaryexpert.com), A (Allowance), V (Vendor Quote), CW09 (Means CostWorks 2009), P (Previous Work), and FRTR (www.frtr.gov)
Cost Adjustment Checklist:
FACTOR:
H&S Productivity (labor and equipment only)
Escalation to Base Year
Area Cost Factor
Subcontractor Overhead and Profit
Prime Contractor Overhead and Profit
QTY
EQUIP
MATL
HPF
ADJ LABOR
ADJ EQUIP
UNMOD UC
UNMOD LIC
NOTES: UNBURLIC
Field work will be in Level "C" PPE. PC OH
Mil assembly costs include HPF adjustments. PC PF
2009 cost sources are not escalated (EF=1.00). All other costs are escalated based on the USACE CWCCIS, EM 1110-2-1304, Mar 2009. BUR LIC
An AF of 1.13 is used for Oregon, except that an AF of 1.00 (national unmodified average) is used for Mil assembly costs and local vendor quotes.
It is assumed that Subcontractor O&P is either included in the PC O&P or has been factored into vendor quotes or previous work.
It is assumed that home office OH is 8% and profit is 9% for the Prime Contractor. Professional labor overhead is 100%. Allowances and items with mandated costs such as per diem do not have overhead and profit applied.
Quantity
Equipment
Material
HTRW Productivity Factor
Adjusted LaborforHFP
Adjusted Equipment for H FP
Unmodified Unit Cost
Unmodified Line Item Cost
Unburdened Line Item Cost
Prime Contractor Overhead
Prime Contractor Profit
Burdened Line Item Cost
ACR
BCY
CLF
DY
EA
LF
HR
LB
LCY
LS
RL
SY
TN
Acres
Bank Cubic Yard
100 Linear Foot
Days
Each
Linear Foot
Hours
Pounds
Loose Cubic Yard
Lump Sum
Roll
Square Yard
Tons
3/24/20102:12 PM
FINAL
-------
TABLE CW1-3A
Alternative 1
Capital Cost Sub-Element
Non-Intrusive Visual Inspection
Cost Worksheet: CW1-3A
COST WORKSHEET
Site: North Ridge Estates
Location: Klamath County, Oregon
Phase: Final Feasibility Study
Base Year: 2010
Prepared By: AS Date: 3/16/2010
Checked By: GH Date: 3/24/2010
Work Statement:
This sub-element involves non-intrusive visual inspections (i.e. surface inspections) performed in support of 5-year site reviews would be made on all parcels within the site boundary regardless of ownership. The following includes the labor, material and equipment cost inspection.
Cost Analysis:
Cost for Visual Non-Intrusive Inspection (Lump Sum)
COST
DATABASE
CODE
DESCRIPTION
ADJ
LABOR
COST SOURCE
CITATION
Visual Inspection - 2 Person Crew
Mil Mil Assemblies
Per Diem for 2 People
GSAwww.gsa.gov
TOTAL UNIT COST:
Notes:
HTRW productivity factor is from Exhibit B-3 or B-4 of "A Guide to Developing and Documenting Cost Estimates During the Feasibility Study", EPA 2000
The Cost Database Code is a reference code for linking with line item cost information with the cost source database and is not otherwise used within these cost worksheets.
Source of Cost Data:
Not Applicable - costs are from previous work or vendor quote
For citation references, the following sources apply:
Mil (Mil Assemblies), GSA (www.gsa.gov), SE (www.salaryexpert.com), A (Allowance), V (Vendor Quote), CW09 (Means CostWorks 2009), P (Previous Work), and FRTR (www.frtr.gov)
Cost Adjustment Checklist:
FACTOR:
H&S Productivity (labor and equipment only)
Escalation to Base Year
Area Cost Factor
Subcontractor Overhead and Profit
Prime Contractor Overhead and Profit
NOTES:
Field work will be in Level "C" PPE.
Mil assembly costs include HPF adjustments.
2009 cost sources are not escalated (EF=1.00). All other costs are escalated based on the USACE CWCCIS, EM 1110-2-1304, Mar 2009.
An AF of 1.13 is used for Oregon, except that an AF of 1.00 (national unmodified average) is used for Mil assembly costs and local vendor
It is assumed that Subcontractor O&P is either included in the PC O&P or has been factored into vendor quotes or previous work.
It is assumed that home office OH is 8% and profit is 9% for the Prime Contractor. Professional labor overhead is 100%. Allowances and items with mandated costs such as per diem do not have overhead and profit applied.
Abbreviations:
QTY
Quantity
ACR
Acres
EQUIP
Equipment
BCY
Bank Cubic Yard
MATL
Material
CLF
100 Linear Foot
HPF
HTRW Productivity Factor
DY
Days
ADJ LABOR
Adjusted LaborforHFP
EA
Each
ADJ EQUIP
Adjusted Equipment for H FP
LF
Linear Foot
UNMOD UC
Unmodified Unit Cost
HR
Hours
UNMOD LIC
Unmodified Line Item Cost
LB
Pounds
UNBUR LIC
Unburdened Line Item Cost
LCY
Loose Cubic Yard
PC OH
Prime Contractor Overhead
LS
Lump Sum
PC PF
Prime Contractor Profit
RL
Roll
BUR LIC
Burdened Line Item Cost
SY
Square Yard
quotes.
TN
Tons
3/24/20102:12 PM
FINAL
-------
TABLE CW1-3B
Alternative 1
Capital Cost Sub-Element
Ambient Air Sampling
Cost Worksheet: CW1-3B
COST WORKSHEET
Site: North Ridge Estates
Location: Klamath County, Oregon
Phase: Final Feasibility Study
Base Year: 2010
Prepared By: AS Date: 3/16/2010
Checked By: GH Date: 3/24/2010
Work Statement:
This sub-element involves ambient air sampling and analysis from various locations of the site to assess whether there are current exposure risks from asbestos fibers and non-asbestos COPCs in ambient air. Five locations (TBD) would be selected for sampling and samples would be analyzed for asbestos by TEM Method. The
following includes the labor, material and equipment cost, and shipping cost.
Cost Analysis:
Cost for Ambient Air Sampling (Lump Sum)
COST
DATABASE
CODE
DESCRIPTION
ADJ
LABOR
COST SOURCE
CITATION
Sampling - 2 Person Crew
Mil Mil Assemblies
Per Diem for 2 People
GSAwww.gsa.gov
Ambient Air Sample Analysis
P Previous Work
1 sample/station/month, 5 stations
Sampling Setup ( Equipment and Utility)
P Previous Work
Includes sampling equipments and electrical hook-up
Equipment/Ambient Air Sampling Event
Sampling/Other Supplies/Ambient Air Sampling
P Previous Work
1 sample/station/month, 5 stations
P Previous Work
Sample Shipping Allowance
A Allowance
TOTAL UNIT COST:
Abbreviations:
HTRW productivity factor is from Exhibit B-3 or B-4 of "A Guide to Developing and Documenting Cost Estimates During the Feasibility Study", EPA 2000
The Cost Database Code is a reference code for linking with line item cost information with the cost source database and is not otherwise used within these cost worksheets.
Source of Cost Data:
NA Not Applicable - costs are from previous work or vendor quote
For citation references, the following sources apply:
Mil (Mil Assemblies), GSA (www.gsa.gov), SE (www.salaryexpert.com), A (Allowance), V (Vendor Quote), CW09 (Means CostWorks 2009), P (Previous Work), and FRTR (www.frtr.gov)
Cost Adjustment Checklist:
FACTOR:
H&S Productivity (labor and equipment only)
Escalation to Base Year
Area Cost Factor
Subcontractor Overhead and Profit
Prime Contractor Overhead and Profit
QTY
EQUIP
MATL
HPF
ADJ LABOR
ADJ EQUIP
UNMOD UC
UNMOD LIC
NOTES: UNBURLIC
Field work will be in Level "C" PPE. PC OH
Mil assembly costs include HPF adjustments. PC PF
2009 cost sources are not escalated (EF=1.00). All other costs are escalated based on the USACE CWCCIS, EM 1110-2-1304, Mar 2009. BUR LIC
An AF of 1.13 is used for Oregon, except that an AF of 1.00 (national unmodified average) is used for Mil assembly costs and local vendor quotes.
It is assumed that Subcontractor O&P is either included in the PC O&P or has been factored into vendor quotes or previous work.
It is assumed that home office OH is 8% and profit is 9% for the Prime Contractor. Professional labor overhead is 100%. Allowances and items with mandated costs such as per diem do not have overhead and profit applied.
Quantity
Equipment
Material
HTRW Productivity Factor
Adjusted LaborforHFP
Adjusted Equipment for H FP
Unmodified Unit Cost
Unmodified Line Item Cost
Unburdened Line Item Cost
Prime Contractor Overhead
Prime Contractor Profit
Burdened Line Item Cost
ACR
BCY
CLF
DY
EA
LF
HR
LB
LCY
LS
RL
SY
TN
Acres
Bank Cubic Yard
100 Linear Foot
Days
Each
Linear Foot
Hours
Pounds
Loose Cubic Yard
Lump Sum
Roll
Square Yard
Tons
3/24/20102:12 PM
FINAL
-------
Cost Worksheets
Alternative 3
-------
TABLE CW3-1
Alternative 3
Capital Cost Sub-Element
Institutional Controls
Cost Worksheet: CW3-1
COST WORKSHEET
Site: North Ridge Estates
Location: Klamath County, Oregon
Phase: Final Feasibility Study
Base Year: 2010
Prepared By: AS Date: 3/16/2010
Checked By: GH Date: 3/24/2010
Work Statement:
This sub-element involves implementation of institutional controls for the site. The following cost includes hours for and document legal procedures to establish and cost for document submission and recording. The cost also includes site survey to establish parcel/site boundaries.
Cost Analysis:
Cost for Institutional Controls (Lump Sum)
COST
DATABASE
conF
DESCRIPTION
QTY
UNIT(S)
HPF
LABOR
ADJ
LABOR
EQUIP
ADJ EQUIP
MATL
OTHER
UNMOD UC
UNMOD LIC
PC OH
PC PF
BUR LIC
COST SOURCE
CITATION
COMMENTS
Institutional Controls tor Private Ownership
Parcels (27)
L6
Environmental Lawyer
648
HR
1.00
$71.06
$71.06
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$71.06
$46,046.88
100%
9%
$100,382
SE SalaryExpert.con
24 hrs per parcel
L15
Paralegal
864
HR
1.00
$37.29
$37.29
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$37.29
$32,218.56
100%
9%
$70,236
SE SalaryExpert.con
32 hrs per parcel
L3
Clerks, Typist, Bookkeeper & Receptionist
270
HR
1.00
$19.05
$19.05
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$19.05
$5,143.50
100%
9%
$11,213
SE SalaryExpert.con
10 hrs per parcel
M11A
Document Submission and Recording Allowance
27
LS
1.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$5,000.00
$5,000.00
$135,000.00
0%
0%
$135,000
A Allowance
Institutional Controls tor Receivership Parcels
(29)
L6
Environmental Lawyer
464
HR
1.00
$71.06
$71.06
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$71.06
$32,971.84
100%
9%
$71,879
SE SalaryExpert.con
16 hrs per parcel
L15
Paralegal
696
HR
1.00
$37.29
$37.29
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$37.29
$25,953.84
100%
9%
$56,579
SE SalaryExpert.con
24 hrs per parcel
L3
Clerks, Typist, Bookkeeper & Receptionist
290
HR
1.00
$19.05
$19.05
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$19.05
$5,524.50
100%
9%
$12,043
SE SalaryExpert.con
10 hrs per parcel
M11A
Document Submission and Recording Allowance
29
LS
1.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$5,000.00
$5,000.00
$145,000.00
0%
0%
$145,000
A Allowance
A38A
Site Survey - Clean Area
10
DY
1.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$464.52
$464.52
$4,645.19
8%
9%
$5,468
Mil Mil Assemblies
needed
M12
Surveying Report Allowance
1
LS
1.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$15,000.00
$15,000.00
$15,000.00
0%
0%
$15,000
A Allowance
TOTAL UNIT COST:
$622,800
Abbreviations:
HTRW productivity factor is from Exhibit B-3 or B-4 of "A Guide to Developing and Documenting Cost Estimates During the Feasibility Study", EPA 2000
The Cost Database Code is a reference code for linking with line item cost information with the cost source database and is not otherwise used within these cost worksheets.
Source of Cost Data:
NA Not Applicable - costs are from previous work or vendor quote
For citation references, the following sources apply:
Mil (Mil Assemblies), GSA (www.gsa.gov), SE (www.salaryexpert.com), A (Allowance), V (Vendor Quote), CW09 (Means CostWorks 2009), P (Previous Work), and FRTR (www.frtr.gov)
Cost Adjustment Checklist:
FACTOR:
H&S Productivity (labor and equipment only)
Escalation to Base Year
Area Cost Factor
Subcontractor Overhead and Profit
Prime Contractor Overhead and Profit
QTY
EQUIP
MATL
HPF
ADJ LABOR
ADJ EQUIP
UNMOD UC
UNMOD LIC
NOTES: UNBURLIC
Field work will be in Level "C" PPE. PC OH
Mil assembly costs include HPF adjustments. PC PF
2009 cost sources are not escalated (EF=1.00). All other costs are escalated based on the USACE CWCCIS, EM 1110-2-1304, Mar 2009. BUR LIC
An AF of 1.13 is used for Oregon, except that an AF of 1.00 (national unmodified average) is used for Mil assembly costs and local vendor quotes.
It is assumed that Subcontractor O&P is either included in the PC O&P or has been factored into vendor quotes or previous work.
It is assumed that home office OH is 8% and profit is 9% for the Prime Contractor. Professional labor overhead is 100%. Allowances and items with mandated costs such as per diem do not have overhead and profit applied.
Quantity
Equipment
Material
HTRW Productivity Factor
Adjusted LaborforHFP
Adjusted Equipment for H FP
Unmodified Unit Cost
Unmodified Line Item Cost
Unburdened Line Item Cost
Prime Contractor Overhead
Prime Contractor Profit
Burdened Line Item Cost
ACR
BCY
CLF
DY
EA
LF
HR
LB
LCY
LS
RL
SY
TN
Acres
Bank Cubic Yard
100 Linear Foot
Days
Each
Linear Foot
Hours
Pounds
Loose Cubic Yard
Lump Sum
Roll
Square Yard
Tons
3/24/20102:21 PM
FINAL
-------
TABLE CW3-2
Alternative 3
Capital Cost Sub-Element
Access Controls
Cost Worksheet: CW3-2
COST WORKSHEET
Site: North Ridge Estates
Location: Klamath County, Oregon
Phase: Final Feasibility Study
Base Year: 2010
Prepared By: AS Date: 3/16/2010
Checked By: GH Date: 3/24/2010
Work Statement:
This sub-element involves the cost associated with access controls on the site. Access controls include installation of sign posts along the perimeter of the disturbed area, the onsite repositories, and signage along steam pipe on the east side of Old Fort Road.
Cost Analysis:
Cost for Access Controls (Lump Sum)
COST
DATABASE
CODE
DESCRIPTION
UNIT(S)
ADJ
LABOR
COST SOURCE
CITATION
COMMENTS
Signage Installation - Clean Area
Mil Mil Assemblies
T-Post, 7' High Steel Post
V Vendor Quote
Includes wire clips
V Vendor Quote
Assume every 300 FT
TOTAL UNIT COST:
Abbreviations:
HTRW productivity factor is from Exhibit B-3 or B-4 of "A Guide to Developing and Documenting Cost Estimates During the Feasibility Study", EPA 2000
The Cost Database Code is a reference code for linking with line item cost information with the cost source database and is not otherwise used within these cost worksheets.
Source of Cost Data:
NA Not Applicable - costs are from previous work or vendor quote
For citation references, the following sources apply:
Mil (Mil Assemblies), GSA (www.gsa.gov), SE (www.salaryexpert.com), A (Allowance), V (Vendor Quote), CW09 (Means CostWorks 2009), P (Previous Work), and FRTR (www.frtr.gov)
Cost Adjustment Checklist:
FACTOR:
H&S Productivity (labor and equipment only)
Escalation to Base Year
Area Cost Factor
Subcontractor Overhead and Profit
Prime Contractor Overhead and Profit
QTY
EQUIP
MATL
HPF
ADJ LABOR
ADJ EQUIP
UNMOD UC
UNMOD LIC
NOTES: UNBURLIC
Field work will be in Level "C" PPE. PC OH
Mil assembly costs include HPF adjustments. PC PF
2009 cost sources are not escalated (EF=1.00). All other costs are escalated based on the USACE CWCCIS, EM 1110-2-1304, Mar 2009. BUR LIC
An AF of 1.13 is used for Oregon, except that an AF of 1.00 (national unmodified average) is used for Mil assembly costs and local vendor quotes.
It is assumed that Subcontractor O&P is either included in the PC O&P or has been factored into vendor quotes or previous work.
It is assumed that home office OH is 8% and profit is 9% for the Prime Contractor. Professional labor overhead is 100%. Allowances and items with mandated costs such as per diem do not have overhead and profit applied.
Quantity
Equipment
Material
HTRW Productivity Factor
Adjusted LaborforHFP
Adjusted Equipment for H FP
Unmodified Unit Cost
Unmodified Line Item Cost
Unburdened Line Item Cost
Prime Contractor Overhead
Prime Contractor Profit
Burdened Line Item Cost
ACR
BCY
CLF
DY
EA
LF
HR
LB
LCY
LS
RL
SY
TN
Acres
Bank Cubic Yard
100 Linear Foot
Days
Each
Linear Foot
Hours
Pounds
Loose Cubic Yard
Lump Sum
Roll
Square Yard
Tons
3/24/20102:21 PM
FINAL
-------
TABLE CW3-3A
Alternative 3
Capital Cost Sub-Element
5-Year Site Reviews
Cost Worksheet: CW3-3A
COST WORKSHEET
Site: North Ridge Estates
Location: Klamath County, Oregon
Phase: Final Feasibility Study
Base Year: 2010
Prepared By: AS Date: 3/16/2010
Checked By: GH Date: 3/24/2010
Work Statement:
This sub-element involves the 5-year site visits and 5-year site review report. The following cost includes labor, material and shipping costs for site visits and 5-year site review reports.
Cost Analysis:
Cost for 5-Year Site Review (Lump Sum)
COST
DATABASE
conF
DESCRIPTION
QTY
UNIT(S)
HPF
LABOR
ADJ
LABOR
EQUIP
ADJ EQUIP
MATL
OTHER
UNMOD UC
UNMOD LIC
PC OH
PC PF
BUR LIC
COST SOURCE
CITATION
COMMENTS
A6A
Site Inspection - 2 Person Crew
5
DY
1.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$640.91
$640.91
$3,204.53
8%
9%
$3,772
Mil Mil Assemblies
1 hour per parcel per site visit, 45 parcels
M56
Per Diem for 2 People
5
DY
1.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$288.00
$288.00
$1,440.00
0%
0%
$1,440
GSAwww.gsa.gov
L13
Project Manager
40
HR
1.00
$46.53
$46.53
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$46.53
$1,861.20
100%
9%
$4,057
SE SalaryExpert.con
Hours for 5-year rev
ew report
L5
Environmental Engineer
80
HR
1.00
$31.39
$31.39
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$31.39
$2,511.20
100%
9%
$5,474
SE SalaryExpert.con
Hours for 5-year rev
ew report
11
Environmental Scientist
120
HR
1.00
$27.87
$27.87
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$27.87
$3,344.40
100%
9%
$7,291
SE SalaryExpert.con
Hours for 5-year rev
ew report
L14
Quality Control Engineer
16
HR
1.00
$46.04
$46.04
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$46.04
$736.64
100%
9%
$1,606
SE SalaryExpert.con
Hours for 5-year rev
ew report
L1
CAD Drafter
40
HR
1.00
$25.70
$25.70
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$25.70
$1,028.00
100%
9%
$2,241
SE SalaryExpert.con
Hours for 5-year rev
ew report
L3
Clerks, Typist, Bookkeeper & Receptionist
40
HR
1.00
$19.05
$19.05
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$19.05
$762.00
100%
9%
$1,661
SE SalaryExpert.con
Hours for 5-year rev
ew report
M10A
Copy and Shipping Allowance
1
LS
1.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$1,500.00
$1,500.00
$1,500.00
0%
0%
$1,500
A Allowance
TOTAL UNIT COST:
$29,042
Abbreviations:
HTRW productivity factor is from Exhibit B-3 or B-4 of "A Guide to Developing and Documenting Cost Estimates During the Feasibility Study", EPA 2000
The Cost Database Code is a reference code for linking with line item cost information with the cost source database and is not otherwise used within these cost worksheets.
Source of Cost Data:
NA Not Applicable - costs are from previous work or vendor quote
For citation references, the following sources apply:
Mil (Mil Assemblies), GSA (www.gsa.gov), SE (www.salaryexpert.com), A (Allowance), V (Vendor Quote), CW09 (Means CostWorks 2009), P (Previous Work), and FRTR (www.frtr.gov)
Cost Adjustment Checklist:
FACTOR:
H&S Productivity (labor and equipment only)
Escalation to Base Year
Area Cost Factor
Subcontractor Overhead and Profit
Prime Contractor Overhead and Profit
QTY
EQUIP
MATL
HPF
ADJ LABOR
ADJ EQUIP
UNMOD UC
UNMOD LIC
NOTES: UNBURLIC
Field work will be in Level "C" PPE. PC OH
Mil assembly costs include HPF adjustments. PC PF
2009 cost sources are not escalated (EF=1.00). All other costs are escalated based on the USACE CWCCIS, EM 1110-2-1304, Mar 2009. BUR LIC
An AF of 1.13 is used for Oregon, except that an AF of 1.00 (national unmodified average) is used for Mil assembly costs and local vendor quotes.
It is assumed that Subcontractor O&P is either included in the PC O&P or has been factored into vendor quotes or previous work.
It is assumed that home office OH is 8% and profit is 9% for the Prime Contractor. Professional labor overhead is 100%. Allowances and items with mandated costs such as per diem do not have overhead and profit applied.
Quantity
Equipment
Material
HTRW Productivity Factor
Adjusted LaborforHFP
Adjusted Equipment for H FP
Unmodified Unit Cost
Unmodified Line Item Cost
Unburdened Line Item Cost
Prime Contractor Overhead
Prime Contractor Profit
Burdened Line Item Cost
ACR
BCY
CLF
DY
EA
LF
HR
LB
LCY
LS
RL
SY
TN
Acres
Bank Cubic Yard
100 Linear Foot
Days
Each
Linear Foot
Hours
Pounds
Loose Cubic Yard
Lump Sum
Roll
Square Yard
Tons
3/24/20102:21 PM
FINAL
-------
TABLE CW3-3B
Alternative 3
Capital Cost Sub-Element
Indoor Air Sampling
Cost Worksheet: CW3-3B
COST WORKSHEET
Site: North Ridge Estates
Location: Klamath County, Oregon
Phase: Final Feasibility Study
Base Year: 2010
Prepared By: AS Date: 3/16/2010
Checked By: GH Date: 3/24/2010
Work Statement:
This sub-element involves indoor air sampling conducted at each 5-year review. A total of five samples would be collected per house and would be analyzed by TEM Method. The following includes the labor, material and equipment cost, and shipping cost required for the sampling.
Cost Analysis:
Cost for Indoor Air Sampling (Lump Sum)
COST
DATABASE
CODE
DESCRIPTION
UNIT(S)
ADJ
LABOR
COST SOURCE
CITATION
COMMENTS
Sampling - 2 Person Crew
Mil Mil Assemblies
Assume 5 houses per day
Per Diem for 2 People
GSAwww.gsa.gov
Indoor Air Sample Analysis
P Previous Work
5 samples per house, 24 houses
Equipment/Indoor Air Sampling Event
P Previous Work
Sample Shipping Allowance
A Allowance
TOTAL UNIT COST:
Abbreviations:
HTRW productivity factor is from Exhibit B-3 or B-4 of "A Guide to Developing and Documenting Cost Estimates During the Feasibility Study", EPA 2000
The Cost Database Code is a reference code for linking with line item cost information with the cost source database and is not otherwise used within these cost worksheets.
Source of Cost Data:
NA Not Applicable - costs are from previous work or vendor quote
For citation references, the following sources apply:
Mil (Mil Assemblies), GSA (www.gsa.gov), SE (www.salaryexpert.com), A (Allowance), V (Vendor Quote), CW09 (Means CostWorks 2009), P (Previous Work), and FRTR (www.frtr.gov)
Cost Adjustment Checklist:
FACTOR:
H&S Productivity (labor and equipment only)
Escalation to Base Year
Area Cost Factor
Subcontractor Overhead and Profit
Prime Contractor Overhead and Profit
QTY
EQUIP
MATL
HPF
ADJ LABOR
ADJ EQUIP
UNMOD UC
UNMOD LIC
NOTES: UNBURLIC
Field work will be in Level "C" PPE. PC OH
Mil assembly costs include HPF adjustments. PC PF
2009 cost sources are not escalated (EF=1.00). All other costs are escalated based on the USACE CWCCIS, EM 1110-2-1304, Mar 2009. BUR LIC
An AF of 1.13 is used for Oregon, except that an AF of 1.00 (national unmodified average) is used for Mil assembly costs and local vendor quotes.
It is assumed that Subcontractor O&P is either included in the PC O&P or has been factored into vendor quotes or previous work.
It is assumed that home office OH is 8% and profit is 9% for the Prime Contractor. Professional labor overhead is 100%. Allowances and items with mandated costs such as per diem do not have overhead and profit applied.
Quantity
Equipment
Material
HTRW Productivity Factor
Adjusted LaborforHFP
Adjusted Equipment for H FP
Unmodified Unit Cost
Unmodified Line Item Cost
Unburdened Line Item Cost
Prime Contractor Overhead
Prime Contractor Profit
Burdened Line Item Cost
ACR
BCY
CLF
DY
EA
LF
HR
LB
LCY
LS
RL
SY
TN
Acres
Bank Cubic Yard
100 Linear Foot
Days
Each
Linear Foot
Hours
Pounds
Loose Cubic Yard
Lump Sum
Roll
Square Yard
Tons
3/24/20102:21 PM
FINAL
-------
TABLE CW3-3C
Alternative 3
Capital Cost Sub-Element
Visual Non-Intrusive Inspection
Cost Worksheet: CW3-3C
COST WORKSHEET
Site: North Ridge Estates
Location: Klamath County, Oregon
Phase: Final Feasibility Study
Base Year: 2010
Prepared By: AS Date: 3/16/2010
Checked By: GH Date: 3/24/2010
Work Statement:
This sub-element involves non-intrusive visual inspections (i.e. surface inspections) performed in support of 5-year site reviews would be made on all parcels within the site boundary regardless of ownership. The following includes the labor, material and equipment cost for inspection.
Cost Analysis:
Cost for Visual Non-Intrusive Inspection (Lump Sum)
COST
DATABASE
CODE
DESCRIPTION
UNIT(S)
ADJ
LABOR
COST SOURCE
CITATION
COMMENTS
Visual Inspection - 2 Person Crew
Mil Mil Assemblies
Per Diem for 2 People
GSAwww.gsa.gov
TOTAL UNIT COST:
Abbreviations:
HTRW productivity factor is from Exhibit B-3 or B-4 of "A Guide to Developing and Documenting Cost Estimates During the Feasibility Study", EPA 2000
The Cost Database Code is a reference code for linking with line item cost information with the cost source database and is not otherwise used within these cost worksheets.
Source of Cost Data:
NA Not Applicable - costs are from previous work or vendor quote
For citation references, the following sources apply:
Mil (Mil Assemblies), GSA (www.gsa.gov), SE (www.salaryexpert.com), A (Allowance), V (Vendor Quote), CW09 (Means CostWorks 2009), P (Previous Work), and FRTR (www.frtr.gov)
Cost Adjustment Checklist:
FACTOR:
H&S Productivity (labor and equipment only)
Escalation to Base Year
Area Cost Factor
Subcontractor Overhead and Profit
Prime Contractor Overhead and Profit
QTY
EQUIP
MATL
HPF
ADJ LABOR
ADJ EQUIP
UNMOD UC
UNMOD LIC
NOTES: UNBURLIC
Field work will be in Level "C" PPE. PC OH
Mil assembly costs include HPF adjustments. PC PF
2009 cost sources are not escalated (EF=1.00). All other costs are escalated based on the USACE CWCCIS, EM 1110-2-1304, Mar 2009. BUR LIC
An AF of 1.13 is used for Oregon, except that an AF of 1.00 (national unmodified average) is used for Mil assembly costs and local vendor quotes.
It is assumed that Subcontractor O&P is either included in the PC O&P or has been factored into vendor quotes or previous work.
It is assumed that home office OH is 8% and profit is 9% for the Prime Contractor. Professional labor overhead is 100%. Allowances and items with mandated costs such as per diem do not have overhead and profit applied.
Quantity
Equipment
Material
HTRW Productivity Factor
Adjusted LaborforHFP
Adjusted Equipment for H FP
Unmodified Unit Cost
Unmodified Line Item Cost
Unburdened Line Item Cost
Prime Contractor Overhead
Prime Contractor Profit
Burdened Line Item Cost
ACR
BCY
CLF
DY
EA
LF
HR
LB
LCY
LS
RL
SY
TN
Acres
Bank Cubic Yard
100 Linear Foot
Days
Each
Linear Foot
Hours
Pounds
Loose Cubic Yard
Lump Sum
Roll
Square Yard
Tons
3/24/20102:21 PM
FINAL
-------
TABLE CW3-3D
Alternative 3
Capital Cost Sub-Element
Ambient Air Sampling (5 Year Review)
Cost Worksheet: CW3-3D
COST WORKSHEET
Site: North Ridge Estates
Location: Klamath County, Oregon
Phase: Final Feasibility Study
Base Year: 2010
Prepared By: AS Date: 3/16/2010
Checked By: GH Date: 3/24/2010
Work Statement:
This sub-element involves ambient air sampling and analysis from various locations of the site to assess whether there are current exposure risks from asbestos fibers and non-asbestos COPCs in ambient air. Five locations (TBD) would be selected for sampling and samples would be analyzed for asbestos by TEM Method. The
following includes the labor, material and equipment cost, and shipping cost.
Cost Analysis:
Cost for Ambient Air Sampling (Lump Sum)
—COST
DATABASE
CODE
DESCRIPTION
UNIT(S)
ADJ
LABOR
COST SOURCE
CITATION
COMMENTS
Sampling - 2 Person Crew
Mil Mil Assemblies
Per Diem for 2 People
GSAwww.gsa.gov
Ambient Air Sample Analysis
P Previous Work
1 sample/station/month, 5 stations
Sampling Setup ( Equipment and Utility)
P Previous Work
Includes sampling equipments and electrical hook-up
Equipment/Ambient Air Sampling Event
P Previous Work
1 sample/station/month, 5 stations
P Previous Work
Sample Shipping Allowance
A Allowance
TOTAL UNIT COST:
Abbreviations:
HTRW productivity factor is from Exhibit B-3 or B-4 of "A Guide to Developing and Documenting Cost Estimates During the Feasibility Study", EPA 2000
The Cost Database Code is a reference code for linking with line item cost information with the cost source database and is not otherwise used within these cost worksheets.
Source of Cost Data:
NA Not Applicable - costs are from previous work or vendor quote
For citation references, the following sources apply:
Mil (Mil Assemblies), GSA (www.gsa.gov), SE (www.salaryexpert.com), A (Allowance), V (Vendor Quote), CW09 (Means CostWorks 2009), P (Previous Work), and FRTR (www.frtr.gov)
Cost Adjustment Checklist:
FACTOR:
H&S Productivity (labor and equipment only)
Escalation to Base Year
Area Cost Factor
Subcontractor Overhead and Profit
Prime Contractor Overhead and Profit
QTY
EQUIP
MATL
HPF
ADJ LABOR
ADJ EQUIP
UNMOD UC
UNMOD LIC
NOTES: UNBURLIC
Field work will be in Level "C" PPE. PC OH
Mil assembly costs include HPF adjustments. PC PF
2009 cost sources are not escalated (EF=1.00). All other costs are escalated based on the USACE CWCCIS, EM 1110-2-1304, Mar 2009. BUR LIC
An AF of 1.13 is used for Oregon, except that an AF of 1.00 (national unmodified average) is used for Mil assembly costs and local vendor quotes.
It is assumed that Subcontractor O&P is either included in the PC O&P or has been factored into vendor quotes or previous work.
It is assumed that home office OH is 8% and profit is 9% for the Prime Contractor. Professional labor overhead is 100%. Allowances and items with mandated costs such as per diem do not have overhead and profit applied.
Quantity
Equipment
Material
HTRW Productivity Factor
Adjusted LaborforHFP
Adjusted Equipment for H FP
Unmodified Unit Cost
Unmodified Line Item Cost
Unburdened Line Item Cost
Prime Contractor Overhead
Prime Contractor Profit
Burdened Line Item Cost
ACR
BCY
CLF
DY
EA
LF
HR
LB
LCY
LS
RL
SY
TN
Acres
Bank Cubic Yard
100 Linear Foot
Days
Each
Linear Foot
Hours
Pounds
Loose Cubic Yard
Lump Sum
Roll
Square Yard
Tons
3/24/20102:21 PM
FINAL
-------
TABLE CW3-3E
Alternative 3
Capital Cost Sub-Element
Community Awareness Activities
Cost Worksheet: CW3-3E
COST WORKSHEET
Site: North Ridge Estates
Location: Klamath County, Oregon
Phase: Final Feasibility Study
Base Year: 2010
Prepared By: AS Date: 3/16/2010
Checked By: GH Date: 3/24/2010
Work Statement:
This sub-element involves setting up a community meeting to inform the local community about the status of site. The following includes the labor, material and other cost required for setting up the community awareness meeting which includes costs for renting a meeting hall, court reporter, and publishing and sending notices or
informational flyers.
Cost Analysis:
Cost for Community Awareness Activities (Lump Sum)
COST
DATABASE
conF
DESCRIPTION
QTY
UNIT(S)
HPF
LABOR
ADJ
LABOR
EQUIP
ADJ EQUIP
MATL
OTHER
UNMOD UC
UNMOD LIC
PC OH
PC PF
BUR LIC
COST SOURCE
CITATION
COMMENTS
L12
General Superintendent (P.M.)
16
HR
1.00
$52.74
$52.74
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$52.74
$843.84
100%
9%
$1,840
SE SalaryExpert.con
8 hrs per day
L13
Project Manager
16
HR
1.00
$46.53
$46.53
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$46.53
$744.48
100%
9%
$1,623
SE SalaryExpert.con
8 hrs per day
M56
Per Diem for 2 People
2
DY
1.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$288.00
$288.00
$576.00
0%
0%
$576
GSAwww.gsa.gov
M65
Community Awareness Activities Allowance
1
EA
1.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$2,000.00
$2,000.00
$2,000.00
0%
0%
$2,000
A Allowance
1 event per 5-yr review.
TOTAL UNIT COST:
$6,039
Abbreviations:
HTRW productivity factor is from Exhibit B-3 or B-4 of "A Guide to Developing and Documenting Cost Estimates During the Feasibility Study", EPA 2000
The Cost Database Code is a reference code for linking with line item cost information with the cost source database and is not otherwise used within these cost worksheets.
Source of Cost Data:
NA Not Applicable - costs are from previous work or vendor quote
For citation references, the following sources apply:
Mil (Mil Assemblies), GSA (www.gsa.gov), SE (www.salaryexpert.com), A (Allowance), V (Vendor Quote), CW09 (Means CostWorks 2009), P (Previous Work), and FRTR (www.frtr.gov)
Cost Adjustment Checklist:
FACTOR:
H&S Productivity (labor and equipment only)
Escalation to Base Year
Area Cost Factor
Subcontractor Overhead and Profit
Prime Contractor Overhead and Profit
QTY
EQUIP
MATL
HPF
ADJ LABOR
ADJ EQUIP
UNMOD UC
UNMOD LIC
NOTES: UNBURLIC
Field work will be in Level "C" PPE. PC OH
Mil assembly costs include HPF adjustments. PC PF
2009 cost sources are not escalated (EF=1.00). All other costs are escalated based on the USACE CWCCIS, EM 1110-2-1304, Mar 2009. BUR LIC
An AF of 1.13 is used for Oregon, except that an AF of 1.00 (national unmodified average) is used for Mil assembly costs and local vendor quotes.
It is assumed that Subcontractor O&P is either included in the PC O&P or has been factored into vendor quotes or previous work.
It is assumed that home office OH is 8% and profit is 9% for the Prime Contractor. Professional labor overhead is 100%. Allowances and items with mandated costs such as per diem do not have overhead and profit applied.
Quantity
Equipment
Material
HTRW Productivity Factor
Adjusted LaborforHFP
Adjusted Equipment for H FP
Unmodified Unit Cost
Unmodified Line Item Cost
Unburdened Line Item Cost
Prime Contractor Overhead
Prime Contractor Profit
Burdened Line Item Cost
ACR
BCY
CLF
DY
EA
LF
HR
LB
LCY
LS
RL
SY
TN
Acres
Bank Cubic Yard
100 Linear Foot
Days
Each
Linear Foot
Hours
Pounds
Loose Cubic Yard
Lump Sum
Roll
Square Yard
Tons
3/24/20102:21 PM
FINAL
-------
TABLE CW3-4A
Alternative 3
Capital Cost Sub-Element
Borrow Source Testing
Cost Worksheet: CW3-4A
COST WORKSHEET
Site: North Ridge Estates
Location: Klamath County, Oregon
Phase: Final Feasibility Study
Base Year: 2010
Prepared By: AS Date: 3/16/2010
Checked By: GH Date: 3/24/2010
Work Statement:
This sub-element involves determining whether asbestos fibers and non-asbestos COPCs are present in proposed borrow source. Samples would be collected from potential soil borrow areas and analyzed for asbestos and non-asbestos COPCs. Visual inspection and ABS activities would be conducted to determine asbestos
contamination. The ABS samples would be analyzed by TEM Method. Non-asbestos COPCs would include organic/inorganic analysis for VOCs, SVOCs, PCBs, TPH, herbicides, pesticides, and target analyte list metals. The following includes the labor, material and equipment cost, and shipping cost required for the borrow material
Cost Analysis:
Cost for Borrow Material Sampling (Lump Sum)
COST
DATABASE
CODE
DESCRIPTION
UNIT(S)
ADJ
LABOR
COST SOURCE
CITATION
COMMENTS
Sampling - 2 Person Crew
Mil Mil Assemblies
Assume 1 day per sample
ABS, Sample and Analysis
P Previous Work
Equipment/ABS Area/ABS Event
P Previous Work
Analysis - Volatile Organic Compounds
V Vendor Quote
Analysis - Semivolatile Organic Compounds
V Vendor Quote
Analysis - Pesticides
V Vendor Quote
Analysis - Herbicides
V Vendor Quote
Analysis - TAL Metals
V Vendor Quote
V Vendor Quote
V Vendor Quote
Sample Shipping Allowance
A Allowance
Sampling/Other Supplies
P Previous Work
TOTAL UNIT COST:
Abbreviations:
HTRW productivity factor is from Exhibit B-3 or B-4 of "A Guide to Developing and Documenting Cost Estimates During the Feasibility Study", EPA 2000
The Cost Database Code is a reference code for linking with line item cost information with the cost source database and is not otherwise used within these cost worksheets.
Source of Cost Data:
NA Not Applicable - costs are from previous work or vendor quote
For citation references, the following sources apply:
Mil (Mil Assemblies), GSA (www.gsa.gov), SE (www.salaryexpert.com), A (Allowance), V (Vendor Quote), CW09 (Means CostWorks 2009), P (Previous Work), and FRTR (www.frtr.gov)
Cost Adjustment Checklist:
FACTOR:
H&S Productivity (labor and equipment only)
Escalation to Base Year
Area Cost Factor
Subcontractor Overhead and Profit
Prime Contractor Overhead and Profit
QTY
EQUIP
MATL
HPF
ADJ LABOR
ADJ EQUIP
UNMOD UC
UNMOD LIC
NOTES: UNBURLIC
Field work will be in Level "C" PPE. PC OH
Mil assembly costs include HPF adjustments. PC PF
2009 cost sources are not escalated (EF=1.00). All other costs are escalated based on the USACE CWCCIS, EM 1110-2-1304, Mar 2009. BUR LIC
An AF of 1.13 is used for Oregon, except that an AF of 1.00 (national unmodified average) is used for Mil assembly costs and local vendor quotes.
It is assumed that Subcontractor O&P is either included in the PC O&P or has been factored into vendor quotes or previous work.
It is assumed that home office OH is 8% and profit is 9% for the Prime Contractor. Professional labor overhead is 100%. Allowances and items with mandated costs such as per diem do not have overhead and profit applied.
Quantity
Equipment
Material
HTRW Productivity Factor
Adjusted LaborforHFP
Adjusted Equipment for H FP
Unmodified Unit Cost
Unmodified Line Item Cost
Unburdened Line Item Cost
Prime Contractor Overhead
Prime Contractor Profit
Burdened Line Item Cost
ACR
BCY
CLF
DY
EA
LF
HR
LB
LCY
LS
RL
SY
TN
Acres
Bank Cubic Yard
100 Linear Foot
Days
Each
Linear Foot
Hours
Pounds
Loose Cubic Yard
Lump Sum
Roll
Square Yard
Tons
3/24/20102:21 PM
FINAL
-------
TABLE CW3-4B
Alternative 3
Capital Cost Sub-Element
Cover and Backfill Inspection
Cost Worksheet: CW3-4B
COST WORKSHEET
Site: North Ridge Estates
Location: Klamath County, Oregon
Phase: Final Feasibility Study
Base Year: 2010
Prepared By: AS Date: 3/16/2010
Checked By: GH Date: 3/24/2010
Work Statement:
This sub-element involves monitoring protocol for covered portions of privately owned and receiver managed parcels would include routine non-intrusive visual inspections (i.e. surface inspections) to ensure integrity of the covers. The following includes the labor, material and equipment costs for inspection.
Cost Analysis:
Cost for Cover and Backfill Inspection (Lump Sum)
COST
DATABASE
CODE
DESCRIPTION
UNIT(S)
ADJ
LABOR
COST SOURCE
CITATION
COMMENTS
Visual Inspection - 2 Person Crew
Mil Mil Assemblies
Per Diem for 2 People
GSAwww.gsa.gov
TOTAL UNIT COST:
Abbreviations:
HTRW productivity factor is from Exhibit B-3 or B-4 of "A Guide to Developing and Documenting Cost Estimates During the Feasibility Study", EPA 2000
The Cost Database Code is a reference code for linking with line item cost information with the cost source database and is not otherwise used within these cost worksheets.
Source of Cost Data:
NA Not Applicable - costs are from previous work or vendor quote
For citation references, the following sources apply:
Mil (Mil Assemblies), GSA (www.gsa.gov), SE (www.salaryexpert.com), A (Allowance), V (Vendor Quote), CW09 (Means CostWorks 2009), P (Previous Work), and FRTR (www.frtr.gov)
Cost Adjustment Checklist:
FACTOR:
H&S Productivity (labor and equipment only)
Escalation to Base Year
Area Cost Factor
Subcontractor Overhead and Profit
Prime Contractor Overhead and Profit
QTY
EQUIP
MATL
HPF
ADJ LABOR
ADJ EQUIP
UNMOD UC
UNMOD LIC
NOTES: UNBURLIC
Field work will be in Level "C" PPE. PC OH
Mil assembly costs include HPF adjustments. PC PF
2009 cost sources are not escalated (EF=1.00). All other costs are escalated based on the USACE CWCCIS, EM 1110-2-1304, Mar 2009. BUR LIC
An AF of 1.13 is used for Oregon, except that an AF of 1.00 (national unmodified average) is used for Mil assembly costs and local vendor quotes.
It is assumed that Subcontractor O&P is either included in the PC O&P or has been factored into vendor quotes or previous work.
It is assumed that home office OH is 8% and profit is 9% for the Prime Contractor. Professional labor overhead is 100%. Allowances and items with mandated costs such as per diem do not have overhead and profit applied.
Quantity
Equipment
Material
HTRW Productivity Factor
Adjusted LaborforHFP
Adjusted Equipment for H FP
Unmodified Unit Cost
Unmodified Line Item Cost
Unburdened Line Item Cost
Prime Contractor Overhead
Prime Contractor Profit
Burdened Line Item Cost
ACR
BCY
CLF
DY
EA
LF
HR
LB
LCY
LS
RL
SY
TN
Acres
Bank Cubic Yard
100 Linear Foot
Days
Each
Linear Foot
Hours
Pounds
Loose Cubic Yard
Lump Sum
Roll
Square Yard
Tons
3/24/20102:21 PM
FINAL
-------
TABLE CW3-4C
Alternative 3
Capital Cost Sub-Element
Ambient Air Sampling (1 Year)
Cost Worksheet: CW3-4C
COST WORKSHEET
Site: North Ridge Estates
Location: Klamath County, Oregon
Phase: Final Feasibility Study
Base Year: 2010
Prepared By: AS Date: 3/16/2010
Checked By: GH Date: 3/24/2010
Work Statement:
This sub-element involves ambient air sampling and analysis from various locations of the site to assess whether there are current exposure risks from asbestos fibers and non-asbestos COPCs in ambient air. Five locations (TBD) would be selected for sampling and samples would be analyzed for asbestos by TEM Method. The
following includes the labor, material and equipment cost, and shipping cost.
Cost Analysis:
Cost for Ambient Air Sampling (Lump Sum)
COST
DATABASE
CODE
DESCRIPTION
UNIT(S)
ADJ
LABOR
COST SOURCE
CITATION
COMMENTS
Sampling - 2 Person Crew
Mil Mil Assemblies
1 yr, 12 months, 1 sample/month
Per Diem for 2 People
GSAwww.gsa.gov
Ambient Air Sample Analysis
P Previous Work
1 sample/station/month, 5 stations, 12 months
Sampling Setup ( Equipment and Utility)
P Previous Work
Includes sampling equipments and electrical hook-up
Equipment/Ambient Air Sampling Event
Sampling/Other Supplies/Ambient Air Sampling
Event
P Previous Work
1 sample/station/month, 5 stations, 12 months
P Previous Work
Sample Shipping Allowance
TOTAL UNIT COST:
Notes:
HTRW productivity factor is from Exhibit B-3 or B-4 of "A Guide to Developing and Documenting Cost Estimates During the Feasibility Study", EPA 2000
The Cost Database Code is a reference code for linking with line item cost information with the cost source database and is not otherwise used within these cost worksheets.
Source of Cost Data:
Not Applicable - costs are from previous work or vendor quote
For citation references, the following sources apply:
Mil (Mil Assemblies), GSA (www.gsa.gov), SE (www.salaryexpert.com), A (Allowance), V (Vendor Quote), CW09 (Means CostWorks 2009), P (Previous Work), and FRTR (www.frtr.gov)
Cost Adjustment Checklist:
FACTOR:
H&S Productivity (labor and equipment only)
Escalation to Base Year
Area Cost Factor
Subcontractor Overhead and Profit
Prime Contractor Overhead and Profit
NOTES:
Field work will be in Level "C" PPE.
Mil assembly costs include HPF adjustments.
2009 cost sources are not escalated (EF=1.00). All other costs are escalated based on the USACE CWCCIS, EM 1110-2-1304, Mar 2009.
An AF of 1.13 is used for Oregon, except that an AF of 1.00 (national unmodified average) is used for Mil assembly costs and local vendor
It is assumed that Subcontractor O&P is either included in the PC O&P or has been factored into vendor quotes or previous work.
It is assumed that home office OH is 8% and profit is 9% for the Prime Contractor. Professional labor overhead is 100%. Allowances and items with mandated costs such as per diem do not have overhead and profit applied.
Abbreviations:
QTY
Quantity
ACR
Acres
EQUIP
Equipment
BCY
Bank Cubic Yard
MATL
Material
CLF
100 Linear Foot
HPF
HTRW Productivity Factor
DY
Days
ADJ LABOR
Adjusted LaborforHFP
EA
Each
ADJ EQUIP
Adjusted Equipment for H FP
LF
Linear Foot
UNMOD UC
Unmodified Unit Cost
HR
Hours
UNMOD LIC
Unmodified Line Item Cost
LB
Pounds
UNBUR LIC
Unburdened Line Item Cost
LCY
Loose Cubic Yard
PC OH
Prime Contractor Overhead
LS
Lump Sum
PC PF
Prime Contractor Profit
RL
Roll
BUR LIC
Burdened Line Item Cost
SY
Square Yard
quotes.
TN
Tons
3/24/20102:21 PM
FINAL
-------
TABLE CW3-4D
Alternative 3
Capital Cost Sub-Element
Inspection of Areas without Identified Contamination
Cost Worksheet: CW3-4D
COST WORKSHEET
Site: North Ridge Estates
Location: Klamath County, Oregon
Phase: Final Feasibility Study
Base Year: 2010
Prepared By: AS Date: 3/16/2010
Checked By: GH Date: 3/24/2010
Work Statement:
This sub-element involves monitoring for areas of the site with no historical or current contamination and would be performed some time during construction. The monitoring would be performed using a tiered approach with intrusive visual inspection (hand dug test pits), followed by ABS to provide a point-in-time determination
whether these areas were adversely impacted by contamination. A total often locations would be tested.
Cost Analysis:
Cost for Intrusive Visual Inspection and ABS (Lump Sum)
COST
DATABASE
conF
DESCRIPTION
QTY
UNIT(S)
HPF
LABOR
ADJ
LABOR
EQUIP
ADJ EQUIP
MATL
OTHER
UNMOD UC
UNMOD LIC
PC OH
PC PF
BUR LIC
COST SOURCE
CITATION
COMMENTS
A6B
Visual Inspection - 2 Person Crew
5
DY
1.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$640.91
$640.91
$3,204.53
8%
9%
$3,772
Mil Mil Assemblies
M56
Per Diem for 2 People
5
DY
1.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$288.00
$288.00
$1,440.00
0%
0%
$1,440
GSAwww.gsa.gov
A5A
Sampling - 3 Person Crew
5
DY
1.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$1,179.92
$1,179.92
$5,899.61
8%
9%
$6,945
Mil Mil Assemblies
2 ABS per day
M55
Per Diem for 3 People
5
DY
1.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$432.00
$432.00
$2,160.00
0%
0%
$2,160
GSAwww.gsa.gov
M51
ABS, Sample and Analysis
10
EA
1.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$891.00
$891.00
$8,910.00
8%
9%
$10,489
P Previous Work
10 ABS samples, Analysis by ISO 10312 I tM, PLM-Vt
and Stereomicroscopy
M52
Equipment/ABS Area/ABS Event
10
EA
1.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$148.50
$148.50
$1,485.00
8%
9%
$1,748
P Previous Work
M53A
Sampling and Other Supplies/ABS Area/ABS Even
10
EA
1.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$250.00
$250.00
$2,500.00
8%
9%
$2,943
P Previous Work
M54B
Sample Shipping Allowance
1
LS
1.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$1,500.00
$1,500.00
$1,500.00
0%
0%
$1,500
A Allowance
TOTAL UNIT COST:
$30,997
Notes:
HTRW productivity factor is from Exhibit B-3 or B-4 of "A Guide to Developing and Documenting Cost Estimates During the Feasibility Study", EPA 2000
The Cost Database Code is a reference code for linking with line item cost information with the cost source database and is not otherwise used within these cost worksheets.
Source of Cost Data:
Not Applicable - costs are from previous work or vendor quote
For citation references, the following sources apply:
Mil (Mil Assemblies), GSA (www.gsa.gov), SE (www.salaryexpert.com), A (Allowance), V (Vendor Quote), CW09 (Means CostWorks 2009), P (Previous Work), and FRTR (www.frtr.gov)
Abbreviations:
Cost Adjustment Checklist:
FACTOR:
H&S Productivity (labor and equipment only)
Escalation to Base Year
Area Cost Factor
Subcontractor Overhead and Profit
Prime Contractor Overhead and Profit
NOTES:
Field work will be in Level "C" PPE.
Mil assembly costs include HPF adjustments.
2009 cost sources are not escalated (EF=1.00). All other costs are escalated based on the USACE CWCCIS, EM 1110-2-1304, Mar 2009.
An AF of 1.13 is used for Oregon, except that an AF of 1.00 (national unmodified average) is used for Mil assembly costs and local vendor
It is assumed that Subcontractor O&P is either included in the PC O&P or has been factored into vendor quotes or previous work.
It is assumed that home office OH is 8% and profit is 9% for the Prime Contractor. Professional labor overhead is 100%. Allowances and items with mandated costs such as per diem do not have overhead and profit applied.
QTY
Quantity
ACR
Acres
EQUIP
Equipment
BCY
Bank Cubic Yard
MATL
Material
CLF
100 Linear Foot
HPF
HTRW Productivity Factor
DY
Days
ADJ LABOR
Adjusted LaborforHFP
EA
Each
ADJ EQUIP
Adjusted Equipment for H FP
LF
Linear Foot
UNMOD UC
Unmodified Unit Cost
HR
Hours
UNMOD LIC
Unmodified Line Item Cost
LB
Pounds
UNBUR LIC
Unburdened Line Item Cost
LCY
Loose Cubic Yard
PC OH
Prime Contractor Overhead
LS
Lump Sum
PC PF
Prime Contractor Profit
RL
Roll
BUR LIC
Burdened Line Item Cost
SY
Square Yard
quotes.
TN
Tons
3/24/20102:21 PM
FINAL
-------
TABLE CW3-5A
Alternative 3
Capital Cost Sub-Element
Cover and Access Controls O&M During Construction
Cost Worksheet: CW3-5A
COST WORKSHEET
Site: North Ridge Estates
Location: Klamath County, Oregon
Phase: Final Feasibility Study
Base Year: 2010
Prepared By: AS Date: 3/16/2010
Checked By: GH Date: 3/24/2010
Work Statement:
This sub-element involves the cover and access controls O&M pertaining to the covered/backfilled areas during construction. It includes costs for on-site labor, equipment, materials and allowances for maintaining the cover and signage.
Cost Analysis:
Cost for Cover and Access Controls O&M During Construction (Lump Sum)
COST
DATABASE
CODE
DESCRIPTION
Cover and Backfill Operations and Maintenance
Crew
UNIT(S)
ADJ
LABOR
COST SOURCE
CITATION
COMMENTS
Mil Mil Assemblies
1 day/month
Includes cost for cover maintenance, erosion repair, and
repair of fencing/signs.
O&M Allowance
A Allowance
TOTAL UNIT COST:
Abbreviations:
HTRW productivity factor is from Exhibit B-3 or B-4 of "A Guide to Developing and Documenting Cost Estimates During the Feasibility Study", EPA 2000
The Cost Database Code is a reference code for linking with line item cost information with the cost source database and is not otherwise used within these cost worksheets.
Source of Cost Data:
NA Not Applicable - costs are from previous work or vendor quote
For citation references, the following sources apply:
Mil (Mil Assemblies), GSA (www.gsa.gov), SE (www.salaryexpert.com), A (Allowance), V (Vendor Quote), CW09 (Means CostWorks 2009), P (Previous Work), and FRTR (www.frtr.gov)
Cost Adjustment Checklist:
FACTOR:
H&S Productivity (labor and equipment only)
Escalation to Base Year
Area Cost Factor
Subcontractor Overhead and Profit
Prime Contractor Overhead and Profit
QTY
EQUIP
MATL
HPF
ADJ LABOR
ADJ EQUIP
UNMOD UC
UNMOD LIC
NOTES: UNBURLIC
Field work will be in Level "C" PPE. PC OH
Mil assembly costs include HPF adjustments. PC PF
2009 cost sources are not escalated (EF=1.00). All other costs are escalated based on the USACE CWCCIS, EM 1110-2-1304, Mar 2009. BUR LIC
An AF of 1.13 is used for Oregon, except that an AF of 1.00 (national unmodified average) is used for Mil assembly costs and local vendor quotes.
It is assumed that Subcontractor O&P is either included in the PC O&P or has been factored into vendor quotes or previous work.
It is assumed that home office OH is 8% and profit is 9% for the Prime Contractor. Professional labor overhead is 100%. Allowances and items with mandated costs such as per diem do not have overhead and profit applied.
Quantity
Equipment
Material
HTRW Productivity Factor
Adjusted LaborforHFP
Adjusted Equipment for H FP
Unmodified Unit Cost
Unmodified Line Item Cost
Unburdened Line Item Cost
Prime Contractor Overhead
Prime Contractor Profit
Burdened Line Item Cost
ACR
BCY
CLF
DY
EA
LF
HR
LB
LCY
LS
RL
SY
TN
Acres
Bank Cubic Yard
100 Linear Foot
Days
Each
Linear Foot
Hours
Pounds
Loose Cubic Yard
Lump Sum
Roll
Square Yard
Tons
3/24/20102:21 PM
FINAL
-------
TABLE CW3-5B
Alternative 3
Capital Cost Sub-Element
Cover and Access Controls O&M
Cost Worksheet: CW3-5B
COST WORKSHEET
Site: North Ridge Estates
Location: Klamath County, Oregon
Phase: Final Feasibility Study
Base Year: 2010
Prepared By: AS Date: 3/16/2010
Checked By: GH Date: 3/24/2010
Work Statement:
This sub-element involves the cover and access controls O&M pertaining to the cover and signage at the site. It includes costs for on-site labor, equipment, materials and allowances for maintaining the cover and signage.
Cost Analysis:
Cost for Cover and Access Controls O&M (Lump Sum)
COST
DATABASE
CODE
DESCRIPTION
Cover and Backfill Operations and Maintenance
Crew
UNIT(S)
ADJ
LABOR
COST SOURCE
CITATION
COMMENTS
Mil Mil Assemblies
1 days/month
Includes cost for cover maintenance, erosion repair, and
repair of fencing/signs.
O&M Allowance
A Allowance
TOTAL UNIT COST:
Abbreviations:
HTRW productivity factor is from Exhibit B-3 or B-4 of "A Guide to Developing and Documenting Cost Estimates During the Feasibility Study", EPA 2000
The Cost Database Code is a reference code for linking with line item cost information with the cost source database and is not otherwise used within these cost worksheets.
Source of Cost Data:
NA Not Applicable - costs are from previous work or vendor quote
For citation references, the following sources apply:
Mil (Mil Assemblies), GSA (www.gsa.gov), SE (www.salaryexpert.com), A (Allowance), V (Vendor Quote), CW09 (Means CostWorks 2009), P (Previous Work), and FRTR (www.frtr.gov)
Cost Adjustment Checklist:
FACTOR:
H&S Productivity (labor and equipment only)
Escalation to Base Year
Area Cost Factor
Subcontractor Overhead and Profit
Prime Contractor Overhead and Profit
QTY
EQUIP
MATL
HPF
ADJ LABOR
ADJ EQUIP
UNMOD UC
UNMOD LIC
NOTES: UNBURLIC
Field work will be in Level "C" PPE. PC OH
Mil assembly costs include HPF adjustments. PC PF
2009 cost sources are not escalated (EF=1.00). All other costs are escalated based on the USACE CWCCIS, EM 1110-2-1304, Mar 2009. BUR LIC
An AF of 1.13 is used for Oregon, except that an AF of 1.00 (national unmodified average) is used for Mil assembly costs and local vendor quotes.
It is assumed that Subcontractor O&P is either included in the PC O&P or has been factored into vendor quotes or previous work.
It is assumed that home office OH is 8% and profit is 9% for the Prime Contractor. Professional labor overhead is 100%. Allowances and items with mandated costs such as per diem do not have overhead and profit applied.
Quantity
Equipment
Material
HTRW Productivity Factor
Adjusted LaborforHFP
Adjusted Equipment for H FP
Unmodified Unit Cost
Unmodified Line Item Cost
Unburdened Line Item Cost
Prime Contractor Overhead
Prime Contractor Profit
Burdened Line Item Cost
ACR
BCY
CLF
DY
EA
LF
HR
LB
LCY
LS
RL
SY
TN
Acres
Bank Cubic Yard
100 Linear Foot
Days
Each
Linear Foot
Hours
Pounds
Loose Cubic Yard
Lump Sum
Roll
Square Yard
Tons
3/24/20102:21 PM
FINAL
-------
TABLE CW3-6
Alternative 3
Capital Cost Sub-Element
Temporary Laydown Area Installation
Cost Worksheet: CW3-6
COST WORKSHEET
Site: North Ridge Estates
Location: Klamath County, Oregon
Phase: Final Feasibility Study
Base Year: 2010
Prepared By: AS Date: 3/16/2010
Checked By: GH Date: 3/24/2010
Work Statement:
This sub-element involves temporary gravel construction at the site for the gravel laydown area during construction. It includes costs for material, labor, and equipment.
Cost Analysis:
Cost for Temporary Laydown Area Installation (Lump Sum)
COST
DATABASE
CODE
DESCRIPTION
UNIT(S)
ADJ
LABOR
COST SOURCE
CITATION
COMMENTS
Gravel Laydown Area
Gravel Placement - Clean Area
Mil Mil Assemblies
Gravel, Delivered
V Vendor Quote
TOTAL UNIT COST:
Abbreviations:
HTRW productivity factor is from Exhibit B-3 or B-4 of "A Guide to Developing and Documenting Cost Estimates During the Feasibility Study", EPA 2000
The Cost Database Code is a reference code for linking with line item cost information with the cost source database and is not otherwise used within these cost worksheets.
Source of Cost Data:
NA Not Applicable - costs are from previous work or vendor quote
For citation references, the following sources apply:
Mil (Mil Assemblies), GSA (www.gsa.gov), SE (www.salaryexpert.com), A (Allowance), V (Vendor Quote), CW09 (Means CostWorks 2009), P (Previous Work), and FRTR (www.frtr.gov)
Cost Adjustment Checklist:
FACTOR:
H&S Productivity (labor and equipment only)
Escalation to Base Year
Area Cost Factor
Subcontractor Overhead and Profit
Prime Contractor Overhead and Profit
QTY
EQUIP
MATL
HPF
ADJ LABOR
ADJ EQUIP
UNMOD UC
UNMOD LIC
NOTES: UNBURLIC
Field work will be in Level "C" PPE. PC OH
Mil assembly costs include HPF adjustments. PC PF
2009 cost sources are not escalated (EF=1.00). All other costs are escalated based on the USACE CWCCIS, EM 1110-2-1304, Mar 2009. BUR LIC
An AF of 1.13 is used for Oregon, except that an AF of 1.00 (national unmodified average) is used for Mil assembly costs and local vendor quotes.
It is assumed that Subcontractor O&P is either included in the PC O&P or has been factored into vendor quotes or previous work.
It is assumed that home office OH is 8% and profit is 9% for the Prime Contractor. Professional labor overhead is 100%. Allowances and items with mandated costs such as per diem do not have overhead and profit applied.
Quantity
Equipment
Material
HTRW Productivity Factor
Adjusted LaborforHFP
Adjusted Equipment for H FP
Unmodified Unit Cost
Unmodified Line Item Cost
Unburdened Line Item Cost
Prime Contractor Overhead
Prime Contractor Profit
Burdened Line Item Cost
ACR
BCY
CLF
DY
EA
LF
HR
LB
LCY
LS
RL
SY
TN
Acres
Bank Cubic Yard
100 Linear Foot
Days
Each
Linear Foot
Hours
Pounds
Loose Cubic Yard
Lump Sum
Roll
Square Yard
Tons
3/24/20102:21 PM
FINAL
-------
TABLE CW3-7
Alternative 3
Capital Cost Sub-Element
Site Clearing and Grubbing
Cost Worksheet: CW3-7
COST WORKSHEET
Site: North Ridge Estates
Location: Klamath County, Oregon
Phase: Final Feasibility Study
Base Year: 2010
Prepared By: AS Date: 3/16/2010
Checked By: GH Date: 3/24/2010
Work Statement:
This sub-element involves site clearing and grubbing for 50% of the contaminated area. It includes costs for labor, equipment and materials. All the cleared and grubbed material will be chipped in-place.
Cost Analysis:
Cost for Site Clearing and Grubbing (Lump Sum)
COST
DATABASE
CODE
DESCRIPTION
ADJ
LABOR
UNMOD LIC PC OH PC PF
COST SOURCE
CITATION
Clearing and Grubbing
Mil Mil Assemblies
TOTAL UNIT COST:
Notes:
HTRW productivity factor is from Exhibit B-3 or B-4 of "A Guide to Developing and Documenting Cost Estimates During the Feasibility Study", EPA 2000
The Cost Database Code is a reference code for linking with line item cost information with the cost source database and is not otherwise used within these cost worksheets.
Source of Cost Data:
Not Applicable - costs are from previous work or vendor quote
For citation references, the following sources apply:
Mil (Mil Assemblies), GSA (www.gsa.gov), SE (www.salaryexpert.com), A (Allowance), V (Vendor Quote), CW09 (Means CostWorks 2009), P (Previous Work), and FRTR (www.frtr.gov)
Cost Adjustment Checklist:
FACTOR:
H&S Productivity (labor and equipment only)
Escalation to Base Year
Area Cost Factor
Subcontractor Overhead and Profit
Prime Contractor Overhead and Profit
NOTES:
Field work will be in Level "C" PPE.
Mil assembly costs include HPF adjustments.
2009 cost sources are not escalated (EF=1.00). All other costs are escalated based on the USACE CWCCIS, EM 1110-2-1304, Mar 2009.
An AF of 1.13 is used for Oregon, except that an AF of 1.00 (national unmodified average) is used for Mil assembly costs and local vendor
It is assumed that Subcontractor O&P is either included in the PC O&P or has been factored into vendor quotes or previous work.
It is assumed that home office OH is 8% and profit is 9% for the Prime Contractor. Professional labor overhead is 100%. Allowances and items with mandated costs such as per diem do not have overhead and profit applied.
Abbreviations:
QTY
Quantity
ACR
Acres
EQUIP
Equipment
BCY
Bank Cubic Yard
MATL
Material
CLF
100 Linear Foot
HPF
HTRW Productivity Factor
DY
Days
ADJ LABOR
Adjusted LaborforHFP
EA
Each
ADJ EQUIP
Adjusted Equipment for H FP
LF
Linear Foot
UNMOD UC
Unmodified Unit Cost
HR
Hours
UNMOD LIC
Unmodified Line Item Cost
LB
Pounds
UNBUR LIC
Unburdened Line Item Cost
LCY
Loose Cubic Yard
PC OH
Prime Contractor Overhead
LS
Lump Sum
PC PF
Prime Contractor Profit
RL
Roll
BUR LIC
Burdened Line Item Cost
SY
Square Yard
quotes.
TN
Tons
3/24/20102:21 PM
FINAL
-------
TABLE CW3-8
Alternative 3
Capital Cost Sub-Element
Construction of Soil Cover
Cost Worksheet:
CW3-8
COST WORKSHEET
Site: North Ridge Estates
Location: Klamath County, Oregon
Phase: Final Feasibility Study
Base Year: 2010
Prepared By: AS Date: 3/16/2010
Checked By: GH Date: 3/24/2010
Work Statement:
This sub-element involves the construction of an in-place cap using soil cover materials. It includes cost for labor, equipment and material (soil from near offeite and distant offeite borrow areas, and organic material).
Cost Analysis:
Cost for Construction of Soil Cover (Lump Sum)
COST
DATABASE
conF
DESCRIPTION
QTY
UNIT(S)
HPF
LABOR
ADJ
LABOR
EQUIP
ADJ EQUIP
MATL
OTHER
UNMOD UC
UNMOD LIC
PC OH
PC PF
BUR LIC
COST SOURCE
CITATION
COMMENTS
Subsoil Placement Over Contaminated
Materials
A12C
Subsoil Spreading/Grading
144,952
LCY
1.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$12.42
$12.42
$1,800,738.70
8%
9%
$2,119,830
Mil Mil Assemblies
A21A
Clean Fill Compaction - Large Open Area
130,457
LCY
1.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.18
$0.18
$23,717.05
8%
9%
$27,920
Mil Mil Assemblies
Assume 90% of total fill
A22A
Clean Fill Compaction - Small Area
14,495
LCY
1.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$2.24
$2.24
$32,501.14
8%
9%
$38,260
Mil Mil Assemblies
Assume 10% of total fill
M39A
Marker Layer for Cover or Backfill Demarcation
2,268,800
SF
1.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.08
$0.00
$0.08
$181,504.00
8%
9%
$213,667
V Vendor Quote
Marker layer assumed to be orange construction fencing.
Topsoil Placement for Cover
A13B
Top Soil Spreading/Grading
48,318
LCY
1.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$2.68
$2.68
$129,323.13
8%
9%
$152,239
Mil Mil Assemblies
A21A
Clean Fill Compaction - Large Open Area
43,486
LCY
1.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.18
$0.18
$7,905.79
8%
9%
$9,307
Mil Mil Assemblies
Assume 90% of total fill
A22A
Clean Fill Compaction - Small Area
4,832
LCY
1.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$2.24
$2.24
$10,833.86
8%
9%
$12,754
Mil Mil Assemblies
Assume 10% of total fill
Clean Fill/Soil from Near Offsite Borrow Source
A10A
Excavation - Borrow Source
84,030
BCY
1.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$2.13
$2.13
$179,076.33
8%
9%
$210,809
Mil Mil Assemblies
A14A
Material Loading - Clean Fill
96,635
LCY
1.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.32
$0.32
$31,232.43
8%
9%
$36,767
Mil Mil Assemblies
A23B
Hauling - Near Offeite Borrow Source
96,635
LCY
1.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$2.12
$2.12
$204,962.84
8%
9%
$241,282
Mil Mil Assemblies
Clean Fill/Soil trom Distant Ottsite Borrow
Source
A10A
Excavation - Borrow Source
84,030
BCY
1.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$2.13
$2.13
$179,076.33
8%
9%
$210,809
Mil Mil Assemblies
A14A
Material Loading - Clean Fill
96,635
LCY
1.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.32
$0.32
$31,232.43
8%
9%
$36,767
Mil Mil Assemblies
A23A
Hauling - Distant Offeite Borrow Source
96,635
LCY
1.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$2.82
$2.82
$272,307.77
8%
9%
$320,561
Mil Mil Assemblies
M49
Assumed Royalty Allowance for Soil
96,635
LCY
1.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$3.00
$3.00
$289,905.00
0%
0%
$289,905
A Allowance
Organic Material for Topsoil Amendment
A39B
Organic Delivery
1,400
TN
1.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$8.65
$8.65
$12,103.84
8%
9%
$14,249
Mil Mil Assemblies
A40A
Organic Amendment and Processing
53
ACR
1.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$1,082.08
$1,082.08
$57,350.44
8%
9%
$67,513
Mil Mil Assemblies
M25
Organic Material
1,400
TN
1.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$25.25
$0.00
$25.25
$35,350.00
8%
9%
$41,614
V Vendor Quote
TOTAL UNIT COST:
$4,044,253
Notes:
HTRW productivity factor is from Exhibit B-3 or B-4 of "A Guide to Developing and Documenting Cost Estimates During the Feasibility Study", EPA 2000
The Cost Database Code is a reference code for linking with line item cost information with the cost source database and is not otherwise used within these cost worksheets.
Abbreviations:
QTY
EQUIP
MATL
HPF
ADJ LABOR
ADJ EQUIP
UNMOD UC
UNMOD LIC
NOTES: UNBURLIC
Field work will be in Level "C" PPE. PC OH
Mil assembly costs include HPF adjustments. PC PF
2009 cost sources are not escalated (EF=1.00). All other costs are escalated based on the USACE CWCCIS, EM 1110-2-1304, Mar 2009. BUR LIC
An AF of 1.13 is used for Oregon, except that an AF of 1.00 (national unmodified average) is used for Mil assembly costs and local vendor quotes.
It is assumed that Subcontractor O&P is either included in the PC O&P or has been factored into vendor quotes or previous work.
It is assumed that home office OH is 8% and profit is 9% for the Prime Contractor. Professional labor overhead is 100%. Allowances and items with mandated costs such as per diem do not have overhead and profit applied.
Source of Cost Data:
NA Not Applicable - costs are from previous work or vendor quote
For citation references, the following sources apply:
Mil (Mil Assemblies), GSA (www.gsa.gov), SE (www.salaryexpert.com), A (Allowance), V (Vendor Quote), CW09 (Means CostWorks 2009), P (Previous Work), and FRTR (www.frtr.gov)
Cost Adjustment Checklist:
FACTOR:
H&S Productivity (labor and equipment only)
Escalation to Base Year
Area Cost Factor
Subcontractor Overhead and Profit
Prime Contractor Overhead and Profit
Quantity
Equipment
Material
HTRW Productivity Factor
Adjusted LaborforHFP
Adjusted Equipment for H FP
Unmodified Unit Cost
Unmodified Line Item Cost
Unburdened Line Item Cost
Prime Contractor Overhead
Prime Contractor Profit
Burdened Line Item Cost
ACR
Acres
BCY
Bank Cubic Yard
CLF
100 Linear Foot
DY
Days
EA
Each
LF
Linear Foot
HR
Hours
LB
Pounds
LCY
Loose Cubic Yard
LS
Lump Sum
RL
Roll
SY
Square Yard
TN
Tons
3/24/20102:21 PM
FINAL
-------
TABLE CW3-9
Alternative 3
Capital Cost Sub-Element
Revegetation of Soil Cover
Cost Worksheet: CW3-9
COST WORKSHEET
Site: North Ridge Estates
Location: Klamath County, Oregon
Phase: Final Feasibility Study
Base Year: 2010
Prepared By: AS Date: 3/16/2010
Checked By: GH Date: 3/24/2010
Work Statement:
This sub-element involves the revegetation of soil covers with hydroseeding. It includes costs for labor, material, and equipment.
Cost Analysis:
Cost for Revegetation of Soil Cover (Lump Sum)
COST
DATABASE
CODE
DESCRIPTION
UNIT(S)
ADJ
LABOR
COST SOURCE
CITATION
COMMENTS
Hydroseeding/Revegetation
Hydro-Seeding Crew
Mil Mil Assemblies
V Vendor Quote
V Vendor Quote
Fertilizer (P205)
V Vendor Quote
P Previous Work
TOTAL UNIT COST:
Abbreviations:
HTRW productivity factor is from Exhibit B-3 or B-4 of "A Guide to Developing and Documenting Cost Estimates During the Feasibility Study", EPA 2000
The Cost Database Code is a reference code for linking with line item cost information with the cost source database and is not otherwise used within these cost worksheets.
Source of Cost Data:
NA Not Applicable - costs are from previous work or vendor quote
For citation references, the following sources apply:
Mil (Mil Assemblies), GSA (www.gsa.gov), SE (www.salaryexpert.com), A (Allowance), V (Vendor Quote), CW09 (Means CostWorks 2009), P (Previous Work), and FRTR (www.frtr.gov)
Cost Adjustment Checklist:
FACTOR:
H&S Productivity (labor and equipment only)
Escalation to Base Year
Area Cost Factor
Subcontractor Overhead and Profit
Prime Contractor Overhead and Profit
QTY
EQUIP
MATL
HPF
ADJ LABOR
ADJ EQUIP
UNMOD UC
UNMOD LIC
NOTES: UNBURLIC
Field work will be in Level "C" PPE. PC OH
Mil assembly costs include HPF adjustments. PC PF
2009 cost sources are not escalated (EF=1.00). All other costs are escalated based on the USACE CWCCIS, EM 1110-2-1304, Mar 2009. BUR LIC
An AF of 1.13 is used for Oregon, except that an AF of 1.00 (national unmodified average) is used for Mil assembly costs and local vendor quotes.
It is assumed that Subcontractor O&P is either included in the PC O&P or has been factored into vendor quotes or previous work.
It is assumed that home office OH is 8% and profit is 9% for the Prime Contractor. Professional labor overhead is 100%. Allowances and items with mandated costs such as per diem do not have overhead and profit applied.
Quantity
Equipment
Material
HTRW Productivity Factor
Adjusted LaborforHFP
Adjusted Equipment for H FP
Unmodified Unit Cost
Unmodified Line Item Cost
Unburdened Line Item Cost
Prime Contractor Overhead
Prime Contractor Profit
Burdened Line Item Cost
ACR
BCY
CLF
DY
EA
LF
HR
LB
LCY
LS
RL
SY
TN
Acres
Bank Cubic Yard
100 Linear Foot
Days
Each
Linear Foot
Hours
Pounds
Loose Cubic Yard
Lump Sum
Roll
Square Yard
Tons
3/24/20102:21 PM
FINAL
-------
TABLE CW3-10
Alternative 3 Cost Worksheet: CW3-10
Capital Cost Sub-Element
Mobilization/Demobilization
COST WORKSHEET
Site: North Ridge Estates
Prepared By: AS
Date: 3/16/2010
Location: Klamath County, Oregon
Phase: Final Feasibility Study
Checked By: GH
Date: 3/24/2010
Base Year: 2010
Work Statement:
This sub-element involves mobilization and demobilization of all the required equipment to and from the site respectively.
Cost Analysis:
Cost for Mobilization/Demobilization (Lump Sum)
COST
DATABASE
conF
DESCRIPTION
QTY
UNIT(S)
HPF
LABOR
ADJ
LABOR
EQUIP
ADJ EQUIP
MATL
OTHER
UNMOD UC
UNMOD LIC
PC OH
PC PF
BUR LIC
COST SOURCE
CITATION
COMMENTS
A37A
Mobilization and Demobilization - Heavy Equipmen
8
EA
1.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$2,384.82
$2,384.82
$19,078.58
8%
9%
$22,459
Mil Mil Assemblies
A37B
Mobilization and Demobilization - Medium-Sizec
Equipment
6
EA
1.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$974.68
$974.68
$5,848.08
8%
9%
$6,884
Mil Mil Assemblies
A37C
Mobilization and Demobilization - Small Equipment
5
EA
1.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$605.12
$605.12
$3,025.61
8%
9%
$3,562
Mil Mil Assemblies
A37D
Mobilization and Demobilization - Selt-Propellec
Equipment
8
EA
1.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$2,469.12
$2,469.12
$19,752.93
8%
9%
$23,253
Mil Mil Assemblies
TOTAL UNIT COST:
$56,158
Abbreviations:
HTRW productivity factor is from Exhibit B-3 or B-4 of "A Guide to Developing and Documenting Cost Estimates During the Feasibility Study", EPA 2000
The Cost Database Code is a reference code for linking with line item cost information with the cost source database and is not otherwise used within these cost worksheets.
Source of Cost Data:
NA Not Applicable - costs are from previous work or vendor quote
For citation references, the following sources apply:
Mil (Mil Assemblies), GSA (www.gsa.gov), SE (www.salaryexpert.com), A (Allowance), V (Vendor Quote), CW09 (Means CostWorks 2009), P (Previous Work), and FRTR (www.frtr.gov)
Cost Adjustment Checklist:
FACTOR:
H&S Productivity (labor and equipment only)
Escalation to Base Year
Area Cost Factor
Subcontractor Overhead and Profit
Prime Contractor Overhead and Profit
QTY
EQUIP
MATL
HPF
ADJ LABOR
ADJ EQUIP
UNMOD UC
UNMOD LIC
NOTES: UNBURLIC
Field work will be in Level "C" PPE. PC OH
Mil assembly costs include HPF adjustments. PC PF
2009 cost sources are not escalated (EF=1.00). All other costs are escalated based on the USACE CWCCIS, EM 1110-2-1304, Mar 2009. BUR LIC
An AF of 1.13 is used for Oregon, except that an AF of 1.00 (national unmodified average) is used for Mil assembly costs and local vendor quotes.
It is assumed that Subcontractor O&P is either included in the PC O&P or has been factored into vendor quotes or previous work.
It is assumed that home office OH is 8% and profit is 9% for the Prime Contractor. Professional labor overhead is 100%. Allowances and items with mandated costs such as per diem do not have overhead and profit applied.
Quantity
Equipment
Material
HTRW Productivity Factor
Adjusted LaborforHFP
Adjusted Equipment for H FP
Unmodified Unit Cost
Unmodified Line Item Cost
Unburdened Line Item Cost
Prime Contractor Overhead
Prime Contractor Profit
Burdened Line Item Cost
ACR
BCY
CLF
DY
EA
LF
HR
LB
LCY
LS
RL
SY
TN
Acres
Bank Cubic Yard
100 Linear Foot
Days
Each
Linear Foot
Hours
Pounds
Loose Cubic Yard
Lump Sum
Roll
Square Yard
Tons
3/24/20102:21 PM
FINAL
-------
TABLE CW3-11
Alternative 3
Capital Cost Sub-Element
Surveying for Construction Control
Cost Worksheet: CW3-11
COST WORKSHEET
Site: North Ridge Estates
Location: Klamath County, Oregon
Phase: Final Feasibility Study
Base Year: 2010
Prepared By: AS Date: 3/16/2010
Checked By: GH Date: 3/24/2010
Work Statement:
This sub-element involves cost for site surveying before and after the remedial alternative is implemented.
Cost Analysis:
Cost for Surveying for Construction Control (Lump Sum)
COST
DATABASE
CODE
DESCRIPTION
UNIT(S)
ADJ
LABOR
COST SOURCE
CITATION
COMMENTS
Site Survey - Contaminated Area
Mil Mil Assemblies
Assume 4 acres/day
Site Survey - Clean Area
Mil Mil Assemblies
Assume 6 acres/day
Surveying Report Allowance
A Allowance
TOTAL UNIT COST:
Abbreviations:
HTRW productivity factor is from Exhibit B-3 or B-4 of "A Guide to Developing and Documenting Cost Estimates During the Feasibility Study", EPA 2000
The Cost Database Code is a reference code for linking with line item cost information with the cost source database and is not otherwise used within these cost worksheets.
Source of Cost Data:
NA Not Applicable - costs are from previous work or vendor quote
For citation references, the following sources apply:
Mil (Mil Assemblies), GSA (www.gsa.gov), SE (www.salaryexpert.com), A (Allowance), V (Vendor Quote), CW09 (Means CostWorks 2009), P (Previous Work), and FRTR (www.frtr.gov)
Cost Adjustment Checklist:
FACTOR:
H&S Productivity (labor and equipment only)
Escalation to Base Year
Area Cost Factor
Subcontractor Overhead and Profit
Prime Contractor Overhead and Profit
QTY
EQUIP
MATL
HPF
ADJ LABOR
ADJ EQUIP
UNMOD UC
UNMOD LIC
NOTES: UNBURLIC
Field work will be in Level "C" PPE. PC OH
Mil assembly costs include HPF adjustments. PC PF
2009 cost sources are not escalated (EF=1.00). All other costs are escalated based on the USACE CWCCIS, EM 1110-2-1304, Mar 2009. BUR LIC
An AF of 1.13 is used for Oregon, except that an AF of 1.00 (national unmodified average) is used for Mil assembly costs and local vendor quotes.
It is assumed that Subcontractor O&P is either included in the PC O&P or has been factored into vendor quotes or previous work.
It is assumed that home office OH is 8% and profit is 9% for the Prime Contractor. Professional labor overhead is 100%. Allowances and items with mandated costs such as per diem do not have overhead and profit applied.
Quantity
Equipment
Material
HTRW Productivity Factor
Adjusted LaborforHFP
Adjusted Equipment for H FP
Unmodified Unit Cost
Unmodified Line Item Cost
Unburdened Line Item Cost
Prime Contractor Overhead
Prime Contractor Profit
Burdened Line Item Cost
ACR
BCY
CLF
DY
EA
LF
HR
LB
LCY
LS
RL
SY
TN
Acres
Bank Cubic Yard
100 Linear Foot
Days
Each
Linear Foot
Hours
Pounds
Loose Cubic Yard
Lump Sum
Roll
Square Yard
Tons
3/24/20102:21 PM
FINAL
-------
TABLE CW3-12
Alternative 3
Capital Cost Sub-Element
Equipment Decontamination
Cost Worksheet: CW3-12
COST WORKSHEET
Site: North Ridge Estates
Location: Klamath County, Oregon
Phase: Final Feasibility Study
Base Year: 2010
Prepared By: AS Date: 3/16/2010
Checked By: GH Date: 3/24/2010
Work Statement:
This sub-element involves decontamination of equipment used onsite.
Cost Analysis:
Cost for Equipment Decontamination (Lump Sum)
COST
DATABASE
CODE
DESCRIPTION
UNIT(S)
ADJ
LABOR
COST SOURCE
CITATION
COMMENTS
Equipment Decon/Washing
Equipment Decon/Washing
Mil Mil Assemblies Assume 10 months
PolyTank, 5,300 Gal
V Vendor Quote
TOTAL UNIT COST:
Abbreviations:
HTRW productivity factor is from Exhibit B-3 or B-4 of "A Guide to Developing and Documenting Cost Estimates During the Feasibility Study", EPA 2000
The Cost Database Code is a reference code for linking with line item cost information with the cost source database and is not otherwise used within these cost worksheets.
Source of Cost Data:
NA Not Applicable - costs are from previous work or vendor quote
For citation references, the following sources apply:
Mil (Mil Assemblies), GSA (www.gsa.gov), SE (www.salaryexpert.com), A (Allowance), V (Vendor Quote), CW09 (Means CostWorks 2009), P (Previous Work), and FRTR (www.frtr.gov)
Cost Adjustment Checklist:
FACTOR:
H&S Productivity (labor and equipment only)
Escalation to Base Year
Area Cost Factor
Subcontractor Overhead and Profit
Prime Contractor Overhead and Profit
QTY
EQUIP
MATL
HPF
ADJ LABOR
ADJ EQUIP
UNMOD UC
UNMOD LIC
NOTES: UNBURLIC
Field work will be in Level "C" PPE. PC OH
Mil assembly costs include HPF adjustments. PC PF
2009 cost sources are not escalated (EF=1.00). All other costs are escalated based on the USACE CWCCIS, EM 1110-2-1304, Mar 2009. BUR LIC
An AF of 1.13 is used for Oregon, except that an AF of 1.00 (national unmodified average) is used for Mil assembly costs and local vendor quotes.
It is assumed that Subcontractor O&P is either included in the PC O&P or has been factored into vendor quotes or previous work.
It is assumed that home office OH is 8% and profit is 9% for the Prime Contractor. Professional labor overhead is 100%. Allowances and items with mandated costs such as per diem do not have overhead and profit applied.
Quantity
Equipment
Material
HTRW Productivity Factor
Adjusted LaborforHFP
Adjusted Equipment for H FP
Unmodified Unit Cost
Unmodified Line Item Cost
Unburdened Line Item Cost
Prime Contractor Overhead
Prime Contractor Profit
Burdened Line Item Cost
ACR
BCY
CLF
DY
EA
LF
HR
LB
LCY
LS
RL
SY
TN
Acres
Bank Cubic Yard
100 Linear Foot
Days
Each
Linear Foot
Hours
Pounds
Loose Cubic Yard
Lump Sum
Roll
Square Yard
Tons
3/24/20102:21 PM
FINAL
-------
TABLE CW3-13
Alternative 3
Capital Cost Sub-Element
Site Maintenance and Control During Construction
Cost Worksheet: CW3-13
COST WORKSHEET
Site: North Ridge Estates
Location: Klamath County, Oregon
Phase: Final Feasibility Study
Base Year: 2010
Prepared By: AS Date: 3/16/2010
Checked By: GH Date: 3/24/2010
Work Statement:
This sub-element involves site maintenance during construction. The annual costs for site maintenance during construction include labor, material, and equipment.
Cost Analysis:
Cost for Site Maintenance and Control During Construction (Lump Sum)
COST
DATABASE
conF
DESCRIPTION
QTY
UNIT(S)
HPF
LABOR
ADJ
LABOR
EQUIP
ADJ EQUIP
MATL
OTHER
UNMOD UC
UNMOD LIC
PC OH
PC PF
BUR LIC
COST SOURCE
CITATION
COMMENTS
Dust Control
A1A
Dust Control/Washing
258
DY
1.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$564.97
$564.97
$145,763.24
8%
9%
$171,592
Mil Mil Assemblies
Equipment Fueling
A2A
Equipment Fueling
258
DY
1.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$68.46
$68.46
$17,662.11
8%
9%
$20,792
Mil Mil Assemblies
Construction Safety and Traffic Control
A33A
Barricade and Traffic Control Setup
2
DY
1.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$987.96
$987.96
$1,975.92
8%
9%
$2,326
Mil Mil Assemblies
M36
3" x 1,000' Yellow Caution Tape
10
RL
1.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$10.61
$0.00
$10.61
$106.10
8%
9%
$125
V Vendor Quote
M37
3" x 1,000' Red Danger Asbestos Haz Tape
10
RL
1.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$10.61
$0.00
$10.61
$106.10
8%
9%
$125
V Vendor Quote
M38
Reflecting Barricade with Light
15
EA
1.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$72.55
$0.00
$72.55
$1,088.25
8%
9%
$1,281
V Vendor Quote
M39
Orange Safety Fence with Posts
20
CLF
1.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$53.52
$0.00
$53.52
$1,070.40
8%
9%
$1,260
V Vendor Quote
TOTAL UNIT COST:
$197,501
Notes:
HTRW productivity factor is from Exhibit B-3 or B-4 of "A Guide to Developing and Documenting Cost Estimates During the Feasibility Study", EPA 2000
The Cost Database Code is a reference code for linking with line item cost information with the cost source database and is not otherwise used within these cost worksheets.
Source of Cost Data:
Not Applicable - costs are from previous work or vendor quote
For citation references, the following sources apply:
Mil (Mil Assemblies), GSA (www.gsa.gov), SE (www.salaryexpert.com), A (Allowance), V (Vendor Quote), CW09 (Means CostWorks 2009), P (Previous Work), and FRTR (www.frtr.gov)
Cost Adjustment Checklist:
FACTOR:
H&S Productivity (labor and equipment only)
Escalation to Base Year
Area Cost Factor
Subcontractor Overhead and Profit
Prime Contractor Overhead and Profit
NOTES:
Field work will be in Level "C" PPE.
Mil assembly costs include HPF adjustments.
2009 cost sources are not escalated (EF=1.00). All other costs are escalated based on the USACE CWCCIS, EM 1110-2-1304, Mar 2009.
An AF of 1.13 is used for Oregon, except that an AF of 1.00 (national unmodified average) is used for Mil assembly costs and local vendor
It is assumed that Subcontractor O&P is either included in the PC O&P or has been factored into vendor quotes or previous work.
It is assumed that home office OH is 8% and profit is 9% for the Prime Contractor. Professional labor overhead is 100%. Allowances and items with mandated costs such as per diem do not have overhead and profit applied.
Abbreviations:
QTY
Quantity
ACR
Acres
EQUIP
Equipment
BCY
Bank Cubic Yard
MATL
Material
CLF
100 Linear Foot
HPF
HTRW Productivity Factor
DY
Days
ADJ LABOR
Adjusted LaborforHFP
EA
Each
ADJ EQUIP
Adjusted Equipment for H FP
LF
Linear Foot
UNMOD UC
Unmodified Unit Cost
HR
Hours
UNMOD LIC
Unmodified Line Item Cost
LB
Pounds
UNBUR LIC
Unburdened Line Item Cost
LCY
Loose Cubic Yard
PC OH
Prime Contractor Overhead
LS
Lump Sum
PC PF
Prime Contractor Profit
RL
Roll
BUR LIC
Burdened Line Item Cost
SY
Square Yard
quotes.
TN
Tons
3/24/20102:21 PM
FINAL
-------
TABLE CW3-14
Alternative 3
Capital Cost Sub-Element
Temporary Site Facilitites During Construction
Cost Worksheet: CW3-14
COST WORKSHEET
Site: North Ridge Estates
Location: Klamath County, Oregon
Phase: Final Feasibility Study
Base Year: 2010
Prepared By: AS Date: 3/16/2010
Checked By: GH Date: 3/24/2010
Work Statement:
This sub-element involves rental cost for onsite office trailer, storage box, portable toilets, and utilities.
Cost Analysis:
Cost for Temporary Site Facilitites During Construction (Lump Sum)
COST
DATABASE
CODE
DESCRIPTION
UNIT(S)
ADJ
LABOR
COST SOURCE
CITATION
COMMENTS
Site Trailer/Office
Site Office Trailer Installation - One Time Cost
V Vendor Quote
Trailer Rental and Storage Box
V Vendor Quote
Office Furniture
V Vendor Quote
Portable Toilets
V Vendor Quote
General Office Supplies Allowance
A Allowance
Erosion Control Measures Allowance
A Allowance
Utilities (Phone, Internet, Electricity)
V Vendor Quote
TOTAL UNIT COST:
Abbreviations:
HTRW productivity factor is from Exhibit B-3 or B-4 of "A Guide to Developing and Documenting Cost Estimates During the Feasibility Study", EPA 2000
The Cost Database Code is a reference code for linking with line item cost information with the cost source database and is not otherwise used within these cost worksheets.
Source of Cost Data:
NA Not Applicable - costs are from previous work or vendor quote
For citation references, the following sources apply:
Mil (Mil Assemblies), GSA (www.gsa.gov), SE (www.salaryexpert.com), A (Allowance), V (Vendor Quote), CW09 (Means CostWorks 2009), P (Previous Work), and FRTR (www.frtr.gov)
Cost Adjustment Checklist:
FACTOR:
H&S Productivity (labor and equipment only)
Escalation to Base Year
Area Cost Factor
Subcontractor Overhead and Profit
Prime Contractor Overhead and Profit
QTY
EQUIP
MATL
HPF
ADJ LABOR
ADJ EQUIP
UNMOD UC
UNMOD LIC
NOTES: UNBURLIC
Field work will be in Level "C" PPE. PC OH
Mil assembly costs include HPF adjustments. PC PF
2009 cost sources are not escalated (EF=1.00). All other costs are escalated based on the USACE CWCCIS, EM 1110-2-1304, Mar 2009. BUR LIC
An AF of 1.13 is used for Oregon, except that an AF of 1.00 (national unmodified average) is used for Mil assembly costs and local vendor quotes.
It is assumed that Subcontractor O&P is either included in the PC O&P or has been factored into vendor quotes or previous work.
It is assumed that home office OH is 8% and profit is 9% for the Prime Contractor. Professional labor overhead is 100%. Allowances and items with mandated costs such as per diem do not have overhead and profit applied.
Quantity
Equipment
Material
HTRW Productivity Factor
Adjusted LaborforHFP
Adjusted Equipment for H FP
Unmodified Unit Cost
Unmodified Line Item Cost
Unburdened Line Item Cost
Prime Contractor Overhead
Prime Contractor Profit
Burdened Line Item Cost
ACR
BCY
CLF
DY
EA
LF
HR
LB
LCY
LS
RL
SY
TN
Acres
Bank Cubic Yard
100 Linear Foot
Days
Each
Linear Foot
Hours
Pounds
Loose Cubic Yard
Lump Sum
Roll
Square Yard
Tons
3/24/20102:21 PM
FINAL
-------
TABLE CW3-15
Alternative 3
Capital Cost Sub-Element
House Demolition and Disposal
Cost Worksheet: CW3-15
COST WORKSHEET
Site: North Ridge Estates
Location: Klamath County, Oregon
Phase: Final Feasibility Study
Base Year: 2010
Prepared By: AS Date: 3/16/2010
Checked By: GH Date: 3/24/2010
Work Statement:
This sub-element involves demolition of houses located on receiver managed parcels. It includes costs for labor, equipment, materials, hauling and disposal charges.
Cost Analysis:
Cost for House Demolition and Disposal (Lump Sum)
COST
DATABASE
CODE
DESCRIPTION
UNIT(S)
ADJ
LABOR
COST SOURCE
CITATION
COMMENTS
SE SalaryExpert.con
Onsite House Demolition
Mil Mil Assemblies
5 hrs perhouse, 18 houses
Hauling - Debris Offsite
Mil Mil Assemblies
Includes 5 trucks
Disposal Facility Charges
V Vendor Quote
TOTAL UNIT COST:
Abbreviations:
HTRW productivity factor is from Exhibit B-3 or B-4 of "A Guide to Developing and Documenting Cost Estimates During the Feasibility Study", EPA 2000
The Cost Database Code is a reference code for linking with line item cost information with the cost source database and is not otherwise used within these cost worksheets.
Source of Cost Data:
NA Not Applicable - costs are from previous work or vendor quote
For citation references, the following sources apply:
Mil (Mil Assemblies), GSA (www.gsa.gov), SE (www.salaryexpert.com), A (Allowance), V (Vendor Quote), CW09 (Means CostWorks 2009), P (Previous Work), and FRTR (www.frtr.gov)
Cost Adjustment Checklist:
FACTOR:
H&S Productivity (labor and equipment only)
Escalation to Base Year
Area Cost Factor
Subcontractor Overhead and Profit
Prime Contractor Overhead and Profit
QTY
EQUIP
MATL
HPF
ADJ LABOR
ADJ EQUIP
UNMOD UC
UNMOD LIC
NOTES: UNBURLIC
Field work will be in Level "C" PPE. PC OH
Mil assembly costs include HPF adjustments. PC PF
2009 cost sources are not escalated (EF=1.00). All other costs are escalated based on the USACE CWCCIS, EM 1110-2-1304, Mar 2009. BUR LIC
An AF of 1.13 is used for Oregon, except that an AF of 1.00 (national unmodified average) is used for Mil assembly costs and local vendor quotes.
It is assumed that Subcontractor O&P is either included in the PC O&P or has been factored into vendor quotes or previous work.
It is assumed that home office OH is 8% and profit is 9% for the Prime Contractor. Professional labor overhead is 100%. Allowances and items with mandated costs such as per diem do not have overhead and profit applied.
Quantity
Equipment
Material
HTRW Productivity Factor
Adjusted LaborforHFP
Adjusted Equipment for H FP
Unmodified Unit Cost
Unmodified Line Item Cost
Unburdened Line Item Cost
Prime Contractor Overhead
Prime Contractor Profit
Burdened Line Item Cost
ACR
BCY
CLF
DY
EA
LF
HR
LB
LCY
LS
RL
SY
TN
Acres
Bank Cubic Yard
100 Linear Foot
Days
Each
Linear Foot
Hours
Pounds
Loose Cubic Yard
Lump Sum
Roll
Square Yard
Tons
3/24/20102:21 PM
FINAL
-------
TABLE CW3-16
Alternative 3
Capital Cost Sub-Element
Interior Cleaning of Houses
Cost Worksheet: CW3-16
COST WORKSHEET
Site: North Ridge Estates
Location: Klamath County, Oregon
Phase: Final Feasibility Study
Base Year: 2010
Prepared By: AS Date: 3/16/2010
Checked By: GH Date: 3/24/2010
Work Statement:
This sub-element involves interior cleaning of houses (privately owned) located within the site boundary. It also includes temporary relocation cost for residents (assume two residents per house) during cleaning. Average time for interior cleaning is assumed to be 5 days (3 days for cleaning + 1 day for set-up + 1 day for restoration).
It includes costs for labor, equipment, and materials.
Cost Analysis:
Cost for Interior Cleaning of Houses (Lump Sum)
COST
DATABASE
CODE
DESCRIPTION
UNIT(S)
ADJ
LABOR
COST SOURCE
CITATION
COMMENTS
Interior Cleaning
P Previous Work
Per Diem for Resident Temporary Relocation-
Lodging
GSAwww.gsa.gov
GSAwww.gsa.gov
TOTAL UNIT COST:
Notes:
HTRW productivity factor is from Exhibit B-3 or B-4 of "A Guide to Developing and Documenting Cost Estimates During the Feasibility Study", EPA 2000
The Cost Database Code is a reference code for linking with line item cost information with the cost source database and is not otherwise used within these cost worksheets.
Source of Cost Data:
Not Applicable - costs are from previous work or vendor quote
For citation references, the following sources apply:
Mil (Mil Assemblies), GSA (www.gsa.gov), SE (www.salaryexpert.com), A (Allowance), V (Vendor Quote), CW09 (Means CostWorks 2009), P (Previous Work), and FRTR (www.frtr.gov)
Cost Adjustment Checklist:
FACTOR:
H&S Productivity (labor and equipment only)
Escalation to Base Year
Area Cost Factor
Subcontractor Overhead and Profit
Prime Contractor Overhead and Profit
NOTES:
Field work will be in Level "C" PPE.
Mil assembly costs include HPF adjustments.
2009 cost sources are not escalated (EF=1.00). All other costs are escalated based on the USACE CWCCIS, EM 1110-2-1304, Mar 2009.
An AF of 1.13 is used for Oregon, except that an AF of 1.00 (national unmodified average) is used for Mil assembly costs and local vendor
It is assumed that Subcontractor O&P is either included in the PC O&P or has been factored into vendor quotes or previous work.
It is assumed that home office OH is 8% and profit is 9% for the Prime Contractor. Professional labor overhead is 100%. Allowances and items with mandated costs such as per diem do not have overhead and profit applied.
Abbreviations:
QTY
Quantity
ACR
Acres
EQUIP
Equipment
BCY
Bank Cubic Yard
MATL
Material
CLF
100 Linear Foot
HPF
HTRW Productivity Factor
DY
Days
ADJ LABOR
Adjusted LaborforHFP
EA
Each
ADJ EQUIP
Adjusted Equipment for H FP
LF
Linear Foot
UNMOD UC
Unmodified Unit Cost
HR
Hours
UNMOD LIC
Unmodified Line Item Cost
LB
Pounds
UNBUR LIC
Unburdened Line Item Cost
LCY
Loose Cubic Yard
PC OH
Prime Contractor Overhead
LS
Lump Sum
PC PF
Prime Contractor Profit
RL
Roll
BUR LIC
Burdened Line Item Cost
SY
Square Yard
quotes.
TN
Tons
3/24/20102:21 PM
FINAL
-------
Cost Worksheets
Alternative 4
-------
TABLE CW4-1
Alternative 4
Capital Cost Sub-Element
Institutional Controls
Cost Worksheet: CW4-1
COST WORKSHEET
Site: North Ridge Estates
Location: Klamath County, Oregon
Phase: Final Feasibility Study
Base Year: 2010
Prepared By: AS Date: 3/16/2010
Checked By: GH Date: 3/24/2010
Work Statement:
This sub-element involves implementation of institutional control for the site. The following cost includes hours for and document legal procedures to establish and cost for document submission and recording. The cost also includes site survey to establish parcel/site boundaries.
Cost Analysis:
Cost for Institutional Controls (Lump Sum)
COST
DATABASE
conF
DESCRIPTION
QTY
UNIT(S)
HPF
LABOR
ADJ
LABOR
EQUIP
ADJ EQUIP
MATL
OTHER
UNMOD UC
UNMOD LIC
PC OH
PC PF
BUR LIC
COST SOURCE
CITATION
COMMENTS
Institutional Controls tor Private Ownership
Parcels (27)
L6
Environmental Lawyer
648
HR
1.00
$71.06
$71.06
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$71.06
$46,046.88
100%
9%
$100,382
SE SalaryExpert.con
24 hrs per parcel
L15
Paralegal
864
HR
1.00
$37.29
$37.29
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$37.29
$32,218.56
100%
9%
$70,236
SE SalaryExpert.con
32 hrs per parcel
L3
Clerks, Typist, Bookkeeper & Receptionist
270
HR
1.00
$19.05
$19.05
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$19.05
$5,143.50
100%
9%
$11,213
SE SalaryExpert.con
10 hrs per parcel
M11A
Document Submission and Recording Allowance
27
LS
1.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$5,000.00
$5,000.00
$135,000.00
0%
0%
$135,000
A Allowance
Institutional Controls tor Receivership Parcels
(29)
L6
Environmental Lawyer
464
HR
1.00
$71.06
$71.06
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$71.06
$32,971.84
100%
9%
$71,879
SE SalaryExpert.con
16 hrs per parcel
L15
Paralegal
696
HR
1.00
$37.29
$37.29
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$37.29
$25,953.84
100%
9%
$56,579
SE SalaryExpert.con
24 hrs per parcel
L3
Clerks, Typist, Bookkeeper & Receptionist
290
HR
1.00
$19.05
$19.05
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$19.05
$5,524.50
100%
9%
$12,043
SE SalaryExpert.con
10 hrs per parcel
M11A
Document Submission and Recording Allowance
29
LS
1.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$5,000.00
$5,000.00
$145,000.00
0%
0%
$145,000
A Allowance
A38A
Site Survey - Clean Area
10
DY
1.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$464.52
$464.52
$4,645.19
8%
9%
$5,468
Mil Mil Assemblies
needed
M12
Surveying Report Allowance
1
LS
1.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$15,000.00
$15,000.00
$15,000.00
0%
0%
$15,000
A Allowance
TOTAL UNIT COST:
$622,800
Notes: Abbreviations:
HTRW productivity factor is from Exhibit B-3 or B-4 of "A Guide to Developing and Documenting Cost Estimates During the Feasibility Study", EPA 2000 QTY
Quantity
ACR
Acres
The Cost Database Code is a reference code for linking with line item cost information with the cost source database and is not otherwise used within these cost worksheets. EQUIP
Equipment
BCY
Bank Cubic Yard
MATL
Material
CLF
100 Linear Foot
Source of Cost Data: HPF
HTRW Productivity Factor
DY
Days
NA Not Applicable - costs are from previous work or vendor quote ADJ LABOR
Adjusted LaborforHFP
EA
Each
For citation references, the following sources apply: ADJ EQU IP
Adjusted Equipment for H FP
LF
Linear Foot
Mil (Mil Assemblies), GSA (www.gsa.gov), SE (www.salaryexpert.com), A (Allowance), V (Vendor Quote), CW09 (Means CostWorks 2009), P (Previous Work), and FRTR (www.frtr.gov) UNMOD UC
Unmodified Unit Cost
HR
Hours
UNMOD LIC
Unmodified Line Item Cost
LB
Pounds
Cost Adjustment Checklist: NOTES: UNRURIIC
Unburdened Line Item Cost
LCY
Loose Cubic Yard
FACTOR: Field work will be in Level "C" PPE. PC OH
Prime Contractor Overhead
LS
Lump Sum
H&S Productivity (labor and equipment only) Mil assembly costs include HPF adjustments. PC PF
Prime Contractor Profit
RL
Roll
Escalation to Base Year 2009 cost sources are not escalated (EF=1.00). All other costs are escalated based on the USACE CWCCIS, EM 1110-2-1304, Mar 2009. BUR LIC
Burdened Line Item Cost
SY
Square Yard
Area Cost Factor An AF of 1.13 is used for Oregon, except that an AF of 1.00 (national unmodified average) is used for Mil assembly costs and local vendor quotes.
TN
Tons
Subcontractor Overhead and Profit It is assumed that Subcontractor O&P is either included in the PC O&P or has been factored into vendor quotes or previous work.
Prime Contractor Overhead and Profit It is assumed that home office OH is 8% and profit is 9% for the Prime Contractor. Professional labor overhead is 100%. Allowances and items with mandated costs such as per diem do not have overhead and profit applied.
3/24/20102:25 PM
FINAL
-------
TABLE CW4-2
Alternative 4
Capital Cost Sub-Element
Access Controls
Cost Worksheet: CW4-2
COST WORKSHEET
Site: North Ridge Estates
Location: Klamath County, Oregon
Phase: Final Feasibility Study
Base Year: 2010
Prepared By: AS Date: 3/16/2010
Checked By: GH Date: 3/24/2010
Work Statement:
This sub-element involves the cost associated with access controls on the site. Access controls include installation of sign posts along the perimeter of the disturbed area, the onsite repositories, and signage along steam pipe on the east side of Old Fort Road.
Cost Analysis:
Cost for Access Controls (Lump Sum)
COST
DATABASE
conF
DESCRIPTION
QTY
UNIT(S)
HPF
LABOR
ADJ
LABOR
EQUIP
ADJ EQUIP
MATL
OTHER
UNMOD UC
UNMOD LIC
PC OH
PC PF
BUR LIC
COST SOURCE
CITATION
COMMENTS
A31C
Signage Installation - Clean Area
1
DY
1.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$1,585.31
$1,585.31
$1,585.31
8%
9%
$1,866
Mil Mil Assemblies
M4A
T-Post, 7' High Steel Post
25
EA
1.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$5.86
$0.00
$5.86
$146.50
8%
9%
$172
V Vendor Quote
M9
Signs
25
EA
1.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$99.09
$0.00
$99.09
$2,477.25
8%
9%
$2,916
V Vendor Quote
Assume every 300 FT
TOTAL UNIT COST:
$4,954
Notes: Abbreviations:
HTRW productivity factor is from Exhibit B-3 or B-4 of "A Guide to Developing and Documenting Cost Estimates During the Feasibility Study", EPA 2000 QTY
Quantity
ACR
Acres
The Cost Database Code is a reference code for linking with line item cost information with the cost source database and is not otherwise used within these cost worksheets. EQUIP
Equipment
BCY
Bank Cubic Yard
MATL
Material
CLF
100 Linear Foot
Source of Cost Data: HPF
HTRW Productivity Factor
DY
Days
NA Not Applicable - costs are from previous work or vendor quote ADJ LABOR
Adjusted LaborforHFP
EA
Each
For citation references, the following sources apply: ADJ EQU IP
Adjusted Equipment for H FP
LF
Linear Foot
Mil (Mil Assemblies), GSA (www.gsa.gov), SE (www.salaryexpert.com), A (Allowance), V (Vendor Quote), CW09 (Means CostWorks 2009), P (Previous Work), and FRTR (www.frtr.gov) UNMOD UC
Unmodified Unit Cost
HR
Hours
UNMOD LIC
Unmodified Line Item Cost
LB
Pounds
Cost Adjustment Checklist: NOTES: UNRURIIC
Unburdened Line Item Cost
LCY
Loose Cubic Yard
FACTOR: Field work will be in Level "C" PPE. PC OH
Prime Contractor Overhead
LS
Lump Sum
H&S Productivity (labor and equipment only) Mil assembly costs include HPF adjustments. PC PF
Prime Contractor Profit
RL
Roll
Escalation to Base Year 2009 cost sources are not escalated (EF=1.00). All other costs are escalated based on the USACE CWCCIS, EM 1110-2-1304, Mar 2009. BUR LIC
Burdened Line Item Cost
SY
Square Yard
Area Cost Factor An AF of 1.13 is used for Oregon, except that an AF of 1.00 (national unmodified average) is used for Mil assembly costs and local vendor quotes.
TN
Tons
Subcontractor Overhead and Profit It is assumed that Subcontractor O&P is either included in the PC O&P or has been factored into vendor quotes or previous work.
Prime Contractor Overhead and Profit It is assumed that home office OH is 8% and profit is 9% for the Prime Contractor. Professional labor overhead is 100%. Allowances and items with mandated costs such as per diem do not have overhead and profit applied.
3/24/20102:25 PM
FINAL
-------
TABLE CW4-3A
Alternative 4
Capital Cost Sub-Element
5-Year Site Reviews
Cost Worksheet: CW4-3A
COST WORKSHEET
Site: North Ridge Estates
Location: Klamath County, Oregon
Phase: Final Feasibility Study
Base Year: 2010
Prepared By: AS Date: 3/16/2010
Checked By: GH Date: 3/24/2010
Work Statement:
This sub-element involves the 5-year site visits and 5-year site review report. The following cost includes labor, material and shipping costs for site visits and 5-year site review reports.
Cost Analysis:
Cost for 5-Year Site Review (Lump Sum)
COST
DATABASE
conF
DESCRIPTION
QTY
UNIT(S)
HPF
LABOR
ADJ
LABOR
EQUIP
ADJ EQUIP
MATL
OTHER
UNMOD UC
UNMOD LIC
PC OH
PC PF
BUR LIC
COST SOURCE
CITATION
COMMENTS
A6B
Visual Inspection - 2 Person Crew
5
DY
1.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$640.91
$640.91
$3,204.53
8%
9%
$3,772
Mil Mil Assemblies
1 hour per parcel per site visit, 45 parcels
M56
Per Diem for 2 People
5
DY
1.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$288.00
$288.00
$1,440.00
0%
0%
$1,440
GSAwww.gsa.gov
L13
Project Manager
40
HR
1.00
$46.53
$46.53
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$46.53
$1,861.20
100%
9%
$4,057
SE SalaryExpert.con
Hours for 5-year rev
ew report
L5
Environmental Engineer
80
HR
1.00
$31.39
$31.39
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$31.39
$2,511.20
100%
9%
$5,474
SE SalaryExpert.con
Hours for 5-year rev
ew report
11
Environmental Scientist
120
HR
1.00
$27.87
$27.87
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$27.87
$3,344.40
100%
9%
$7,291
SE SalaryExpert.con
Hours for 5-year rev
ew report
L14
Quality Control Engineer
16
HR
1.00
$46.04
$46.04
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$46.04
$736.64
100%
9%
$1,606
SE SalaryExpert.con
Hours for 5-year rev
ew report
L1
CAD Drafter
40
HR
1.00
$25.70
$25.70
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$25.70
$1,028.00
100%
9%
$2,241
SE SalaryExpert.con
Hours for 5-year rev
ew report
L3
Clerks, Typist, Bookkeeper & Receptionist
40
HR
1.00
$19.05
$19.05
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$19.05
$762.00
100%
9%
$1,661
SE SalaryExpert.con
Hours for 5-year rev
ew report
M10A
Copy and Shipping Allowance
1
LS
1.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$1,500.00
$1,500.00
$1,500.00
0%
0%
$1,500
A Allowance
TOTAL UNIT COST:
$29,042
Notes: Abbreviations:
HTRW productivity factor is from Exhibit B-3 or B-4 of "A Guide to Developing and Documenting Cost Estimates During the Feasibility Study", EPA 2000 QTY
Quantity
ACR
Acres
The Cost Database Code is a reference code for linking with line item cost information with the cost source database and is not otherwise used within these cost worksheets. EQUIP
Equipment
BCY
Bank Cubic Yard
MATL
Material
CLF
100 Linear Foot
Source of Cost Data: HPF
HTRW Productivity Factor
DY
Days
NA Not Applicable - costs are from previous work or vendor quote ADJ LABOR
Adjusted LaborforHFP
EA
Each
For citation references, the following sources apply: ADJ EQU IP
Adjusted Equipment for H FP
LF
Linear Foot
Mil (Mil Assemblies), GSA (www.gsa.gov), SE (www.salaryexpert.com), A (Allowance), V (Vendor Quote), CW09 (Means CostWorks 2009), P (Previous Work), and FRTR (www.frtr.gov) UNMOD UC
Unmodified Unit Cost
HR
Hours
UNMOD LIC
Unmodified Line Item Cost
LB
Pounds
Cost Adjustment Checklist: NOTES: UNRURIIC
Unburdened Line Item Cost
LCY
Loose Cubic Yard
FACTOR: Field work will be in Level "C" PPE. PC OH
Prime Contractor Overhead
LS
Lump Sum
H&S Productivity (labor and equipment only) Mil assembly costs include HPF adjustments. PC PF
Prime Contractor Profit
RL
Roll
Escalation to Base Year 2009 cost sources are not escalated (EF=1.00). All other costs are escalated based on the USACE CWCCIS, EM 1110-2-1304, Mar 2009. BUR LIC
Burdened Line Item Cost
SY
Square Yard
Area Cost Factor An AF of 1.13 is used for Oregon, except that an AF of 1.00 (national unmodified average) is used for Mil assembly costs and local vendor quotes.
TN
Tons
Subcontractor Overhead and Profit It is assumed that Subcontractor O&P is either included in the PC O&P or has been factored into vendor quotes or previous work.
Prime Contractor Overhead and Profit It is assumed that home office OH is 8% and profit is 9% for the Prime Contractor. Professional labor overhead is 100%. Allowances and items with mandated costs such as per diem do not have overhead and profit applied.
3/24/20102:25 PM
FINAL
-------
TABLE CW4-3B
Alternative 4
Capital Cost Sub-Element
Non-Intrusive Visual Inspection
Cost Worksheet: CW4-3B
COST WORKSHEET
Site: North Ridge Estates
Location: Klamath County, Oregon
Phase: Final Feasibility Study
Base Year: 2010
Prepared By: AS Date: 3/16/2010
Checked By: GH Date: 3/24/2010
Work Statement:
This sub-element involves non-intrusive visual inspections (i.e. surface inspections) performed in support of 5-year site reviews would be made on all parcels within the site boundary regardless of ownership. The following includes the labor, material and equipment cost for inspection.
Cost Analysis:
Cost for Non-Intrusive Visual Inspection (Lump Sum)
COST
DATABASE
conF
DESCRIPTION
QTY
UNIT(S)
HPF
LABOR
ADJ
LABOR
EQUIP
ADJ EQUIP
MATL
OTHER
UNMOD UC
UNMOD LIC
PC OH
PC PF
BUR LIC
COST SOURCE
CITATION
COMMENTS
A6B
Visual Inspection - 2 Person Crew
5
DY
1.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$640.91
$640.91
$3,204.53
8%
9%
$3,772
Mil Mil Assemblies
M56
Per Diem for 2 People
5
DY
1.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$288.00
$288.00
$1,440.00
0%
0%
$1,440
GSAwww.gsa.gov
TOTAL UNIT COST:
$5,212
Notes: Abbreviations:
HTRW productivity factor is from Exhibit B-3 or B-4 of "A Guide to Developing and Documenting Cost Estimates During the Feasibility Study", EPA 2000 QTY
Quantity
ACR
Acres
The Cost Database Code is a reference code for linking with line item cost information with the cost source database and is not otherwise used within these cost worksheets. EQUIP
Equipment
BCY
Bank Cubic Yard
MATL
Material
CLF
100 Linear Foot
Source of Cost Data: HPF
HTRW Productivity Factor
DY
Days
NA Not Applicable - costs are from previous work or vendor quote ADJ LABOR
Adjusted LaborforHFP
EA
Each
For citation references, the following sources apply: ADJ EQU IP
Adjusted Equipment for H FP
LF
Linear Foot
Mil (Mil Assemblies), GSA (www.gsa.gov), SE (www.salaryexpert.com), A (Allowance), V (Vendor Quote), CW09 (Means CostWorks 2009), P (Previous Work), and FRTR (www.frtr.gov) UNMOD UC
Unmodified Unit Cost
HR
Hours
UNMOD LIC
Unmodified Line Item Cost
LB
Pounds
Cost Adjustment Checklist: NOTES: UNRURIIO
Unburdened Line Item Cost
LCY
Loose Cubic Yard
FACTOR: Field work will be in Level "C" PPE. PC OH
Prime Contractor Overhead
LS
Lump Sum
H&S Productivity (labor and equipment only) Mil assembly costs include HPF adjustments. PC PF
Prime Contractor Profit
RL
Roll
Escalation to Base Year 2009 cost sources are not escalated (EF=1.00). All other costs are escalated based on the USACE CWCCIS, EM 1110-2-1304, Mar 2009. BUR LIC
Burdened Line Item Cost
SY
Square Yard
Area Cost Factor An AF of 1.13 is used for Oregon, except that an AF of 1.00 (national unmodified average) is used for Mil assembly costs and local vendor quotes.
TN
Tons
Subcontractor Overhead and Profit It is assumed that Subcontractor O&P is either included in the PC O&P or has been factored into vendor quotes or previous work.
Prime Contractor Overhead and Profit It is assumed that home office OH is 8% and profit is 9% for the Prime Contractor. Professional labor overhead is 100%. Allowances and items with mandated costs such as per diem do not have overhead and profit applied.
3/24/20102:25 PM
FINAL
-------
TABLE CW4-4A
Alternative 4
Capital Cost Sub-Element
Cover and Access Controls O&M During Construction
Cost Worksheet: CW4-4A
COST WORKSHEET
Site: North Ridge Estates
Location: Klamath County, Oregon
Phase: Final Feasibility Study
Base Year: 2010
Prepared By: AS Date: 3/16/2010
Checked By: GH Date: 3/24/2010
Work Statement:
This sub-element involves the cover and access controls O&M pertaining to the covered/backfilled areas during construction. It includes costs for on-site labor, equipment, materials and allowances for maintaining the cover and signage.
Cost Analysis:
Cost for Cover and Access Controls O&M During Construction (Lump Sum)
COST
DATABASE
CODE
DESCRIPTION
Cover and Backfill Operations and Maintenance
Crew
UNIT(S)
ADJ
LABOR
COST SOURCE
CITATION
COMMENTS
Mil Mil Assemblies
1 day/month
Includes cost for cover maintenance, erosion repair, and
repair of fencing/signs.
O&M Allowance
A Allowance
TOTAL UNIT COST:
Abbreviations:
HTRW productivity factor is from Exhibit B-3 or B-4 of "A Guide to Developing and Documenting Cost Estimates During the Feasibility Study", EPA 2000
The Cost Database Code is a reference code for linking with line item cost information with the cost source database and is not otherwise used within these cost worksheets.
Source of Cost Data:
NA Not Applicable - costs are from previous work or vendor quote
For citation references, the following sources apply:
Mil (Mil Assemblies), GSA (www.gsa.gov), SE (www.salaryexpert.com), A (Allowance), V (Vendor Quote), CW09 (Means CostWorks 2009), P (Previous Work), and FRTR (www.frtr.gov)
Cost Adjustment Checklist:
FACTOR:
H&S Productivity (labor and equipment only)
Escalation to Base Year
Area Cost Factor
Subcontractor Overhead and Profit
Prime Contractor Overhead and Profit
QTY
EQUIP
MATL
HPF
ADJ LABOR
ADJ EQUIP
UNMOD UC
UNMOD LIC
NOTES: UNBURLIC
Field work will be in Level "C" PPE. PC OH
Mil assembly costs include HPF adjustments. PC PF
2009 cost sources are not escalated (EF=1.00). All other costs are escalated based on the USACE CWCCIS, EM 1110-2-1304, Mar 2009. BUR LIC
An AF of 1.13 is used for Oregon, except that an AF of 1.00 (national unmodified average) is used for Mil assembly costs and local vendor quotes.
It is assumed that Subcontractor O&P is either included in the PC O&P or has been factored into vendor quotes or previous work.
It is assumed that home office OH is 8% and profit is 9% for the Prime Contractor. Professional labor overhead is 100%. Allowances and items with mandated costs such as per diem do not have overhead and profit applied.
Quantity
Equipment
Material
HTRW Productivity Factor
Adjusted LaborforHFP
Adjusted Equipment for H FP
Unmodified Unit Cost
Unmodified Line Item Cost
Unburdened Line Item Cost
Prime Contractor Overhead
Prime Contractor Profit
Burdened Line Item Cost
ACR
BCY
CLF
DY
EA
LF
HR
LB
LCY
LS
RL
SY
TN
Acres
Bank Cubic Yard
100 Linear Foot
Days
Each
Linear Foot
Hours
Pounds
Loose Cubic Yard
Lump Sum
Roll
Square Yard
Tons
3/24/20102:25 PM
FINAL
-------
TABLE CW4-4B
Alternative 4
Capital Cost Sub-Element
Cover and Access Controls O&M
Cost Worksheet: CW4-4B
COST WORKSHEET
Site: North Ridge Estates
Location: Klamath County, Oregon
Phase: Final Feasibility Study
Base Year: 2010
Prepared By: AS Date: 3/16/2010
Checked By: GH Date: 3/24/2010
Work Statement:
This sub-element involves the cover and access controls O&M pertaining to the cover and signage at the site. It includes costs for on-site labor, equipment, materials and allowances for maintaining the cover and signage.
Cost Analysis:
Cost for Cover and Access Controls O&M (Lump Sum)
COST
DATABASE
conF
DESCRIPTION
QTY
UNIT(S)
HPF
LABOR
ADJ
LABOR
EQUIP
ADJ EQUIP
MATL
OTHER
UNMOD UC
UNMOD LIC
PC OH
PC PF
BUR LIC
COST SOURCE
CITATION
COMMENTS
A7A
Cover and Backfill Operations and Maintenance
Crew
12
DY
1.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$530.94
$530.94
$6,371.24
8%
9%
$7,500
Mil Mil Assemblies
M22B
O&M Allowance
88
ACR
1.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$100.00
$100.00
$8,800.00
0%
0%
$8,800
A Allowance
Includes cost tor cover maintenance, erosion repair, and
repair of fencing/signs.
TOTAL UNIT COST:
$16,300
Notes: Abbreviations:
HTRW productivity factor is from Exhibit B-3 or B-4 of "A Guide to Developing and Documenting Cost Estimates During the Feasibility Study", EPA 2000 QTY
Quantity
ACR
Acres
The Cost Database Code is a reference code for linking with line item cost information with the cost source database and is not otherwise used within these cost worksheets. EQUIP
Equipment
BCY
Bank Cubic Yard
MATL
Material
CLF
100 Linear Foot
Source of Cost Data: HPF
HTRW Productivity Factor
DY
Days
NA Not Applicable - costs are from previous work or vendor quote ADJ LABOR
Adjusted LaborforHFP
EA
Each
For citation references, the following sources apply: ADJ EQU IP
Adjusted Equipment for H FP
LF
Linear Foot
Mil (Mil Assemblies), GSA (www.gsa.gov), SE (www.salaryexpert.com), A (Allowance), V (Vendor Quote), CW09 (Means CostWorks 2009), P (Previous Work), and FRTR (www.frtr.gov) UNMOD UC
Unmodified Unit Cost
HR
Hours
UNMOD LIC
Unmodified Line Item Cost
LB
Pounds
Cost Adjustment Checklist: NOTES: IINRURIIC
Unburdened Line Item Cost
LCY
Loose Cubic Yard
FACTOR: Field work will be in Level "C" PPE. PC OH
Prime Contractor Overhead
LS
Lump Sum
H&S Productivity (labor and equipment only) Mil assembly costs include HPF adjustments. PC PF
Prime Contractor Profit
RL
Roll
Escalation to Base Year 2009 cost sources are not escalated (EF=1.00). All other costs are escalated based on the USACE CWCCIS, EM 1110-2-1304, Mar 2009. BUR LIC
Burdened Line Item Cost
SY
Square Yard
Area Cost Factor An AF of 1.13 is used for Oregon, except that an AF of 1.00 (national unmodified average) is used for Mil assembly costs and local vendor quotes.
TN
Tons
Subcontractor Overhead and Profit It is assumed that Subcontractor O&P is either included in the PC O&P or has been factored into vendor quotes or previous work.
Prime Contractor Overhead and Profit It is assumed that home office OH is 8% and profit is 9% for the Prime Contractor. Professional labor overhead is 100%. Allowances and items with mandated costs such as per diem do not have overhead and profit applied.
3/24/20102:25 PM
FINAL
-------
TABLE CW4-4C
Alternative 4
Capital Cost Sub-Element
Cover and Backfill Inspection
Cost Worksheet: CW4-4C
COST WORKSHEET
Site: North Ridge Estates
Location: Klamath County, Oregon
Phase: Final Feasibility Study
Base Year: 2010
Prepared By: AS Date: 3/16/2010
Checked By: GH Date: 3/24/2010
Work Statement:
This sub-element involves monitoring protocol for covered portions of privately owned and receiver-managed parcels would include routine non-intrusive visual inspections (i.e. surface inspections) to ensure integrity of the covers and backfill. The following includes the labor, material and equipment costs for inspection.
Cost Analysis:
Cost for Cover and Backfill Inspection (Lump Sum)
COST
DATABASE
conF
DESCRIPTION
QTY
UNIT(S)
HPF
LABOR
ADJ
LABOR
EQUIP
ADJ EQUIP
MATL
OTHER
UNMOD UC
UNMOD LIC
PC OH
PC PF
BUR LIC
COST SOURCE
CITATION
COMMENTS
A6B
Visual Inspection - 2 Person Crew
5
DY
1.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$640.91
$640.91
$3,204.53
8%
9%
$3,772
Mil Mil Assemblies
M56
Per Diem for 2 People
5
DY
1.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$288.00
$288.00
$1,440.00
0%
0%
$1,440
GSAwww.gsa.gov
TOTAL UNIT COST:
$5,212
Notes: Abbreviations:
HTRW productivity factor is from Exhibit B-3 or B-4 of "A Guide to Developing and Documenting Cost Estimates During the Feasibility Study", EPA 2000 QTY
Quantity
ACR
Acres
The Cost Database Code is a reference code for linking with line item cost information with the cost source database and is not otherwise used within these cost worksheets. EQUIP
Equipment
BCY
Bank Cubic Yard
MATL
Material
CLF
100 Linear Foot
Source of Cost Data: HPF
HTRW Productivity Factor
DY
Days
NA Not Applicable - costs are from previous work or vendor quote ADJ LABOR
Adjusted LaborforHFP
EA
Each
For citation references, the following sources apply: ADJ EQU IP
Adjusted Equipment for H FP
LF
Linear Foot
Mil (Mil Assemblies), GSA (www.gsa.gov), SE (www.salaryexpert.com), A (Allowance), V (Vendor Quote), CW09 (Means CostWorks 2009), P (Previous Work), and FRTR (www.frtr.gov) UNMOD UC
Unmodified Unit Cost
HR
Hours
UNMOD LIC
Unmodified Line Item Cost
LB
Pounds
Cost Adjustment Checklist: NOTES: UNRURIIC
Unburdened Line Item Cost
LCY
Loose Cubic Yard
FACTOR: Field work will be in Level "C" PPE. PC OH
Prime Contractor Overhead
LS
Lump Sum
H&S Productivity (labor and equipment only) Mil assembly costs include HPF adjustments. PC PF
Prime Contractor Profit
RL
Roll
Escalation to Base Year 2009 cost sources are not escalated (EF=1.00). All other costs are escalated based on the USACE CWCCIS, EM 1110-2-1304, Mar 2009. BUR LIC
Burdened Line Item Cost
SY
Square Yard
Area Cost Factor An AF of 1.13 is used for Oregon, except that an AF of 1.00 (national unmodified average) is used for Mil assembly costs and local vendor quotes.
TN
Tons
Subcontractor Overhead and Profit It is assumed that Subcontractor O&P is either included in the PC O&P or has been factored into vendor quotes or previous work.
Prime Contractor Overhead and Profit It is assumed that home office OH is 8% and profit is 9% for the Prime Contractor. Professional labor overhead is 100%. Allowances and items with mandated costs such as per diem do not have overhead and profit applied.
3/24/20102:25 PM
FINAL
-------
TABLE CW4-5
Alternative 4
Capital Cost Sub-Element
Temporary Laydown Area Installation
Cost Worksheet: CW4-5
COST WORKSHEET
Site: North Ridge Estates
Location: Klamath County, Oregon
Phase: Final Feasibility Study
Base Year: 2010
Prepared By: AS Date: 3/16/2010
Checked By: GH Date: 3/24/2010
Work Statement:
This sub-element involves temporary gravel construction at the site for the gravel laydown area. It includes costs for material, labor, and equipment.
Cost Analysis:
Cost for Temporary Laydown Area Installation (Lump Sum)
COST
DATABASE
CODE
DESCRIPTION
UNIT(S)
ADJ
LABOR
COST SOURCE
CITATION
COMMENTS
Gravel Laydown Area
Gravel Placement - Clean Area
Mil Mil Assemblies
Gravel, Delivered
V Vendor Quote
TOTAL UNIT COST:
Abbreviations:
HTRW productivity factor is from Exhibit B-3 or B-4 of "A Guide to Developing and Documenting Cost Estimates During the Feasibility Study", EPA 2000
The Cost Database Code is a reference code for linking with line item cost information with the cost source database and is not otherwise used within these cost worksheets.
Source of Cost Data:
NA Not Applicable - costs are from previous work or vendor quote
For citation references, the following sources apply:
Mil (Mil Assemblies), GSA (www.gsa.gov), SE (www.salaryexpert.com), A (Allowance), V (Vendor Quote), CW09 (Means CostWorks 2009), P (Previous Work), and FRTR (www.frtr.gov)
Cost Adjustment Checklist:
FACTOR:
H&S Productivity (labor and equipment only)
Escalation to Base Year
Area Cost Factor
Subcontractor Overhead and Profit
Prime Contractor Overhead and Profit
QTY
EQUIP
MATL
HPF
ADJ LABOR
ADJ EQUIP
UNMOD UC
UNMOD LIC
NOTES: UNBURLIC
Field work will be in Level "C" PPE. PC OH
Mil assembly costs include HPF adjustments. PC PF
2009 cost sources are not escalated (EF=1.00). All other costs are escalated based on the USACE CWCCIS, EM 1110-2-1304, Mar 2009. BUR LIC
An AF of 1.13 is used for Oregon, except that an AF of 1.00 (national unmodified average) is used for Mil assembly costs and local vendor quotes.
It is assumed that Subcontractor O&P is either included in the PC O&P or has been factored into vendor quotes or previous work.
It is assumed that home office OH is 8% and profit is 9% for the Prime Contractor. Professional labor overhead is 100%. Allowances and items with mandated costs such as per diem do not have overhead and profit applied.
Quantity
Equipment
Material
HTRW Productivity Factor
Adjusted LaborforHFP
Adjusted Equipment for H FP
Unmodified Unit Cost
Unmodified Line Item Cost
Unburdened Line Item Cost
Prime Contractor Overhead
Prime Contractor Profit
Burdened Line Item Cost
ACR
BCY
CLF
DY
EA
LF
HR
LB
LCY
LS
RL
SY
TN
Acres
Bank Cubic Yard
100 Linear Foot
Days
Each
Linear Foot
Hours
Pounds
Loose Cubic Yard
Lump Sum
Roll
Square Yard
Tons
3/24/20102:25 PM
FINAL
-------
TABLE CW4-6
Alternative 4
Capital Cost Sub-Element
Site Clearing and Grubbing
Cost Worksheet: CW4-6
COST WORKSHEET
Site: North Ridge Estates
Location: Klamath County, Oregon
Phase: Final Feasibility Study
Base Year: 2010
Prepared By: AS Date: 3/16/2010
Checked By: GH Date: 3/24/2010
Work Statement:
This sub-element involves site clearing and grubbing of the contaminated area. It includes costs for labor, equipment and materials. All the cleared and grubbed material will be chipped in-place.
Cost Analysis:
Cost for Site Clearing and Grubbing (Lump Sum)
COST
DATABASE
CODE
DESCRIPTION
UNIT(S)
ADJ
LABOR
UNMOD LIC PC OH PC PF
COST SOURCE
CITATION
COMMENTS
Clearing and Grubbing
$127,908.88 8%
Mil Mil Assemblies
TOTAL UNIT COST:
Abbreviations:
HTRW productivity factor is from Exhibit B-3 or B-4 of "A Guide to Developing and Documenting Cost Estimates During the Feasibility Study", EPA 2000
The Cost Database Code is a reference code for linking with line item cost information with the cost source database and is not otherwise used within these cost worksheets.
Source of Cost Data:
NA Not Applicable - costs are from previous work or vendor quote
For citation references, the following sources apply:
Mil (Mil Assemblies), GSA (www.gsa.gov), SE (www.salaryexpert.com), A (Allowance), V (Vendor Quote), CW09 (Means CostWorks 2009), P (Previous Work), and FRTR (www.frtr.gov)
Cost Adjustment Checklist:
FACTOR:
H&S Productivity (labor and equipment only)
Escalation to Base Year
Area Cost Factor
Subcontractor Overhead and Profit
Prime Contractor Overhead and Profit
QTY
EQUIP
MATL
HPF
ADJ LABOR
ADJ EQUIP
UNMOD UC
UNMOD LIC
NOTES: UNBURLIC
Field work will be in Level "C" PPE. PC OH
Mil assembly costs include HPF adjustments. PC PF
2009 cost sources are not escalated (EF=1.00). All other costs are escalated based on the USACE CWCCIS, EM 1110-2-1304, Mar 2009. BUR LIC
An AF of 1.13 is used for Oregon, except that an AF of 1.00 (national unmodified average) is used for Mil assembly costs and local vendor quotes.
It is assumed that Subcontractor O&P is either included in the PC O&P or has been factored into vendor quotes or previous work.
It is assumed that home office OH is 8% and profit is 9% for the Prime Contractor. Professional labor overhead is 100%. Allowances and items with mandated costs such as per diem do not have overhead and profit applied.
Quantity
Equipment
Material
HTRW Productivity Factor
Adjusted LaborforHFP
Adjusted Equipment for H FP
Unmodified Unit Cost
Unmodified Line Item Cost
Unburdened Line Item Cost
Prime Contractor Overhead
Prime Contractor Profit
Burdened Line Item Cost
ACR
BCY
CLF
DY
EA
LF
HR
LB
LCY
LS
RL
SY
TN
Acres
Bank Cubic Yard
100 Linear Foot
Days
Each
Linear Foot
Hours
Pounds
Loose Cubic Yard
Lump Sum
Roll
Square Yard
Tons
3/24/20102:25 PM
FINAL
-------
TABLE CW4-7
Alternative 4
Capital Cost Sub-Element
Construction of Soil Cover
Cost Worksheet:
CW4-7
COST WORKSHEET
Site: North Ridge Estates
Location: Klamath County, Oregon
Phase: Final Feasibility Study
Base Year: 2010
Prepared By: AS Date: 3/16/2010
Checked By: GH Date: 3/24/2010
Work Statement:
This sub-element involves the construction of an in-place cap using soil cover. It includes cost for labor, equipment and material (soil from near offeite and distant offsite borrow areas, and organic material).
Cost Analysis:
Cost for Construction of Soil Cover (Lump Sum)
COST
DATABASE
conF
DESCRIPTION
QTY
UNIT(S)
HPF
LABOR
ADJ
LABOR
EQUIP
ADJ EQUIP
MATL
OTHER
UNMOD UC
UNMOD LIC
PC OH
PC PF
BUR LIC
COST SOURCE
CITATION
COMMENTS
Subsoil Placement Over Contaminated
Materials
A12C
Subsoil Spreading/Grading
238,745
LCY
1.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$12.42
$12.42
$2,965,929.14
8%
9%
$3,491,492
Mil Mil Assemblies
A21A
Clean Fill Compaction - Large Open Area
214,871
LCY
1.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.18
$0.18
$39,063.46
8%
9%
$45,986
Mil Mil Assemblies
Assume 90% of total fill
A22A
Clean Fill Compaction - Small Area
23,875
LCY
1.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$2.24
$2.24
$53,531.40
8%
9%
$63,017
Mil Mil Assemblies
Assume 10% of total fill
M39A
Marker Layer for Cover or Backfill Demarcation
3,799,400
SF
1.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.08
$0.00
$0.08
$303,952.00
8%
9%
$357,812
V Vendor Quote
Assume 10% of total fill
Topsoil Placement for Cover
A13B
Top Soil Spreading/Grading
80,914
LCY
1.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$2.68
$2.68
$216,566.32
8%
9%
$254,942
Mil Mil Assemblies
A21A
Clean Fill Compaction - Large Open Area
72,823
LCY
1.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.18
$0.18
$13,239.15
8%
9%
$15,585
Mil Mil Assemblies
Assume 90% of total fill
A22A
Clean Fill Compaction - Small Area
8,091
LCY
1.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$2.24
$2.24
$18,142.54
8%
9%
$21,357
Mil Mil Assemblies
Assume 10% of total fill
Clean Fill/Soil from Near Offsite Borrow Source
A10A
Excavation - Borrow Source
138,982
BCY
1.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$2.13
$2.13
$296,184.54
8%
9%
$348,668
Mil Mil Assemblies
A14A
Material Loading - Clean Fill
159,829
LCY
1.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.32
$0.32
$51,656.73
8%
9%
$60,810
Mil Mil Assemblies
A23B
Hauling - Near Offeite Borrow Source
159,829
LCY
1.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$2.12
$2.12
$338,997.31
8%
9%
$399,068
Mil Mil Assemblies
Clean Fill/Soil trom Distant Ottsite Borrow
Source
A10A
Excavation - Borrow Source
138,982
BCY
1.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$2.13
$2.13
$296,184.54
8%
9%
$348,668
Mil Mil Assemblies
A14A
Material Loading - Clean Fill
159,829
LCY
1.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.32
$0.32
$51,656.73
8%
9%
$60,810
Mil Mil Assemblies
A23A
Hauling - Distant Offeite Borrow Source
159,829
LCY
1.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$2.82
$2.82
$450,382.14
8%
9%
$530,190
Mil Mil Assemblies
M49
Assumed Royalty Allowance for Soil
159,829
LCY
1.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$3.00
$3.00
$479,487.00
0%
0%
$479,487
A Allowance
Organic Material for Topsoil Amendment
A39B
Organic Delivery
2,200
TN
1.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$8.65
$8.65
$19,020.32
8%
9%
$22,391
Mil Mil Assemblies
A40A
Organic Amendment and Processing
88
ACR
1.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$1,082.08
$1,082.08
$95,223.37
8%
9%
$112,097
Mil Mil Assemblies
M25
Organic Material
2,200
TN
1.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$25.25
$0.00
$25.25
$55,550.00
8%
9%
$65,393
V Vendor Quote
TOTAL UNIT COST:
$6,677,773
Notes:
HTRW productivity factor is from Exhibit B-3 or B-4 of "A Guide to Developing and Documenting Cost Estimates During the Feasibility Study", EPA 2000
The Cost Database Code is a reference code for linking with line item cost information with the cost source database and is not otherwise used within these cost worksheets.
Abbreviations:
QTY
EQUIP
MATL
HPF
ADJ LABOR
ADJ EQUIP
UNMOD UC
UNMOD LIC
NOTES: UNBURLIC
Field work will be in Level "C" PPE. PC OH
Mil assembly costs include HPF adjustments. PC PF
2009 cost sources are not escalated (EF=1.00). All other costs are escalated based on the USACE CWCCIS, EM 1110-2-1304, Mar 2009. BUR LIC
An AF of 1.13 is used for Oregon, except that an AF of 1.00 (national unmodified average) is used for Mil assembly costs and local vendor quotes.
It is assumed that Subcontractor O&P is either included in the PC O&P or has been factored into vendor quotes or previous work.
It is assumed that home office OH is 8% and profit is 9% for the Prime Contractor. Professional labor overhead is 100%. Allowances and items with mandated costs such as per diem do not have overhead and profit applied.
Source of Cost Data:
NA Not Applicable - costs are from previous work or vendor quote
For citation references, the following sources apply:
Mil (Mil Assemblies), GSA (www.gsa.gov), SE (www.salaryexpert.com), A (Allowance), V (Vendor Quote), CW09 (Means CostWorks 2009), P (Previous Work), and FRTR (www.frtr.gov)
Cost Adjustment Checklist:
FACTOR:
H&S Productivity (labor and equipment only)
Escalation to Base Year
Area Cost Factor
Subcontractor Overhead and Profit
Prime Contractor Overhead and Profit
Quantity
Equipment
Material
HTRW Productivity Factor
Adjusted LaborforHFP
Adjusted Equipment for H FP
Unmodified Unit Cost
Unmodified Line Item Cost
Unburdened Line Item Cost
Prime Contractor Overhead
Prime Contractor Profit
Burdened Line Item Cost
ACR
Acres
BCY
Bank Cubic Yard
CLF
100 Linear Foot
DY
Days
EA
Each
LF
Linear Foot
HR
Hours
LB
Pounds
LCY
Loose Cubic Yard
LS
Lump Sum
RL
Roll
SY
Square Yard
TN
Tons
3/24/20102:25 PM
FINAL
-------
TABLE CW4-8
Alternative 4
Capital Cost Sub-Element
Revegetation of Soil Cover
Cost Worksheet: CW4-8
COST WORKSHEET
Site: North Ridge Estates
Location: Klamath County, Oregon
Phase: Final Feasibility Study
Base Year: 2010
Prepared By: AS Date: 3/16/2010
Checked By: GH Date: 3/24/2010
Work Statement:
This sub-element involves the revegetation of the soil cover with hydroseeding. It includes costs for labor, material, and equipment.
Cost Analysis:
Cost for Revegetation of Soil Cover (Lump Sum)
COST
DATABASE
CODE
DESCRIPTION
UNIT(S)
ADJ
LABOR
COST SOURCE
CITATION
COMMENTS
Hydroseeding/Revegetation
Hydro-Seeding Crew
Mil Mil Assemblies
V Vendor Quote
V Vendor Quote
Fertilizer (P205)
V Vendor Quote
P Previous Work
TOTAL UNIT COST:
Abbreviations:
HTRW productivity factor is from Exhibit B-3 or B-4 of "A Guide to Developing and Documenting Cost Estimates During the Feasibility Study", EPA 2000
The Cost Database Code is a reference code for linking with line item cost information with the cost source database and is not otherwise used within these cost worksheets.
Source of Cost Data:
NA Not Applicable - costs are from previous work or vendor quote
For citation references, the following sources apply:
Mil (Mil Assemblies), GSA (www.gsa.gov), SE (www.salaryexpert.com), A (Allowance), V (Vendor Quote), CW09 (Means CostWorks 2009), P (Previous Work), and FRTR (www.frtr.gov)
Cost Adjustment Checklist:
FACTOR:
H&S Productivity (labor and equipment only)
Escalation to Base Year
Area Cost Factor
Subcontractor Overhead and Profit
Prime Contractor Overhead and Profit
QTY
EQUIP
MATL
HPF
ADJ LABOR
ADJ EQUIP
UNMOD UC
UNMOD LIC
NOTES: UNBURLIC
Field work will be in Level "C" PPE. PC OH
Mil assembly costs include HPF adjustments. PC PF
2009 cost sources are not escalated (EF=1.00). All other costs are escalated based on the USACE CWCCIS, EM 1110-2-1304, Mar 2009. BUR LIC
An AF of 1.13 is used for Oregon, except that an AF of 1.00 (national unmodified average) is used for Mil assembly costs and local vendor quotes.
It is assumed that Subcontractor O&P is either included in the PC O&P or has been factored into vendor quotes or previous work.
It is assumed that home office OH is 8% and profit is 9% for the Prime Contractor. Professional labor overhead is 100%. Allowances and items with mandated costs such as per diem do not have overhead and profit applied.
Quantity
Equipment
Material
HTRW Productivity Factor
Adjusted LaborforHFP
Adjusted Equipment for H FP
Unmodified Unit Cost
Unmodified Line Item Cost
Unburdened Line Item Cost
Prime Contractor Overhead
Prime Contractor Profit
Burdened Line Item Cost
ACR
BCY
CLF
DY
EA
LF
HR
LB
LCY
LS
RL
SY
TN
Acres
Bank Cubic Yard
100 Linear Foot
Days
Each
Linear Foot
Hours
Pounds
Loose Cubic Yard
Lump Sum
Roll
Square Yard
Tons
3/24/20102:25 PM
FINAL
-------
TABLE CW4-9
Alternative 4
Capital Cost Sub-Element
Mobilization/Demobilization
Cost Worksheet: CW4-9
COST WORKSHEET
Site: North Ridge Estates
Location: Klamath County, Oregon
Phase: Final Feasibility Study
Base Year: 2010
Prepared By: AS Date: 3/16/2010
Checked By: GH Date: 3/24/2010
Work Statement:
This sub-element involves mobilization and demobilization of all the required equipment to and from the site respectively.
Cost Analysis:
Cost for Mobilization/Demobilization (Lump Sum)
COST
DATABASE
conF
DESCRIPTION
QTY
UNIT(S)
HPF
LABOR
ADJ
LABOR
EQUIP
ADJ EQUIP
MATL
OTHER
UNMOD UC
UNMOD LIC
PC OH
PC PF
BUR LIC
COST SOURCE
CITATION
COMMENTS
A37A
Mobilization and Demobilization - Heavy Equipmen
8
EA
1.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$2,384.82
$2,384.82
$19,078.58
8%
9%
$22,459
Mil Mil Assemblies
A37B
Mobilization and Demobilization - Medium-Sizec
Equipment
6
EA
1.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$974.68
$974.68
$5,848.08
8%
9%
$6,884
Mil Mil Assemblies
A37C
Mobilization and Demobilization - Small Equipment
5
EA
1.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$605.12
$605.12
$3,025.61
8%
9%
$3,562
Mil Mil Assemblies
A37D
Mobilization and Demobilization - Selt-Propellec
Equipment
8
EA
1.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$2,469.12
$2,469.12
$19,752.93
8%
9%
$23,253
Mil Mil Assemblies
TOTAL UNIT COST:
$56,158
Notes: Abbreviations:
HTRW productivity factor is from Exhibit B-3 or B-4 of "A Guide to Developing and Documenting Cost Estimates During the Feasibility Study", EPA 2000 QTY
Quantity
ACR
Acres
The Cost Database Code is a reference code for linking with line item cost information with the cost source database and is not otherwise used within these cost worksheets. EQUIP
Equipment
BCY
Bank Cubic Yard
MATL
Material
CLF
100 Linear Foot
Source of Cost Data: HPF
HTRW Productivity Factor
DY
Days
NA Not Applicable - costs are from previous work or vendor quote ADJ LABOR
Adjusted LaborforHFP
EA
Each
For citation references, the following sources apply: ADJ EQU IP
Adjusted Equipment for H FP
LF
Linear Foot
Mil (Mil Assemblies), GSA (www.gsa.gov), SE (www.salaryexpert.com), A (Allowance), V (Vendor Quote), CW09 (Means CostWorks 2009), P (Previous Work), and FRTR (www.frtr.gov) UNMOD UC
Unmodified Unit Cost
HR
Hours
UNMOD LIC
Unmodified Line Item Cost
LB
Pounds
Cost Adjustment Checklist: NOTES: IINRURIIC
Unburdened Line Item Cost
LCY
Loose Cubic Yard
FACTOR: Field work will be in Level "C" PPE. PC OH
Prime Contractor Overhead
LS
Lump Sum
H&S Productivity (labor and equipment only) Mil assembly costs include HPF adjustments. PC PF
Prime Contractor Profit
RL
Roll
Escalation to Base Year 2009 cost sources are not escalated (EF=1.00). All other costs are escalated based on the USACE CWCCIS, EM 1110-2-1304, Mar 2009. BUR LIC
Burdened Line Item Cost
SY
Square Yard
Area Cost Factor An AF of 1.13 is used for Oregon, except that an AF of 1.00 (national unmodified average) is used for Mil assembly costs and local vendor quotes.
TN
Tons
Subcontractor Overhead and Profit It is assumed that Subcontractor O&P is either included in the PC O&P or has been factored into vendor quotes or previous work.
Prime Contractor Overhead and Profit It is assumed that home office OH is 8% and profit is 9% for the Prime Contractor. Professional labor overhead is 100%. Allowances and items with mandated costs such as per diem do not have overhead and profit applied.
3/24/20102:25 PM
FINAL
-------
TABLE CW4-10
Alternative 4
Capital Cost Sub-Element
Surveying for Construction Control
Cost Worksheet: CW4-10
COST WORKSHEET
Site: North Ridge Estates
Location: Klamath County, Oregon
Phase: Final Feasibility Study
Base Year: 2010
Prepared By: AS Date: 3/16/2010
Checked By: GH Date: 3/24/2010
Work Statement:
This sub-element involves cost for site surveying before and after the remedial alternative is implemented.
Cost Analysis:
Cost for Surveying for Construction Control (Lump Sum)
COST
DATABASE
CODE
DESCRIPTION
UNIT(S)
ADJ
LABOR
COST SOURCE
CITATION
COMMENTS
Site Survey - Contaminated Area
Mil Mil Assemblies
Assume 4 acres/day
Site Survey - Clean Area
Mil Mil Assemblies
Assume 6 acres/day
Surveying Report Allowance
A Allowance
TOTAL UNIT COST:
Abbreviations:
HTRW productivity factor is from Exhibit B-3 or B-4 of "A Guide to Developing and Documenting Cost Estimates During the Feasibility Study", EPA 2000
The Cost Database Code is a reference code for linking with line item cost information with the cost source database and is not otherwise used within these cost worksheets.
Source of Cost Data:
NA Not Applicable - costs are from previous work or vendor quote
For citation references, the following sources apply:
Mil (Mil Assemblies), GSA (www.gsa.gov), SE (www.salaryexpert.com), A (Allowance), V (Vendor Quote), CW09 (Means CostWorks 2009), P (Previous Work), and FRTR (www.frtr.gov)
Cost Adjustment Checklist:
FACTOR:
H&S Productivity (labor and equipment only)
Escalation to Base Year
Area Cost Factor
Subcontractor Overhead and Profit
Prime Contractor Overhead and Profit
QTY
EQUIP
MATL
HPF
ADJ LABOR
ADJ EQUIP
UNMOD UC
UNMOD LIC
NOTES: UNBURLIC
Field work will be in Level "C" PPE. PC OH
Mil assembly costs include HPF adjustments. PC PF
2009 cost sources are not escalated (EF=1.00). All other costs are escalated based on the USACE CWCCIS, EM 1110-2-1304, Mar 2009. BUR LIC
An AF of 1.13 is used for Oregon, except that an AF of 1.00 (national unmodified average) is used for Mil assembly costs and local vendor quotes.
It is assumed that Subcontractor O&P is either included in the PC O&P or has been factored into vendor quotes or previous work.
It is assumed that home office OH is 8% and profit is 9% for the Prime Contractor. Professional labor overhead is 100%. Allowances and items with mandated costs such as per diem do not have overhead and profit applied.
Quantity
Equipment
Material
HTRW Productivity Factor
Adjusted LaborforHFP
Adjusted Equipment for H FP
Unmodified Unit Cost
Unmodified Line Item Cost
Unburdened Line Item Cost
Prime Contractor Overhead
Prime Contractor Profit
Burdened Line Item Cost
ACR
BCY
CLF
DY
EA
LF
HR
LB
LCY
LS
RL
SY
TN
Acres
Bank Cubic Yard
100 Linear Foot
Days
Each
Linear Foot
Hours
Pounds
Loose Cubic Yard
Lump Sum
Roll
Square Yard
Tons
3/24/20102:25 PM
FINAL
-------
TABLE CW4-11
Alternative 4
Capital Cost Sub-Element
Equipment Decontamination
Cost Worksheet: CW4-11
COST WORKSHEET
Site: North Ridge Estates
Location: Klamath County, Oregon
Phase: Final Feasibility Study
Base Year: 2010
Prepared By: AS Date: 3/16/2010
Checked By: GH Date: 3/24/2010
Work Statement:
This sub-element involves decontamination of equipment used onsite.
Cost Analysis:
Cost for Equipment Decontamination (Lump Sum)
COST
DATABASE
conF
DESCRIPTION
QTY
UNIT(S)
HPF
LABOR
ADJ
LABOR
EQUIP
ADJ EQUIP
MATL
OTHER
UNMOD UC
UNMOD LIC
PC OH
PC PF
BUR LIC
COST SOURCE
CITATION
COMMENTS
Equipment Decon/Washing
A3A
Equipment Decon/Washing
427
DY
1.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$168.44
$168.44
$71,922.90
8%
9%
$84,668
Mil Mil Assemblies
Assume 8 months/yr, 2 yrs
M46
PolyTank, 5,300 Gal
1
EA
1.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$2,250.24
$0.00
$2,250.24
$2,250.24
8%
9%
$2,649
V Vendor Quote
TOTAL UNIT COST:
$87,317
Notes: Abbreviations:
HTRW productivity factor is from Exhibit B-3 or B-4 of "A Guide to Developing and Documenting Cost Estimates During the Feasibility Study", EPA 2000 QTY
Quantity
ACR
Acres
The Cost Database Code is a reference code for linking with line item cost information with the cost source database and is not otherwise used within these cost worksheets. EQUIP
Equipment
BCY
Bank Cubic Yard
MATL
Material
CLF
100 Linear Foot
Source of Cost Data: HPF
HTRW Productivity Factor
DY
Days
NA Not Applicable - costs are from previous work or vendor quote ADJ LABOR
Adjusted LaborforHFP
EA
Each
For citation references, the following sources apply: ADJ EQU IP
Adjusted Equipment for H FP
LF
Linear Foot
Mil (Mil Assemblies), GSA (www.gsa.gov), SE (www.salaryexpert.com), A (Allowance), V (Vendor Quote), CW09 (Means CostWorks 2009), P (Previous Work), and FRTR (www.frtr.gov) UNMOD UC
Unmodified Unit Cost
HR
Hours
UNMOD LIC
Unmodified Line Item Cost
LB
Pounds
Cost Adjustment Checklist: NOTES: UNRURIIO
Unburdened Line Item Cost
LCY
Loose Cubic Yard
FACTOR: Field work will be in Level "C" PPE. PC OH
Prime Contractor Overhead
LS
Lump Sum
H&S Productivity (labor and equipment only) Mil assembly costs include HPF adjustments. PC PF
Prime Contractor Profit
RL
Roll
Escalation to Base Year 2009 cost sources are not escalated (EF=1.00). All other costs are escalated based on the USACE CWCCIS, EM 1110-2-1304, Mar 2009. BUR LIC
Burdened Line Item Cost
SY
Square Yard
Area Cost Factor An AF of 1.13 is used for Oregon, except that an AF of 1.00 (national unmodified average) is used for Mil assembly costs and local vendor quotes.
TN
Tons
Subcontractor Overhead and Profit It is assumed that Subcontractor O&P is either included in the PC O&P or has been factored into vendor quotes or previous work.
Prime Contractor Overhead and Profit It is assumed that home office OH is 8% and profit is 9% for the Prime Contractor. Professional labor overhead is 100%. Allowances and items with mandated costs such as per diem do not have overhead and profit applied.
3/24/20102:25 PM
FINAL
-------
TABLE CW4-12
Alternative 4
Capital Cost Sub-Element
Site Maintenance and Control During Construction
Cost Worksheet: CW4-12
COST WORKSHEET
Site: North Ridge Estates
Location: Klamath County, Oregon
Phase: Final Feasibility Study
Base Year: 2010
Prepared By: AS Date: 3/16/2010
Checked By: GH Date: 3/24/2010
Work Statement:
This sub-element involves site maintenance during construction. The annual costs for site maintenance during construction include labor, material, and equipment.
Cost Analysis:
Cost for Site Maintenance and Control During Construction (Lump Sum)
COST
DATABASE
conF
DESCRIPTION
QTY
UNIT(S)
HPF
LABOR
ADJ
LABOR
EQUIP
ADJ EQUIP
MATL
OTHER
UNMOD UC
UNMOD LIC
PC OH
PC PF
BUR LIC
COST SOURCE
CITATION
COMMENTS
Dust Control
A1A
Dust Control/Washing
427
DY
1.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$564.97
$564.97
$241,243.81
8%
9%
$283,992
Mil Mil Assemblies
Equipment Fueling
A2A
Equipment Fueling
427
DY
1.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$68.46
$68.46
$29,231.48
8%
9%
$34,411
Mil Mil Assemblies
Construction Safety and Traffic Control
A33A
Barricade and Traffic Control Setup
2
DY
1.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$987.96
$987.96
$1,975.92
8%
9%
$2,326
Mil Mil Assemblies
M36
3" x 1,000' Yellow Caution Tape
10
RL
1.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$10.61
$0.00
$10.61
$106.10
8%
9%
$125
V Vendor Quote
M37
3" x 1,000' Red Danger Asbestos Haz Tape
10
RL
1.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$10.61
$0.00
$10.61
$106.10
8%
9%
$125
V Vendor Quote
M38
Reflecting Barricade with Light
15
EA
1.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$72.55
$0.00
$72.55
$1,088.25
8%
9%
$1,281
V Vendor Quote
M39
Orange Safety Fence with Posts
20
CLF
1.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$53.52
$0.00
$53.52
$1,070.40
8%
9%
$1,260
V Vendor Quote
TOTAL UNIT COST:
$323,520
Abbreviations:
HTRW productivity factor is from Exhibit B-3 or B-4 of "A Guide to Developing and Documenting Cost Estimates During the Feasibility Study", EPA 2000
The Cost Database Code is a reference code for linking with line item cost information with the cost source database and is not otherwise used within these cost worksheets.
Source of Cost Data:
NA Not Applicable - costs are from previous work or vendor quote
For citation references, the following sources apply:
Mil (Mil Assemblies), GSA (www.gsa.gov), SE (www.salaryexpert.com), A (Allowance), V (Vendor Quote), CW09 (Means CostWorks 2009), P (Previous Work), and FRTR (www.frtr.gov)
Cost Adjustment Checklist:
FACTOR:
H&S Productivity (labor and equipment only)
Escalation to Base Year
Area Cost Factor
Subcontractor Overhead and Profit
Prime Contractor Overhead and Profit
QTY
EQUIP
MATL
HPF
ADJ LABOR
ADJ EQUIP
UNMOD UC
UNMOD LIC
NOTES: UNBURLIC
Field work will be in Level "C" PPE. PC OH
Mil assembly costs include HPF adjustments. PC PF
2009 cost sources are not escalated (EF=1.00). All other costs are escalated based on the USACE CWCCIS, EM 1110-2-1304, Mar 2009. BUR LIC
An AF of 1.13 is used for Oregon, except that an AF of 1.00 (national unmodified average) is used for Mil assembly costs and local vendor quotes.
It is assumed that Subcontractor O&P is either included in the PC O&P or has been factored into vendor quotes or previous work.
It is assumed that home office OH is 8% and profit is 9% for the Prime Contractor. Professional labor overhead is 100%. Allowances and items with mandated costs such as per diem do not have overhead and profit applied.
Quantity
Equipment
Material
HTRW Productivity Factor
Adjusted LaborforHFP
Adjusted Equipment for H FP
Unmodified Unit Cost
Unmodified Line Item Cost
Unburdened Line Item Cost
Prime Contractor Overhead
Prime Contractor Profit
Burdened Line Item Cost
ACR
BCY
CLF
DY
EA
LF
HR
LB
LCY
LS
RL
SY
TN
Acres
Bank Cubic Yard
100 Linear Foot
Days
Each
Linear Foot
Hours
Pounds
Loose Cubic Yard
Lump Sum
Roll
Square Yard
Tons
3/24/20102:25 PM
FINAL
-------
TABLE CW4-13
Alternative 4
Capital Cost Sub-Element
Temporary Site Facilitites During Construction
Cost Worksheet: CW4-13
COST WORKSHEET
Site: North Ridge Estates
Location: Klamath County, Oregon
Phase: Final Feasibility Study
Base Year: 2010
Prepared By: AS Date: 3/16/2010
Checked By: GH Date: 3/24/2010
Work Statement:
This sub-element involves rental cost for onsite office trailer, storage box, portable toilets, and utilities.
Cost Analysis:
Cost for Temporary Site Facilitites During Construction (Lump Sum)
COST
DATABASE
CODE
DESCRIPTION
UNIT(S)
ADJ
LABOR
COST SOURCE
CITATION
COMMENTS
Site Trailer/Office
Site Office Trailer Installation - One Time Cost
V Vendor Quote
Trailer Rental and Storage Box
V Vendor Quote
Office Furniture
V Vendor Quote
Portable Toilets
V Vendor Quote
General Office Supplies Allowance
A Allowance
Erosion Control Measures Allowance
A Allowance
Utilities (Phone, Internet, Electricity)
V Vendor Quote
TOTAL UNIT COST:
Abbreviations:
HTRW productivity factor is from Exhibit B-3 or B-4 of "A Guide to Developing and Documenting Cost Estimates During the Feasibility Study", EPA 2000
The Cost Database Code is a reference code for linking with line item cost information with the cost source database and is not otherwise used within these cost worksheets.
Source of Cost Data:
NA Not Applicable - costs are from previous work or vendor quote
For citation references, the following sources apply:
Mil (Mil Assemblies), GSA (www.gsa.gov), SE (www.salaryexpert.com), A (Allowance), V (Vendor Quote), CW09 (Means CostWorks 2009), P (Previous Work), and FRTR (www.frtr.gov)
Cost Adjustment Checklist:
FACTOR:
H&S Productivity (labor and equipment only)
Escalation to Base Year
Area Cost Factor
Subcontractor Overhead and Profit
Prime Contractor Overhead and Profit
QTY
EQUIP
MATL
HPF
ADJ LABOR
ADJ EQUIP
UNMOD UC
UNMOD LIC
NOTES: UNBURLIC
Field work will be in Level "C" PPE. PC OH
Mil assembly costs include HPF adjustments. PC PF
2009 cost sources are not escalated (EF=1.00). All other costs are escalated based on the USACE CWCCIS, EM 1110-2-1304, Mar 2009. BUR LIC
An AF of 1.13 is used for Oregon, except that an AF of 1.00 (national unmodified average) is used for Mil assembly costs and local vendor quotes.
It is assumed that Subcontractor O&P is either included in the PC O&P or has been factored into vendor quotes or previous work.
It is assumed that home office OH is 8% and profit is 9% for the Prime Contractor. Professional labor overhead is 100%. Allowances and items with mandated costs such as per diem do not have overhead and profit applied.
Quantity
Equipment
Material
HTRW Productivity Factor
Adjusted LaborforHFP
Adjusted Equipment for H FP
Unmodified Unit Cost
Unmodified Line Item Cost
Unburdened Line Item Cost
Prime Contractor Overhead
Prime Contractor Profit
Burdened Line Item Cost
ACR
BCY
CLF
DY
EA
LF
HR
LB
LCY
LS
RL
SY
TN
Acres
Bank Cubic Yard
100 Linear Foot
Days
Each
Linear Foot
Hours
Pounds
Loose Cubic Yard
Lump Sum
Roll
Square Yard
Tons
3/24/20102:25 PM
FINAL
-------
TABLE CW4-14
Alternative 4
Capital Cost Sub-Element
Community Awareness Activities
Cost Worksheet: CW4-14
COST WORKSHEET
Site: North Ridge Estates
Location: Klamath County, Oregon
Phase: Final Feasibility Study
Base Year: 2010
Prepared By: AS Date: 3/16/2010
Checked By: GH Date: 3/24/2010
Work Statement:
This sub-element involves setting up a community meeting to inform the local community about the status of site. The following includes the labor, material and other cost required for setting up the community awareness meeting which includes costs for renting a meeting hall, court reporter, and publishing and sending notices or
informational flyers.
Cost Analysis:
Cost for Community Awareness Activities (Lump Sum)
COST
DATABASE
conF
DESCRIPTION
QTY
UNIT(S)
HPF
LABOR
ADJ
LABOR
EQUIP
ADJ EQUIP
MATL
OTHER
UNMOD UC
UNMOD LIC
PC OH
PC PF
BUR LIC
COST SOURCE
CITATION
COMMENTS
L12
General Superintendent (P.M.)
16
HR
1.00
$52.74
$52.74
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$52.74
$843.84
100%
9%
$1,840
SE SalaryExpert.con
L13
Project Manager
16
HR
1.00
$46.53
$46.53
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$46.53
$744.48
100%
9%
$1,623
SE SalaryExpert.con
M56
Per Diem for 2 People
2
DY
1.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$288.00
$288.00
$576.00
0%
0%
$576
GSAwww.gsa.gov
M65
Community Awareness Activities Allowance
1
EA
1.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$2,000.00
$2,000.00
$2,000.00
0%
0%
$2,000
A Allowance
1 event per 5-yr review.
TOTAL UNIT COST:
$6,039
Abbreviations:
HTRW productivity factor is from Exhibit B-3 or B-4 of "A Guide to Developing and Documenting Cost Estimates During the Feasibility Study", EPA 2000
The Cost Database Code is a reference code for linking with line item cost information with the cost source database and is not otherwise used within these cost worksheets.
Source of Cost Data:
NA Not Applicable - costs are from previous work or vendor quote
For citation references, the following sources apply:
Mil (Mil Assemblies), GSA (www.gsa.gov), SE (www.salaryexpert.com), A (Allowance), V (Vendor Quote), CW09 (Means CostWorks 2009), P (Previous Work), and FRTR (www.frtr.gov)
Cost Adjustment Checklist:
FACTOR:
H&S Productivity (labor and equipment only)
Escalation to Base Year
Area Cost Factor
Subcontractor Overhead and Profit
Prime Contractor Overhead and Profit
QTY
EQUIP
MATL
HPF
ADJ LABOR
ADJ EQUIP
UNMOD UC
UNMOD LIC
NOTES: UNBURLIC
Field work will be in Level "C" PPE. PC OH
Mil assembly costs include HPF adjustments. PC PF
2009 cost sources are not escalated (EF=1.00). All other costs are escalated based on the USACE CWCCIS, EM 1110-2-1304, Mar 2009. BUR LIC
An AF of 1.13 is used for Oregon, except that an AF of 1.00 (national unmodified average) is used for Mil assembly costs and local vendor quotes.
It is assumed that Subcontractor O&P is either included in the PC O&P or has been factored into vendor quotes or previous work.
It is assumed that home office OH is 8% and profit is 9% for the Prime Contractor. Professional labor overhead is 100%. Allowances and items with mandated costs such as per diem do not have overhead and profit applied.
Quantity
Equipment
Material
HTRW Productivity Factor
Adjusted LaborforHFP
Adjusted Equipment for H FP
Unmodified Unit Cost
Unmodified Line Item Cost
Unburdened Line Item Cost
Prime Contractor Overhead
Prime Contractor Profit
Burdened Line Item Cost
ACR
BCY
CLF
DY
EA
LF
HR
LB
LCY
LS
RL
SY
TN
Acres
Bank Cubic Yard
100 Linear Foot
Days
Each
Linear Foot
Hours
Pounds
Loose Cubic Yard
Lump Sum
Roll
Square Yard
Tons
3/24/20102:25 PM
FINAL
-------
TABLE CW4-15A
Alternative 4
Capital Cost Sub-Element
Borrow Source Testing
Cost Worksheet: CW4-15A
COST WORKSHEET
Site: North Ridge Estates
Location: Klamath County, Oregon
Phase: Final Feasibility Study
Base Year: 2010
Prepared By: AS Date: 3/16/2010
Checked By: GH Date: 3/24/2010
Work Statement:
This sub-element involves determining whether asbestos fibers are present in proposed borrow source. Samples would be collected from potential soil borrow areas and analyzed for asbestos and non-asbestos COPCs. Visual inspection and ABS activities would be conducted to determine asbestos contamination. The ABS sample;
would be analyzed by TEM Method. Non-asbestos contamination would include organic/inorganic analysis for VOCs, SVOCs, PCBs, TPH, herbicides, pesticides, and target analyte list metals. The following includes the labor, material and equipment cost, and shipping cost required for the borrow material sampling.
Cost Analysis:
Cost for Borrow Material Sampling (Lump Sum)
COST
DATABASE
CODE
DESCRIPTION
UNIT(S)
ADJ
LABOR
COST SOURCE
CITATION
COMMENTS
Sampling - 2 Person Crew
Mil Mil Assemblies
ABS, Sample and Analysis
P Previous Work
Equipment/ABS Area/ABS Event
P Previous Work
Analysis - Volatile Organic Compounds
V Vendor Quote
Analysis - Semivolatile Organic Compounds
V Vendor Quote
Analysis - Pesticides
V Vendor Quote
Analysis - Herbicides
V Vendor Quote
Analysis - TAL Metals
V Vendor Quote
V Vendor Quote
V Vendor Quote
Sample Shipping Allowance
A Allowance
Sampling/Other Supplies
P Previous Work
TOTAL UNIT COST:
Abbreviations:
HTRW productivity factor is from Exhibit B-3 or B-4 of "A Guide to Developing and Documenting Cost Estimates During the Feasibility Study", EPA 2000
The Cost Database Code is a reference code for linking with line item cost information with the cost source database and is not otherwise used within these cost worksheets.
Source of Cost Data:
NA Not Applicable - costs are from previous work or vendor quote
For citation references, the following sources apply:
Mil (Mil Assemblies), GSA (www.gsa.gov), SE (www.salaryexpert.com), A (Allowance), V (Vendor Quote), CW09 (Means CostWorks 2009), P (Previous Work), and FRTR (www.frtr.gov)
Cost Adjustment Checklist:
FACTOR:
H&S Productivity (labor and equipment only)
Escalation to Base Year
Area Cost Factor
Subcontractor Overhead and Profit
Prime Contractor Overhead and Profit
QTY
EQUIP
MATL
HPF
ADJ LABOR
ADJ EQUIP
UNMOD UC
UNMOD LIC
NOTES: UNBURLIC
Field work will be in Level "C" PPE. PC OH
Mil assembly costs include HPF adjustments. PC PF
2009 cost sources are not escalated (EF=1.00). All other costs are escalated based on the USACE CWCCIS, EM 1110-2-1304, Mar 2009. BUR LIC
An AF of 1.13 is used for Oregon, except that an AF of 1.00 (national unmodified average) is used for Mil assembly costs and local vendor quotes.
It is assumed that Subcontractor O&P is either included in the PC O&P or has been factored into vendor quotes or previous work.
It is assumed that home office OH is 8% and profit is 9% for the Prime Contractor. Professional labor overhead is 100%. Allowances and items with mandated costs such as per diem do not have overhead and profit applied.
Quantity
Equipment
Material
HTRW Productivity Factor
Adjusted LaborforHFP
Adjusted Equipment for H FP
Unmodified Unit Cost
Unmodified Line Item Cost
Unburdened Line Item Cost
Prime Contractor Overhead
Prime Contractor Profit
Burdened Line Item Cost
ACR
BCY
CLF
DY
EA
LF
HR
LB
LCY
LS
RL
SY
TN
Acres
Bank Cubic Yard
100 Linear Foot
Days
Each
Linear Foot
Hours
Pounds
Loose Cubic Yard
Lump Sum
Roll
Square Yard
Tons
3/24/20102:25 PM
FINAL
-------
TABLE CW4-15B
Alternative 4
Capital Cost Sub-Element
Ambient Air Sampling (1 Year)
Cost Worksheet: CW4-15B
COST WORKSHEET
Site: North Ridge Estates
Location: Klamath County, Oregon
Phase: Final Feasibility Study
Base Year: 2010
Prepared By: AS Date: 3/16/2010
Checked By: GH Date: 3/24/2010
Work Statement:
This sub-element involves ambient air sampling and analysis from various locations of the site to assess whether there are current exposure risks from asbestos fibers and non-asbestos COPCs in ambient air. Five locations (TBD) would be selected for sampling and samples would be analyzed for asbestos by TEM Method. The
following includes the labor, material and equipment cost, and shipping cost.
Cost Analysis:
Cost for Ambient Air Sampling (Lump Sum)
COST
DATABASE
CODE
DESCRIPTION
UNIT(S)
ADJ
LABOR
COST SOURCE
CITATION
COMMENTS
Sampling - 2 Person Crew
Mil Mil Assemblies
1 yr, 12 months, 1 sample/month
Per Diem for 2 People
GSAwww.gsa.gov
Ambient Air Sample Analysis
P Previous Work
1 sample/station/month, 5 stations, 12 months
Sampling Setup ( Equipment and Utility)
P Previous Work
Includes sampling equipments and electrical hook-up
Equipment/Ambient Air Sampling Event
Sampling/Other Supplies/Ambient Air Sampling
Event
P Previous Work
1 sample/station/month, 5 stations, 12 months
P Previous Work
Sample Shipping Allowance
TOTAL UNIT COST:
Notes:
HTRW productivity factor is from Exhibit B-3 or B-4 of "A Guide to Developing and Documenting Cost Estimates During the Feasibility Study", EPA 2000
The Cost Database Code is a reference code for linking with line item cost information with the cost source database and is not otherwise used within these cost worksheets.
Source of Cost Data:
Not Applicable - costs are from previous work or vendor quote
For citation references, the following sources apply:
Mil (Mil Assemblies), GSA (www.gsa.gov), SE (www.salaryexpert.com), A (Allowance), V (Vendor Quote), CW09 (Means CostWorks 2009), P (Previous Work), and FRTR (www.frtr.gov)
Cost Adjustment Checklist:
FACTOR:
H&S Productivity (labor and equipment only)
Escalation to Base Year
Area Cost Factor
Subcontractor Overhead and Profit
Prime Contractor Overhead and Profit
NOTES:
Field work will be in Level "C" PPE.
Mil assembly costs include HPF adjustments.
2009 cost sources are not escalated (EF=1.00). All other costs are escalated based on the USACE CWCCIS, EM 1110-2-1304, Mar 2009.
An AF of 1.13 is used for Oregon, except that an AF of 1.00 (national unmodified average) is used for Mil assembly costs and local vendor
It is assumed that Subcontractor O&P is either included in the PC O&P or has been factored into vendor quotes or previous work.
It is assumed that home office OH is 8% and profit is 9% for the Prime Contractor. Professional labor overhead is 100%. Allowances and items with mandated costs such as per diem do not have overhead and profit applied.
Abbreviations:
QTY
Quantity
ACR
Acres
EQUIP
Equipment
BCY
Bank Cubic Yard
MATL
Material
CLF
100 Linear Foot
HPF
HTRW Productivity Factor
DY
Days
ADJ LABOR
Adjusted LaborforHFP
EA
Each
ADJ EQUIP
Adjusted Equipment for H FP
LF
Linear Foot
UNMOD UC
Unmodified Unit Cost
HR
Hours
UNMOD LIC
Unmodified Line Item Cost
LB
Pounds
UNBUR LIC
Unburdened Line Item Cost
LCY
Loose Cubic Yard
PC OH
Prime Contractor Overhead
LS
Lump Sum
PC PF
Prime Contractor Profit
RL
Roll
BUR LIC
Burdened Line Item Cost
SY
Square Yard
quotes.
TN
Tons
3/24/20102:25 PM
FINAL
-------
TABLE CW4-15C
Alternative 4
Capital Cost Sub-Element
Inspection of Areas without Identified Contamination
Cost Worksheet: CW4-15C
COST WORKSHEET
Site: North Ridge Estates
Location: Klamath County, Oregon
Phase: Final Feasibility Study
Base Year: 2010
Prepared By: AS Date: 3/16/2010
Checked By: GH Date: 3/24/2010
Work Statement:
This sub-element involves monitoring for areas of the site with no historical or current contamination and would be performed some time during construction. The monitoring would be performed using a tiered approach with intrusive visual inspection (hand dug test pits), followed by ABS to provide a point-in-time determination
whether these areas were adversely impacted by contamination. A total often locations would be tested.
Cost Analysis:
Cost for Intrusive Visual Inspection and ABS (Lump Sum)
COST
DATABASE
conF
DESCRIPTION
QTY
UNIT(S)
HPF
LABOR
ADJ
LABOR
EQUIP
ADJ EQUIP
MATL
OTHER
UNMOD UC
UNMOD LIC
PC OH
PC PF
BUR LIC
COST SOURCE
CITATION
COMMENTS
A6B
Visual Inspection - 2 Person Crew
5
DY
1.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$640.91
$640.91
$3,204.53
8%
9%
$3,772
Mil Mil Assemblies
M56
Per Diem for 2 People
5
DY
1.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$288.00
$288.00
$1,440.00
0%
0%
$1,440
GSAwww.gsa.gov
A5A
Sampling - 3 Person Crew
5
DY
1.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$1,179.92
$1,179.92
$5,899.61
8%
9%
$6,945
Mil Mil Assemblies
M55
Per Diem for 3 People
5
DY
1.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$432.00
$432.00
$2,160.00
0%
0%
$2,160
GSAwww.gsa.gov
M51
ABS, Sample and Analysis
10
EA
1.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$891.00
$891.00
$8,910.00
8%
9%
$10,489
P Previous Work
M52
Equipment/ABS Area/ABS Event
10
EA
1.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$148.50
$148.50
$1,485.00
8%
9%
$1,748
P Previous Work
M53A
Sampling and Other Supplies/ABS Area/ABS Even
10
EA
1.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$250.00
$250.00
$2,500.00
8%
9%
$2,943
P Previous Work
M54B
Sample Shipping Allowance
1
LS
1.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$1,500.00
$1,500.00
$1,500.00
0%
0%
$1,500
A Allowance
TOTAL UNIT COST:
$30,997
Abbreviations:
HTRW productivity factor is from Exhibit B-3 or B-4 of "A Guide to Developing and Documenting Cost Estimates During the Feasibility Study", EPA 2000
The Cost Database Code is a reference code for linking with line item cost information with the cost source database and is not otherwise used within these cost worksheets.
Source of Cost Data:
NA Not Applicable - costs are from previous work or vendor quote
For citation references, the following sources apply:
Mil (Mil Assemblies), GSA (www.gsa.gov), SE (www.salaryexpert.com), A (Allowance), V (Vendor Quote), CW09 (Means CostWorks 2009), P (Previous Work), and FRTR (www.frtr.gov)
Cost Adjustment Checklist:
FACTOR:
H&S Productivity (labor and equipment only)
Escalation to Base Year
Area Cost Factor
Subcontractor Overhead and Profit
Prime Contractor Overhead and Profit
QTY
EQUIP
MATL
HPF
ADJ LABOR
ADJ EQUIP
UNMOD UC
UNMOD LIC
NOTES: UNBURLIC
Field work will be in Level "C" PPE. PC OH
Mil assembly costs include HPF adjustments. PC PF
2009 cost sources are not escalated (EF=1.00). All other costs are escalated based on the USACE CWCCIS, EM 1110-2-1304, Mar 2009. BUR LIC
An AF of 1.13 is used for Oregon, except that an AF of 1.00 (national unmodified average) is used for Mil assembly costs and local vendor quotes.
It is assumed that Subcontractor O&P is either included in the PC O&P or has been factored into vendor quotes or previous work.
It is assumed that home office OH is 8% and profit is 9% for the Prime Contractor. Professional labor overhead is 100%. Allowances and items with mandated costs such as per diem do not have overhead and profit applied.
Quantity
Equipment
Material
HTRW Productivity Factor
Adjusted LaborforHFP
Adjusted Equipment for H FP
Unmodified Unit Cost
Unmodified Line Item Cost
Unburdened Line Item Cost
Prime Contractor Overhead
Prime Contractor Profit
Burdened Line Item Cost
ACR
BCY
CLF
DY
EA
LF
HR
LB
LCY
LS
RL
SY
TN
Acres
Bank Cubic Yard
100 Linear Foot
Days
Each
Linear Foot
Hours
Pounds
Loose Cubic Yard
Lump Sum
Roll
Square Yard
Tons
3/24/20102:25 PM
FINAL
-------
Cost Worksheets
Alternative 5a
-------
TABLE CW5a-1
Alternative 5a
Capital Cost Sub-Element
Institutional Controls
Cost Worksheet: CW5a-1
COST WORKSHEET
Site: North Ridge Estates
Location: Klamath County, Oregon
Phase: Final Feasibility Study
Base Year: 2010
Prepared By: AS Date: 3/16/2010
Checked By: GH Date: 3/24/2010
Work Statement:
This sub-element involves implementation of institutional controls for the site. The following cost includes hours for and document legal procedures to establish and cost for document submission and recording. The cost also includes site survey to establish parcel/site boundaries.
Cost Analysis:
Cost for Institutional Controls (Lump Sum)
COST
DATABASE
conF
DESCRIPTION
QTY
UNIT(S)
HPF
LABOR
ADJ
LABOR
EQUIP
ADJ EQUIP
MATL
OTHER
UNMOD UC
UNMOD LIC
PC OH
PC PF
BUR LIC
COST SOURCE
CITATION
COMMENTS
Institutional Controls tor Private Ownership
Parcels (27)
L6
Environmental Lawyer
648
HR
1.00
$71.06
$71.06
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$71.06
$46,046.88
100%
9%
$100,382
SE SalaryExpert.con
24 hrs per parcel
L15
Paralegal
864
HR
1.00
$37.29
$37.29
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$37.29
$32,218.56
100%
9%
$70,236
SE SalaryExpert.con
32 hrs per parcel
L3
Clerks, Typist, Bookkeeper & Receptionist
270
HR
1.00
$19.05
$19.05
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$19.05
$5,143.50
100%
9%
$11,213
SE SalaryExpert.con
10 hrs per parcel
M11A
Document Submission and Recording Allowance
27
LS
1.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$5,000.00
$5,000.00
$135,000.00
0%
0%
$135,000
A Allowance
Institutional Controls tor Receivership Parcels
(29)
L6
Environmental Lawyer
464
HR
1.00
$71.06
$71.06
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$71.06
$32,971.84
100%
9%
$71,879
SE SalaryExpert.con
16 hrs per parcel
L15
Paralegal
696
HR
1.00
$37.29
$37.29
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$37.29
$25,953.84
100%
9%
$56,579
SE SalaryExpert.con
24 hrs per parcel
L3
Clerks, Typist, Bookkeeper & Receptionist
290
HR
1.00
$19.05
$19.05
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$19.05
$5,524.50
100%
9%
$12,043
SE SalaryExpert.con
10 hrs per parcel
M11A
Document Submission and Recording Allowance
29
LS
1.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$5,000.00
$5,000.00
$145,000.00
0%
0%
$145,000
A Allowance
A38A
Site Survey - Clean Area
10
DY
1.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$464.52
$464.52
$4,645.19
8%
9%
$5,468
Mil Mil Assemblies
needed
M12
Surveying Report Allowance
1
LS
1.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$15,000.00
$15,000.00
$15,000.00
0%
0%
$15,000
A Allowance
TOTAL UNIT COST:
$622,800
Notes: Abbreviations:
HTRW productivity factor is from Exhibit B-3 or B-4 of "A Guide to Developing and Documenting Cost Estimates During the Feasibility Study", EPA 2000 QTY
Quantity
ACR
Acres
The Cost Database Code is a reference code for linking with line item cost information with the cost source database and is not otherwise used within these cost worksheets. EQUIP
Equipment
BCY
Bank Cubic Yard
MATL
Material
CLF
100 Linear Foot
Source of Cost Data: HPF
HTRW Productivity Factor
DY
Days
NA Not Applicable - costs are from previous work or vendor quote ADJ LABOR
Adjusted LaborforHFP
EA
Each
For citation references, the following sources apply: ADJ EQU IP
Adjusted Equipment for H FP
LF
Linear Foot
Mil (Mil Assemblies), GSA (www.gsa.gov), SE (www.salaryexpert.com), A (Allowance), V (Vendor Quote), CW09 (Means CostWorks 2009), P (Previous Work), and FRTR (www.frtr.gov) UNMOD UC
Unmodified Unit Cost
HR
Hours
UNMOD LIC
Unmodified Line Item Cost
LB
Pounds
Cost Adjustment Checklist: NOTES: UNRURIIC
Unburdened Line Item Cost
LCY
Loose Cubic Yard
FACTOR: Field work will be in Level "C" PPE. PC OH
Prime Contractor Overhead
LS
Lump Sum
H&S Productivity (labor and equipment only) Mil assembly costs include HPF adjustments. PC PF
Prime Contractor Profit
RL
Roll
Escalation to Base Year 2009 cost sources are not escalated (EF=1.00). All other costs are escalated based on the USACE CWCCIS, EM 1110-2-1304, Mar 2009. BUR LIC
Burdened Line Item Cost
SY
Square Yard
Area Cost Factor An AF of 1.13 is used for Oregon, except that an AF of 1.00 (national unmodified average) is used for Mil assembly costs and local vendor quotes.
TN
Tons
Subcontractor Overhead and Profit It is assumed that Subcontractor O&P is either included in the PC O&P or has been factored into vendor quotes or previous work.
Prime Contractor Overhead and Profit It is assumed that home office OH is 8% and profit is 9% for the Prime Contractor. Professional labor overhead is 100%. Allowances and items with mandated costs such as per diem do not have overhead and profit applied.
3/24/20102:31 PM
FINAL
-------
TABLE CW5a-2
Alternative 5a
Capital Cost Sub-Element
Access Controls
Cost Worksheet: CW5a-2
COST WORKSHEET
Site: North Ridge Estates
Location: Klamath County, Oregon
Phase: Final Feasibility Study
Base Year: 2010
Prepared By: AS Date: 3/16/2010
Checked By: GH Date: 3/24/2010
Work Statement:
This sub-element involves the cost associated with access controls on the site. Access controls include installation of sign posts along the perimeter of the disturbed area, the onsite repositories, and signage along steam pipe on the east side of Old Fort Road.
Cost Analysis:
Cost for Access Controls (Lump Sum)
COST
DATABASE
conF
DESCRIPTION
QTY
UNIT(S)
HPF
LABOR
ADJ
LABOR
EQUIP
ADJ EQUIP
MATL
OTHER
UNMOD UC
UNMOD LIC
PC OH
PC PF
BUR LIC
COST SOURCE
CITATION
COMMENTS
A31C
Signage Installation - Clean Area
1
DY
1.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$1,585.31
$1,585.31
$1,585.31
8%
9%
$1,866
Mil Mil Assemblies
M4A
T-Post, 7' High Steel Post
25
EA
1.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$5.86
$0.00
$5.86
$146.50
8%
9%
$172
V Vendor Quote
Includes wire clips
M9
Signs
25
EA
1.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$99.09
$0.00
$99.09
$2,477.25
8%
9%
$2,916
V Vendor Quote
Assume every 300 FT
TOTAL UNIT COST:
$4,954
Notes: Abbreviations:
HTRW productivity factor is from Exhibit B-3 or B-4 of "A Guide to Developing and Documenting Cost Estimates During the Feasibility Study", EPA 2000 QTY
Quantity
ACR
Acres
The Cost Database Code is a reference code for linking with line item cost information with the cost source database and is not otherwise used within these cost worksheets. EQUIP
Equipment
BCY
Bank Cubic Yard
MATL
Material
CLF
100 Linear Foot
Source of Cost Data: HPF
HTRW Productivity Factor
DY
Days
NA Not Applicable - costs are from previous work or vendor quote ADJ LABOR
Adjusted LaborforHFP
EA
Each
For citation references, the following sources apply: ADJ EQU IP
Adjusted Equipment for H FP
LF
Linear Foot
Mil (Mil Assemblies), GSA (www.gsa.gov), SE (www.salaryexpert.com), A (Allowance), V (Vendor Quote), CW09 (Means CostWorks 2009), P (Previous Work), and FRTR (www.frtr.gov) UNMOD UC
Unmodified Unit Cost
HR
Hours
UNMOD LIC
Unmodified Line Item Cost
LB
Pounds
Cost Adjustment Checklist: NOTES: UNRURIIC
Unburdened Line Item Cost
LCY
Loose Cubic Yard
FACTOR: Field work will be in Level "C" PPE. PC OH
Prime Contractor Overhead
LS
Lump Sum
H&S Productivity (labor and equipment only) Mil assembly costs include HPF adjustments. PC PF
Prime Contractor Profit
RL
Roll
Escalation to Base Year 2009 cost sources are not escalated (EF=1.00). All other costs are escalated based on the USACE CWCCIS, EM 1110-2-1304, Mar 2009. BUR LIC
Burdened Line Item Cost
SY
Square Yard
Area Cost Factor An AF of 1.13 is used for Oregon, except that an AF of 1.00 (national unmodified average) is used for Mil assembly costs and local vendor quotes.
TN
Tons
Subcontractor Overhead and Profit It is assumed that Subcontractor O&P is either included in the PC O&P or has been factored into vendor quotes or previous work.
Prime Contractor Overhead and Profit It is assumed that home office OH is 8% and profit is 9% for the Prime Contractor. Professional labor overhead is 100%. Allowances and items with mandated costs such as per diem do not have overhead and profit applied.
3/24/20102:31 PM
FINAL
-------
TABLE CW5a-3A
Alternative 5a
Capital Cost Sub-Element
5-Year Site Reviews
Cost Worksheet: CW5a-3A
COST WORKSHEET
Site: North Ridge Estates
Location: Klamath County, Oregon
Phase: Final Feasibility Study
Base Year: 2010
Prepared By: AS Date: 3/16/2010
Checked By: GH Date: 3/24/2010
Work Statement:
This sub-element involves the 5-year site visits and 5-year site review report. The following cost includes labor, material and shipping costs for site visits and 5-year site review reports.
Cost Analysis:
Cost for 5-Year Site Review (Lump Sum)
COST
DATABASE
conF
DESCRIPTION
QTY
UNIT(S)
HPF
LABOR
ADJ
LABOR
EQUIP
ADJ EQUIP
MATL
OTHER
UNMOD UC
UNMOD LIC
PC OH
PC PF
BUR LIC
COST SOURCE
CITATION
COMMENTS
A6A
Site Inspection - 2 Person Crew
5
DY
1.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$640.91
$640.91
$3,204.53
8%
9%
$3,772
Mil Mil Assemblies
1 hour per parcel per site visit, 45 parcels
M56
Per Diem for 2 People
5
DY
1.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$288.00
$288.00
$1,440.00
0%
0%
$1,440
GSAwww.gsa.gov
L13
Project Manager
40
HR
1.00
$46.53
$46.53
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$46.53
$1,861.20
100%
9%
$4,057
SE SalaryExpert.con
Hours for 5-year rev
ew report
L5
Environmental Engineer
80
HR
1.00
$31.39
$31.39
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$31.39
$2,511.20
100%
9%
$5,474
SE SalaryExpert.con
Hours for 5-year rev
ew report
11
Environmental Scientist
120
HR
1.00
$27.87
$27.87
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$27.87
$3,344.40
100%
9%
$7,291
SE SalaryExpert.con
Hours for 5-year rev
ew report
L14
Quality Control Engineer
16
HR
1.00
$46.04
$46.04
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$46.04
$736.64
100%
9%
$1,606
SE SalaryExpert.con
Hours for 5-year rev
ew report
L1
CAD Drafter
40
HR
1.00
$25.70
$25.70
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$25.70
$1,028.00
100%
9%
$2,241
SE SalaryExpert.con
Hours for 5-year rev
ew report
L3
Clerks, Typist, Bookkeeper & Receptionist
40
HR
1.00
$19.05
$19.05
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$19.05
$762.00
100%
9%
$1,661
SE SalaryExpert.con
Hours for 5-year rev
ew report
M10A
Copy and Shipping Allowance
1
LS
1.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$1,500.00
$1,500.00
$1,500.00
0%
0%
$1,500
A Allowance
TOTAL UNIT COST:
$29,042
Notes: Abbreviations:
HTRW productivity factor is from Exhibit B-3 or B-4 of "A Guide to Developing and Documenting Cost Estimates During the Feasibility Study", EPA 2000 QTY
Quantity
ACR
Acres
The Cost Database Code is a reference code for linking with line item cost information with the cost source database and is not otherwise used within these cost worksheets. EQUIP
Equipment
BCY
Bank Cubic Yard
MATL
Material
CLF
100 Linear Foot
Source of Cost Data: HPF
HTRW Productivity Factor
DY
Days
NA Not Applicable - costs are from previous work or vendor quote ADJ LABOR
Adjusted LaborforHFP
EA
Each
For citation references, the following sources apply: ADJ EQU IP
Adjusted Equipment for H FP
LF
Linear Foot
Mil (Mil Assemblies), GSA (www.gsa.gov), SE (www.salaryexpert.com), A (Allowance), V (Vendor Quote), CW09 (Means CostWorks 2009), P (Previous Work), and FRTR (www.frtr.gov) UNMOD UC
Unmodified Unit Cost
HR
Hours
UNMOD LIC
Unmodified Line Item Cost
LB
Pounds
Cost Adjustment Checklist: NOTES: UNRURIIC
Unburdened Line Item Cost
LCY
Loose Cubic Yard
FACTOR: Field work will be in Level "C" PPE. PC OH
Prime Contractor Overhead
LS
Lump Sum
H&S Productivity (labor and equipment only) Mil assembly costs include HPF adjustments. PC PF
Prime Contractor Profit
RL
Roll
Escalation to Base Year 2009 cost sources are not escalated (EF=1.00). All other costs are escalated based on the USACE CWCCIS, EM 1110-2-1304, Mar 2009. BUR LIC
Burdened Line Item Cost
SY
Square Yard
Area Cost Factor An AF of 1.13 is used for Oregon, except that an AF of 1.00 (national unmodified average) is used for Mil assembly costs and local vendor quotes.
TN
Tons
Subcontractor Overhead and Profit It is assumed that Subcontractor O&P is either included in the PC O&P or has been factored into vendor quotes or previous work.
Prime Contractor Overhead and Profit It is assumed that home office OH is 8% and profit is 9% for the Prime Contractor. Professional labor overhead is 100%. Allowances and items with mandated costs such as per diem do not have overhead and profit applied.
3/24/20102:31 PM
FINAL
-------
TABLE CW5a-3B
Alternative 5a
Capital Cost Sub-Element
Community Awareness Activities
Cost Worksheet: CW5a-3B
COST WORKSHEET
Site: North Ridge Estates
Location: Klamath County, Oregon
Phase: Final Feasibility Study
Base Year: 2010
Prepared By: AS Date: 3/16/2010
Checked By: GH Date: 3/24/2010
Work Statement:
This sub-element involves setting up a community meeting to inform the local community about the status of site. The following includes the labor, material and other cost required for setting up the community awareness meeting which includes costs for renting a meeting hall, court reporter, and publishing and sending notices or
informational flyers.
Cost Analysis:
Cost for Community Awareness Activities (Lump Sum)
COST
DATABASE
conF
DESCRIPTION
QTY
UNIT(S)
HPF
LABOR
ADJ
LABOR
EQUIP
ADJ EQUIP
MATL
OTHER
UNMOD UC
UNMOD LIC
PC OH
PC PF
BUR LIC
COST SOURCE
CITATION
COMMENTS
L12
General Superintendent (P.M.)
16
HR
1.00
$52.74
$52.74
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$52.74
$843.84
100%
9%
$1,840
SE SalaryExpert.con
L13
Project Manager
16
HR
1.00
$46.53
$46.53
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$46.53
$744.48
100%
9%
$1,623
SE SalaryExpert.con
M56
Per Diem for 2 People
2
DY
1.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$288.00
$288.00
$576.00
0%
0%
$576
GSAwww.gsa.gov
M65
Community Awareness Activities Allowance
1
EA
1.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$2,000.00
$2,000.00
$2,000.00
0%
0%
$2,000
A Allowance
1 event per 5-yr review.
TOTAL UNIT COST:
$6,039
Abbreviations:
HTRW productivity factor is from Exhibit B-3 or B-4 of "A Guide to Developing and Documenting Cost Estimates During the Feasibility Study", EPA 2000
The Cost Database Code is a reference code for linking with line item cost information with the cost source database and is not otherwise used within these cost worksheets.
Source of Cost Data:
NA Not Applicable - costs are from previous work or vendor quote
For citation references, the following sources apply:
Mil (Mil Assemblies), GSA (www.gsa.gov), SE (www.salaryexpert.com), A (Allowance), V (Vendor Quote), CW09 (Means CostWorks 2009), P (Previous Work), and FRTR (www.frtr.gov)
Cost Adjustment Checklist:
FACTOR:
H&S Productivity (labor and equipment only)
Escalation to Base Year
Area Cost Factor
Subcontractor Overhead and Profit
Prime Contractor Overhead and Profit
QTY
EQUIP
MATL
HPF
ADJ LABOR
ADJ EQUIP
UNMOD UC
UNMOD LIC
NOTES: UNBURLIC
Field work will be in Level "C" PPE. PC OH
Mil assembly costs include HPF adjustments. PC PF
2009 cost sources are not escalated (EF=1.00). All other costs are escalated based on the USACE CWCCIS, EM 1110-2-1304, Mar 2009. BUR LIC
An AF of 1.13 is used for Oregon, except that an AF of 1.00 (national unmodified average) is used for Mil assembly costs and local vendor quotes.
It is assumed that Subcontractor O&P is either included in the PC O&P or has been factored into vendor quotes or previous work.
It is assumed that home office OH is 8% and profit is 9% for the Prime Contractor. Professional labor overhead is 100%. Allowances and items with mandated costs such as per diem do not have overhead and profit applied.
Quantity
Equipment
Material
HTRW Productivity Factor
Adjusted LaborforHFP
Adjusted Equipment for H FP
Unmodified Unit Cost
Unmodified Line Item Cost
Unburdened Line Item Cost
Prime Contractor Overhead
Prime Contractor Profit
Burdened Line Item Cost
ACR
BCY
CLF
DY
EA
LF
HR
LB
LCY
LS
RL
SY
TN
Acres
Bank Cubic Yard
100 Linear Foot
Days
Each
Linear Foot
Hours
Pounds
Loose Cubic Yard
Lump Sum
Roll
Square Yard
Tons
3/24/20102:31 PM
FINAL
-------
TABLE CW5a-3C
Alternative 5a
Capital Cost Sub-Element
Non-Intrusive Visual Inspection
Cost Worksheet: CW5a-3C
COST WORKSHEET
Site: North Ridge Estates
Location: Klamath County, Oregon
Phase: Final Feasibility Study
Base Year: 2010
Prepared By: AS Date: 3/16/2010
Checked By: GH Date: 3/24/2010
Work Statement:
This sub-element involves non-intrusive visual inspections (i.e. surface inspections) performed in support of 5-year site reviews would be made on all parcels within the site boundary regardless of ownership. The following includes the labor, material and equipment cost for inspection.
Cost Analysis:
Cost for Visual Non-Intrusive Inspection (Lump Sum)
COST
DATABASE
conF
DESCRIPTION
QTY
UNIT(S)
HPF
LABOR
ADJ
LABOR
EQUIP
ADJ EQUIP
MATL
OTHER
UNMOD UC
UNMOD LIC
PC OH
PC PF
BUR LIC
COST SOURCE
CITATION
COMMENTS
A6B
Visual Inspection - 2 Person Crew
5
DY
1.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$640.91
$640.91
$3,204.53
8%
9%
$3,772
Mil Mil Assemblies
M56
Per Diem for 2 People
5
DY
1.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$288.00
$288.00
$1,440.00
0%
0%
$1,440
GSAwww.gsa.gov
TOTAL UNIT COST:
$5,212
Notes: Abbreviations:
HTRW productivity factor is from Exhibit B-3 or B-4 of "A Guide to Developing and Documenting Cost Estimates During the Feasibility Study", EPA 2000 QTY
Quantity
ACR
Acres
The Cost Database Code is a reference code for linking with line item cost information with the cost source database and is not otherwise used within these cost worksheets. EQUIP
Equipment
BCY
Bank Cubic Yard
MATL
Material
CLF
100 Linear Foot
Source of Cost Data: HPF
HTRW Productivity Factor
DY
Days
NA Not Applicable - costs are from previous work or vendor quote ADJ LABOR
Adjusted LaborforHFP
EA
Each
For citation references, the following sources apply: ADJ EQU IP
Adjusted Equipment for H FP
LF
Linear Foot
Mil (Mil Assemblies), GSA (www.gsa.gov), SE (www.salaryexpert.com), A (Allowance), V (Vendor Quote), CW09 (Means CostWorks 2009), P (Previous Work), and FRTR (www.frtr.gov) UNMOD UC
Unmodified Unit Cost
HR
Hours
UNMOD LIC
Unmodified Line Item Cost
LB
Pounds
Cost Adjustment Checklist: NOTES: UNRURIIO
Unburdened Line Item Cost
LCY
Loose Cubic Yard
FACTOR: Field work will be in Level "C" PPE. PC OH
Prime Contractor Overhead
LS
Lump Sum
H&S Productivity (labor and equipment only) Mil assembly costs include HPF adjustments. PC PF
Prime Contractor Profit
RL
Roll
Escalation to Base Year 2009 cost sources are not escalated (EF=1.00). All other costs are escalated based on the USACE CWCCIS, EM 1110-2-1304, Mar 2009. BUR LIC
Burdened Line Item Cost
SY
Square Yard
Area Cost Factor An AF of 1.13 is used for Oregon, except that an AF of 1.00 (national unmodified average) is used for Mil assembly costs and local vendor quotes.
TN
Tons
Subcontractor Overhead and Profit It is assumed that Subcontractor O&P is either included in the PC O&P or has been factored into vendor quotes or previous work.
Prime Contractor Overhead and Profit It is assumed that home office OH is 8% and profit is 9% for the Prime Contractor. Professional labor overhead is 100%. Allowances and items with mandated costs such as per diem do not have overhead and profit applied.
3/24/20102:31 PM
FINAL
-------
TABLE CW5a-4A
Alternative 5a
Capital Cost Sub-Element
Borrow Source Testing
Cost Worksheet: CW5a-4A
COST WORKSHEET
Site: North Ridge Estates
Location: Klamath County, Oregon
Phase: Final Feasibility Study
Base Year: 2010
Prepared By: AS Date: 3/16/2010
Checked By: GH Date: 3/24/2010
Work Statement:
This sub-element involves determining whether asbestos fibers are present in proposed borrow source. Samples would be collected from potential soil borrow areas and analyzed for asbestos and non-asbestos COPCs. Visual inspection and ABS activities would be conducted to determine asbestos contamination. The ABS sample;
would be analyzed by TEM Method. Non-asbestos contamination would include organic/inorganic analysis for VOCs, SVOCs, PCBs, TPH, herbicides, pesticides, and target analyte list metals. The following includes the labor, material and equipment cost, and shipping cost required for the borrow material sampling.
Cost Analysis:
Cost for Borrow Material Sampling (Lump Sum)
COST
DATABASE
CODE
DESCRIPTION
UNIT(S)
ADJ
LABOR
COST SOURCE
CITATION
COMMENTS
Sampling - 2 Person Crew
Mil Mil Assemblies
ABS, Sample and Analysis
P Previous Work
Equipment/ABS Area/ABS Event
P Previous Work
Sampling and Other Supplies/ABS Area/ABS Even
P Previous Work
Analysis - Volatile Organic Compounds
V Vendor Quote
Analysis - Semivolatile Organic Compounds
V Vendor Quote
Analysis - Pesticides
V Vendor Quote
Analysis - Herbicides
V Vendor Quote
Analysis - TAL Metals
V Vendor Quote
V Vendor Quote
V Vendor Quote
Sample Shipping Allowance
A Allowance
Sampling/Other Supplies
P Previous Work
TOTAL UNIT COST:
Abbreviations:
HTRW productivity factor is from Exhibit B-3 or B-4 of "A Guide to Developing and Documenting Cost Estimates During the Feasibility Study", EPA 2000
The Cost Database Code is a reference code for linking with line item cost information with the cost source database and is not otherwise used within these cost worksheets.
Source of Cost Data:
NA Not Applicable - costs are from previous work or vendor quote
For citation references, the following sources apply:
Mil (Mil Assemblies), GSA (www.gsa.gov), SE (www.salaryexpert.com), A (Allowance), V (Vendor Quote), CW09 (Means CostWorks 2009), P (Previous Work), and FRTR (www.frtr.gov)
Cost Adjustment Checklist:
FACTOR:
H&S Productivity (labor and equipment only)
Escalation to Base Year
Area Cost Factor
Subcontractor Overhead and Profit
Prime Contractor Overhead and Profit
QTY
EQUIP
MATL
HPF
ADJ LABOR
ADJ EQUIP
UNMOD UC
UNMOD LIC
NOTES: UNBURLIC
Field work will be in Level "C" PPE. PC OH
Mil assembly costs include HPF adjustments. PC PF
2009 cost sources are not escalated (EF=1.00). All other costs are escalated based on the USACE CWCCIS, EM 1110-2-1304, Mar 2009. BUR LIC
An AF of 1.13 is used for Oregon, except that an AF of 1.00 (national unmodified average) is used for Mil assembly costs and local vendor quotes.
It is assumed that Subcontractor O&P is either included in the PC O&P or has been factored into vendor quotes or previous work.
It is assumed that home office OH is 8% and profit is 9% for the Prime Contractor. Professional labor overhead is 100%. Allowances and items with mandated costs such as per diem do not have overhead and profit applied.
Quantity
Equipment
Material
HTRW Productivity Factor
Adjusted LaborforHFP
Adjusted Equipment for H FP
Unmodified Unit Cost
Unmodified Line Item Cost
Unburdened Line Item Cost
Prime Contractor Overhead
Prime Contractor Profit
Burdened Line Item Cost
ACR
BCY
CLF
DY
EA
LF
HR
LB
LCY
LS
RL
SY
TN
Acres
Bank Cubic Yard
100 Linear Foot
Days
Each
Linear Foot
Hours
Pounds
Loose Cubic Yard
Lump Sum
Roll
Square Yard
Tons
3/24/20102:31 PM
FINAL
-------
TABLE CW5a-4B
Alternative 5a
Capital Cost Sub-Element
Ambient Air Sampling (1 Year)
Cost Worksheet: CW5a-4B
COST WORKSHEET
Site: North Ridge Estates
Location: Klamath County, Oregon
Phase: Final Feasibility Study
Base Year: 2010
Prepared By: AS Date: 3/16/2010
Checked By: GH Date: 3/24/2010
Work Statement:
This sub-element involves ambient air sampling and analysis from various locations of the site to assess whether there are current exposure risks from asbestos fibers and non-asbestos COPCs in ambient air. Five locations (TBD) would be selected for sampling and samples would be analyzed for asbestos by TEM Method. The
following includes the labor, material and equipment cost, and shipping cost.
Cost Analysis:
Cost for Ambient Air Sampling (Lump Sum)
COST
DATABASE
CODE
DESCRIPTION
UNIT(S)
ADJ
LABOR
COST SOURCE
CITATION
COMMENTS
Sampling - 2 Person Crew
Mil Mil Assemblies
1 yr, 12 months, 1 sample/month
Per Diem for 2 People
GSAwww.gsa.gov
Ambient Air Sample Analysis
P Previous Work
1 sample/station/month, 5 stations, 12 months
Sampling Setup ( Equipment and Utility)
P Previous Work
Includes sampling equipments and electrical hook-up
Equipment/Ambient Air Sampling Event
Sampling/Other Supplies/Ambient Air Sampling
Event
P Previous Work
1 sample/station/month, 5 stations, 12 months
P Previous Work
Sample Shipping Allowance
TOTAL UNIT COST:
Notes:
HTRW productivity factor is from Exhibit B-3 or B-4 of "A Guide to Developing and Documenting Cost Estimates During the Feasibility Study", EPA 2000
The Cost Database Code is a reference code for linking with line item cost information with the cost source database and is not otherwise used within these cost worksheets.
Source of Cost Data:
Not Applicable - costs are from previous work or vendor quote
For citation references, the following sources apply:
Mil (Mil Assemblies), GSA (www.gsa.gov), SE (www.salaryexpert.com), A (Allowance), V (Vendor Quote), CW09 (Means CostWorks 2009), P (Previous Work), and FRTR (www.frtr.gov)
Cost Adjustment Checklist:
FACTOR:
H&S Productivity (labor and equipment only)
Escalation to Base Year
Area Cost Factor
Subcontractor Overhead and Profit
Prime Contractor Overhead and Profit
NOTES:
Field work will be in Level "C" PPE.
Mil assembly costs include HPF adjustments.
2009 cost sources are not escalated (EF=1.00). All other costs are escalated based on the USACE CWCCIS, EM 1110-2-1304, Mar 2009.
An AF of 1.13 is used for Oregon, except that an AF of 1.00 (national unmodified average) is used for Mil assembly costs and local vendor
It is assumed that Subcontractor O&P is either included in the PC O&P or has been factored into vendor quotes or previous work.
It is assumed that home office OH is 8% and profit is 9% for the Prime Contractor. Professional labor overhead is 100%. Allowances and items with mandated costs such as per diem do not have overhead and profit applied.
Abbreviations:
QTY
Quantity
ACR
Acres
EQUIP
Equipment
BCY
Bank Cubic Yard
MATL
Material
CLF
100 Linear Foot
HPF
HTRW Productivity Factor
DY
Days
ADJ LABOR
Adjusted LaborforHFP
EA
Each
ADJ EQUIP
Adjusted Equipment for H FP
LF
Linear Foot
UNMOD UC
Unmodified Unit Cost
HR
Hours
UNMOD LIC
Unmodified Line Item Cost
LB
Pounds
UNBUR LIC
Unburdened Line Item Cost
LCY
Loose Cubic Yard
PC OH
Prime Contractor Overhead
LS
Lump Sum
PC PF
Prime Contractor Profit
RL
Roll
BUR LIC
Burdened Line Item Cost
SY
Square Yard
quotes.
TN
Tons
3/24/20102:31 PM
FINAL
-------
TABLE CW5a-4C
Alternative 5a
Capital Cost Sub-Element
Inspection of Areas without Identified Contamination
Cost Worksheet: CW5a-4C
COST WORKSHEET
Site: North Ridge Estates
Location: Klamath County, Oregon
Phase: Final Feasibility Study
Base Year: 2010
Prepared By: AS Date: 3/16/2010
Checked By: GH Date: 3/24/2010
Work Statement:
This sub-element involves monitoring for areas of the site with no historical or current contamination and would be performed some time during construction. The monitoring would be performed using a tiered approach with intrusive visual inspection (hand dug test pits), followed by ABS to provide a point-in-time determination
whether these areas were adversely impacted by contamination. A total often locations would be tested.
Cost Analysis:
Cost for Intrusive Visual Inspection and ABS (Lump Sum)
COST
DATABASE
conF
DESCRIPTION
QTY
UNIT(S)
HPF
LABOR
ADJ
LABOR
EQUIP
ADJ EQUIP
MATL
OTHER
UNMOD UC
UNMOD LIC
PC OH
PC PF
BUR LIC
COST SOURCE
CITATION
COMMENTS
A6B
Visual Inspection - 2 Person Crew
5
DY
1.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$640.91
$640.91
$3,204.53
8%
9%
$3,772
Mil Mil Assemblies
M56
Per Diem for 2 People
5
DY
1.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$288.00
$288.00
$1,440.00
0%
0%
$1,440
GSAwww.gsa.gov
A5A
Sampling - 3 Person Crew
5
DY
1.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$1,179.92
$1,179.92
$5,899.61
8%
9%
$6,945
Mil Mil Assemblies
M55
Per Diem for 3 People
5
DY
1.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$432.00
$432.00
$2,160.00
0%
0%
$2,160
GSAwww.gsa.gov
M51
ABS, Sample and Analysis
10
EA
1.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$891.00
$891.00
$8,910.00
8%
9%
$10,489
P Previous Work
M52
Equipment/ABS Area/ABS Event
10
EA
1.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$148.50
$148.50
$1,485.00
8%
9%
$1,748
P Previous Work
M53A
Sampling and Other Supplies/ABS Area/ABS Event
10
EA
1.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$250.00
$250.00
$2,500.00
8%
9%
$2,943
P Previous Work
M54B
Sample Shipping Allowance
1
LS
1.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$1,500.00
$1,500.00
$1,500.00
0%
0%
$1,500
A Allowance
TOTAL UNIT COST:
$30,997
Abbreviations:
HTRW productivity factor is from Exhibit B-3 or B-4 of "A Guide to Developing and Documenting Cost Estimates During the Feasibility Study", EPA 2000
The Cost Database Code is a reference code for linking with line item cost information with the cost source database and is not otherwise used within these cost worksheets.
Source of Cost Data:
NA Not Applicable - costs are from previous work or vendor quote
For citation references, the following sources apply:
Mil (Mil Assemblies), GSA (www.gsa.gov), SE (www.salaryexpert.com), A (Allowance), V (Vendor Quote), CW09 (Means CostWorks 2009), P (Previous Work), and FRTR (www.frtr.gov)
Cost Adjustment Checklist:
FACTOR:
H&S Productivity (labor and equipment only)
Escalation to Base Year
Area Cost Factor
Subcontractor Overhead and Profit
Prime Contractor Overhead and Profit
QTY
EQUIP
MATL
HPF
ADJ LABOR
ADJ EQUIP
UNMOD UC
UNMOD LIC
NOTES: UNBURLIC
Field work will be in Level "C" PPE. PC OH
Mil assembly costs include HPF adjustments. PC PF
2009 cost sources are not escalated (EF=1.00). All other costs are escalated based on the USACE CWCCIS, EM 1110-2-1304, Mar 2009. BUR LIC
An AF of 1.13 is used for Oregon, except that an AF of 1.00 (national unmodified average) is used for Mil assembly costs and local vendor quotes.
It is assumed that Subcontractor O&P is either included in the PC O&P or has been factored into vendor quotes or previous work.
It is assumed that home office OH is 8% and profit is 9% for the Prime Contractor. Professional labor overhead is 100%. Allowances and items with mandated costs such as per diem do not have overhead and profit applied.
Quantity
Equipment
Material
HTRW Productivity Factor
Adjusted LaborforHFP
Adjusted Equipment for H FP
Unmodified Unit Cost
Unmodified Line Item Cost
Unburdened Line Item Cost
Prime Contractor Overhead
Prime Contractor Profit
Burdened Line Item Cost
ACR
BCY
CLF
DY
EA
LF
HR
LB
LCY
LS
RL
SY
TN
Acres
Bank Cubic Yard
100 Linear Foot
Days
Each
Linear Foot
Hours
Pounds
Loose Cubic Yard
Lump Sum
Roll
Square Yard
Tons
3/24/20102:31 PM
FINAL
-------
TABLE CW5a-4D
Alternative 5a
Capital Cost Sub-Element
Excavation Confirmatory Sampling
Cost Worksheet: CW5a-4D
COST WORKSHEET
Site: North Ridge Estates
Location: Klamath County, Oregon
Phase: Final Feasibility Study
Base Year: 2010
Prepared By: AS Date: 3/16/2010
Checked By: GH Date: 3/24/2010
Work Statement:
This sub-element involves intrusive visual inspections (i.e. subsurface inspections within excavations) coupled with ABS analysis would be conducted adjacent to the removal areas after initial surface excavation is completed to confirm that contaminated surface materials would be excavated horizontally to the extent they can be
detected. The most conservative ABS scenario (e.g. raking) would be conducted for areas no greater than 40,000 square feet and would be analyzed by TEM Method. Arsenic sampling at the power plant area would be conducted at a frequency of one sample per 2,500 square feet along the bottom and side-walls of the excavation
area. The following includes the labor, material and equipment cost, and shipping cost required for the soil sampling.
Cost Analysis:
Cost for Confirmatory Soil Sampling (Lump Sum)
COST
DATABASE
CODE
DESCRIPTION
UNIT(S)
ADJ
LABOR
COST SOURCE
CITATION
COMMENTS
Visual Inspection - 2 Person Crew
Mil Mil Assemblies
Per Diem for 2 People
GSAwww.gsa.gov
Sampling - 2 Person Crew
Mil Mil Assemblies
Per Diem for 2 People
GSAwww.gsa.gov
ABS, Sample and Analysis
P Previous Work
Equipment/ABS Area/ABS Event
P Previous Work
Analysis - Arsenic
V Vendor Quote
TOTAL UNIT COST:
Abbreviations:
HTRW productivity factor is from Exhibit B-3 or B-4 of "A Guide to Developing and Documenting Cost Estimates During the Feasibility Study", EPA 2000
The Cost Database Code is a reference code for linking with line item cost information with the cost source database and is not otherwise used within these cost worksheets.
Source of Cost Data:
NA Not Applicable - costs are from previous work or vendor quote
For citation references, the following sources apply:
Mil (Mil Assemblies), GSA (www.gsa.gov), SE (www.salaryexpert.com), A (Allowance), V (Vendor Quote), CW09 (Means CostWorks 2009), P (Previous Work), and FRTR (www.frtr.gov)
Cost Adjustment Checklist:
FACTOR:
H&S Productivity (labor and equipment only)
Escalation to Base Year
Area Cost Factor
Subcontractor Overhead and Profit
Prime Contractor Overhead and Profit
QTY
EQUIP
MATL
HPF
ADJ LABOR
ADJ EQUIP
UNMOD UC
UNMOD LIC
NOTES: UNBURLIC
Field work will be in Level "C" PPE. PC OH
Mil assembly costs include HPF adjustments. PC PF
2009 cost sources are not escalated (EF=1.00). All other costs are escalated based on the USACE CWCCIS, EM 1110-2-1304, Mar 2009. BUR LIC
An AF of 1.13 is used for Oregon, except that an AF of 1.00 (national unmodified average) is used for Mil assembly costs and local vendor quotes.
It is assumed that Subcontractor O&P is either included in the PC O&P or has been factored into vendor quotes or previous work.
It is assumed that home office OH is 8% and profit is 9% for the Prime Contractor. Professional labor overhead is 100%. Allowances and items with mandated costs such as per diem do not have overhead and profit applied.
Quantity
Equipment
Material
HTRW Productivity Factor
Adjusted LaborforHFP
Adjusted Equipment for H FP
Unmodified Unit Cost
Unmodified Line Item Cost
Unburdened Line Item Cost
Prime Contractor Overhead
Prime Contractor Profit
Burdened Line Item Cost
ACR
BCY
CLF
DY
EA
LF
HR
LB
LCY
LS
RL
SY
TN
Acres
Bank Cubic Yard
100 Linear Foot
Days
Each
Linear Foot
Hours
Pounds
Loose Cubic Yard
Lump Sum
Roll
Square Yard
Tons
3/24/20102:31 PM
FINAL
-------
TABLE CW5a-5A
Cost Worksheet: CW5a-5A
Alternative 5a
Capital Cost Sub-Element
Cover, Backfill, and Access Controls O&M During Construction
COST WORKSHEET
Site: North Ridge Estates
Location: Klamath County, Oregon
Phase: Final Feasibility Study
Base Year: 2010
Prepared By: AS Date: 3/16/2010
Checked By: GH Date: 3/24/2010
Work Statement:
This sub-element involves the cover, backfill, and access controls O&M pertaining to the covered/backfilled areas during construction. It includes costs for on-site labor, equipment, materials and allowances for maintaining the cover and signage.
Cost Analysis:
Cost for Cover, Backfill, and Access Controls O&M During Construction (Lump Sum)
COST
DATABASE
CODE
DESCRIPTION
Cover and Backfill Operations and Maintenance
Crew
UNIT(S)
ADJ
LABOR
COST SOURCE
CITATION
COMMENTS
Mil Mil Assemblies
1 days/month
Includes cost for cover maintenance, erosion repair, and
repair of fencing/signs.
O&M Allowance
A Allowance
TOTAL UNIT COST:
Abbreviations:
HTRW productivity factor is from Exhibit B-3 or B-4 of "A Guide to Developing and Documenting Cost Estimates During the Feasibility Study", EPA 2000
The Cost Database Code is a reference code for linking with line item cost information with the cost source database and is not otherwise used within these cost worksheets.
Source of Cost Data:
NA Not Applicable - costs are from previous work or vendor quote
For citation references, the following sources apply:
Mil (Mil Assemblies), GSA (www.gsa.gov), SE (www.salaryexpert.com), A (Allowance), V (Vendor Quote), CW09 (Means CostWorks 2009), P (Previous Work), and FRTR (www.frtr.gov)
Cost Adjustment Checklist:
FACTOR:
H&S Productivity (labor and equipment only)
Escalation to Base Year
Area Cost Factor
Subcontractor Overhead and Profit
Prime Contractor Overhead and Profit
QTY
EQUIP
MATL
HPF
ADJ LABOR
ADJ EQUIP
UNMOD UC
UNMOD LIC
NOTES: UNBURLIC
Field work will be in Level "C" PPE. PC OH
Mil assembly costs include HPF adjustments. PC PF
2009 cost sources are not escalated (EF=1.00). All other costs are escalated based on the USACE CWCCIS, EM 1110-2-1304, Mar 2009. BUR LIC
An AF of 1.13 is used for Oregon, except that an AF of 1.00 (national unmodified average) is used for Mil assembly costs and local vendor quotes.
It is assumed that Subcontractor O&P is either included in the PC O&P or has been factored into vendor quotes or previous work.
It is assumed that home office OH is 8% and profit is 9% for the Prime Contractor. Professional labor overhead is 100%. Allowances and items with mandated costs such as per diem do not have overhead and profit applied.
Quantity
Equipment
Material
HTRW Productivity Factor
Adjusted LaborforHFP
Adjusted Equipment for H FP
Unmodified Unit Cost
Unmodified Line Item Cost
Unburdened Line Item Cost
Prime Contractor Overhead
Prime Contractor Profit
Burdened Line Item Cost
ACR
BCY
CLF
DY
EA
LF
HR
LB
LCY
LS
RL
SY
TN
Acres
Bank Cubic Yard
100 Linear Foot
Days
Each
Linear Foot
Hours
Pounds
Loose Cubic Yard
Lump Sum
Roll
Square Yard
Tons
3/24/20102:31 PM
FINAL
-------
TABLE CW5a-5B
Alternative 5a
Capital Cost Sub-Element
Cover, Backfill, and Access Controls O&M
Cost Worksheet: CW5a-5B
COST WORKSHEET
Site: North Ridge Estates
Location: Klamath County, Oregon
Phase: Final Feasibility Study
Base Year: 2010
Prepared By: AS Date: 3/16/2010
Checked By: GH Date: 3/24/2010
Work Statement:
This sub-element involves the cover, backfill, and access controls O&M pertaining to the covered/backfilled areas. It includes costs for on-site labor, equipment, materials and allowances for maintaining the cover, backfill, and signage.
Cost Analysis:
Cost for Cover, Backfill, and Access Controls O&M (Lump Sum)
COST
DATABASE
conF
DESCRIPTION
QTY
UNIT(S)
HPF
LABOR
ADJ
LABOR
EQUIP
ADJ EQUIP
MATL
OTHER
UNMOD UC
UNMOD LIC
PC OH
PC PF
BUR LIC
COST SOURCE
CITATION
COMMENTS
A7A
Cover and Backfill Operations and Maintenance
Crew
12
DY
1.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$530.94
$530.94
$6,371.24
8%
9%
$7,500
Mil Mil Assemblies
M22B
O&M Allowance
89
ACR
1.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$100.00
$100.00
$8,900.00
0%
0%
$8,900
A Allowance
Includes cost tor cover maintenance, erosion repair, and
repair of fencing/signs.
TOTAL UNIT COST:
$16,400
Notes: Abbreviations:
HTRW productivity factor is from Exhibit B-3 or B-4 of "A Guide to Developing and Documenting Cost Estimates During the Feasibility Study", EPA 2000 QTY
Quantity
ACR
Acres
The Cost Database Code is a reference code for linking with line item cost information with the cost source database and is not otherwise used within these cost worksheets. EQUIP
Equipment
BCY
Bank Cubic Yard
MATL
Material
CLF
100 Linear Foot
Source of Cost Data: HPF
HTRW Productivity Factor
DY
Days
NA Not Applicable - costs are from previous work or vendor quote ADJ LABOR
Adjusted LaborforHFP
EA
Each
For citation references, the following sources apply: ADJ EQU IP
Adjusted Equipment for H FP
LF
Linear Foot
Mil (Mil Assemblies), GSA (www.gsa.gov), SE (www.salaryexpert.com), A (Allowance), V (Vendor Quote), CW09 (Means CostWorks 2009), P (Previous Work), and FRTR (www.frtr.gov) UNMOD UC
Unmodified Unit Cost
HR
Hours
UNMOD LIC
Unmodified Line Item Cost
LB
Pounds
Cost Adjustment Checklist: NOTES: IINRURIIC
Unburdened Line Item Cost
LCY
Loose Cubic Yard
FACTOR: Field work will be in Level "C" PPE. PC OH
Prime Contractor Overhead
LS
Lump Sum
H&S Productivity (labor and equipment only) Mil assembly costs include HPF adjustments. PC PF
Prime Contractor Profit
RL
Roll
Escalation to Base Year 2009 cost sources are not escalated (EF=1.00). All other costs are escalated based on the USACE CWCCIS, EM 1110-2-1304, Mar 2009. BUR LIC
Burdened Line Item Cost
SY
Square Yard
Area Cost Factor An AF of 1.13 is used for Oregon, except that an AF of 1.00 (national unmodified average) is used for Mil assembly costs and local vendor quotes.
TN
Tons
Subcontractor Overhead and Profit It is assumed that Subcontractor O&P is either included in the PC O&P or has been factored into vendor quotes or previous work.
Prime Contractor Overhead and Profit It is assumed that home office OH is 8% and profit is 9% for the Prime Contractor. Professional labor overhead is 100%. Allowances and items with mandated costs such as per diem do not have overhead and profit applied.
3/24/20102:31 PM
FINAL
-------
TABLE CW5a-5C
Alternative 5a
Capital Cost Sub-Element
Cover and Backfill Inspection
Cost Worksheet: CW5a-5C
COST WORKSHEET
Site: North Ridge Estates
Location: Klamath County, Oregon
Phase: Final Feasibility Study
Base Year: 2010
Prepared By: AS Date: 3/16/2010
Checked By: GH Date: 3/24/2010
Work Statement:
This sub-element involves monitoring protocol for covered portions of privately owned and receiver-managed parcels would include routine non-intrusive visual inspections (i.e. surface inspections) to ensure integrity of the covers and backfill. The following includes the labor, material and equipment costs for inspection.
Cost Analysis:
Cost for Cover and Backfill Inspection (Lump Sum)
COST
DATABASE
conF
DESCRIPTION
QTY
UNIT(S)
HPF
LABOR
ADJ
LABOR
EQUIP
ADJ EQUIP
MATL
OTHER
UNMOD UC
UNMOD LIC
PC OH
PC PF
BUR LIC
COST SOURCE
CITATION
COMMENTS
A6B
Visual Inspection - 2 Person Crew
5
DY
1.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$640.91
$640.91
$3,204.53
8%
9%
$3,772
Mil Mil Assemblies
M56
Per Diem for 2 People
5
DY
1.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$288.00
$288.00
$1,440.00
0%
0%
$1,440
GSAwww.gsa.gov
TOTAL UNIT COST:
$5,212
Notes: Abbreviations:
HTRW productivity factor is from Exhibit B-3 or B-4 of "A Guide to Developing and Documenting Cost Estimates During the Feasibility Study", EPA 2000 QTY
Quantity
ACR
Acres
The Cost Database Code is a reference code for linking with line item cost information with the cost source database and is not otherwise used within these cost worksheets. EQUIP
Equipment
BCY
Bank Cubic Yard
MATL
Material
CLF
100 Linear Foot
Source of Cost Data: HPF
HTRW Productivity Factor
DY
Days
NA Not Applicable - costs are from previous work or vendor quote ADJ LABOR
Adjusted LaborforHFP
EA
Each
For citation references, the following sources apply: ADJ EQU IP
Adjusted Equipment for H FP
LF
Linear Foot
Mil (Mil Assemblies), GSA (www.gsa.gov), SE (www.salaryexpert.com), A (Allowance), V (Vendor Quote), CW09 (Means CostWorks 2009), P (Previous Work), and FRTR (www.frtr.gov) UNMOD UC
Unmodified Unit Cost
HR
Hours
UNMOD LIC
Unmodified Line Item Cost
LB
Pounds
Cost Adjustment Checklist: NOTES: UNRURIIC
Unburdened Line Item Cost
LCY
Loose Cubic Yard
FACTOR: Field work will be in Level "C" PPE. PC OH
Prime Contractor Overhead
LS
Lump Sum
H&S Productivity (labor and equipment only) Mil assembly costs include HPF adjustments. PC PF
Prime Contractor Profit
RL
Roll
Escalation to Base Year 2009 cost sources are not escalated (EF=1.00). All other costs are escalated based on the USACE CWCCIS, EM 1110-2-1304, Mar 2009. BUR LIC
Burdened Line Item Cost
SY
Square Yard
Area Cost Factor An AF of 1.13 is used for Oregon, except that an AF of 1.00 (national unmodified average) is used for Mil assembly costs and local vendor quotes.
TN
Tons
Subcontractor Overhead and Profit It is assumed that Subcontractor O&P is either included in the PC O&P or has been factored into vendor quotes or previous work.
Prime Contractor Overhead and Profit It is assumed that home office OH is 8% and profit is 9% for the Prime Contractor. Professional labor overhead is 100%. Allowances and items with mandated costs such as per diem do not have overhead and profit applied.
3/24/20102:31 PM
FINAL
-------
TABLE CW5a-6
Alternative 5a
Capital Cost Sub-Element
Site Clearing and Grubbing
Cost Worksheet: CW5a-6
COST WORKSHEET
Site: North Ridge Estates
Location: Klamath County, Oregon
Phase: Final Feasibility Study
Base Year: 2010
Prepared By: AS Date: 3/16/2010
Checked By: GH Date: 3/24/2010
Work Statement:
This sub-element involves site clearing and grubbing of the contaminated area. It includes costs for labor, equipment and materials. All the cleared and grubbed material will be chipped in-place.
Cost Analysis:
Cost for Site Clearing and Grubbing (Lump Sum)
COST
DATABASE
CODE
DESCRIPTION
UNIT(S)
ADJ
LABOR
UNMOD LIC PC OH PC PF
COST SOURCE
CITATION
COMMENTS
Clearing and Grubbing
$127,908.88 8%
Mil Mil Assemblies
TOTAL UNIT COST:
Abbreviations:
HTRW productivity factor is from Exhibit B-3 or B-4 of "A Guide to Developing and Documenting Cost Estimates During the Feasibility Study", EPA 2000
The Cost Database Code is a reference code for linking with line item cost information with the cost source database and is not otherwise used within these cost worksheets.
Source of Cost Data:
NA Not Applicable - costs are from previous work or vendor quote
For citation references, the following sources apply:
Mil (Mil Assemblies), GSA (www.gsa.gov), SE (www.salaryexpert.com), A (Allowance), V (Vendor Quote), CW09 (Means CostWorks 2009), P (Previous Work), and FRTR (www.frtr.gov)
Cost Adjustment Checklist:
FACTOR:
H&S Productivity (labor and equipment only)
Escalation to Base Year
Area Cost Factor
Subcontractor Overhead and Profit
Prime Contractor Overhead and Profit
QTY
EQUIP
MATL
HPF
ADJ LABOR
ADJ EQUIP
UNMOD UC
UNMOD LIC
NOTES: UNBURLIC
Field work will be in Level "C" PPE. PC OH
Mil assembly costs include HPF adjustments. PC PF
2009 cost sources are not escalated (EF=1.00). All other costs are escalated based on the USACE CWCCIS, EM 1110-2-1304, Mar 2009. BUR LIC
An AF of 1.13 is used for Oregon, except that an AF of 1.00 (national unmodified average) is used for Mil assembly costs and local vendor quotes.
It is assumed that Subcontractor O&P is either included in the PC O&P or has been factored into vendor quotes or previous work.
It is assumed that home office OH is 8% and profit is 9% for the Prime Contractor. Professional labor overhead is 100%. Allowances and items with mandated costs such as per diem do not have overhead and profit applied.
Quantity
Equipment
Material
HTRW Productivity Factor
Adjusted LaborforHFP
Adjusted Equipment for H FP
Unmodified Unit Cost
Unmodified Line Item Cost
Unburdened Line Item Cost
Prime Contractor Overhead
Prime Contractor Profit
Burdened Line Item Cost
ACR
BCY
CLF
DY
EA
LF
HR
LB
LCY
LS
RL
SY
TN
Acres
Bank Cubic Yard
100 Linear Foot
Days
Each
Linear Foot
Hours
Pounds
Loose Cubic Yard
Lump Sum
Roll
Square Yard
Tons
3/24/20102:31 PM
FINAL
-------
TABLE CW5a-7A
Alternative 5a
Capital Cost Sub-Element
Contaminated Surface Materials Excavation Events
Cost Worksheet: CW5a-7A
COST WORKSHEET
Site: North Ridge Estates
Location: Klamath County, Oregon
Phase: Final Feasibility Study
Base Year: 2010
Prepared By: AS Date: 3/16/2010
Checked By: GH Date: 3/24/2010
Work Statement:
This sub-element involves the future excavation events (assumed to be surface excavation/pickup) for contaminated materials such as ACM. These events are assumed to be conducted once per year. The sub-element includes costs for labor, material, and equipment. The field engineer is for oversight of future excavation.
Cost Analysis:
Cost for Contaminated Surface Materials Excavation Events (Lump Sum)
COST
DATABASE
conF
DESCRIPTION
QTY
UNIT(S)
HPF
LABOR
ADJ
LABOR
EQUIP
ADJ EQUIP
MATL
OTHER
UNMOD UC
UNMOD LIC
PC OH
PC PF
BUR LIC
COST SOURCE
CITATION
COMMENTS
L8
Field Engineer
100
HR
1.00
$22.94
$22.94
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$22.94
$2,294.00
100%
9%
$5,001
SE SalaryExpert.con
10 days per event
M57
Per Diem for 1 Person
10
DY
1.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$144.00
$144.00
$1,440.00
0%
0%
$1,440
GSAwww.gsa.gov
10 days per event
A41A
ACM Surface Excavation/Pickup Crew
10
DY
1.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$2,834.38
$2,834.38
$28,343.83
8%
9%
$33,366
Mil Mil Assemblies
10 days per event
TOTAL UNIT COST:
$39,807
Notes: Abbreviations:
HTRW productivity factor is from Exhibit B-3 or B-4 of "A Guide to Developing and Documenting Cost Estimates During the Feasibility Study", EPA 2000 QTY
Quantity
ACR
Acres
The Cost Database Code is a reference code for linking with line item cost information with the cost source database and is not otherwise used within these cost worksheets. EQUIP
Equipment
BCY
Bank Cubic Yard
MATL
Material
CLF
100 Linear Foot
Source of Cost Data: HPF
HTRW Productivity Factor
DY
Days
NA Not Applicable - costs are from previous work or vendor quote ADJ LABOR
Adjusted LaborforHFP
EA
Each
For citation references, the following sources apply: ADJ EQU IP
Adjusted Equipment for H FP
LF
Linear Foot
Mil (Mil Assemblies), GSA (www.gsa.gov), SE (www.salaryexpert.com), A (Allowance), V (Vendor Quote), CW09 (Means CostWorks 2009), P (Previous Work), and FRTR (www.frtr.gov) UNMOD UC
Unmodified Unit Cost
HR
Hours
UNMOD LIC
Unmodified Line Item Cost
LB
Pounds
Cost Adjustment Checklist: NOTES: UNRURIIC
Unburdened Line Item Cost
LCY
Loose Cubic Yard
FACTOR: Field work will be in Level "C" PPE. PC OH
Prime Contractor Overhead
LS
Lump Sum
H&S Productivity (labor and equipment only) Mil assembly costs include HPF adjustments. PC PF
Prime Contractor Profit
RL
Roll
Escalation to Base Year 2009 cost sources are not escalated (EF=1.00). All other costs are escalated based on the USACE CWCCIS, EM 1110-2-1304, Mar 2009. BUR LIC
Burdened Line Item Cost
SY
Square Yard
Area Cost Factor An AF of 1.13 is used for Oregon, except that an AF of 1.00 (national unmodified average) is used for Mil assembly costs and local vendor quotes.
TN
Tons
Subcontractor Overhead and Profit It is assumed that Subcontractor O&P is either included in the PC O&P or has been factored into vendor quotes or previous work.
Prime Contractor Overhead and Profit It is assumed that home office OH is 8% and profit is 9% for the Prime Contractor. Professional labor overhead is 100%. Allowances and items with mandated costs such as per diem do not have overhead and profit applied.
3/24/20102:31 PM
FINAL
-------
TABLE CW5a-7B
Alternative 5a Cost Worksheet: CW5a-7B
Capital Cost Sub-Element
Contaminated Materials Disposal At Permitted Disposal Facilities
COST WORKSHEET
Site: North Ridge Estates
Location: Klamath County, Oregon
Phase: Final Feasibility Study
Base Year: 2010
Prepared By: AS Date: 3/16/2010
Checked By: GH Date: 3/24/2010
Work Statement:
This sub-element involves disposal of contaminated materials at permitted disposal facilities and hauling of contaminated materials for offsite disposal. It includes costs for labor, material, and equipment.
Cost Analysis:
Cost for Contaminated Materials Disposal At Permitted Disposal Facilities (Lump Sum)
COST
DATABASE
CODE
DESCRIPTION
UNIT(S)
ADJ
LABOR
COST SOURCE
CITATION
COMMENTS
Disposal for Years 3 to 10
Lowest unit cost of disposal fees for 3 Oregon Permitted
Authorized Disposal Facilities
Permitted Authorized Disposal Facility Charges
Offsite Debris Disposal, Hauling to Permitted
Authorized Landfill
V Vendor Quote
$795.07 8%
Mil Mil Assemblies
TOTAL UNIT COST:
Disposal for Years 11 to 20
Lowest unit cost of disposal fees for 3 Oregon Permitted
Authorized Disposal Facilities
Permitted Authorized Disposal Facility Charges
Offsite Debris Disposal, Hauling to Permitted
Authorized Landfill
V Vendor Quote
$757.60 8%
Mil Mil Assemblies
TOTAL UNIT COST:
Disposal for Years 21 to 30
Lowest unit cost of disposal fees for 3 Oregon Permitted
Authorized Disposal Facilities
Permitted Authorized Disposal Facility Charges
Offsite Debris Disposal, Hauling to Permitted
Authorized Landfill
V Vendor Quote
$618.32 8%
Mil Mil Assemblies
TOTAL UNIT COST:
Notes:
HTRW productivity factor is from Exhibit B-3 or B-4 of "A Guide to Developing and Documenting Cost Estimates During the Feasibility Study", EPA 2000
The Cost Database Code is a reference code for linking with line item cost information with the cost source database and is not otherwise used within these cost worksheets.
Source of Cost Data:
NA Not Applicable - costs are from previous work or vendor quote
For citation references, the following sources apply:
Mil (Mil Assemblies), GSA (www.gsa.gov), SE (www.salaryexpert.com), A (Allowance), V (Vendor Quote), CW09 (Means CostWorks 2009), P (Previous Work), and FRTR (www.frtr.gov)
Cost Adjustment Checklist:
FACTOR:
H&S Productivity (labor and equipment only)
Escalation to Base Year
Area Cost Factor
Subcontractor Overhead and Profit
Prime Contractor Overhead and Profit
NOTES:
Field work will be in Level "C" PPE.
Mil assembly costs include HPF adjustments.
2009 cost sources are not escalated (EF=1.00). All other costs are escalated based on the USACE CWCCIS, EM 1110-2-1304, Mar 2009.
An AF of 1.13 is used for Oregon, except that an AF of 1.00 (national unmodified average) is used for Mil assembly costs and local vendor
It is assumed that Subcontractor O&P is either included in the PC O&P or has been fiactored into vendor quotes or previous work.
It is assumed that home office OH is 8% and profit is 9% for the Prime Contractor. Professional labor overhead is 100%. Allowances and items with mandated costs such as per diem do not have overhead and profit applied.
Abbreviations:
QTY
Quantity
ACR
Acres
EQUIP
Equipment
BCY
Bank Cubic Yard
MATL
Material
CLF
100 Linear Foot
HPF
HTRW Productivity Factor
DY
Days
ADJ LABOR
Adjusted Labor for HFP
EA
Each
ADJ EQUIP
Adjusted Equipment for HFP
LF
Linear Foot
UNMODUC
Unmodified Unit Cost
HR
Hours
UNMOD LIC
Unmodified Line Item Cost
LB
Pounds
UN BUR LIC
Unburdened Line Item Cost
LCY
Loose Cubic Yard
PC OH
Prime Contractor Overhead
LS
Lump Sum
PC PF
Prime Contractor Profit
RL
Roll
BUR LIC
Burdened Line Item Cost
SY
Square Yard
quotes.
TN
Tons
3/24/20102:31 PM
FINAL
-------
TABLE CW5a-8
Alternative 5a
Capital Cost Sub-Element
Contaminated Surface Materials Excavation and Hauling
Cost Worksheet: CW5a-8
COST WORKSHEET
Site: North Ridge Estates
Location: Klamath County, Oregon
Phase: Final Feasibility Study
Base Year: 2010
Prepared By: AS Date: 3/16/2010
Checked By: GH Date: 3/24/2010
Work Statement:
This sub-element involves the excavation of contaminated surface materials and hauling of contaminated materials for on site consolidation and disposal. It includes costs for labor, material, and equipment.
Cost Analysis:
Cost for Contaminated Surface Materials Excavation and Hauling (Lump Sum)
COST
DATABASE
CODE
DESCRIPTION
Excavation/Loading - Surficial Contaminated
Materials
UNIT(S)
ADJ
LABOR
COST SOURCE
CITATION
COMMENTS
Mil Mil Assemblies
Hauling - Onsite Disposal
Mil Mil Assemblies
TOTAL UNIT COST:
Notes:
HTRW productivity factor is from Exhibit B-3 or B-4 of "A Guide to Developing and Documenting Cost Estimates During the Feasibility Study", EPA 2000
The Cost Database Code is a reference code for linking with line item cost information with the cost source database and is not otherwise used within these cost worksheets.
Source of Cost Data:
Not Applicable - costs are from previous work or vendor quote
For citation references, the following sources apply:
Mil (Mil Assemblies), GSA (www.gsa.gov), SE (www.salaryexpert.com), A (Allowance), V (Vendor Quote), CW09 (Means CostWorks 2009), P (Previous Work), and FRTR (www.frtr.gov)
Cost Adjustment Checklist:
FACTOR:
H&S Productivity (labor and equipment only)
Escalation to Base Year
Area Cost Factor
Subcontractor Overhead and Profit
Prime Contractor Overhead and Profit
NOTES:
Field work will be in Level "C" PPE.
Mil assembly costs include HPF adjustments.
2009 cost sources are not escalated (EF=1.00). All other costs are escalated based on the USACE CWCCIS, EM 1110-2-1304, Mar 2009.
An AF of 1.13 is used for Oregon, except that an AF of 1.00 (national unmodified average) is used for Mil assembly costs and local vendor
It is assumed that Subcontractor O&P is either included in the PC O&P or has been factored into vendor quotes or previous work.
It is assumed that home office OH is 8% and profit is 9% for the Prime Contractor. Professional labor overhead is 100%. Allowances and items with mandated costs such as per diem do not have overhead and profit applied.
Abbreviations:
QTY
Quantity
ACR
Acres
EQUIP
Equipment
BCY
Bank Cubic Yard
MATL
Material
CLF
100 Linear Foot
HPF
HTRW Productivity Factor
DY
Days
ADJ LABOR
Adjusted LaborforHFP
EA
Each
ADJ EQUIP
Adjusted Equipment for H FP
LF
Linear Foot
UNMOD UC
Unmodified Unit Cost
HR
Hours
UNMOD LIC
Unmodified Line Item Cost
LB
Pounds
UNBUR LIC
Unburdened Line Item Cost
LCY
Loose Cubic Yard
PC OH
Prime Contractor Overhead
LS
Lump Sum
PC PF
Prime Contractor Profit
RL
Roll
BUR LIC
Burdened Line Item Cost
SY
Square Yard
quotes.
TN
Tons
3/24/20102:31 PM
FINAL
-------
TABLE CW5a-9
Alternative 5a
Capital Cost Sub-Element
Construction of On-Site Consolidation Area
Cost Worksheet: CW5a-9
COST WORKSHEET
Site: North Ridge Estates
Location: Klamath County, Oregon
Phase: Final Feasibility Study
Base Year: 2010
Prepared By: AS Date: 3/16/2010
Checked By: GH Date: 3/24/2010
Work Statement:
This sub-element involves the construction of an onsite consolidation area for contaminated materials disposal. It includes cost for labor, equipment and material (soil from near offsite and distant offsite borrow areas, and organic material).
Cost Analysis:
Cost for Construction of On-Site Consolidation Area (Lump Sum)
COST
DATABASE
conF
DESCRIPTION
QTY
UNIT(S)
HPF
LABOR
ADJ
LABOR
EQUIP
ADJ EQUIP
MATL
OTHER
UNMOD UC
UNMOD LIC
PC OH
PC PF
BUR LIC
COST SOURCE
CITATION
COMMENTS
Contaminated Materials Placement
A11A
Contaminated Material Spreading/Grading
57,245
LCY
1.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$10.74
$10.74
$614,599.49
8%
9%
$723,507
Mil Mil Assemblies
A12A
Interim Cover Spreading/Grading
24,239
LCY
1.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$12.42
$12.42
$301,121.10
8%
9%
$354,480
Mil Mil Assemblies
A19A
Contaminated Matenal Compaction - Large Open
Area
81,484
LCY
1.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.90
$0.90
$73,245.97
8%
9%
$86,225
Mil Mil Assemblies
Clean Soil Placement for Cover
A12B
Final CoverSpreading/Grading
26,450
LCY
1.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$12.42
$12.42
$328,588.35
8%
9%
$386,814
Mil Mil Assemblies
A13A
Clean Fill Spreading/Grading
6,613
LCY
1.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$2.68
$2.68
$17,699.69
8%
9%
$20,836
Mil Mil Assemblies
Top soil placement
A21A
Clean Fill Compaction - Large Open Area
33,063
LCY
1.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.18
$0.18
$6,010.85
8%
9%
$7,076
Mil Mil Assemblies
Clean Fill/Soil from Near Offsite Borrow Source
A10A
Excavation - Borrow Source
24,914
BCY
1.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$2.13
$2.13
$53,094.23
8%
9%
$62,503
Mil Mil Assemblies
A14A
Material Loading - Clean Fill
28,651
LCY
1.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.32
$0.32
$9,260.00
8%
9%
$10,901
Mil Mil Assemblies
A23B
Hauling - Near Offsite Borrow Source
28,651
LCY
1.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$2.12
$2.12
$60,768.77
8%
9%
$71,537
Mil Mil Assemblies
Clean Fill/Soil trom Distant Ottsite Borrow
Source
A10A
Excavation - Borrow Source
24,914
BCY
1.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$2.13
$2.13
$53,094.23
8%
9%
$62,503
Mil Mil Assemblies
A14A
Material Loading - Clean Fill
28,651
LCY
1.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.32
$0.32
$9,260.00
8%
9%
$10,901
Mil Mil Assemblies
A23A
Hauling - Distant Offsite Borrow Source
28,651
LCY
1.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$2.82
$2.82
$80,735.65
8%
9%
$95,042
Mil Mil Assemblies
M49
Assumed Royalty Allowance for Soil
28,651
LCY
1.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$3.00
$3.00
$85,953.00
0%
0%
$85,953
A Allowance
Organic Material for Topsoil Amendment
A39B
Organic Delivery
200
TN
1.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$8.65
$8.65
$1,729.12
8%
9%
$2,036
Mil Mil Assemblies
A40A
Organic Amendment and Processing
8
ACR
1.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$1,082.08
$1,082.08
$8,656.67
8%
9%
$10,191
Mil Mil Assemblies
M25
Organic Material
200
TN
1.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$25.25
$0.00
$25.25
$5,050.00
8%
9%
$5,945
V Vendor Quote
TOTAL UNIT COST:
$1,996,450
Abbreviations:
HTRW productivity factor is from Exhibit B-3 or B-4 of "A Guide to Developing and Documenting Cost Estimates During the Feasibility Study", EPA 2000
The Cost Database Code is a reference code for linking with line item cost information with the cost source database and is not otherwise used within these cost worksheets.
Source of Cost Data:
NA Not Applicable - costs are from previous work or vendor quote
For citation references, the following sources apply:
Mil (Mil Assemblies), GSA (www.gsa.gov), SE (www.salaryexpert.com), A (Allowance), V (Vendor Quote), CW09 (Means CostWorks 2009), P (Previous Work), and FRTR (www.frtr.gov)
Cost Adjustment Checklist:
FACTOR:
H&S Productivity (labor and equipment only)
Escalation to Base Year
Area Cost Factor
Subcontractor Overhead and Profit
Prime Contractor Overhead and Profit
QTY
EQUIP
MATL
HPF
ADJ LABOR
ADJ EQUIP
UNMOD UC
UNMOD LIC
NOTES: UNBURLIC
Field work will be in Level "C" PPE. PC OH
Mil assembly costs include HPF adjustments. PC PF
2009 cost sources are not escalated (EF=1.00). All other costs are escalated based on the USACE CWCCIS, EM 1110-2-1304, Mar 2009. BUR LIC
An AF of 1.13 is used for Oregon, except that an AF of 1.00 (national unmodified average) is used for Mil assembly costs and local vendor quotes.
It is assumed that Subcontractor O&P is either included in the PC O&P or has been factored into vendor quotes or previous work.
It is assumed that home office OH is 8% and profit is 9% for the Prime Contractor. Professional labor overhead is 100%. Allowances and items with mandated costs such as per diem do not have overhead and profit applied.
Quantity
Equipment
Material
HTRW Productivity Factor
Adjusted LaborforHFP
Adjusted Equipment for H FP
Unmodified Unit Cost
Unmodified Line Item Cost
Unburdened Line Item Cost
Prime Contractor Overhead
Prime Contractor Profit
Burdened Line Item Cost
ACR
BCY
CLF
DY
EA
LF
HR
LB
LCY
LS
RL
SY
TN
Acres
Bank Cubic Yard
100 Linear Foot
Days
Each
Linear Foot
Hours
Pounds
Loose Cubic Yard
Lump Sum
Roll
Square Yard
Tons
3/24/20102:31 PM
FINAL
-------
TABLE CW5a-10
Alternative 5a
Capital Cost Sub-Element
Revegetation of On-Site Consolidation Area
Cost Worksheet: CW5a-10
COST WORKSHEET
Site: North Ridge Estates
Location: Klamath County, Oregon
Phase: Final Feasibility Study
Base Year: 2010
Prepared By: AS Date: 3/16/2010
Checked By: GH Date: 3/24/2010
Work Statement:
This sub-element involves the revegetation of the on site consolidation area with hydroseeding. It includes costs for labor, material, and equipment.
Cost Analysis:
Cost for Revegetation of On-Site Consolidation Area (Lump Sum)
COST
DATABASE
CODE
DESCRIPTION
UNIT(S)
ADJ
LABOR
COST SOURCE
CITATION
COMMENTS
Hydroseeding/Revegetation
Hydro-Seeding Crew
Mil Mil Assemblies
V Vendor Quote
V Vendor Quote
Fertilizer (P205)
V Vendor Quote
P Previous Work
TOTAL UNIT COST:
Abbreviations:
HTRW productivity factor is from Exhibit B-3 or B-4 of "A Guide to Developing and Documenting Cost Estimates During the Feasibility Study", EPA 2000
The Cost Database Code is a reference code for linking with line item cost information with the cost source database and is not otherwise used within these cost worksheets.
Source of Cost Data:
NA Not Applicable - costs are from previous work or vendor quote
For citation references, the following sources apply:
Mil (Mil Assemblies), GSA (www.gsa.gov), SE (www.salaryexpert.com), A (Allowance), V (Vendor Quote), CW09 (Means CostWorks 2009), P (Previous Work), and FRTR (www.frtr.gov)
Cost Adjustment Checklist:
FACTOR:
H&S Productivity (labor and equipment only)
Escalation to Base Year
Area Cost Factor
Subcontractor Overhead and Profit
Prime Contractor Overhead and Profit
QTY
EQUIP
MATL
HPF
ADJ LABOR
ADJ EQUIP
UNMOD UC
UNMOD LIC
NOTES: UNBURLIC
Field work will be in Level "C" PPE. PC OH
Mil assembly costs include HPF adjustments. PC PF
2009 cost sources are not escalated (EF=1.00). All other costs are escalated based on the USACE CWCCIS, EM 1110-2-1304, Mar 2009. BUR LIC
An AF of 1.13 is used for Oregon, except that an AF of 1.00 (national unmodified average) is used for Mil assembly costs and local vendor quotes.
It is assumed that Subcontractor O&P is either included in the PC O&P or has been factored into vendor quotes or previous work.
It is assumed that home office OH is 8% and profit is 9% for the Prime Contractor. Professional labor overhead is 100%. Allowances and items with mandated costs such as per diem do not have overhead and profit applied.
Quantity
Equipment
Material
HTRW Productivity Factor
Adjusted LaborforHFP
Adjusted Equipment for H FP
Unmodified Unit Cost
Unmodified Line Item Cost
Unburdened Line Item Cost
Prime Contractor Overhead
Prime Contractor Profit
Burdened Line Item Cost
ACR
BCY
CLF
DY
EA
LF
HR
LB
LCY
LS
RL
SY
TN
Acres
Bank Cubic Yard
100 Linear Foot
Days
Each
Linear Foot
Hours
Pounds
Loose Cubic Yard
Lump Sum
Roll
Square Yard
Tons
3/24/20102:31 PM
FINAL
-------
TABLE CW5a-1 OA
Alternative 5a
Capital Cost Sub-Element
Excavation Backfilling
Cost Worksheet: CW5a-10A
COST WORKSHEET
Site: North Ridge Estates
Location: Klamath County, Oregon
Phase: Final Feasibility Study
Base Year: 2010
Prepared By: AS Date: 3/16/2010
Checked By: GH Date: 3/24/2010
Work Statement:
This sub-element involves backfilling of excavations. The backfill would include a subsoil layer placed below a topsoil layer and organic amendment of the topsoil. It includes costs for labor, material, and equipment.
Cost Analysis:
Cost for Excavation Backfilling (Lump Sum)
COST
DATABASE
CODE
DESCRIPTION
UNIT(S)
ADJ
LABOR
COST SOURCE
CITATION
COMMENTS
Clean Fill/Soil from Near Offsite Borrow Source
Excavation - Borrow Source
Mil Assemblies
Material Loading - Clean Fill
Mil Assemblies
Hauling - Near Offsite Borrow Source
Clean Fill/Soil from Distant Offsite Borrow
Mil Assemblies
Excavation - Borrow Source
Mil Assemblies
Material Loading - Clean Fill
Mil Assemblies
Hauling - Distant Offsite Borrow Source
Mil Assemblies
Assumed Royalty Allowance for Soil
Subsoil Replacement and Compaction
Clean Fill Spreading/Grading
Mil Assemblies
Clean Fill Compaction - Large Open Area
Mil Assemblies
Assume 90% of total fi
Clean Fill Compaction - Small Area
Mil Assemblies
Assume 10% of total fi
Topsoil Replacement and Compaction
Top Soil Spreading/Grading
Mil Assemblies
Clean Fill Compaction - Large Open Area
Mil Assemblies
Assume 90% of total fi
Clean Fill Compaction - Small Area
Mil Assemblies
Assume 10% of total fi
Organic Material for Topsoil Amendment
Organic Delivery
Mil Mil Assemblies
Organic Amendment and Processing
Mil Mil Assemblies
Organic Material
V Vendor Quote
TOTAL UNIT COST:
Notes:
HTRW productivity factor is from Exhibit B-3 or B-4 of "A Guide to Developing and Documenting Cost Estimates During the Feasibility Study", EPA 2000
The Cost Database Code is a reference code for linking with line item cost information with the cost source database and is not otherwise used within these cost worksheets.
Source of Cost Data:
NA Not Applicable - costs are from previous work or vendor quote
For citation references, the following sources apply:
Mil (Mil Assemblies), GSA (www.gsa.gov), SE (www.salaryexpert.com), A (Allowance), V (Vendor Quote), CW09 (Means CostWorks 2009), P (Previous Work), and FRTR (www.frtr.gov)
Abbreviations:
Cost Adjustment Checklist:
FACTOR:
H&S Productivity (labor and equipment only)
Escalation to Base Year
Area Cost Factor
Subcontractor Overhead and Profit
Prime Contractor Overhead and Profit
NOTES:
Field work will be in Level "C" PPE.
Mil assembly costs include HPF adjustments.
2009 cost sources are not escalated (EF=1.00). All other costs are escalated based on the USACE CWCCIS, EM 1110-2-1304, Mar 2009.
An AF of 1.13 is used for Oregon, except that an AF of 1.00 (national unmodified average) is used for Mil assembly costs and local vendor
It is assumed that Subcontractor O&P is either included in the PC O&P or has been factored into vendor quotes or previous work.
It is assumed that home office OH is 8% and profit is 9% for the Prime Contractor. Professional labor overhead is 100%. Allowances and items with mandated costs such as per diem do not have overhead and profit applied.
QTY
Quantity
ACR
Acres
EQUIP
Equipment
BCY
Bank Cubic Yard
MATL
Material
CLF
100 Linear Foot
HPF
HTRW Productivity Factor
DY
Days
ADJ LABOR
Adjusted LaborforHFP
EA
Each
ADJ EQUIP
Adjusted Equipment for H FP
LF
Linear Foot
UNMOD UC
Unmodified Unit Cost
HR
Hours
UNMOD LIC
Unmodified Line Item Cost
LB
Pounds
UNBUR LIC
Unburdened Line Item Cost
LCY
Loose Cubic Yard
PC OH
Prime Contractor Overhead
LS
Lump Sum
PC PF
Prime Contractor Profit
RL
Roll
BUR LIC
Burdened Line Item Cost
SY
Square Yard
quotes.
TN
Tons
3/24/20102:31 PM
FINAL
-------
TABLE CW5a-11
Alternative 5a
Capital Cost Sub-Element
Revegetation of Disturbed Areas
Cost Worksheet: CW5a-11
COST WORKSHEET
Site: North Ridge Estates
Location: Klamath County, Oregon
Phase: Final Feasibility Study
Base Year: 2010
Prepared By: AS Date: 3/16/2010
Checked By: GH Date: 3/24/2010
Work Statement:
This sub-element involves the revegetation of disturbed areas on the site. It includes hydro-seeding with fertilizer and hydomulch.
Cost Analysis:
Cost for Revegetation of Disturbed Areas (Lump Sum)
COST
DATABASE
CODE
DESCRIPTION
UNIT(S)
ADJ
LABOR
COST SOURCE
CITATION
COMMENTS
Hydroseeding/Revegetation
Hydro-Seeding Crew
Mil Mil Assemblies
V Vendor Quote
V Vendor Quote
Fertilizer (P205)
V Vendor Quote
P Previous Work
TOTAL UNIT COST:
Abbreviations:
HTRW productivity factor is from Exhibit B-3 or B-4 of "A Guide to Developing and Documenting Cost Estimates During the Feasibility Study", EPA 2000
The Cost Database Code is a reference code for linking with line item cost information with the cost source database and is not otherwise used within these cost worksheets.
Source of Cost Data:
NA Not Applicable - costs are from previous work or vendor quote
For citation references, the following sources apply:
Mil (Mil Assemblies), GSA (www.gsa.gov), SE (www.salaryexpert.com), A (Allowance), V (Vendor Quote), CW09 (Means CostWorks 2009), P (Previous Work), and FRTR (www.frtr.gov)
Cost Adjustment Checklist:
FACTOR:
H&S Productivity (labor and equipment only)
Escalation to Base Year
Area Cost Factor
Subcontractor Overhead and Profit
Prime Contractor Overhead and Profit
QTY
EQUIP
MATL
HPF
ADJ LABOR
ADJ EQUIP
UNMOD UC
UNMOD LIC
NOTES: UNBURLIC
Field work will be in Level "C" PPE. PC OH
Mil assembly costs include HPF adjustments. PC PF
2009 cost sources are not escalated (EF=1.00). All other costs are escalated based on the USACE CWCCIS, EM 1110-2-1304, Mar 2009. BUR LIC
An AF of 1.13 is used for Oregon, except that an AF of 1.00 (national unmodified average) is used for Mil assembly costs and local vendor quotes.
It is assumed that Subcontractor O&P is either included in the PC O&P or has been factored into vendor quotes or previous work.
It is assumed that home office OH is 8% and profit is 9% for the Prime Contractor. Professional labor overhead is 100%. Allowances and items with mandated costs such as per diem do not have overhead and profit applied.
Quantity
Equipment
Material
HTRW Productivity Factor
Adjusted LaborforHFP
Adjusted Equipment for H FP
Unmodified Unit Cost
Unmodified Line Item Cost
Unburdened Line Item Cost
Prime Contractor Overhead
Prime Contractor Profit
Burdened Line Item Cost
ACR
BCY
CLF
DY
EA
LF
HR
LB
LCY
LS
RL
SY
TN
Acres
Bank Cubic Yard
100 Linear Foot
Days
Each
Linear Foot
Hours
Pounds
Loose Cubic Yard
Lump Sum
Roll
Square Yard
Tons
3/24/20102:31 PM
FINAL
-------
TABLE CW5a-12
Alternative 5a
Capital Cost Sub-Element
Equipment Decontamination
Cost Worksheet: CW5a-12
COST WORKSHEET
Site: North Ridge Estates
Location: Klamath County, Oregon
Phase: Final Feasibility Study
Base Year: 2010
Prepared By: AS Date: 3/16/2010
Checked By: GH Date: 3/24/2010
Work Statement:
This sub-element involves decontamination of equipment used onsite.
Cost Analysis:
Cost for Equipment Decontamination (Lump Sum)
COST
DATABASE
conF
DESCRIPTION
QTY
UNIT(S)
HPF
LABOR
ADJ
LABOR
EQUIP
ADJ EQUIP
MATL
OTHER
UNMOD UC
UNMOD LIC
PC OH
PC PF
BUR LIC
COST SOURCE
CITATION
COMMENTS
Equipment Decon/Washing
A3A
Equipment Decon/Washing
416
DY
1.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$168.44
$168.44
$70,070.08
8%
9%
$82,487
Mil Mil Assemblies
Assume 8 months/yr, 2 yrs
M46
PolyTank, 5,300 Gal
1
EA
1.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$2,250.24
$0.00
$2,250.24
$2,250.24
8%
9%
$2,649
V Vendor Quote
M47
Wash Rack w/ Solids Filtration Unit, Closed Loop
1
LS
1.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$55,655.04
$0.00
$55,655.04
$55,655.04
8%
9%
$65,517
V Vendor Quote
TOTAL UNIT COST:
$150,653
Notes: Abbreviations:
HTRW productivity factor is from Exhibit B-3 or B-4 of "A Guide to Developing and Documenting Cost Estimates During the Feasibility Study", EPA 2000 QTY
Quantity
ACR
Acres
The Cost Database Code is a reference code for linking with line item cost information with the cost source database and is not otherwise used within these cost worksheets. EQUIP
Equipment
BCY
Bank Cubic Yard
MATL
Material
CLF
100 Linear Foot
Source of Cost Data: HPF
HTRW Productivity Factor
DY
Days
NA Not Applicable - costs are from previous work or vendor quote ADJ LABOR
Adjusted LaborforHFP
EA
Each
For citation references, the following sources apply: ADJ EQU IP
Adjusted Equipment for H FP
LF
Linear Foot
Mil (Mil Assemblies), GSA (www.gsa.gov), SE (www.salaryexpert.com), A (Allowance), V (Vendor Quote), CW09 (Means CostWorks 2009), P (Previous Work), and FRTR (www.frtr.gov) UNMOD UC
Unmodified Unit Cost
HR
Hours
UNMOD LIC
Unmodified Line Item Cost
LB
Pounds
Cost Adjustment Checklist: NOTES: UNRURIIO
Unburdened Line Item Cost
LCY
Loose Cubic Yard
FACTOR: Field work will be in Level "C" PPE. PC OH
Prime Contractor Overhead
LS
Lump Sum
H&S Productivity (labor and equipment only) Mil assembly costs include HPF adjustments. PC PF
Prime Contractor Profit
RL
Roll
Escalation to Base Year 2009 cost sources are not escalated (EF=1.00). All other costs are escalated based on the USACE CWCCIS, EM 1110-2-1304, Mar 2009. BUR LIC
Burdened Line Item Cost
SY
Square Yard
Area Cost Factor An AF of 1.13 is used for Oregon, except that an AF of 1.00 (national unmodified average) is used for Mil assembly costs and local vendor quotes.
TN
Tons
Subcontractor Overhead and Profit It is assumed that Subcontractor O&P is either included in the PC O&P or has been factored into vendor quotes or previous work.
Prime Contractor Overhead and Profit It is assumed that home office OH is 8% and profit is 9% for the Prime Contractor. Professional labor overhead is 100%. Allowances and items with mandated costs such as per diem do not have overhead and profit applied.
3/24/20102:31 PM
FINAL
-------
TABLE CW5a-13
Alternative 5a
Capital Cost Sub-Element
Mobilization/Demobilization
Cost Worksheet: CW5a-13
COST WORKSHEET
Site: North Ridge Estates
Location: Klamath County, Oregon
Phase: Final Feasibility Study
Base Year: 2010
Prepared By: AS Date: 3/16/2010
Checked By: GH Date: 3/24/2010
Work Statement:
This sub-element involves mobilization and demobilization of all the required equipment to and from the site respectively.
Cost Analysis:
Cost for Mobilization/Demobilization (Lump Sum)
COST
DATABASE
conF
DESCRIPTION
QTY
UNIT(S)
HPF
LABOR
ADJ
LABOR
EQUIP
ADJ EQUIP
MATL
OTHER
UNMOD UC
UNMOD LIC
PC OH
PC PF
BUR LIC
COST SOURCE
CITATION
COMMENTS
A37A
Mobilization and Demobilization - Heavy Equipmen
10
EA
1.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$2,384.82
$2,384.82
$23,848.22
8%
9%
$28,074
Mil Mil Assemblies
A37B
Mobilization and Demobilization - Medium-Sizec
Equipment
6
EA
1.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$974.68
$974.68
$5,848.08
8%
9%
$6,884
Mil Mil Assemblies
A37C
Mobilization and Demobilization - Small Equipment
5
EA
1.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$605.12
$605.12
$3,025.61
8%
9%
$3,562
Mil Mil Assemblies
A37D
Mobilization and Demobilization - Selt-Propellec
Equipment
10
EA
1.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$2,469.12
$2,469.12
$24,691.17
8%
9%
$29,066
Mil Mil Assemblies
TOTAL UNIT COST:
$67,586
Notes: Abbreviations:
HTRW productivity factor is from Exhibit B-3 or B-4 of "A Guide to Developing and Documenting Cost Estimates During the Feasibility Study", EPA 2000 QTY
Quantity
ACR
Acres
The Cost Database Code is a reference code for linking with line item cost information with the cost source database and is not otherwise used within these cost worksheets. EQUIP
Equipment
BCY
Bank Cubic Yard
MATL
Material
CLF
100 Linear Foot
Source of Cost Data: HPF
HTRW Productivity Factor
DY
Days
NA Not Applicable - costs are from previous work or vendor quote ADJ LABOR
Adjusted LaborforHFP
EA
Each
For citation references, the following sources apply: ADJ EQU IP
Adjusted Equipment for H FP
LF
Linear Foot
Mil (Mil Assemblies), GSA (www.gsa.gov), SE (www.salaryexpert.com), A (Allowance), V (Vendor Quote), CW09 (Means CostWorks 2009), P (Previous Work), and FRTR (www.frtr.gov) UNMOD UC
Unmodified Unit Cost
HR
Hours
UNMOD LIC
Unmodified Line Item Cost
LB
Pounds
Cost Adjustment Checklist: NOTES: IINRURIIC
Unburdened Line Item Cost
LCY
Loose Cubic Yard
FACTOR: Field work will be in Level "C" PPE. PC OH
Prime Contractor Overhead
LS
Lump Sum
H&S Productivity (labor and equipment only) Mil assembly costs include HPF adjustments. PC PF
Prime Contractor Profit
RL
Roll
Escalation to Base Year 2009 cost sources are not escalated (EF=1.00). All other costs are escalated based on the USACE CWCCIS, EM 1110-2-1304, Mar 2009. BUR LIC
Burdened Line Item Cost
SY
Square Yard
Area Cost Factor An AF of 1.13 is used for Oregon, except that an AF of 1.00 (national unmodified average) is used for Mil assembly costs and local vendor quotes.
TN
Tons
Subcontractor Overhead and Profit It is assumed that Subcontractor O&P is either included in the PC O&P or has been factored into vendor quotes or previous work.
Prime Contractor Overhead and Profit It is assumed that home office OH is 8% and profit is 9% for the Prime Contractor. Professional labor overhead is 100%. Allowances and items with mandated costs such as per diem do not have overhead and profit applied.
3/24/20102:31 PM
FINAL
-------
TABLE CW5a-14
Alternative 5a
Capital Cost Sub-Element
Site Maintenance and Control During Construction
Cost Worksheet: CW5a-14
COST WORKSHEET
Site: North Ridge Estates
Location: Klamath County, Oregon
Phase: Final Feasibility Study
Base Year: 2010
Prepared By: AS Date: 3/16/2010
Checked By: GH Date: 3/24/2010
Work Statement:
This sub-element involves site maintenance during construction. The annual costs for site maintenance during construction include labor, material, and equipment.
Cost Analysis:
Cost for Site Maintenance and Control During Construction (Lump Sum)
COST
DATABASE
conF
DESCRIPTION
QTY
UNIT(S)
HPF
LABOR
ADJ
LABOR
EQUIP
ADJ EQUIP
MATL
OTHER
UNMOD UC
UNMOD LIC
PC OH
PC PF
BUR LIC
COST SOURCE
CITATION
COMMENTS
Dust Control
A1A
Dust Control/Washing
416
DY
1.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$564.97
$564.97
$235,029.10
8%
9%
$276,676
Mil Mil Assemblies
Equipment Fueling
A2A
Equipment Fueling
416
DY
1.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$68.46
$68.46
$28,478.44
8%
9%
$33,525
Mil Mil Assemblies
Construction Safety and Traffic Control
A33A
Barricade and Traffic Control Setup
2
DY
1.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$987.96
$987.96
$1,975.92
8%
9%
$2,326
Mil Mil Assemblies
M36
3" x 1,000' Yellow Caution Tape
10
RL
1.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$10.61
$0.00
$10.61
$106.10
8%
9%
$125
V Vendor Quote
M37
3" x 1,000' Red Danger Asbestos Haz Tape
10
RL
1.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$10.61
$0.00
$10.61
$106.10
8%
9%
$125
V Vendor Quote
M38
Reflecting Barricade with Light
15
EA
1.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$72.55
$0.00
$72.55
$1,088.25
8%
9%
$1,281
V Vendor Quote
M39
Orange Safety Fence with Posts
20
CLF
1.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$53.52
$0.00
$53.52
$1,070.40
8%
9%
$1,260
V Vendor Quote
TOTAL UNIT COST:
$315,318
Abbreviations:
HTRW productivity factor is from Exhibit B-3 or B-4 of "A Guide to Developing and Documenting Cost Estimates During the Feasibility Study", EPA 2000
The Cost Database Code is a reference code for linking with line item cost information with the cost source database and is not otherwise used within these cost worksheets.
Source of Cost Data:
NA Not Applicable - costs are from previous work or vendor quote
For citation references, the following sources apply:
Mil (Mil Assemblies), GSA (www.gsa.gov), SE (www.salaryexpert.com), A (Allowance), V (Vendor Quote), CW09 (Means CostWorks 2009), P (Previous Work), and FRTR (www.frtr.gov)
Cost Adjustment Checklist:
FACTOR:
H&S Productivity (labor and equipment only)
Escalation to Base Year
Area Cost Factor
Subcontractor Overhead and Profit
Prime Contractor Overhead and Profit
QTY
EQUIP
MATL
HPF
ADJ LABOR
ADJ EQUIP
UNMOD UC
UNMOD LIC
NOTES: UNBURLIC
Field work will be in Level "C" PPE. PC OH
Mil assembly costs include HPF adjustments. PC PF
2009 cost sources are not escalated (EF=1.00). All other costs are escalated based on the USACE CWCCIS, EM 1110-2-1304, Mar 2009. BUR LIC
An AF of 1.13 is used for Oregon, except that an AF of 1.00 (national unmodified average) is used for Mil assembly costs and local vendor quotes.
It is assumed that Subcontractor O&P is either included in the PC O&P or has been factored into vendor quotes or previous work.
It is assumed that home office OH is 8% and profit is 9% for the Prime Contractor. Professional labor overhead is 100%. Allowances and items with mandated costs such as per diem do not have overhead and profit applied.
Quantity
Equipment
Material
HTRW Productivity Factor
Adjusted LaborforHFP
Adjusted Equipment for H FP
Unmodified Unit Cost
Unmodified Line Item Cost
Unburdened Line Item Cost
Prime Contractor Overhead
Prime Contractor Profit
Burdened Line Item Cost
ACR
BCY
CLF
DY
EA
LF
HR
LB
LCY
LS
RL
SY
TN
Acres
Bank Cubic Yard
100 Linear Foot
Days
Each
Linear Foot
Hours
Pounds
Loose Cubic Yard
Lump Sum
Roll
Square Yard
Tons
3/24/20102:31 PM
FINAL
-------
TABLE CW5a-15
Alternative 5a
Capital Cost Sub-Element
Temporary Site Facilitites During Construction
Cost Worksheet: CW5a-15
COST WORKSHEET
Site: North Ridge Estates
Location: Klamath County, Oregon
Phase: Final Feasibility Study
Base Year: 2010
Prepared By: AS Date: 3/16/2010
Checked By: GH Date: 3/24/2010
Work Statement:
This sub-element involves rental cost for onsite office trailer, storage box, portable toilets, and utilities.
Cost Analysis:
Cost for Temporary Site Facilitites During Construction (Lump Sum)
COST
DATABASE
CODE
DESCRIPTION
UNIT(S)
ADJ
LABOR
COST SOURCE
CITATION
COMMENTS
Site Trailer/Office
Site Office Trailer Installation - One Time Cost
V Vendor Quote
Trailer Rental and Storage Box
V Vendor Quote
Office Furniture
V Vendor Quote
Portable Toilets
V Vendor Quote
General Office Supplies Allowance
A Allowance
Erosion Control Measures Allowance
A Allowance
Utilities (Phone, Internet, Electricity)
V Vendor Quote
TOTAL UNIT COST:
Abbreviations:
HTRW productivity factor is from Exhibit B-3 or B-4 of "A Guide to Developing and Documenting Cost Estimates During the Feasibility Study", EPA 2000
The Cost Database Code is a reference code for linking with line item cost information with the cost source database and is not otherwise used within these cost worksheets.
Source of Cost Data:
NA Not Applicable - costs are from previous work or vendor quote
For citation references, the following sources apply:
Mil (Mil Assemblies), GSA (www.gsa.gov), SE (www.salaryexpert.com), A (Allowance), V (Vendor Quote), CW09 (Means CostWorks 2009), P (Previous Work), and FRTR (www.frtr.gov)
Cost Adjustment Checklist:
FACTOR:
H&S Productivity (labor and equipment only)
Escalation to Base Year
Area Cost Factor
Subcontractor Overhead and Profit
Prime Contractor Overhead and Profit
QTY
EQUIP
MATL
HPF
ADJ LABOR
ADJ EQUIP
UNMOD UC
UNMOD LIC
NOTES: UNBURLIC
Field work will be in Level "C" PPE. PC OH
Mil assembly costs include HPF adjustments. PC PF
2009 cost sources are not escalated (EF=1.00). All other costs are escalated based on the USACE CWCCIS, EM 1110-2-1304, Mar 2009. BUR LIC
An AF of 1.13 is used for Oregon, except that an AF of 1.00 (national unmodified average) is used for Mil assembly costs and local vendor quotes.
It is assumed that Subcontractor O&P is either included in the PC O&P or has been factored into vendor quotes or previous work.
It is assumed that home office OH is 8% and profit is 9% for the Prime Contractor. Professional labor overhead is 100%. Allowances and items with mandated costs such as per diem do not have overhead and profit applied.
Quantity
Equipment
Material
HTRW Productivity Factor
Adjusted LaborforHFP
Adjusted Equipment for H FP
Unmodified Unit Cost
Unmodified Line Item Cost
Unburdened Line Item Cost
Prime Contractor Overhead
Prime Contractor Profit
Burdened Line Item Cost
ACR
BCY
CLF
DY
EA
LF
HR
LB
LCY
LS
RL
SY
TN
Acres
Bank Cubic Yard
100 Linear Foot
Days
Each
Linear Foot
Hours
Pounds
Loose Cubic Yard
Lump Sum
Roll
Square Yard
Tons
3/24/20102:31 PM
FINAL
-------
TABLE CW5a-16
Alternative 5a
Capital Cost Sub-Element
Surveying for Construction Control
Cost Worksheet: CW5a-16
COST WORKSHEET
Site: North Ridge Estates
Location: Klamath County, Oregon
Phase: Final Feasibility Study
Base Year: 2010
Prepared By: AS Date: 3/16/2010
Checked By: GH Date: 3/24/2010
Work Statement:
This sub-element involves cost for site surveying before and after the remedial alternative is implemented.
Cost Analysis:
Cost for Surveying for Construction Control (Lump Sum)
COST
DATABASE
CODE
DESCRIPTION
UNIT(S)
ADJ
LABOR
COST SOURCE
CITATION
COMMENTS
Site Survey - Contaminated Area
Mil Mil Assemblies
Assume 4 acres/day
Site Survey - Clean Area
Mil Mil Assemblies
Assume 6 acres/day
Surveying Report Allowance
A Allowance
TOTAL UNIT COST:
Abbreviations:
HTRW productivity factor is from Exhibit B-3 or B-4 of "A Guide to Developing and Documenting Cost Estimates During the Feasibility Study", EPA 2000
The Cost Database Code is a reference code for linking with line item cost information with the cost source database and is not otherwise used within these cost worksheets.
Source of Cost Data:
NA Not Applicable - costs are from previous work or vendor quote
For citation references, the following sources apply:
Mil (Mil Assemblies), GSA (www.gsa.gov), SE (www.salaryexpert.com), A (Allowance), V (Vendor Quote), CW09 (Means CostWorks 2009), P (Previous Work), and FRTR (www.frtr.gov)
Cost Adjustment Checklist:
FACTOR:
H&S Productivity (labor and equipment only)
Escalation to Base Year
Area Cost Factor
Subcontractor Overhead and Profit
Prime Contractor Overhead and Profit
QTY
EQUIP
MATL
HPF
ADJ LABOR
ADJ EQUIP
UNMOD UC
UNMOD LIC
NOTES: UNBURLIC
Field work will be in Level "C" PPE. PC OH
Mil assembly costs include HPF adjustments. PC PF
2009 cost sources are not escalated (EF=1.00). All other costs are escalated based on the USACE CWCCIS, EM 1110-2-1304, Mar 2009. BUR LIC
An AF of 1.13 is used for Oregon, except that an AF of 1.00 (national unmodified average) is used for Mil assembly costs and local vendor quotes.
It is assumed that Subcontractor O&P is either included in the PC O&P or has been factored into vendor quotes or previous work.
It is assumed that home office OH is 8% and profit is 9% for the Prime Contractor. Professional labor overhead is 100%. Allowances and items with mandated costs such as per diem do not have overhead and profit applied.
Quantity
Equipment
Material
HTRW Productivity Factor
Adjusted LaborforHFP
Adjusted Equipment for H FP
Unmodified Unit Cost
Unmodified Line Item Cost
Unburdened Line Item Cost
Prime Contractor Overhead
Prime Contractor Profit
Burdened Line Item Cost
ACR
BCY
CLF
DY
EA
LF
HR
LB
LCY
LS
RL
SY
TN
Acres
Bank Cubic Yard
100 Linear Foot
Days
Each
Linear Foot
Hours
Pounds
Loose Cubic Yard
Lump Sum
Roll
Square Yard
Tons
3/24/20102:31 PM
FINAL
-------
TABLE CW5a-17
Alternative 5a
Capital Cost Sub-Element
Temporary Laydown and Access Road Installation
Cost Worksheet: CW5a-17
COST WORKSHEET
Site: North Ridge Estates
Location: Klamath County, Oregon
Phase: Final Feasibility Study
Base Year: 2010
Prepared By: AS Date: 3/16/2010
Checked By: GH Date: 3/24/2010
Work Statement:
This sub-element involves temporary gravel construction at the site for the gravel laydown area and temporary access roads used to access contaminated areas during construction. It includes costs for material, labor, and equipment.
Cost Analysis:
Cost for Temporary Laydown and Access Road Installation (Lump Sum)
COST
DATABASE
CODE
DESCRIPTION
UNIT(S)
ADJ
LABOR
COST SOURCE
CITATION
COMMENTS
Gravel Laydown Area
Gravel Placement - Clean Area
Mil Mil Assemblies
Gravel, Delivered
V Vendor Quote
Temporary Gravel Access Roads
Gravel Placement - Contaminated Area
Mil Mil Assemblies
Assume 1 mile road, 15 ft wide
Gravel, Delivered
V Vendor Quote
TOTAL UNIT COST:
Abbreviations:
HTRW productivity factor is from Exhibit B-3 or B-4 of "A Guide to Developing and Documenting Cost Estimates During the Feasibility Study", EPA 2000
The Cost Database Code is a reference code for linking with line item cost information with the cost source database and is not otherwise used within these cost worksheets.
Source of Cost Data:
NA Not Applicable - costs are from previous work or vendor quote
For citation references, the following sources apply:
Mil (Mil Assemblies), GSA (www.gsa.gov), SE (www.salaryexpert.com), A (Allowance), V (Vendor Quote), CW09 (Means CostWorks 2009), P (Previous Work), and FRTR (www.frtr.gov)
Cost Adjustment Checklist:
FACTOR:
H&S Productivity (labor and equipment only)
Escalation to Base Year
Area Cost Factor
Subcontractor Overhead and Profit
Prime Contractor Overhead and Profit
QTY
EQUIP
MATL
HPF
ADJ LABOR
ADJ EQUIP
UNMOD UC
UNMOD LIC
NOTES: UNBURLIC
Field work will be in Level "C" PPE. PC OH
Mil assembly costs include HPF adjustments. PC PF
2009 cost sources are not escalated (EF=1.00). All other costs are escalated based on the USACE CWCCIS, EM 1110-2-1304, Mar 2009. BUR LIC
An AF of 1.13 is used for Oregon, except that an AF of 1.00 (national unmodified average) is used for Mil assembly costs and local vendor quotes.
It is assumed that Subcontractor O&P is either included in the PC O&P or has been factored into vendor quotes or previous work.
It is assumed that home office OH is 8% and profit is 9% for the Prime Contractor. Professional labor overhead is 100%. Allowances and items with mandated costs such as per diem do not have overhead and profit applied.
Quantity
Equipment
Material
HTRW Productivity Factor
Adjusted LaborforHFP
Adjusted Equipment for H FP
Unmodified Unit Cost
Unmodified Line Item Cost
Unburdened Line Item Cost
Prime Contractor Overhead
Prime Contractor Profit
Burdened Line Item Cost
ACR
BCY
CLF
DY
EA
LF
HR
LB
LCY
LS
RL
SY
TN
Acres
Bank Cubic Yard
100 Linear Foot
Days
Each
Linear Foot
Hours
Pounds
Loose Cubic Yard
Lump Sum
Roll
Square Yard
Tons
3/24/20102:31 PM
FINAL
-------
Cost Worksheets
Alternative 5b
-------
TABLE CW5b-1
Alternative 5b
Capital Cost Sub-Element
Institutional Controls
Cost Worksheet: CW5b-1
COST WORKSHEET
Site: North Ridge Estates
Location: Klamath County, Oregon
Phase: Final Feasibility Study
Base Year: 2010
Prepared By: AS Date: 3/16/2010
Checked By: GH Date: 3/24/2010
Work Statement:
This sub-element involves implementation of institutional controls for the site. The following cost includes hours for and document legal procedures to establish and cost for document submission and recording. The cost also includes site survey to establish parcel/site boundaries.
Cost Analysis:
Cost for Institutional Controls (Lump Sum)
COST
DATABASE
conF
DESCRIPTION
QTY
UNIT(S)
HPF
LABOR
ADJ
LABOR
EQUIP
ADJ EQUIP
MATL
OTHER
UNMOD UC
UNMOD LIC
PC OH
PC PF
BUR LIC
COST SOURCE
CITATION
COMMENTS
Institutional Controls tor Private Ownership
Parcels (27)
L6
Environmental Lawyer
648
HR
1.00
$71.06
$71.06
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$71.06
$46,046.88
100%
9%
$100,382
SE SalaryExpert.con
24 hrs per parcel
L15
Paralegal
864
HR
1.00
$37.29
$37.29
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$37.29
$32,218.56
100%
9%
$70,236
SE SalaryExpert.con
32 hrs per parcel
L3
Clerks, Typist, Bookkeeper & Receptionist
270
HR
1.00
$19.05
$19.05
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$19.05
$5,143.50
100%
9%
$11,213
SE SalaryExpert.con
10 hrs per parcel
M11A
Document Submission and Recording Allowance
27
LS
1.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$5,000.00
$5,000.00
$135,000.00
0%
0%
$135,000
A Allowance
Institutional Controls tor Receivership Parcels
(29)
L6
Environmental Lawyer
464
HR
1.00
$71.06
$71.06
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$71.06
$32,971.84
100%
9%
$71,879
SE SalaryExpert.con
16 hrs per parcel
L15
Paralegal
696
HR
1.00
$37.29
$37.29
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$37.29
$25,953.84
100%
9%
$56,579
SE SalaryExpert.con
24 hrs per parcel
L3
Clerks, Typist, Bookkeeper & Receptionist
290
HR
1.00
$19.05
$19.05
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$19.05
$5,524.50
100%
9%
$12,043
SE SalaryExpert.con
10 hrs per parcel
M11A
Document Submission and Recording Allowance
29
LS
1.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$5,000.00
$5,000.00
$145,000.00
0%
0%
$145,000
A Allowance
A38A
Site Survey - Clean Area
10
DY
1.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$464.52
$464.52
$4,645.19
8%
9%
$5,468
Mil Mil Assemblies
needed
M12
Surveying Report Allowance
1
LS
1.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$15,000.00
$15,000.00
$15,000.00
0%
0%
$15,000
A Allowance
TOTAL UNIT COST:
$622,800
Notes: Abbreviations:
HTRW productivity factor is from Exhibit B-3 or B-4 of "A Guide to Developing and Documenting Cost Estimates During the Feasibility Study", EPA 2000 QTY
Quantity
ACR
Acres
The Cost Database Code is a reference code for linking with line item cost information with the cost source database and is not otherwise used within these cost worksheets. EQUIP
Equipment
BCY
Bank Cubic Yard
MATL
Material
CLF
100 Linear Foot
Source of Cost Data: HPF
HTRW Productivity Factor
DY
Days
NA Not Applicable - costs are from previous work or vendor quote ADJ LABOR
Adjusted LaborforHFP
EA
Each
For citation references, the following sources apply: ADJ EQU IP
Adjusted Equipment for H FP
LF
Linear Foot
Mil (Mil Assemblies), GSA (www.gsa.gov), SE (www.salaryexpert.com), A (Allowance), V (Vendor Quote), CW09 (Means CostWorks 2009), P (Previous Work), and FRTR (www.frtr.gov) UNMOD UC
Unmodified Unit Cost
HR
Hours
UNMOD LIC
Unmodified Line Item Cost
LB
Pounds
Cost Adjustment Checklist: NOTES: UNRURIIC
Unburdened Line Item Cost
LCY
Loose Cubic Yard
FACTOR: Field work will be in Level "C" PPE. PC OH
Prime Contractor Overhead
LS
Lump Sum
H&S Productivity (labor and equipment only) Mil assembly costs include HPF adjustments. PC PF
Prime Contractor Profit
RL
Roll
Escalation to Base Year 2009 cost sources are not escalated (EF=1.00). All other costs are escalated based on the USACE CWCCIS, EM 1110-2-1304, Mar 2009. BUR LIC
Burdened Line Item Cost
SY
Square Yard
Area Cost Factor An AF of 1.13 is used for Oregon, except that an AF of 1.00 (national unmodified average) is used for Mil assembly costs and local vendor quotes.
TN
Tons
Subcontractor Overhead and Profit It is assumed that Subcontractor O&P is either included in the PC O&P or has been factored into vendor quotes or previous work.
Prime Contractor Overhead and Profit It is assumed that home office OH is 8% and profit is 9% for the Prime Contractor. Professional labor overhead is 100%. Allowances and items with mandated costs such as per diem do not have overhead and profit applied.
3/24/20102:44 PM
FINAL
-------
TABLE CW5b-2
Alternative 5b
Capital Cost Sub-Element
Access Controls
Cost Worksheet: CW5b-2
COST WORKSHEET
Site: North Ridge Estates
Location: Klamath County, Oregon
Phase: Final Feasibility Study
Base Year: 2010
Prepared By: AS Date: 3/16/2010
Checked By: GH Date: 3/24/2010
Work Statement:
This sub-element involves the cost associated with access controls on the site. Access controls include installation of sign posts along the perimeter of the disturbed area, the onsite repositories, and signage along steam pipe on the east side of Old Fort Road.
Cost Analysis:
Cost for Access Controls (Lump Sum)
COST
DATABASE
conF
DESCRIPTION
QTY
UNIT(S)
HPF
LABOR
ADJ
LABOR
EQUIP
ADJ EQUIP
MATL
OTHER
UNMOD UC
UNMOD LIC
PC OH
PC PF
BUR LIC
COST SOURCE
CITATION
COMMENTS
A31C
Signage Installation - Clean Area
1
DY
1.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$1,585.31
$1,585.31
$1,585.31
8%
9%
$1,866
Mil Mil Assemblies
M4A
T-Post, 7' High Steel Post
25
EA
1.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$5.86
$0.00
$5.86
$146.50
8%
9%
$172
V Vendor Quote
Includes wire clips
M9
Signs
25
EA
1.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$99.09
$0.00
$99.09
$2,477.25
8%
9%
$2,916
V Vendor Quote
Assume every 300 FT
TOTAL UNIT COST:
$4,954
Notes: Abbreviations:
HTRW productivity factor is from Exhibit B-3 or B-4 of "A Guide to Developing and Documenting Cost Estimates During the Feasibility Study", EPA 2000 QTY
Quantity
ACR
Acres
The Cost Database Code is a reference code for linking with line item cost information with the cost source database and is not otherwise used within these cost worksheets. EQUIP
Equipment
BCY
Bank Cubic Yard
MATL
Material
CLF
100 Linear Foot
Source of Cost Data: HPF
HTRW Productivity Factor
DY
Days
NA Not Applicable - costs are from previous work or vendor quote ADJ LABOR
Adjusted LaborforHFP
EA
Each
For citation references, the following sources apply: ADJ EQU IP
Adjusted Equipment for H FP
LF
Linear Foot
Mil (Mil Assemblies), GSA (www.gsa.gov), SE (www.salaryexpert.com), A (Allowance), V (Vendor Quote), CW09 (Means CostWorks 2009), P (Previous Work), and FRTR (www.frtr.gov) UNMOD UC
Unmodified Unit Cost
HR
Hours
UNMOD LIC
Unmodified Line Item Cost
LB
Pounds
Cost Adjustment Checklist: NOTES: UNRURIIC
Unburdened Line Item Cost
LCY
Loose Cubic Yard
FACTOR: Field work will be in Level "C" PPE. PC OH
Prime Contractor Overhead
LS
Lump Sum
H&S Productivity (labor and equipment only) Mil assembly costs include HPF adjustments. PC PF
Prime Contractor Profit
RL
Roll
Escalation to Base Year 2009 cost sources are not escalated (EF=1.00). All other costs are escalated based on the USACE CWCCIS, EM 1110-2-1304, Mar 2009. BUR LIC
Burdened Line Item Cost
SY
Square Yard
Area Cost Factor An AF of 1.13 is used for Oregon, except that an AF of 1.00 (national unmodified average) is used for Mil assembly costs and local vendor quotes.
TN
Tons
Subcontractor Overhead and Profit It is assumed that Subcontractor O&P is either included in the PC O&P or has been factored into vendor quotes or previous work.
Prime Contractor Overhead and Profit It is assumed that home office OH is 8% and profit is 9% for the Prime Contractor. Professional labor overhead is 100%. Allowances and items with mandated costs such as per diem do not have overhead and profit applied.
3/24/20102:44 PM
FINAL
-------
TABLE CW5b-3A
Alternative 5b
Capital Cost Sub-Element
Borrow Source Testing
Cost Worksheet: CW5b-3A
COST WORKSHEET
Site: North Ridge Estates
Location: Klamath County, Oregon
Phase: Final Feasibility Study
Base Year: 2010
Prepared By: AS Date: 3/16/2010
Checked By: GH Date: 3/24/2010
Work Statement:
This sub-element involves determining whether asbestos fibers are present in proposed borrow source. Samples would be collected from potential soil borrow areas and analyzed for asbestos and non-asbestos COPCs. Visual inspection and ABS activities would be conducted to determine asbestos contamination. The ABS sample;
would be analyzed by TEM Method. Non-asbestos contamination would include organic/inorganic analysis for VOCs, SVOCs, PCBs, TPH, herbicides, pesticides, and target analyte list metals. The following includes the labor, material and equipment cost, and shipping cost required for the borrow material sampling.
Cost Analysis:
Cost for Borrow Material Sampling (Lump Sum)
COST
DATABASE
CODE
DESCRIPTION
UNIT(S)
ADJ
LABOR
COST SOURCE
CITATION
COMMENTS
Sampling - 2 Person Crew
Mil Mil Assemblies
ABS, Sample and Analysis
P Previous Work
Equipment/ABS Area/ABS Event
P Previous Work
Sampling and Other Supplies/ABS Area/ABS Even
P Previous Work
Analysis - Volatile Organic Compounds
V Vendor Quote
Analysis - Semivolatile Organic Compounds
V Vendor Quote
Analysis - Pesticides
V Vendor Quote
Analysis - Herbicides
V Vendor Quote
Analysis - TAL Metals
V Vendor Quote
V Vendor Quote
V Vendor Quote
Sample Shipping Allowance
A Allowance
Sampling/Other Supplies
P Previous Work
TOTAL UNIT COST:
Abbreviations:
HTRW productivity factor is from Exhibit B-3 or B-4 of "A Guide to Developing and Documenting Cost Estimates During the Feasibility Study", EPA 2000
The Cost Database Code is a reference code for linking with line item cost information with the cost source database and is not otherwise used within these cost worksheets.
Source of Cost Data:
NA Not Applicable - costs are from previous work or vendor quote
For citation references, the following sources apply:
Mil (Mil Assemblies), GSA (www.gsa.gov), SE (www.salaryexpert.com), A (Allowance), V (Vendor Quote), CW09 (Means CostWorks 2009), P (Previous Work), and FRTR (www.frtr.gov)
Cost Adjustment Checklist:
FACTOR:
H&S Productivity (labor and equipment only)
Escalation to Base Year
Area Cost Factor
Subcontractor Overhead and Profit
Prime Contractor Overhead and Profit
QTY
EQUIP
MATL
HPF
ADJ LABOR
ADJ EQUIP
UNMOD UC
UNMOD LIC
NOTES: UNBURLIC
Field work will be in Level "C" PPE. PC OH
Mil assembly costs include HPF adjustments. PC PF
2009 cost sources are not escalated (EF=1.00). All other costs are escalated based on the USACE CWCCIS, EM 1110-2-1304, Mar 2009. BUR LIC
An AF of 1.13 is used for Oregon, except that an AF of 1.00 (national unmodified average) is used for Mil assembly costs and local vendor quotes.
It is assumed that Subcontractor O&P is either included in the PC O&P or has been factored into vendor quotes or previous work.
It is assumed that home office OH is 8% and profit is 9% for the Prime Contractor. Professional labor overhead is 100%. Allowances and items with mandated costs such as per diem do not have overhead and profit applied.
Quantity
Equipment
Material
HTRW Productivity Factor
Adjusted LaborforHFP
Adjusted Equipment for H FP
Unmodified Unit Cost
Unmodified Line Item Cost
Unburdened Line Item Cost
Prime Contractor Overhead
Prime Contractor Profit
Burdened Line Item Cost
ACR
BCY
CLF
DY
EA
LF
HR
LB
LCY
LS
RL
SY
TN
Acres
Bank Cubic Yard
100 Linear Foot
Days
Each
Linear Foot
Hours
Pounds
Loose Cubic Yard
Lump Sum
Roll
Square Yard
Tons
3/24/20102:44 PM
FINAL
-------
TABLE CW5b-3B
Alternative 5b
Capital Cost Sub-Element
Ambient Air Sampling (1 Year)
Cost Worksheet: CW5b-3B
COST WORKSHEET
Site: North Ridge Estates
Location: Klamath County, Oregon
Phase: Final Feasibility Study
Base Year: 2010
Prepared By: AS Date: 3/16/2010
Checked By: GH Date: 3/24/2010
Work Statement:
This sub-element involves ambient air sampling and analysis from various locations of the site to assess whether there are current exposure risks from asbestos fibers and non-asbestos COPCs in ambient air. Five locations (TBD) would be selected for sampling and samples would be analyzed for asbestos by TEM Method. The
following includes the labor, material and equipment cost, and shipping cost.
Cost Analysis:
Cost for Ambient Air Sampling (Lump Sum)
COST
DATABASE
CODE
DESCRIPTION
UNIT(S)
ADJ
LABOR
COST SOURCE
CITATION
COMMENTS
Sampling - 2 Person Crew
Mil Mil Assemblies
1 yr, 12 months, 1 sample/month
Per Diem for 2 People
GSAwww.gsa.gov
Ambient Air Sample Analysis
P Previous Work
1 sample/station/month, 5 stations, 12 months
Sampling Setup ( Equipment and Utility)
P Previous Work
Includes sampling equipments and electrical hook-up
Equipment/Ambient Air Sampling Event
Sampling/Other Supplies/Ambient Air Sampling
Event
P Previous Work
1 sample/station/month, 5 stations, 12 months
P Previous Work
Sample Shipping Allowance
TOTAL UNIT COST:
Notes:
HTRW productivity factor is from Exhibit B-3 or B-4 of "A Guide to Developing and Documenting Cost Estimates During the Feasibility Study", EPA 2000
The Cost Database Code is a reference code for linking with line item cost information with the cost source database and is not otherwise used within these cost worksheets.
Source of Cost Data:
Not Applicable - costs are from previous work or vendor quote
For citation references, the following sources apply:
Mil (Mil Assemblies), GSA (www.gsa.gov), SE (www.salaryexpert.com), A (Allowance), V (Vendor Quote), CW09 (Means CostWorks 2009), P (Previous Work), and FRTR (www.frtr.gov)
Cost Adjustment Checklist:
FACTOR:
H&S Productivity (labor and equipment only)
Escalation to Base Year
Area Cost Factor
Subcontractor Overhead and Profit
Prime Contractor Overhead and Profit
NOTES:
Field work will be in Level "C" PPE.
Mil assembly costs include HPF adjustments.
2009 cost sources are not escalated (EF=1.00). All other costs are escalated based on the USACE CWCCIS, EM 1110-2-1304, Mar 2009.
An AF of 1.13 is used for Oregon, except that an AF of 1.00 (national unmodified average) is used for Mil assembly costs and local vendor
It is assumed that Subcontractor O&P is either included in the PC O&P or has been factored into vendor quotes or previous work.
It is assumed that home office OH is 8% and profit is 9% for the Prime Contractor. Professional labor overhead is 100%. Allowances and items with mandated costs such as per diem do not have overhead and profit applied.
Abbreviations:
QTY
Quantity
ACR
Acres
EQUIP
Equipment
BCY
Bank Cubic Yard
MATL
Material
CLF
100 Linear Foot
HPF
HTRW Productivity Factor
DY
Days
ADJ LABOR
Adjusted LaborforHFP
EA
Each
ADJ EQUIP
Adjusted Equipment for H FP
LF
Linear Foot
UNMOD UC
Unmodified Unit Cost
HR
Hours
UNMOD LIC
Unmodified Line Item Cost
LB
Pounds
UNBUR LIC
Unburdened Line Item Cost
LCY
Loose Cubic Yard
PC OH
Prime Contractor Overhead
LS
Lump Sum
PC PF
Prime Contractor Profit
RL
Roll
BUR LIC
Burdened Line Item Cost
SY
Square Yard
quotes.
TN
Tons
3/24/20102:44 PM
FINAL
-------
TABLE CW5b-3C
Alternative 5b
Capital Cost Sub-Element
Inspection of Areas without Identified Contamination
Cost Worksheet: CW5b-3C
COST WORKSHEET
Site: North Ridge Estates
Location: Klamath County, Oregon
Phase: Final Feasibility Study
Base Year: 2010
Prepared By: AS Date: 3/16/2010
Checked By: GH Date: 3/24/2010
Work Statement:
This sub-element involves monitoring for areas of the site with no historical or current contamination and would be performed some time during construction. The monitoring would be performed using a tiered approach with intrusive visual inspection (hand dug test pits), followed by ABS to provide a point-in-time determination
whether these areas were adversely impacted by contamination. A total often locations would be tested.
Cost Analysis:
Cost for Intrusive Visual Inspection and ABS (Lump Sum)
COST
DATABASE
conF
DESCRIPTION
QTY
UNIT(S)
HPF
LABOR
ADJ
LABOR
EQUIP
ADJ EQUIP
MATL
OTHER
UNMOD UC
UNMOD LIC
PC OH
PC PF
BUR LIC
COST SOURCE
CITATION
COMMENTS
A6B
Visual Inspection - 2 Person Crew
5
DY
1.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$640.91
$640.91
$3,204.53
8%
9%
$3,772
Mil Mil Assemblies
M56
Per Diem for 2 People
5
DY
1.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$288.00
$288.00
$1,440.00
0%
0%
$1,440
GSAwww.gsa.gov
A5A
Sampling - 3 Person Crew
5
DY
1.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$1,179.92
$1,179.92
$5,899.61
8%
9%
$6,945
Mil Mil Assemblies
M55
Per Diem for 3 People
5
DY
1.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$432.00
$432.00
$2,160.00
0%
0%
$2,160
GSAwww.gsa.gov
M51
ABS, Sample and Analysis
10
EA
1.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$891.00
$891.00
$8,910.00
8%
9%
$10,489
P Previous Work
M52
Equipment/ABS Area/ABS Event
10
EA
1.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$148.50
$148.50
$1,485.00
8%
9%
$1,748
P Previous Work
M53A
Sampling and Other Supplies/ABS Area/ABS Event
10
EA
1.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$250.00
$250.00
$2,500.00
8%
9%
$2,943
P Previous Work
M54B
Sample Shipping Allowance
1
LS
1.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$1,500.00
$1,500.00
$1,500.00
0%
0%
$1,500
A Allowance
TOTAL UNIT COST:
$30,997
Abbreviations:
HTRW productivity factor is from Exhibit B-3 or B-4 of "A Guide to Developing and Documenting Cost Estimates During the Feasibility Study", EPA 2000
The Cost Database Code is a reference code for linking with line item cost information with the cost source database and is not otherwise used within these cost worksheets.
Source of Cost Data:
NA Not Applicable - costs are from previous work or vendor quote
For citation references, the following sources apply:
Mil (Mil Assemblies), GSA (www.gsa.gov), SE (www.salaryexpert.com), A (Allowance), V (Vendor Quote), CW09 (Means CostWorks 2009), P (Previous Work), and FRTR (www.frtr.gov)
Cost Adjustment Checklist:
FACTOR:
H&S Productivity (labor and equipment only)
Escalation to Base Year
Area Cost Factor
Subcontractor Overhead and Profit
Prime Contractor Overhead and Profit
QTY
EQUIP
MATL
HPF
ADJ LABOR
ADJ EQUIP
UNMOD UC
UNMOD LIC
NOTES: UNBURLIC
Field work will be in Level "C" PPE. PC OH
Mil assembly costs include HPF adjustments. PC PF
2009 cost sources are not escalated (EF=1.00). All other costs are escalated based on the USACE CWCCIS, EM 1110-2-1304, Mar 2009. BUR LIC
An AF of 1.13 is used for Oregon, except that an AF of 1.00 (national unmodified average) is used for Mil assembly costs and local vendor quotes.
It is assumed that Subcontractor O&P is either included in the PC O&P or has been factored into vendor quotes or previous work.
It is assumed that home office OH is 8% and profit is 9% for the Prime Contractor. Professional labor overhead is 100%. Allowances and items with mandated costs such as per diem do not have overhead and profit applied.
Quantity
Equipment
Material
HTRW Productivity Factor
Adjusted LaborforHFP
Adjusted Equipment for H FP
Unmodified Unit Cost
Unmodified Line Item Cost
Unburdened Line Item Cost
Prime Contractor Overhead
Prime Contractor Profit
Burdened Line Item Cost
ACR
BCY
CLF
DY
EA
LF
HR
LB
LCY
LS
RL
SY
TN
Acres
Bank Cubic Yard
100 Linear Foot
Days
Each
Linear Foot
Hours
Pounds
Loose Cubic Yard
Lump Sum
Roll
Square Yard
Tons
3/25/201011:47 AM
FINAL
-------
TABLE CW5b-4A
Alternative 5b
Capital Cost Sub-Element
Excavation Confirmatory Sampling
Cost Worksheet: CW5b-4A
COST WORKSHEET
Site: North Ridge Estates
Location: Klamath County, Oregon
Phase: Final Feasibility Study
Base Year: 2010
Prepared By: AS Date: 3/16/2010
Checked By: GH Date: 3/24/2010
Work Statement:
This sub-element involves intrusive visual inspections (i.e. subsurface inspections within excavations) coupled with ABS analysis would be conducted adjacent to the excavation areas after initial excavation is completed to confirm that contaminated surface materials would be excavated horizontally to the extent they can be
detected most conservative ABS scenario (e.g. raking) would be conducted for areas no greater than 40,000 square feet and would be analyzed by TEM Method. Arsenic sampling at the power plant area would be conducted at a frequency of one sample per 2,500 square feet along the bottom and side-walls of the excavation area.
The following includes the labor, material and equipment cost, and shipping cost required for the soil sampling.
Cost Analysis:
Cost for Confirmatory Soil Sampling (Lump Sum)
COST
DATABASE
CODE
DESCRIPTION
UNIT(S)
ADJ
LABOR
COST SOURCE
CITATION
COMMENTS
Visual Inspection - 2 Person Crew
Mil Mil Assemblies
Per Diem for 2 People
GSAwww.gsa.gov
Sampling - 2 Person Crew
Mil Mil Assemblies
Per Diem for 2 People
GSAwww.gsa.gov
ABS, Sample and Analysis
P Previous Work
Equipment/ABS Area/ABS Event
P Previous Work
Analysis - Arsenic
V Vendor Quote
TOTAL UNIT COST:
Abbreviations:
HTRW productivity factor is from Exhibit B-3 or B-4 of "A Guide to Developing and Documenting Cost Estimates During the Feasibility Study", EPA 2000
The Cost Database Code is a reference code for linking with line item cost information with the cost source database and is not otherwise used within these cost worksheets.
Source of Cost Data:
NA Not Applicable - costs are from previous work or vendor quote
For citation references, the following sources apply:
Mil (Mil Assemblies), GSA (www.gsa.gov), SE (www.salaryexpert.com), A (Allowance), V (Vendor Quote), CW09 (Means CostWorks 2009), P (Previous Work), and FRTR (www.frtr.gov)
Cost Adjustment Checklist:
FACTOR:
H&S Productivity (labor and equipment only)
Escalation to Base Year
Area Cost Factor
Subcontractor Overhead and Profit
Prime Contractor Overhead and Profit
QTY
EQUIP
MATL
HPF
ADJ LABOR
ADJ EQUIP
UNMOD UC
UNMOD LIC
NOTES: UNBURLIC
Field work will be in Level "C" PPE. PC OH
Mil assembly costs include HPF adjustments. PC PF
2009 cost sources are not escalated (EF=1.00). All other costs are escalated based on the USACE CWCCIS, EM 1110-2-1304, Mar 2009. BUR LIC
An AF of 1.13 is used for Oregon, except that an AF of 1.00 (national unmodified average) is used for Mil assembly costs and local vendor quotes.
It is assumed that Subcontractor O&P is either included in the PC O&P or has been factored into vendor quotes or previous work.
It is assumed that home office OH is 8% and profit is 9% for the Prime Contractor. Professional labor overhead is 100%. Allowances and items with mandated costs such as per diem do not have overhead and profit applied.
Quantity
Equipment
Material
HTRW Productivity Factor
Adjusted LaborforHFP
Adjusted Equipment for H FP
Unmodified Unit Cost
Unmodified Line Item Cost
Unburdened Line Item Cost
Prime Contractor Overhead
Prime Contractor Profit
Burdened Line Item Cost
ACR
BCY
CLF
DY
EA
LF
HR
LB
LCY
LS
RL
SY
TN
Acres
Bank Cubic Yard
100 Linear Foot
Days
Each
Linear Foot
Hours
Pounds
Loose Cubic Yard
Lump Sum
Roll
Square Yard
Tons
3/25/201011:46 AM
FINAL
-------
TABLE CW5b-4B
Alternative 5b
Capital Cost Sub-Element
Confirmatory Sampling Data Evaluation Report
Cost Worksheet: CW5b-4B
COST WORKSHEET
Site: North Ridge Estates
Location: Klamath County, Oregon
Phase: Final Feasibility Study
Base Year: 2010
Prepared By: AS Date: 3/16/2010
Checked By: GH Date: 3/24/2010
Work Statement:
This sub-element involves the excavation sampling data evaluation report. The following cost includes labor, material and shipping costs for the removal sampling data evaluation report.
Cost Analysis:
Cost for Confirmatory Sampling Data Evaluation Report (Each)
COST
DATABASE
CODE
DESCRIPTION
UNIT(S)
ADJ
LABOR
COST SOURCE
CITATION
COMMENTS
Project Manager
SE SalaryExpert.con
Hours for 1 report
Environmental Engineer
SE SalaryExpert.con
Hours for 1 report
Environmental Scientist
SE SalaryExpert.con
Hours for 1 report
Quality Control Engineer
SE SalaryExpert.con
Hours for 1 report
SE SalaryExpert.con
Hours for 1 report
Clerks, Typist, Bookkeeper & Receptionist
SE SalaryExpert.con
Hours for 1 report
Copy and Shipping Allowance
A Allowance
TOTAL UNIT COST:
Abbreviations:
HTRW productivity factor is from Exhibit B-3 or B-4 of "A Guide to Developing and Documenting Cost Estimates During the Feasibility Study", EPA 2000
The Cost Database Code is a reference code for linking with line item cost information with the cost source database and is not otherwise used within these cost worksheets.
Source of Cost Data:
NA Not Applicable - costs are from previous work or vendor quote
For citation references, the following sources apply:
Mil (Mil Assemblies), GSA (www.gsa.gov), SE (www.salaryexpert.com), A (Allowance), V (Vendor Quote), CW09 (Means CostWorks 2009), P (Previous Work), and FRTR (www.frtr.gov)
Cost Adjustment Checklist:
FACTOR:
H&S Productivity (labor and equipment only)
Escalation to Base Year
Area Cost Factor
Subcontractor Overhead and Profit
Prime Contractor Overhead and Profit
QTY
EQUIP
MATL
HPF
ADJ LABOR
ADJ EQUIP
UNMOD UC
UNMOD LIC
NOTES: UNBURLIC
Field work will be in Level "C" PPE. PC OH
Mil assembly costs include HPF adjustments. PC PF
2009 cost sources are not escalated (EF=1.00). All other costs are escalated based on the USACE CWCCIS, EM 1110-2-1304, Mar 2009. BUR LIC
An AF of 1.13 is used for Oregon, except that an AF of 1.00 (national unmodified average) is used for Mil assembly costs and local vendor quotes.
It is assumed that Subcontractor O&P is either included in the PC O&P or has been factored into vendor quotes or previous work.
It is assumed that home office OH is 8% and profit is 9% for the Prime Contractor. Professional labor overhead is 100%. Allowances and items with mandated costs such as per diem do not have overhead and profit applied.
Quantity
Equipment
Material
HTRW Productivity Factor
Adjusted LaborforHFP
Adjusted Equipment for H FP
Unmodified Unit Cost
Unmodified Line Item Cost
Unburdened Line Item Cost
Prime Contractor Overhead
Prime Contractor Profit
Burdened Line Item Cost
ACR
BCY
CLF
DY
EA
LF
HR
LB
LCY
LS
RL
SY
TN
Acres
Bank Cubic Yard
100 Linear Foot
Days
Each
Linear Foot
Hours
Pounds
Loose Cubic Yard
Lump Sum
Roll
Square Yard
Tons
3/24/20102:44 PM
FINAL
-------
TABLE CW5b-5A
Alternative 5b
Capital Cost Sub-Element
5-Year Site Reviews
Cost Worksheet: CW5b-5A
COST WORKSHEET
Site: North Ridge Estates
Location: Klamath County, Oregon
Phase: Final Feasibility Study
Base Year: 2010
Prepared By: AS Date: 3/16/2010
Checked By: GH Date: 3/24/2010
Work Statement:
This sub-element involves the 5-year site visits and 5-year site review report. The following cost includes labor, material and shipping costs for site visits and 5-year site review reports.
Cost Analysis:
Cost for 5-Year Site Review (Lump Sum)
COST
DATABASE
conF
DESCRIPTION
QTY
UNIT(S)
HPF
LABOR
ADJ
LABOR
EQUIP
ADJ EQUIP
MATL
OTHER
UNMOD UC
UNMOD LIC
PC OH
PC PF
BUR LIC
COST SOURCE
CITATION
COMMENTS
A6A
Site Inspection - 2 Person Crew
5
DY
1.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$640.91
$640.91
$3,204.53
8%
9%
$3,772
Mil Mil Assemblies
1 hour per parcel per site visit, 45 parcels
M56
Per Diem for 2 People
5
DY
1.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$288.00
$288.00
$1,440.00
0%
0%
$1,440
GSAwww.gsa.gov
L13
Project Manager
40
HR
1.00
$46.53
$46.53
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$46.53
$1,861.20
100%
9%
$4,057
SE SalaryExpert.con
Hours for 5-year rev
ew report
L5
Environmental Engineer
80
HR
1.00
$31.39
$31.39
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$31.39
$2,511.20
100%
9%
$5,474
SE SalaryExpert.con
Hours for 5-year rev
ew report
11
Environmental Scientist
120
HR
1.00
$27.87
$27.87
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$27.87
$3,344.40
100%
9%
$7,291
SE SalaryExpert.con
Hours for 5-year rev
ew report
L14
Quality Control Engineer
16
HR
1.00
$46.04
$46.04
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$46.04
$736.64
100%
9%
$1,606
SE SalaryExpert.con
Hours for 5-year rev
ew report
L1
CAD Drafter
40
HR
1.00
$25.70
$25.70
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$25.70
$1,028.00
100%
9%
$2,241
SE SalaryExpert.con
Hours for 5-year rev
ew report
L3
Clerks, Typist, Bookkeeper & Receptionist
40
HR
1.00
$19.05
$19.05
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$19.05
$762.00
100%
9%
$1,661
SE SalaryExpert.con
Hours for 5-year rev
ew report
M10A
Copy and Shipping Allowance
1
LS
1.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$1,500.00
$1,500.00
$1,500.00
0%
0%
$1,500
A Allowance
TOTAL UNIT COST:
$29,042
Notes: Abbreviations:
HTRW productivity factor is from Exhibit B-3 or B-4 of "A Guide to Developing and Documenting Cost Estimates During the Feasibility Study", EPA 2000 QTY
Quantity
ACR
Acres
The Cost Database Code is a reference code for linking with line item cost information with the cost source database and is not otherwise used within these cost worksheets. EQUIP
Equipment
BCY
Bank Cubic Yard
MATL
Material
CLF
100 Linear Foot
Source of Cost Data: HPF
HTRW Productivity Factor
DY
Days
NA Not Applicable - costs are from previous work or vendor quote ADJ LABOR
Adjusted LaborforHFP
EA
Each
For citation references, the following sources apply: ADJ EQU IP
Adjusted Equipment for H FP
LF
Linear Foot
Mil (Mil Assemblies), GSA (www.gsa.gov), SE (www.salaryexpert.com), A (Allowance), V (Vendor Quote), CW09 (Means CostWorks 2009), P (Previous Work), and FRTR (www.frtr.gov) UNMOD UC
Unmodified Unit Cost
HR
Hours
UNMOD LIC
Unmodified Line Item Cost
LB
Pounds
Cost Adjustment Checklist: NOTES: UNRURIIC
Unburdened Line Item Cost
LCY
Loose Cubic Yard
FACTOR: Field work will be in Level "C" PPE. PC OH
Prime Contractor Overhead
LS
Lump Sum
H&S Productivity (labor and equipment only) Mil assembly costs include HPF adjustments. PC PF
Prime Contractor Profit
RL
Roll
Escalation to Base Year 2009 cost sources are not escalated (EF=1.00). All other costs are escalated based on the USACE CWCCIS, EM 1110-2-1304, Mar 2009. BUR LIC
Burdened Line Item Cost
SY
Square Yard
Area Cost Factor An AF of 1.13 is used for Oregon, except that an AF of 1.00 (national unmodified average) is used for Mil assembly costs and local vendor quotes.
TN
Tons
Subcontractor Overhead and Profit It is assumed that Subcontractor O&P is either included in the PC O&P or has been factored into vendor quotes or previous work.
Prime Contractor Overhead and Profit It is assumed that home office OH is 8% and profit is 9% for the Prime Contractor. Professional labor overhead is 100%. Allowances and items with mandated costs such as per diem do not have overhead and profit applied.
3/24/20102:44 PM
FINAL
-------
TABLE CW5b-5B
Alternative 5b
Capital Cost Sub-Element
Community Awareness Activities
Cost Worksheet: CW5b-5B
COST WORKSHEET
Site: North Ridge Estates
Location: Klamath County, Oregon
Phase: Final Feasibility Study
Base Year: 2010
Prepared By: AS Date: 3/16/2010
Checked By: GH Date: 3/24/2010
Work Statement:
This sub-element involves setting up a community meeting to inform the local community about the status of site. The following includes the labor, material and other cost required for setting up the community awareness meeting which includes costs for renting a meeting hall, court reporter, and publishing and sending notices or
informational flyers.
Cost Analysis:
Cost for Community Awareness Activities (Lump Sum)
COST
DATABASE
conF
DESCRIPTION
QTY
UNIT(S)
HPF
LABOR
ADJ
LABOR
EQUIP
ADJ EQUIP
MATL
OTHER
UNMOD UC
UNMOD LIC
PC OH
PC PF
BUR LIC
COST SOURCE
CITATION
COMMENTS
L12
General Superintendent (P.M.)
16
HR
1.00
$52.74
$52.74
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$52.74
$843.84
100%
9%
$1,840
SE SalaryExpert.con
L13
Project Manager
16
HR
1.00
$46.53
$46.53
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$46.53
$744.48
100%
9%
$1,623
SE SalaryExpert.con
M56
Per Diem for 2 People
2
DY
1.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$288.00
$288.00
$576.00
0%
0%
$576
GSAwww.gsa.gov
M65
Community Awareness Activities Allowance
1
EA
1.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$2,000.00
$2,000.00
$2,000.00
0%
0%
$2,000
A Allowance
1 event per 5-yr review.
TOTAL UNIT COST:
$6,039
Abbreviations:
HTRW productivity factor is from Exhibit B-3 or B-4 of "A Guide to Developing and Documenting Cost Estimates During the Feasibility Study", EPA 2000
The Cost Database Code is a reference code for linking with line item cost information with the cost source database and is not otherwise used within these cost worksheets.
Source of Cost Data:
NA Not Applicable - costs are from previous work or vendor quote
For citation references, the following sources apply:
Mil (Mil Assemblies), GSA (www.gsa.gov), SE (www.salaryexpert.com), A (Allowance), V (Vendor Quote), CW09 (Means CostWorks 2009), P (Previous Work), and FRTR (www.frtr.gov)
Cost Adjustment Checklist:
FACTOR:
H&S Productivity (labor and equipment only)
Escalation to Base Year
Area Cost Factor
Subcontractor Overhead and Profit
Prime Contractor Overhead and Profit
QTY
EQUIP
MATL
HPF
ADJ LABOR
ADJ EQUIP
UNMOD UC
UNMOD LIC
NOTES: UNBURLIC
Field work will be in Level "C" PPE. PC OH
Mil assembly costs include HPF adjustments. PC PF
2009 cost sources are not escalated (EF=1.00). All other costs are escalated based on the USACE CWCCIS, EM 1110-2-1304, Mar 2009. BUR LIC
An AF of 1.13 is used for Oregon, except that an AF of 1.00 (national unmodified average) is used for Mil assembly costs and local vendor quotes.
It is assumed that Subcontractor O&P is either included in the PC O&P or has been factored into vendor quotes or previous work.
It is assumed that home office OH is 8% and profit is 9% for the Prime Contractor. Professional labor overhead is 100%. Allowances and items with mandated costs such as per diem do not have overhead and profit applied.
Quantity
Equipment
Material
HTRW Productivity Factor
Adjusted LaborforHFP
Adjusted Equipment for H FP
Unmodified Unit Cost
Unmodified Line Item Cost
Unburdened Line Item Cost
Prime Contractor Overhead
Prime Contractor Profit
Burdened Line Item Cost
ACR
BCY
CLF
DY
EA
LF
HR
LB
LCY
LS
RL
SY
TN
Acres
Bank Cubic Yard
100 Linear Foot
Days
Each
Linear Foot
Hours
Pounds
Loose Cubic Yard
Lump Sum
Roll
Square Yard
Tons
3/24/20102:44 PM
FINAL
-------
TABLE CW5b-5C
Alternative 5b
Capital Cost Sub-Element
Non-Intrusive Visual Inspection
Cost Worksheet: CW5b-5C
COST WORKSHEET
Site: North Ridge Estates
Location: Klamath County, Oregon
Phase: Final Feasibility Study
Base Year: 2010
Prepared By: AS Date: 3/16/2010
Checked By: GH Date: 3/24/2010
Work Statement:
This sub-element involves non-intrusive visual inspections (i.e. surface inspections) performed in support of 5-year site reviews would be made on all parcels within the site boundary regardless of ownership. The following includes the labor, material and equipment cost for inspection.
Cost Analysis:
Cost for Non-Intrusive Visual Inspection (Lump Sum)
COST
DATABASE
conF
DESCRIPTION
QTY
UNIT(S)
HPF
LABOR
ADJ
LABOR
EQUIP
ADJ EQUIP
MATL
OTHER
UNMOD UC
UNMOD LIC
PC OH
PC PF
BUR LIC
COST SOURCE
CITATION
COMMENTS
A6B
Visual Inspection - 2 Person Crew
5
DY
1.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$640.91
$640.91
$3,204.53
8%
9%
$3,772
Mil Mil Assemblies
M56
Per Diem for 2 People
5
DY
1.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$288.00
$288.00
$1,440.00
0%
0%
$1,440
GSAwww.gsa.gov
TOTAL UNIT COST:
$5,212
Notes: Abbreviations:
HTRW productivity factor is from Exhibit B-3 or B-4 of "A Guide to Developing and Documenting Cost Estimates During the Feasibility Study", EPA 2000 QTY
Quantity
ACR
Acres
The Cost Database Code is a reference code for linking with line item cost information with the cost source database and is not otherwise used within these cost worksheets. EQUIP
Equipment
BCY
Bank Cubic Yard
MATL
Material
CLF
100 Linear Foot
Source of Cost Data: HPF
HTRW Productivity Factor
DY
Days
NA Not Applicable - costs are from previous work or vendor quote ADJ LABOR
Adjusted LaborforHFP
EA
Each
For citation references, the following sources apply: ADJ EQU IP
Adjusted Equipment for H FP
LF
Linear Foot
Mil (Mil Assemblies), GSA (www.gsa.gov), SE (www.salaryexpert.com), A (Allowance), V (Vendor Quote), CW09 (Means CostWorks 2009), P (Previous Work), and FRTR (www.frtr.gov) UNMOD UC
Unmodified Unit Cost
HR
Hours
UNMOD LIC
Unmodified Line Item Cost
LB
Pounds
Cost Adjustment Checklist: NOTES: UNRURIIO
Unburdened Line Item Cost
LCY
Loose Cubic Yard
FACTOR: Field work will be in Level "C" PPE. PC OH
Prime Contractor Overhead
LS
Lump Sum
H&S Productivity (labor and equipment only) Mil assembly costs include HPF adjustments. PC PF
Prime Contractor Profit
RL
Roll
Escalation to Base Year 2009 cost sources are not escalated (EF=1.00). All other costs are escalated based on the USACE CWCCIS, EM 1110-2-1304, Mar 2009. BUR LIC
Burdened Line Item Cost
SY
Square Yard
Area Cost Factor An AF of 1.13 is used for Oregon, except that an AF of 1.00 (national unmodified average) is used for Mil assembly costs and local vendor quotes.
TN
Tons
Subcontractor Overhead and Profit It is assumed that Subcontractor O&P is either included in the PC O&P or has been factored into vendor quotes or previous work.
Prime Contractor Overhead and Profit It is assumed that home office OH is 8% and profit is 9% for the Prime Contractor. Professional labor overhead is 100%. Allowances and items with mandated costs such as per diem do not have overhead and profit applied.
3/24/20102:44 PM
FINAL
-------
TABLE CW5b-6A
Cost Worksheet: CW5b-6A
Alternative 5b
Capital Cost Sub-Element
Cover, Backfill, and Access Controls O&M During Construction
COST WORKSHEET
Site: North Ridge Estates
Location: Klamath County, Oregon
Phase: Final Feasibility Study
Base Year: 2010
Prepared By: AS Date: 3/16/2010
Checked By: GH Date: 3/24/2010
Work Statement:
This sub-element involves the cover, backfill, and access controls O&M pertaining to the covered/backfilled areas during construction. It includes costs for on-site labor, equipment, materials and allowances for maintaining the cover and signage.
Cost Analysis:
Cost for Cover, Backfill, and Access Controls O&M During Construction (Lump Sum)
COST
DATABASE
CODE
DESCRIPTION
Cover and Backfill Operations and Maintenance
Crew
UNIT(S)
ADJ
LABOR
COST SOURCE
CITATION
COMMENTS
Mil Mil Assemblies
1 days/month, 10 hrs/day
Includes cost for cover maintenance, erosion repair, and
repair of fencing/signs.
O&M Allowance
A Allowance
TOTAL UNIT COST:
Abbreviations:
HTRW productivity factor is from Exhibit B-3 or B-4 of "A Guide to Developing and Documenting Cost Estimates During the Feasibility Study", EPA 2000
The Cost Database Code is a reference code for linking with line item cost information with the cost source database and is not otherwise used within these cost worksheets.
Source of Cost Data:
NA Not Applicable - costs are from previous work or vendor quote
For citation references, the following sources apply:
Mil (Mil Assemblies), GSA (www.gsa.gov), SE (www.salaryexpert.com), A (Allowance), V (Vendor Quote), CW09 (Means CostWorks 2009), P (Previous Work), and FRTR (www.frtr.gov)
Cost Adjustment Checklist:
FACTOR:
H&S Productivity (labor and equipment only)
Escalation to Base Year
Area Cost Factor
Subcontractor Overhead and Profit
Prime Contractor Overhead and Profit
QTY
EQUIP
MATL
HPF
ADJ LABOR
ADJ EQUIP
UNMOD UC
UNMOD LIC
NOTES: UNBURLIC
Field work will be in Level "C" PPE. PC OH
Mil assembly costs include HPF adjustments. PC PF
2009 cost sources are not escalated (EF=1.00). All other costs are escalated based on the USACE CWCCIS, EM 1110-2-1304, Mar 2009. BUR LIC
An AF of 1.13 is used for Oregon, except that an AF of 1.00 (national unmodified average) is used for Mil assembly costs and local vendor quotes.
It is assumed that Subcontractor O&P is either included in the PC O&P or has been factored into vendor quotes or previous work.
It is assumed that home office OH is 8% and profit is 9% for the Prime Contractor. Professional labor overhead is 100%. Allowances and items with mandated costs such as per diem do not have overhead and profit applied.
Quantity
Equipment
Material
HTRW Productivity Factor
Adjusted LaborforHFP
Adjusted Equipment for H FP
Unmodified Unit Cost
Unmodified Line Item Cost
Unburdened Line Item Cost
Prime Contractor Overhead
Prime Contractor Profit
Burdened Line Item Cost
ACR
BCY
CLF
DY
EA
LF
HR
LB
LCY
LS
RL
SY
TN
Acres
Bank Cubic Yard
100 Linear Foot
Days
Each
Linear Foot
Hours
Pounds
Loose Cubic Yard
Lump Sum
Roll
Square Yard
Tons
3/24/20102:44 PM
FINAL
-------
TABLE CW5b-6B
Alternative 5b
Capital Cost Sub-Element
Cover, Backfill, and Access Controls O&M
Cost Worksheet: CW5b-6B
COST WORKSHEET
Site: North Ridge Estates
Location: Klamath County, Oregon
Phase: Final Feasibility Study
Base Year: 2010
Prepared By: AS Date: 3/16/2010
Checked By: GH Date: 3/24/2010
Work Statement:
This sub-element involves the cover, backfill, and access controls O&M pertaining to the covered/backfilled areas. It includes costs for on-site labor, equipment, materials and allowances for maintaining the cover, backfill, and signage.
Cost Analysis:
Cost for Cover, Backfill, and Access Controls O&M (Lump Sum)
COST
DATABASE
conF
DESCRIPTION
QTY
UNIT(S)
HPF
LABOR
ADJ
LABOR
EQUIP
ADJ EQUIP
MATL
OTHER
UNMOD UC
UNMOD LIC
PC OH
PC PF
BUR LIC
COST SOURCE
CITATION
COMMENTS
A7A
Cover and Backfill Operations and Maintenance
Crew
12
DY
1.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$530.94
$530.94
$6,371.24
8%
9%
$7,500
Mil Mil Assemblies
1 days/month, 10 hrs/day
M22B
O&M Allowance
90
ACR
1.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$100.00
$100.00
$9,000.00
0%
0%
$9,000
A Allowance
Includes cost tor cover maintenance, erosion repair, and
repair of fencing/signs.
TOTAL UNIT COST:
$16,500
Notes: Abbreviations:
HTRW productivity factor is from Exhibit B-3 or B-4 of "A Guide to Developing and Documenting Cost Estimates During the Feasibility Study", EPA 2000 QTY
Quantity
ACR
Acres
The Cost Database Code is a reference code for linking with line item cost information with the cost source database and is not otherwise used within these cost worksheets. EQUIP
Equipment
BCY
Bank Cubic Yard
MATL
Material
CLF
100 Linear Foot
Source of Cost Data: HPF
HTRW Productivity Factor
DY
Days
NA Not Applicable - costs are from previous work or vendor quote ADJ LABOR
Adjusted LaborforHFP
EA
Each
For citation references, the following sources apply: ADJ EQU IP
Adjusted Equipment for H FP
LF
Linear Foot
Mil (Mil Assemblies), GSA (www.gsa.gov), SE (www.salaryexpert.com), A (Allowance), V (Vendor Quote), CW09 (Means CostWorks 2009), P (Previous Work), and FRTR (www.frtr.gov) UNMOD UC
Unmodified Unit Cost
HR
Hours
UNMOD LIC
Unmodified Line Item Cost
LB
Pounds
Cost Adjustment Checklist: NOTES: IINRURIIC
Unburdened Line Item Cost
LCY
Loose Cubic Yard
FACTOR: Field work will be in Level "C" PPE. PC OH
Prime Contractor Overhead
LS
Lump Sum
H&S Productivity (labor and equipment only) Mil assembly costs include HPF adjustments. PC PF
Prime Contractor Profit
RL
Roll
Escalation to Base Year 2009 cost sources are not escalated (EF=1.00). All other costs are escalated based on the USACE CWCCIS, EM 1110-2-1304, Mar 2009. BUR LIC
Burdened Line Item Cost
SY
Square Yard
Area Cost Factor An AF of 1.13 is used for Oregon, except that an AF of 1.00 (national unmodified average) is used for Mil assembly costs and local vendor quotes.
TN
Tons
Subcontractor Overhead and Profit It is assumed that Subcontractor O&P is either included in the PC O&P or has been factored into vendor quotes or previous work.
Prime Contractor Overhead and Profit It is assumed that home office OH is 8% and profit is 9% for the Prime Contractor. Professional labor overhead is 100%. Allowances and items with mandated costs such as per diem do not have overhead and profit applied.
3/24/20102:44 PM
FINAL
-------
TABLE CW5b-6C
Alternative 5b
Capital Cost Sub-Element
Cover and Backfill Inspection
Cost Worksheet: CW5b-6C
COST WORKSHEET
Site: North Ridge Estates
Location: Klamath County, Oregon
Phase: Final Feasibility Study
Base Year: 2010
Prepared By: AS Date: 3/16/2010
Checked By: GH Date: 3/24/2010
Work Statement:
This sub-element involves monitoring protocol for covered portions of privately owned and receiver-managed parcels would include routine non-intrusive visual inspections (i.e. surface inspections) to ensure integrity of the covers and backfill. The following includes the labor, material and equipment costs for inspection.
Cost Analysis:
Cost for Cover and Backfill Inspection (Lump Sum)
COST
DATABASE
conF
DESCRIPTION
QTY
UNIT(S)
HPF
LABOR
ADJ
LABOR
EQUIP
ADJ EQUIP
MATL
OTHER
UNMOD UC
UNMOD LIC
PC OH
PC PF
BUR LIC
COST SOURCE
CITATION
COMMENTS
A6B
Visual Inspection - 2 Person Crew
5
DY
1.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$640.91
$640.91
$3,204.53
8%
9%
$3,772
Mil Mil Assemblies
1 days/month, 10 hrs/day
M56
Per Diem for 2 People
5
DY
1.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$288.00
$288.00
$1,440.00
0%
0%
$1,440
GSAwww.gsa.gov
TOTAL UNIT COST:
$5,212
Notes: Abbreviations:
HTRW productivity factor is from Exhibit B-3 or B-4 of "A Guide to Developing and Documenting Cost Estimates During the Feasibility Study", EPA 2000 QTY
Quantity
ACR
Acres
The Cost Database Code is a reference code for linking with line item cost information with the cost source database and is not otherwise used within these cost worksheets. EQUIP
Equipment
BCY
Bank Cubic Yard
MATL
Material
CLF
100 Linear Foot
Source of Cost Data: HPF
HTRW Productivity Factor
DY
Days
NA Not Applicable - costs are from previous work or vendor quote ADJ LABOR
Adjusted LaborforHFP
EA
Each
For citation references, the following sources apply: ADJ EQU IP
Adjusted Equipment for H FP
LF
Linear Foot
Mil (Mil Assemblies), GSA (www.gsa.gov), SE (www.salaryexpert.com), A (Allowance), V (Vendor Quote), CW09 (Means CostWorks 2009), P (Previous Work), and FRTR (www.frtr.gov) UNMOD UC
Unmodified Unit Cost
HR
Hours
UNMOD LIC
Unmodified Line Item Cost
LB
Pounds
Cost Adjustment Checklist: NOTES: UNRURIIC
Unburdened Line Item Cost
LCY
Loose Cubic Yard
FACTOR: Field work will be in Level "C" PPE. PC OH
Prime Contractor Overhead
LS
Lump Sum
H&S Productivity (labor and equipment only) Mil assembly costs include HPF adjustments. PC PF
Prime Contractor Profit
RL
Roll
Escalation to Base Year 2009 cost sources are not escalated (EF=1.00). All other costs are escalated based on the USACE CWCCIS, EM 1110-2-1304, Mar 2009. BUR LIC
Burdened Line Item Cost
SY
Square Yard
Area Cost Factor An AF of 1.13 is used for Oregon, except that an AF of 1.00 (national unmodified average) is used for Mil assembly costs and local vendor quotes.
TN
Tons
Subcontractor Overhead and Profit It is assumed that Subcontractor O&P is either included in the PC O&P or has been factored into vendor quotes or previous work.
Prime Contractor Overhead and Profit It is assumed that home office OH is 8% and profit is 9% for the Prime Contractor. Professional labor overhead is 100%. Allowances and items with mandated costs such as per diem do not have overhead and profit applied.
3/24/20102:44 PM
FINAL
-------
TABLE CW5b-7
Alternative 5b
Capital Cost Sub-Element
Temporary Laydown and Access Road Installation
Cost Worksheet: CW5b-7
COST WORKSHEET
Site: North Ridge Estates
Location: Klamath County, Oregon
Phase: Final Feasibility Study
Base Year: 2010
Prepared By: AS Date: 3/16/2010
Checked By: GH Date: 3/24/2010
Work Statement:
This sub-element involves temporary gravel construction at the site for the gravel laydown area and temporary access roads used to access contaminated areas during construction. It includes costs for material, labor, and equipment.
Cost Analysis:
Cost for Temporary Laydown and Access Road Installation (Lump Sum)
COST
DATABASE
CODE
DESCRIPTION
UNIT(S)
ADJ
LABOR
COST SOURCE
CITATION
COMMENTS
Gravel Laydown Area
Gravel Placement - Clean Area
Mil Mil Assemblies
Gravel, Delivered
V Vendor Quote
Temporary Gravel Access Roads
Gravel Placement - Contaminated Area
Mil Mil Assemblies
Assume 1 mile road, 15 ft wide
Gravel, Delivered
V Vendor Quote
TOTAL UNIT COST:
Abbreviations:
HTRW productivity factor is from Exhibit B-3 or B-4 of "A Guide to Developing and Documenting Cost Estimates During the Feasibility Study", EPA 2000
The Cost Database Code is a reference code for linking with line item cost information with the cost source database and is not otherwise used within these cost worksheets.
Source of Cost Data:
NA Not Applicable - costs are from previous work or vendor quote
For citation references, the following sources apply:
Mil (Mil Assemblies), GSA (www.gsa.gov), SE (www.salaryexpert.com), A (Allowance), V (Vendor Quote), CW09 (Means CostWorks 2009), P (Previous Work), and FRTR (www.frtr.gov)
Cost Adjustment Checklist:
FACTOR:
H&S Productivity (labor and equipment only)
Escalation to Base Year
Area Cost Factor
Subcontractor Overhead and Profit
Prime Contractor Overhead and Profit
QTY
EQUIP
MATL
HPF
ADJ LABOR
ADJ EQUIP
UNMOD UC
UNMOD LIC
NOTES: UNBURLIC
Field work will be in Level "C" PPE. PC OH
Mil assembly costs include HPF adjustments. PC PF
2009 cost sources are not escalated (EF=1.00). All other costs are escalated based on the USACE CWCCIS, EM 1110-2-1304, Mar 2009. BUR LIC
An AF of 1.13 is used for Oregon, except that an AF of 1.00 (national unmodified average) is used for Mil assembly costs and local vendor quotes.
It is assumed that Subcontractor O&P is either included in the PC O&P or has been factored into vendor quotes or previous work.
It is assumed that home office OH is 8% and profit is 9% for the Prime Contractor. Professional labor overhead is 100%. Allowances and items with mandated costs such as per diem do not have overhead and profit applied.
Quantity
Equipment
Material
HTRW Productivity Factor
Adjusted LaborforHFP
Adjusted Equipment for H FP
Unmodified Unit Cost
Unmodified Line Item Cost
Unburdened Line Item Cost
Prime Contractor Overhead
Prime Contractor Profit
Burdened Line Item Cost
ACR
BCY
CLF
DY
EA
LF
HR
LB
LCY
LS
RL
SY
TN
Acres
Bank Cubic Yard
100 Linear Foot
Days
Each
Linear Foot
Hours
Pounds
Loose Cubic Yard
Lump Sum
Roll
Square Yard
Tons
3/24/20102:44 PM
FINAL
-------
TABLE CW5b-8
Alternative 5b
Capital Cost Sub-Element
Site Clearing and Grubbing
Cost Worksheet: CW5b-8
COST WORKSHEET
Site: North Ridge Estates
Location: Klamath County, Oregon
Phase: Final Feasibility Study
Base Year: 2010
Prepared By: AS Date: 3/16/2010
Checked By: GH Date: 3/24/2010
Work Statement:
This sub-element involves site clearing and grubbing of the contaminated area. It includes costs for labor, equipment and materials. All the cleared and grubbed material will be chipped in-place.
Cost Analysis:
Cost for Site Clearing and Grubbing (Lump Sum)
COST
DATABASE
CODE
DESCRIPTION
UNIT(S)
ADJ
LABOR
UNMOD LIC PC OH PC PF
COST SOURCE
CITATION
COMMENTS
Clearing and Grubbing
$127,908.88 8%
Mil Mil Assemblies
TOTAL UNIT COST:
Abbreviations:
HTRW productivity factor is from Exhibit B-3 or B-4 of "A Guide to Developing and Documenting Cost Estimates During the Feasibility Study", EPA 2000
The Cost Database Code is a reference code for linking with line item cost information with the cost source database and is not otherwise used within these cost worksheets.
Source of Cost Data:
NA Not Applicable - costs are from previous work or vendor quote
For citation references, the following sources apply:
Mil (Mil Assemblies), GSA (www.gsa.gov), SE (www.salaryexpert.com), A (Allowance), V (Vendor Quote), CW09 (Means CostWorks 2009), P (Previous Work), and FRTR (www.frtr.gov)
Cost Adjustment Checklist:
FACTOR:
H&S Productivity (labor and equipment only)
Escalation to Base Year
Area Cost Factor
Subcontractor Overhead and Profit
Prime Contractor Overhead and Profit
QTY
EQUIP
MATL
HPF
ADJ LABOR
ADJ EQUIP
UNMOD UC
UNMOD LIC
NOTES: UNBURLIC
Field work will be in Level "C" PPE. PC OH
Mil assembly costs include HPF adjustments. PC PF
2009 cost sources are not escalated (EF=1.00). All other costs are escalated based on the USACE CWCCIS, EM 1110-2-1304, Mar 2009. BUR LIC
An AF of 1.13 is used for Oregon, except that an AF of 1.00 (national unmodified average) is used for Mil assembly costs and local vendor quotes.
It is assumed that Subcontractor O&P is either included in the PC O&P or has been factored into vendor quotes or previous work.
It is assumed that home office OH is 8% and profit is 9% for the Prime Contractor. Professional labor overhead is 100%. Allowances and items with mandated costs such as per diem do not have overhead and profit applied.
Quantity
Equipment
Material
HTRW Productivity Factor
Adjusted LaborforHFP
Adjusted Equipment for H FP
Unmodified Unit Cost
Unmodified Line Item Cost
Unburdened Line Item Cost
Prime Contractor Overhead
Prime Contractor Profit
Burdened Line Item Cost
ACR
BCY
CLF
DY
EA
LF
HR
LB
LCY
LS
RL
SY
TN
Acres
Bank Cubic Yard
100 Linear Foot
Days
Each
Linear Foot
Hours
Pounds
Loose Cubic Yard
Lump Sum
Roll
Square Yard
Tons
3/24/20102:44 PM
FINAL
-------
TABLE CW5b-9
Alternative 5b
Capital Cost Sub-Element
Contaminated Surface Materials Excavation and Hauling
Cost Worksheet: CW5b-9
COST WORKSHEET
Site: North Ridge Estates
Location: Klamath County, Oregon
Phase: Final Feasibility Study
Base Year: 2010
Prepared By: AS Date: 3/16/2010
Checked By: GH Date: 3/24/2010
Work Statement:
This sub-element involves the excavation of contaminated surface materials and hauling of contaminated materials for on site consolidation and disposal. It includes costs for labor, material, and equipment.
Cost Analysis:
Cost for Contaminated Surface Materials Excavation and Hauling (Lump Sum)
COST
DATABASE
CODE
DESCRIPTION
Excavation/Loading - Surficial Contaminated
Materials
UNIT(S)
ADJ
LABOR
COST SOURCE
CITATION
COMMENTS
Mil Mil Assemblies
Hauling - Onsite Disposal
Mil Mil Assemblies
TOTAL UNIT COST:
Notes:
HTRW productivity factor is from Exhibit B-3 or B-4 of "A Guide to Developing and Documenting Cost Estimates During the Feasibility Study", EPA 2000
The Cost Database Code is a reference code for linking with line item cost information with the cost source database and is not otherwise used within these cost worksheets.
Source of Cost Data:
Not Applicable - costs are from previous work or vendor quote
For citation references, the following sources apply:
Mil (Mil Assemblies), GSA (www.gsa.gov), SE (www.salaryexpert.com), A (Allowance), V (Vendor Quote), CW09 (Means CostWorks 2009), P (Previous Work), and FRTR (www.frtr.gov)
Cost Adjustment Checklist:
FACTOR:
H&S Productivity (labor and equipment only)
Escalation to Base Year
Area Cost Factor
Subcontractor Overhead and Profit
Prime Contractor Overhead and Profit
NOTES:
Field work will be in Level "C" PPE.
Mil assembly costs include HPF adjustments.
2009 cost sources are not escalated (EF=1.00). All other costs are escalated based on the USACE CWCCIS, EM 1110-2-1304, Mar 2009.
An AF of 1.13 is used for Oregon, except that an AF of 1.00 (national unmodified average) is used for Mil assembly costs and local vendor
It is assumed that Subcontractor O&P is either included in the PC O&P or has been factored into vendor quotes or previous work.
It is assumed that home office OH is 8% and profit is 9% for the Prime Contractor. Professional labor overhead is 100%. Allowances and items with mandated costs such as per diem do not have overhead and profit applied.
Abbreviations:
QTY
Quantity
ACR
Acres
EQUIP
Equipment
BCY
Bank Cubic Yard
MATL
Material
CLF
100 Linear Foot
HPF
HTRW Productivity Factor
DY
Days
ADJ LABOR
Adjusted LaborforHFP
EA
Each
ADJ EQUIP
Adjusted Equipment for H FP
LF
Linear Foot
UNMOD UC
Unmodified Unit Cost
HR
Hours
UNMOD LIC
Unmodified Line Item Cost
LB
Pounds
UNBUR LIC
Unburdened Line Item Cost
LCY
Loose Cubic Yard
PC OH
Prime Contractor Overhead
LS
Lump Sum
PC PF
Prime Contractor Profit
RL
Roll
BUR LIC
Burdened Line Item Cost
SY
Square Yard
quotes.
TN
Tons
3/24/20102:44 PM
FINAL
-------
TABLE CW5b-10
Alternative 5b
Capital Cost Sub-Element
Steam Pipe Excavation and Hauling
Cost Worksheet: CW5b-10
COST WORKSHEET
Site: North Ridge Estates
Location: Klamath County, Oregon
Phase: Final Feasibility Study
Base Year: 2010
Prepared By: AS Date: 3/16/2010
Checked By: GH Date: 3/24/2010
Work Statement:
This sub-element involves the excavation, demolition, and hauling of steam pipe for onsite disposal. It includes costs for labor, material, and equipment.
Cost Analysis:
Cost for Steam Pipe Excavation and Hauling (Lump Sum)
COST
DATABASE
CODE
DESCRIPTION
UNIT(S)
ADJ
LABOR
COST SOURCE
CITATION
COMMENTS
Excavation/Loading - Steam Pipe
Mil Mil Assemblies
Steam Pipe Segmentation
Mil Mil Assemblies
Hauling - Onsite Disposal
Mil Mil Assemblies
TOTAL UNIT COST:
Abbreviations:
HTRW productivity factor is from Exhibit B-3 or B-4 of "A Guide to Developing and Documenting Cost Estimates During the Feasibility Study", EPA 2000
The Cost Database Code is a reference code for linking with line item cost information with the cost source database and is not otherwise used within these cost worksheets.
Source of Cost Data:
NA Not Applicable - costs are from previous work or vendor quote
For citation references, the following sources apply:
Mil (Mil Assemblies), GSA (www.gsa.gov), SE (www.salaryexpert.com), A (Allowance), V (Vendor Quote), CW09 (Means CostWorks 2009), P (Previous Work), and FRTR (www.frtr.gov)
Cost Adjustment Checklist:
FACTOR:
H&S Productivity (labor and equipment only)
Escalation to Base Year
Area Cost Factor
Subcontractor Overhead and Profit
Prime Contractor Overhead and Profit
QTY
EQUIP
MATL
HPF
ADJ LABOR
ADJ EQUIP
UNMOD UC
UNMOD LIC
NOTES: UNBURLIC
Field work will be in Level "C" PPE. PC OH
Mil assembly costs include HPF adjustments. PC PF
2009 cost sources are not escalated (EF=1.00). All other costs are escalated based on the USACE CWCCIS, EM 1110-2-1304, Mar 2009. BUR LIC
An AF of 1.13 is used for Oregon, except that an AF of 1.00 (national unmodified average) is used for Mil assembly costs and local vendor quotes.
It is assumed that Subcontractor O&P is either included in the PC O&P or has been factored into vendor quotes or previous work.
It is assumed that home office OH is 8% and profit is 9% for the Prime Contractor. Professional labor overhead is 100%. Allowances and items with mandated costs such as per diem do not have overhead and profit applied.
Quantity
Equipment
Material
HTRW Productivity Factor
Adjusted LaborforHFP
Adjusted Equipment for H FP
Unmodified Unit Cost
Unmodified Line Item Cost
Unburdened Line Item Cost
Prime Contractor Overhead
Prime Contractor Profit
Burdened Line Item Cost
ACR
BCY
CLF
DY
EA
LF
HR
LB
LCY
LS
RL
SY
TN
Acres
Bank Cubic Yard
100 Linear Foot
Days
Each
Linear Foot
Hours
Pounds
Loose Cubic Yard
Lump Sum
Roll
Square Yard
Tons
3/24/20102:44 PM
FINAL
-------
TABLE CW5b-11
Alternative 5b
Capital Cost Sub-Element
Buried Contaminated Materials Excavation and Hauling
Cost Worksheet: CW5b-11
COST WORKSHEET
Site: North Ridge Estates
Location: Klamath County, Oregon
Phase: Final Feasibility Study
Base Year: 2010
Prepared By: AS Date: 3/16/2010
Checked By: GH Date: 3/24/2010
Work Statement:
This sub-element involves the excavation of buried contaminated materials and hauling for onsite consolidation and disposal. This work also includes installation of sheet piling to provide stability to the area surrounding the excavation. It includes costs for labor, material, and equipment.
Cost Analysis:
Cost for Buried Contaminated Materials Excavation and Hauling (Lump Sum)
COST
DATABASE
CODE
DESCRIPTION
UNIT(S)
ADJ
LABOR
COST SOURCE
CITATION
COMMENTS
Mil Mil Assemblies
Hauling - Onsite Disposal
Mil Mil Assemblies
Mil Mil Assemblies
TOTAL UNIT COST:
Abbreviations:
HTRW productivity factor is from Exhibit B-3 or B-4 of "A Guide to Developing and Documenting Cost Estimates During the Feasibility Study", EPA 2000
The Cost Database Code is a reference code for linking with line item cost information with the cost source database and is not otherwise used within these cost worksheets.
Source of Cost Data:
NA Not Applicable - costs are from previous work or vendor quote
For citation references, the following sources apply:
Mil (Mil Assemblies), GSA (www.gsa.gov), SE (www.salaryexpert.com), A (Allowance), V (Vendor Quote), CW09 (Means CostWorks 2009), P (Previous Work), and FRTR (www.frtr.gov)
Cost Adjustment Checklist:
FACTOR:
H&S Productivity (labor and equipment only)
Escalation to Base Year
Area Cost Factor
Subcontractor Overhead and Profit
Prime Contractor Overhead and Profit
QTY
EQUIP
MATL
HPF
ADJ LABOR
ADJ EQUIP
UNMOD UC
UNMOD LIC
NOTES: UNBURLIC
Field work will be in Level "C" PPE. PC OH
Mil assembly costs include HPF adjustments. PC PF
2009 cost sources are not escalated (EF=1.00). All other costs are escalated based on the USACE CWCCIS, EM 1110-2-1304, Mar 2009. BUR LIC
An AF of 1.13 is used for Oregon, except that an AF of 1.00 (national unmodified average) is used for Mil assembly costs and local vendor quotes.
It is assumed that Subcontractor O&P is either included in the PC O&P or has been factored into vendor quotes or previous work.
It is assumed that home office OH is 8% and profit is 9% for the Prime Contractor. Professional labor overhead is 100%. Allowances and items with mandated costs such as per diem do not have overhead and profit applied.
Quantity
Equipment
Material
HTRW Productivity Factor
Adjusted LaborforHFP
Adjusted Equipment for H FP
Unmodified Unit Cost
Unmodified Line Item Cost
Unburdened Line Item Cost
Prime Contractor Overhead
Prime Contractor Profit
Burdened Line Item Cost
ACR
BCY
CLF
DY
EA
LF
HR
LB
LCY
LS
RL
SY
TN
Acres
Bank Cubic Yard
100 Linear Foot
Days
Each
Linear Foot
Hours
Pounds
Loose Cubic Yard
Lump Sum
Roll
Square Yard
Tons
3/24/20102:44 PM
FINAL
-------
TABLE CW5b-12
Alternative 5b
Capital Cost Sub-Element
Construction of Onsite Consolidation Area
Cost Worksheet: CW5b-12
COST WORKSHEET
Site: North Ridge Estates
Location: Klamath County, Oregon
Phase: Final Feasibility Study
Base Year: 2010
Prepared By: AS Date: 3/16/2010
Checked By: GH Date: 3/24/2010
Work Statement:
This sub-element involves the construction of an onsite consolidation area for contaminated materials disposal. It includes cost for labor, equipment and material (soil from near offsite and distant offsite borrow areas, and organic material).
Cost Analysis:
Cost for Construction of Onsite Consolidation Area (Lump Sum)
COST
DATABASE
conF
DESCRIPTION
QTY
UNIT(S)
HPF
LABOR
ADJ
LABOR
EQUIP
ADJ EQUIP
MATL
OTHER
UNMOD UC
UNMOD LIC
PC OH
PC PF
BUR LIC
COST SOURCE
CITATION
COMMENTS
Contaminated Materials Placement
A11A
Contaminated Material Spreading/Grading
130,305
LCY
1.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$10.74
$10.74
$1,398,993.57
8%
9%
$1,646,895
Mil Mil Assemblies
A12A
Interim Cover Spreading/Grading
32,575
LCY
1.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$12.42
$12.42
$404,679.23
8%
9%
$476,388
Mil Mil Assemblies
A19A
Contaminated Matenal Compaction - Large Open
Area
162,880
LCY
1.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.90
$0.90
$146,412.83
8%
9%
$172,357
Mil Mil Assemblies
Clean Soil Placement for Cover
A12B
Final CoverSpreading/Grading
26,578
LCY
1.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$12.42
$12.42
$330,178.49
8%
9%
$388,686
Mil Mil Assemblies
A13A
Clean Fill Spreading/Grading
6,645
LCY
1.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$2.68
$2.68
$17,785.34
8%
9%
$20,937
Mil Mil Assemblies
Top soil placement
A21A
Clean Fill Compaction - Large Open Area
33,223
LCY
1.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.18
$0.18
$6,039.94
8%
9%
$7,110
Mil Mil Assemblies
Clean Fill/Soil from Near Offsite Borrow Source
A10A
Excavation - Borrow Source
28,608
BCY
1.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$2.13
$2.13
$60,966.51
8%
9%
$71,770
Mil Mil Assemblies
A14A
Material Loading - Clean Fill
32,899
LCY
1.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.32
$0.32
$10,632.96
8%
9%
$12,517
Mil Mil Assemblies
A23B
Hauling - Near Offsite Borrow Source
32,899
LCY
1.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$2.12
$2.12
$69,778.78
8%
9%
$82,144
Mil Mil Assemblies
Clean Fill/Soil trom Distant Ottsite Borrow
Source
A10A
Excavation - Borrow Source
28,608
BCY
1.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$2.13
$2.13
$60,966.51
8%
9%
$71,770
Mil Mil Assemblies
A14A
Material Loading - Clean Fill
32,899
LCY
1.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.32
$0.32
$10,632.96
8%
9%
$12,517
Mil Mil Assemblies
A23A
Hauling - Distant Offsite Borrow Source
32,899
LCY
1.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$2.82
$2.82
$92,706.09
8%
9%
$109,134
Mil Mil Assemblies
M49
Assumed Royalty Allowance for Soil
32,899
LCY
1.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$3.00
$3.00
$98,697.00
0%
0%
$98,697
A Allowance
Organic Material for Topsoil Amendment
A39B
Organic Delivery
200
TN
1.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$8.65
$8.65
$1,729.12
8%
9%
$2,036
Mil Mil Assemblies
A40A
Organic Amendment and Processing
8
ACR
1.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$1,082.08
$1,082.08
$8,656.67
8%
9%
$10,191
Mil Mil Assemblies
M25
Organic Material
200
TN
1.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$25.25
$0.00
$25.25
$5,050.00
8%
9%
$5,945
V Vendor Quote
TOTAL UNIT COST:
$3,189,094
Abbreviations:
HTRW productivity factor is from Exhibit B-3 or B-4 of "A Guide to Developing and Documenting Cost Estimates During the Feasibility Study", EPA 2000
The Cost Database Code is a reference code for linking with line item cost information with the cost source database and is not otherwise used within these cost worksheets.
Source of Cost Data:
NA Not Applicable - costs are from previous work or vendor quote
For citation references, the following sources apply:
Mil (Mil Assemblies), GSA (www.gsa.gov), SE (www.salaryexpert.com), A (Allowance), V (Vendor Quote), CW09 (Means CostWorks 2009), P (Previous Work), and FRTR (www.frtr.gov)
Cost Adjustment Checklist:
FACTOR:
H&S Productivity (labor and equipment only)
Escalation to Base Year
Area Cost Factor
Subcontractor Overhead and Profit
Prime Contractor Overhead and Profit
QTY
EQUIP
MATL
HPF
ADJ LABOR
ADJ EQUIP
UNMOD UC
UNMOD LIC
NOTES: UNBURLIC
Field work will be in Level "C" PPE. PC OH
Mil assembly costs include HPF adjustments. PC PF
2009 cost sources are not escalated (EF=1.00). All other costs are escalated based on the USACE CWCCIS, EM 1110-2-1304, Mar 2009. BUR LIC
An AF of 1.13 is used for Oregon, except that an AF of 1.00 (national unmodified average) is used for Mil assembly costs and local vendor quotes.
It is assumed that Subcontractor O&P is either included in the PC O&P or has been factored into vendor quotes or previous work.
It is assumed that home office OH is 8% and profit is 9% for the Prime Contractor. Professional labor overhead is 100%. Allowances and items with mandated costs such as per diem do not have overhead and profit applied.
Quantity
Equipment
Material
HTRW Productivity Factor
Adjusted LaborforHFP
Adjusted Equipment for H FP
Unmodified Unit Cost
Unmodified Line Item Cost
Unburdened Line Item Cost
Prime Contractor Overhead
Prime Contractor Profit
Burdened Line Item Cost
ACR
BCY
CLF
DY
EA
LF
HR
LB
LCY
LS
RL
SY
TN
Acres
Bank Cubic Yard
100 Linear Foot
Days
Each
Linear Foot
Hours
Pounds
Loose Cubic Yard
Lump Sum
Roll
Square Yard
Tons
3/24/20102:44 PM
FINAL
-------
TABLE CW5b-13
Alternative 5b
Capital Cost Sub-Element
Revegetation of Onsite Consolidation Area
Cost Worksheet: CW5b-13
COST WORKSHEET
Site: North Ridge Estates
Location: Klamath County, Oregon
Phase: Final Feasibility Study
Base Year: 2010
Prepared By: AS Date: 3/16/2010
Checked By: GH Date: 3/24/2010
Work Statement:
This sub-element involves the revegetation of the onsite consolidation area. It includes costs for labor, material, and equipment.
Cost Analysis:
Cost for Revegetation of Onsite Consolidation Area (Lump Sum)
COST
DATABASE
CODE
DESCRIPTION
UNIT(S)
ADJ
LABOR
COST SOURCE
CITATION
COMMENTS
Hydroseeding/Revegetation
Hydro-Seeding Crew
Mil Mil Assemblies
V Vendor Quote
V Vendor Quote
Fertilizer (P205)
V Vendor Quote
P Previous Work
TOTAL UNIT COST:
Abbreviations:
HTRW productivity factor is from Exhibit B-3 or B-4 of "A Guide to Developing and Documenting Cost Estimates During the Feasibility Study", EPA 2000
The Cost Database Code is a reference code for linking with line item cost information with the cost source database and is not otherwise used within these cost worksheets.
Source of Cost Data:
NA Not Applicable - costs are from previous work or vendor quote
For citation references, the following sources apply:
Mil (Mil Assemblies), GSA (www.gsa.gov), SE (www.salaryexpert.com), A (Allowance), V (Vendor Quote), CW09 (Means CostWorks 2009), P (Previous Work), and FRTR (www.frtr.gov)
Cost Adjustment Checklist:
FACTOR:
H&S Productivity (labor and equipment only)
Escalation to Base Year
Area Cost Factor
Subcontractor Overhead and Profit
Prime Contractor Overhead and Profit
QTY
EQUIP
MATL
HPF
ADJ LABOR
ADJ EQUIP
UNMOD UC
UNMOD LIC
NOTES: UNBURLIC
Field work will be in Level "C" PPE. PC OH
Mil assembly costs include HPF adjustments. PC PF
2009 cost sources are not escalated (EF=1.00). All other costs are escalated based on the USACE CWCCIS, EM 1110-2-1304, Mar 2009. BUR LIC
An AF of 1.13 is used for Oregon, except that an AF of 1.00 (national unmodified average) is used for Mil assembly costs and local vendor quotes.
It is assumed that Subcontractor O&P is either included in the PC O&P or has been factored into vendor quotes or previous work.
It is assumed that home office OH is 8% and profit is 9% for the Prime Contractor. Professional labor overhead is 100%. Allowances and items with mandated costs such as per diem do not have overhead and profit applied.
Quantity
Equipment
Material
HTRW Productivity Factor
Adjusted LaborforHFP
Adjusted Equipment for H FP
Unmodified Unit Cost
Unmodified Line Item Cost
Unburdened Line Item Cost
Prime Contractor Overhead
Prime Contractor Profit
Burdened Line Item Cost
ACR
BCY
CLF
DY
EA
LF
HR
LB
LCY
LS
RL
SY
TN
Acres
Bank Cubic Yard
100 Linear Foot
Days
Each
Linear Foot
Hours
Pounds
Loose Cubic Yard
Lump Sum
Roll
Square Yard
Tons
3/24/20102:44 PM
FINAL
-------
TABLE CW5b-14
Alternative 5b
Capital Cost Sub-Element
Excavation Backfilling
Cost Worksheet: CW5b-14
COST WORKSHEET
Site: North Ridge Estates
Location: Klamath County, Oregon
Phase: Final Feasibility Study
Base Year: 2010
Prepared By: AS Date: 3/16/2010
Checked By: GH Date: 3/24/2010
Work Statement:
This sub-element involves backfilling of excavations. The backfill would include a subsoil layer placed below a topsoil layer and organic amendment of the topsoil. It includes costs for labor, material, and equipment.
Cost Analysis:
Cost for Excavation Backfilling (Lump Sum)
COST
DATABASE
CODE
DESCRIPTION
UNIT(S)
ADJ
LABOR
COST SOURCE
CITATION
COMMENTS
Clean Fill/Soil from Near Offsite Borrow Source
Excavation - Borrow Source
Mil Assemblies
Material Loading - Clean Fill
Mil Assemblies
Hauling - Near Offsite Borrow Source
Clean Fill/Soil from Distant Offsite Borrow
Mil Assemblies
Excavation - Borrow Source
Mil Assemblies
Material Loading - Clean Fill
Mil Assemblies
Hauling - Distant Offsite Borrow Source
Mil Assemblies
Assumed Royalty Allowance for Soil
Subsoil Replacement and Compaction
Clean Fill Spreading/Grading
Mil Assemblies
Clean Fill Compaction - Large Open Area
Mil Assemblies
Assume 90% of total fi
Clean Fill Compaction - Small Area
Mil Assemblies
Assume 10% of total fi
Topsoil Replacement and Compaction
Top Soil Spreading/Grading
Mil Assemblies
Clean Fill Compaction - Large Open Area
Mil Assemblies
Assume 90% of total fi
Clean Fill Compaction - Small Area
Mil Assemblies
Assume 10% of total fi
Organic Material for Topsoil Amendment
Organic Delivery
Mil Mil Assemblies
Organic Amendment and Processing
Mil Mil Assemblies
Organic Material
V Vendor Quote
TOTAL UNIT COST:
Notes:
HTRW productivity factor is from Exhibit B-3 or B-4 of "A Guide to Developing and Documenting Cost Estimates During the Feasibility Study", EPA 2000
The Cost Database Code is a reference code for linking with line item cost information with the cost source database and is not otherwise used within these cost worksheets.
Source of Cost Data:
NA Not Applicable - costs are from previous work or vendor quote
For citation references, the following sources apply:
Mil (Mil Assemblies), GSA (www.gsa.gov), SE (www.salaryexpert.com), A (Allowance), V (Vendor Quote), CW09 (Means CostWorks 2009), P (Previous Work), and FRTR (www.frtr.gov)
Abbreviations:
Cost Adjustment Checklist:
FACTOR:
H&S Productivity (labor and equipment only)
Escalation to Base Year
Area Cost Factor
Subcontractor Overhead and Profit
Prime Contractor Overhead and Profit
NOTES:
Field work will be in Level "C" PPE.
Mil assembly costs include HPF adjustments.
2009 cost sources are not escalated (EF=1.00). All other costs are escalated based on the USACE CWCCIS, EM 1110-2-1304, Mar 2009.
An AF of 1.13 is used for Oregon, except that an AF of 1.00 (national unmodified average) is used for Mil assembly costs and local vendor
It is assumed that Subcontractor O&P is either included in the PC O&P or has been factored into vendor quotes or previous work.
It is assumed that home office OH is 8% and profit is 9% for the Prime Contractor. Professional labor overhead is 100%. Allowances and items with mandated costs such as per diem do not have overhead and profit applied.
QTY
Quantity
ACR
Acres
EQUIP
Equipment
BCY
Bank Cubic Yard
MATL
Material
CLF
100 Linear Foot
HPF
HTRW Productivity Factor
DY
Days
ADJ LABOR
Adjusted LaborforHFP
EA
Each
ADJ EQUIP
Adjusted Equipment for H FP
LF
Linear Foot
UNMOD UC
Unmodified Unit Cost
HR
Hours
UNMOD LIC
Unmodified Line Item Cost
LB
Pounds
UNBUR LIC
Unburdened Line Item Cost
LCY
Loose Cubic Yard
PC OH
Prime Contractor Overhead
LS
Lump Sum
PC PF
Prime Contractor Profit
RL
Roll
BUR LIC
Burdened Line Item Cost
SY
Square Yard
quotes.
TN
Tons
3/24/20102:44 PM
FINAL
-------
TABLE CW5b-15
Alternative 5b
Capital Cost Sub-Element
Revegetation of Disturbed Areas
Cost Worksheet: CW5b-15
COST WORKSHEET
Site: North Ridge Estates
Location: Klamath County, Oregon
Phase: Final Feasibility Study
Base Year: 2010
Prepared By: AS Date: 3/16/2010
Checked By: GH Date: 3/24/2010
Work Statement:
This sub-element involves the revegetation of disturbed areas on the site. It includes hydro-seeding with fertilizer and hydomulch.
Cost Analysis:
Cost for Revegetation of Disturbed Areas (Lump Sum)
COST
DATABASE
CODE
DESCRIPTION
UNIT(S)
ADJ
LABOR
COST SOURCE
CITATION
COMMENTS
Hydroseeding/Revegetation
Hydro-Seeding Crew
Mil Mil Assemblies
V Vendor Quote
V Vendor Quote
Fertilizer (P205)
V Vendor Quote
P Previous Work
TOTAL UNIT COST:
Abbreviations:
HTRW productivity factor is from Exhibit B-3 or B-4 of "A Guide to Developing and Documenting Cost Estimates During the Feasibility Study", EPA 2000
The Cost Database Code is a reference code for linking with line item cost information with the cost source database and is not otherwise used within these cost worksheets.
Source of Cost Data:
NA Not Applicable - costs are from previous work or vendor quote
For citation references, the following sources apply:
Mil (Mil Assemblies), GSA (www.gsa.gov), SE (www.salaryexpert.com), A (Allowance), V (Vendor Quote), CW09 (Means CostWorks 2009), P (Previous Work), and FRTR (www.frtr.gov)
Cost Adjustment Checklist:
FACTOR:
H&S Productivity (labor and equipment only)
Escalation to Base Year
Area Cost Factor
Subcontractor Overhead and Profit
Prime Contractor Overhead and Profit
QTY
EQUIP
MATL
HPF
ADJ LABOR
ADJ EQUIP
UNMOD UC
UNMOD LIC
NOTES: UNBURLIC
Field work will be in Level "C" PPE. PC OH
Mil assembly costs include HPF adjustments. PC PF
2009 cost sources are not escalated (EF=1.00). All other costs are escalated based on the USACE CWCCIS, EM 1110-2-1304, Mar 2009. BUR LIC
An AF of 1.13 is used for Oregon, except that an AF of 1.00 (national unmodified average) is used for Mil assembly costs and local vendor quotes.
It is assumed that Subcontractor O&P is either included in the PC O&P or has been factored into vendor quotes or previous work.
It is assumed that home office OH is 8% and profit is 9% for the Prime Contractor. Professional labor overhead is 100%. Allowances and items with mandated costs such as per diem do not have overhead and profit applied.
Quantity
Equipment
Material
HTRW Productivity Factor
Adjusted LaborforHFP
Adjusted Equipment for H FP
Unmodified Unit Cost
Unmodified Line Item Cost
Unburdened Line Item Cost
Prime Contractor Overhead
Prime Contractor Profit
Burdened Line Item Cost
ACR
BCY
CLF
DY
EA
LF
HR
LB
LCY
LS
RL
SY
TN
Acres
Bank Cubic Yard
100 Linear Foot
Days
Each
Linear Foot
Hours
Pounds
Loose Cubic Yard
Lump Sum
Roll
Square Yard
Tons
3/24/20102:44 PM
FINAL
-------
TABLE CW5b-16
Alternative 5b
Capital Cost Sub-Element
Mobilization/Demobilization
Cost Worksheet: CW5b-16
COST WORKSHEET
Site: North Ridge Estates
Location: Klamath County, Oregon
Phase: Final Feasibility Study
Base Year: 2010
Prepared By: AS Date: 3/16/2010
Checked By: GH Date: 3/24/2010
Work Statement:
This sub-element involves mobilization and demobilization of all the required equipment to and from the site respectively.
Cost Analysis:
Cost for Mobilization/Demobilization (Lump Sum)
COST
DATABASE
conF
DESCRIPTION
QTY
UNIT(S)
HPF
LABOR
ADJ
LABOR
EQUIP
ADJ EQUIP
MATL
OTHER
UNMOD UC
UNMOD LIC
PC OH
PC PF
BUR LIC
COST SOURCE
CITATION
COMMENTS
A37A
Mobilization and Demobilization - Heavy Equipmen
10
EA
1.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$2,384.82
$2,384.82
$23,848.22
8%
9%
$28,074
Mil Mil Assemblies
A37B
Mobilization and Demobilization - Medium-Sizec
Equipment
6
EA
1.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$974.68
$974.68
$5,848.08
8%
9%
$6,884
Mil Mil Assemblies
A37C
Mobilization and Demobilization - Small Equipment
5
EA
1.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$605.12
$605.12
$3,025.61
8%
9%
$3,562
Mil Mil Assemblies
A37D
Mobilization and Demobilization - Selt-Propellec
Equipment
10
EA
1.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$2,469.12
$2,469.12
$24,691.17
8%
9%
$29,066
Mil Mil Assemblies
TOTAL UNIT COST:
$67,586
Notes: Abbreviations:
HTRW productivity factor is from Exhibit B-3 or B-4 of "A Guide to Developing and Documenting Cost Estimates During the Feasibility Study", EPA 2000 QTY
Quantity
ACR
Acres
The Cost Database Code is a reference code for linking with line item cost information with the cost source database and is not otherwise used within these cost worksheets. EQUIP
Equipment
BCY
Bank Cubic Yard
MATL
Material
CLF
100 Linear Foot
Source of Cost Data: HPF
HTRW Productivity Factor
DY
Days
NA Not Applicable - costs are from previous work or vendor quote ADJ LABOR
Adjusted LaborforHFP
EA
Each
For citation references, the following sources apply: ADJ EQU IP
Adjusted Equipment for H FP
LF
Linear Foot
Mil (Mil Assemblies), GSA (www.gsa.gov), SE (www.salaryexpert.com), A (Allowance), V (Vendor Quote), CW09 (Means CostWorks 2009), P (Previous Work), and FRTR (www.frtr.gov) UNMOD UC
Unmodified Unit Cost
HR
Hours
UNMOD LIC
Unmodified Line Item Cost
LB
Pounds
Cost Adjustment Checklist: NOTES: IINRURIIC
Unburdened Line Item Cost
LCY
Loose Cubic Yard
FACTOR: Field work will be in Level "C" PPE. PC OH
Prime Contractor Overhead
LS
Lump Sum
H&S Productivity (labor and equipment only) Mil assembly costs include HPF adjustments. PC PF
Prime Contractor Profit
RL
Roll
Escalation to Base Year 2009 cost sources are not escalated (EF=1.00). All other costs are escalated based on the USACE CWCCIS, EM 1110-2-1304, Mar 2009. BUR LIC
Burdened Line Item Cost
SY
Square Yard
Area Cost Factor An AF of 1.13 is used for Oregon, except that an AF of 1.00 (national unmodified average) is used for Mil assembly costs and local vendor quotes.
TN
Tons
Subcontractor Overhead and Profit It is assumed that Subcontractor O&P is either included in the PC O&P or has been factored into vendor quotes or previous work.
Prime Contractor Overhead and Profit It is assumed that home office OH is 8% and profit is 9% for the Prime Contractor. Professional labor overhead is 100%. Allowances and items with mandated costs such as per diem do not have overhead and profit applied.
3/24/20102:44 PM
FINAL
-------
TABLE CW5b-17
Alternative 5b
Capital Cost Sub-Element
Surveying for Construction Control
Cost Worksheet: CW5b-17
COST WORKSHEET
Site: North Ridge Estates
Location: Klamath County, Oregon
Phase: Final Feasibility Study
Base Year: 2010
Prepared By: AS Date: 3/16/2010
Checked By: GH Date: 3/24/2010
Work Statement:
This sub-element involves cost for site surveying before and after the remedial alternative is implemented.
Cost Analysis:
Cost for Surveying for Construction Control (Lump Sum)
COST
DATABASE
CODE
DESCRIPTION
UNIT(S)
ADJ
LABOR
COST SOURCE
CITATION
COMMENTS
Site Survey - Contaminated Area
Mil Mil Assemblies
Assume 4 acres/day
Site Survey - Clean Area
Mil Mil Assemblies
Assume 6 acres/day
Surveying Report Allowance
A Allowance
TOTAL UNIT COST:
Abbreviations:
HTRW productivity factor is from Exhibit B-3 or B-4 of "A Guide to Developing and Documenting Cost Estimates During the Feasibility Study", EPA 2000
The Cost Database Code is a reference code for linking with line item cost information with the cost source database and is not otherwise used within these cost worksheets.
Source of Cost Data:
NA Not Applicable - costs are from previous work or vendor quote
For citation references, the following sources apply:
Mil (Mil Assemblies), GSA (www.gsa.gov), SE (www.salaryexpert.com), A (Allowance), V (Vendor Quote), CW09 (Means CostWorks 2009), P (Previous Work), and FRTR (www.frtr.gov)
Cost Adjustment Checklist:
FACTOR:
H&S Productivity (labor and equipment only)
Escalation to Base Year
Area Cost Factor
Subcontractor Overhead and Profit
Prime Contractor Overhead and Profit
QTY
EQUIP
MATL
HPF
ADJ LABOR
ADJ EQUIP
UNMOD UC
UNMOD LIC
NOTES: UNBURLIC
Field work will be in Level "C" PPE. PC OH
Mil assembly costs include HPF adjustments. PC PF
2009 cost sources are not escalated (EF=1.00). All other costs are escalated based on the USACE CWCCIS, EM 1110-2-1304, Mar 2009. BUR LIC
An AF of 1.13 is used for Oregon, except that an AF of 1.00 (national unmodified average) is used for Mil assembly costs and local vendor quotes.
It is assumed that Subcontractor O&P is either included in the PC O&P or has been factored into vendor quotes or previous work.
It is assumed that home office OH is 8% and profit is 9% for the Prime Contractor. Professional labor overhead is 100%. Allowances and items with mandated costs such as per diem do not have overhead and profit applied.
Quantity
Equipment
Material
HTRW Productivity Factor
Adjusted LaborforHFP
Adjusted Equipment for H FP
Unmodified Unit Cost
Unmodified Line Item Cost
Unburdened Line Item Cost
Prime Contractor Overhead
Prime Contractor Profit
Burdened Line Item Cost
ACR
BCY
CLF
DY
EA
LF
HR
LB
LCY
LS
RL
SY
TN
Acres
Bank Cubic Yard
100 Linear Foot
Days
Each
Linear Foot
Hours
Pounds
Loose Cubic Yard
Lump Sum
Roll
Square Yard
Tons
3/24/20102:44 PM
FINAL
-------
TABLE CW5b-18
Alternative 5b
Capital Cost Sub-Element
Equipment Decontamination
Cost Worksheet: CW5b-18
COST WORKSHEET
Site: North Ridge Estates
Location: Klamath County, Oregon
Phase: Final Feasibility Study
Base Year: 2010
Prepared By: AS Date: 3/16/2010
Checked By: GH Date: 3/24/2010
Work Statement:
This sub-element involves decontamination of equipment used onsite.
Cost Analysis:
Cost for Equipment Decontamination (Lump Sum)
COST
DATABASE
conF
DESCRIPTION
QTY
UNIT(S)
HPF
LABOR
ADJ
LABOR
EQUIP
ADJ EQUIP
MATL
OTHER
UNMOD UC
UNMOD LIC
PC OH
PC PF
BUR LIC
COST SOURCE
CITATION
COMMENTS
Equipment Decon/Washing
A3A
Equipment Decon/Washing
624
DY
1.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$168.44
$168.44
$105,105.12
8%
9%
$123,730
Mil Mil Assemblies
Assume 8 months/yr, 3 yrs
M46
PolyTank, 5,300 Gal
1
EA
1.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$2,250.24
$0.00
$2,250.24
$2,250.24
8%
9%
$2,649
V Vendor Quote
M47
Wash Rack w/ Solids Filtration Unit, Closed Loop
1
LS
1.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$55,655.04
$0.00
$55,655.04
$55,655.04
8%
9%
$65,517
V Vendor Quote
TOTAL UNIT COST:
$191,896
Notes: Abbreviations:
HTRW productivity factor is from Exhibit B-3 or B-4 of "A Guide to Developing and Documenting Cost Estimates During the Feasibility Study", EPA 2000 QTY
Quantity
ACR
Acres
The Cost Database Code is a reference code for linking with line item cost information with the cost source database and is not otherwise used within these cost worksheets. EQUIP
Equipment
BCY
Bank Cubic Yard
MATL
Material
CLF
100 Linear Foot
Source of Cost Data: HPF
HTRW Productivity Factor
DY
Days
NA Not Applicable - costs are from previous work or vendor quote ADJ LABOR
Adjusted LaborforHFP
EA
Each
For citation references, the following sources apply: ADJ EQU IP
Adjusted Equipment for H FP
LF
Linear Foot
Mil (Mil Assemblies), GSA (www.gsa.gov), SE (www.salaryexpert.com), A (Allowance), V (Vendor Quote), CW09 (Means CostWorks 2009), P (Previous Work), and FRTR (www.frtr.gov) UNMOD UC
Unmodified Unit Cost
HR
Hours
UNMOD LIC
Unmodified Line Item Cost
LB
Pounds
Cost Adjustment Checklist: NOTES: UNRURIIO
Unburdened Line Item Cost
LCY
Loose Cubic Yard
FACTOR: Field work will be in Level "C" PPE. PC OH
Prime Contractor Overhead
LS
Lump Sum
H&S Productivity (labor and equipment only) Mil assembly costs include HPF adjustments. PC PF
Prime Contractor Profit
RL
Roll
Escalation to Base Year 2009 cost sources are not escalated (EF=1.00). All other costs are escalated based on the USACE CWCCIS, EM 1110-2-1304, Mar 2009. BUR LIC
Burdened Line Item Cost
SY
Square Yard
Area Cost Factor An AF of 1.13 is used for Oregon, except that an AF of 1.00 (national unmodified average) is used for Mil assembly costs and local vendor quotes.
TN
Tons
Subcontractor Overhead and Profit It is assumed that Subcontractor O&P is either included in the PC O&P or has been factored into vendor quotes or previous work.
Prime Contractor Overhead and Profit It is assumed that home office OH is 8% and profit is 9% for the Prime Contractor. Professional labor overhead is 100%. Allowances and items with mandated costs such as per diem do not have overhead and profit applied.
3/24/20102:44 PM
FINAL
-------
TABLE CW5b-19
Alternative 5b
Capital Cost Sub-Element
Site Maintenance and Control During Construction
Cost Worksheet: CW5b-19
COST WORKSHEET
Site: North Ridge Estates
Location: Klamath County, Oregon
Phase: Final Feasibility Study
Base Year: 2010
Prepared By: AS Date: 3/16/2010
Checked By: GH Date: 3/24/2010
Work Statement:
This sub-element involves site maintenance during construction. The annual costs for site maintenance during construction include labor, material, and equipment.
Cost Analysis:
Cost for Site Maintenance and Control During Construction (Lump Sum)
COST
DATABASE
conF
DESCRIPTION
QTY
UNIT(S)
HPF
LABOR
ADJ
LABOR
EQUIP
ADJ EQUIP
MATL
OTHER
UNMOD UC
UNMOD LIC
PC OH
PC PF
BUR LIC
COST SOURCE
CITATION
COMMENTS
Dust Control
A1A
Dust Control/Washing
624
DY
1.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$564.97
$564.97
$352,543.65
8%
9%
$415,014
Mil Mil Assemblies
Equipment Fueling
A2A
Equipment Fueling
624
DY
1.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$68.46
$68.46
$42,717.67
8%
9%
$50,287
Mil Mil Assemblies
Construction Safety and Traffic Control
A33A
Barricade and Traffic Control Setup
2
DY
1.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$987.96
$987.96
$1,975.92
8%
9%
$2,326
Mil Mil Assemblies
M36
3" x 1,000' Yellow Caution Tape
10
RL
1.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$10.61
$0.00
$10.61
$106.10
8%
9%
$125
V Vendor Quote
M37
3" x 1,000' Red Danger Asbestos Haz Tape
10
RL
1.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$10.61
$0.00
$10.61
$106.10
8%
9%
$125
V Vendor Quote
M38
Reflecting Barricade with Light
15
EA
1.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$72.55
$0.00
$72.55
$1,088.25
8%
9%
$1,281
V Vendor Quote
M39
Orange Safety Fence with Posts
20
CLF
1.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$53.52
$0.00
$53.52
$1,070.40
8%
9%
$1,260
V Vendor Quote
TOTAL UNIT COST:
$470,418
Abbreviations:
HTRW productivity factor is from Exhibit B-3 or B-4 of "A Guide to Developing and Documenting Cost Estimates During the Feasibility Study", EPA 2000
The Cost Database Code is a reference code for linking with line item cost information with the cost source database and is not otherwise used within these cost worksheets.
Source of Cost Data:
NA Not Applicable - costs are from previous work or vendor quote
For citation references, the following sources apply:
Mil (Mil Assemblies), GSA (www.gsa.gov), SE (www.salaryexpert.com), A (Allowance), V (Vendor Quote), CW09 (Means CostWorks 2009), P (Previous Work), and FRTR (www.frtr.gov)
Cost Adjustment Checklist:
FACTOR:
H&S Productivity (labor and equipment only)
Escalation to Base Year
Area Cost Factor
Subcontractor Overhead and Profit
Prime Contractor Overhead and Profit
QTY
EQUIP
MATL
HPF
ADJ LABOR
ADJ EQUIP
UNMOD UC
UNMOD LIC
NOTES: UNBURLIC
Field work will be in Level "C" PPE. PC OH
Mil assembly costs include HPF adjustments. PC PF
2009 cost sources are not escalated (EF=1.00). All other costs are escalated based on the USACE CWCCIS, EM 1110-2-1304, Mar 2009. BUR LIC
An AF of 1.13 is used for Oregon, except that an AF of 1.00 (national unmodified average) is used for Mil assembly costs and local vendor quotes.
It is assumed that Subcontractor O&P is either included in the PC O&P or has been factored into vendor quotes or previous work.
It is assumed that home office OH is 8% and profit is 9% for the Prime Contractor. Professional labor overhead is 100%. Allowances and items with mandated costs such as per diem do not have overhead and profit applied.
Quantity
Equipment
Material
HTRW Productivity Factor
Adjusted LaborforHFP
Adjusted Equipment for H FP
Unmodified Unit Cost
Unmodified Line Item Cost
Unburdened Line Item Cost
Prime Contractor Overhead
Prime Contractor Profit
Burdened Line Item Cost
ACR
BCY
CLF
DY
EA
LF
HR
LB
LCY
LS
RL
SY
TN
Acres
Bank Cubic Yard
100 Linear Foot
Days
Each
Linear Foot
Hours
Pounds
Loose Cubic Yard
Lump Sum
Roll
Square Yard
Tons
3/24/20102:44 PM
FINAL
-------
TABLE CW5b-20
Alternative 5b
Capital Cost Sub-Element
Temporary Site Facilitites During Construction
Cost Worksheet: CW5b-20
COST WORKSHEET
Site: North Ridge Estates
Location: Klamath County, Oregon
Phase: Final Feasibility Study
Base Year: 2010
Prepared By: AS Date: 3/16/2010
Checked By: GH Date: 3/24/2010
Work Statement:
This sub-element involves rental cost for onsite office trailer, storage box, portable toilets, and utilities.
Cost Analysis:
Cost for Temporary Site Facilitites During Construction (Lump Sum)
COST
DATABASE
CODE
DESCRIPTION
UNIT(S)
ADJ
LABOR
COST SOURCE
CITATION
COMMENTS
Site Trailer/Office
Site Office Trailer Installation - One Time Cost
V Vendor Quote
Trailer Rental and Storage Box
V Vendor Quote
Office Furniture
V Vendor Quote
Portable Toilets
V Vendor Quote
General Office Supplies Allowance
A Allowance
Erosion Control Measures Allowance
A Allowance
Utilities (Phone, Internet, Electricity)
V Vendor Quote
TOTAL UNIT COST:
Abbreviations:
HTRW productivity factor is from Exhibit B-3 or B-4 of "A Guide to Developing and Documenting Cost Estimates During the Feasibility Study", EPA 2000
The Cost Database Code is a reference code for linking with line item cost information with the cost source database and is not otherwise used within these cost worksheets.
Source of Cost Data:
NA Not Applicable - costs are from previous work or vendor quote
For citation references, the following sources apply:
Mil (Mil Assemblies), GSA (www.gsa.gov), SE (www.salaryexpert.com), A (Allowance), V (Vendor Quote), CW09 (Means CostWorks 2009), P (Previous Work), and FRTR (www.frtr.gov)
Cost Adjustment Checklist:
FACTOR:
H&S Productivity (labor and equipment only)
Escalation to Base Year
Area Cost Factor
Subcontractor Overhead and Profit
Prime Contractor Overhead and Profit
QTY
EQUIP
MATL
HPF
ADJ LABOR
ADJ EQUIP
UNMOD UC
UNMOD LIC
NOTES: UNBURLIC
Field work will be in Level "C" PPE. PC OH
Mil assembly costs include HPF adjustments. PC PF
2009 cost sources are not escalated (EF=1.00). All other costs are escalated based on the USACE CWCCIS, EM 1110-2-1304, Mar 2009. BUR LIC
An AF of 1.13 is used for Oregon, except that an AF of 1.00 (national unmodified average) is used for Mil assembly costs and local vendor quotes.
It is assumed that Subcontractor O&P is either included in the PC O&P or has been factored into vendor quotes or previous work.
It is assumed that home office OH is 8% and profit is 9% for the Prime Contractor. Professional labor overhead is 100%. Allowances and items with mandated costs such as per diem do not have overhead and profit applied.
Quantity
Equipment
Material
HTRW Productivity Factor
Adjusted LaborforHFP
Adjusted Equipment for H FP
Unmodified Unit Cost
Unmodified Line Item Cost
Unburdened Line Item Cost
Prime Contractor Overhead
Prime Contractor Profit
Burdened Line Item Cost
ACR
BCY
CLF
DY
EA
LF
HR
LB
LCY
LS
RL
SY
TN
Acres
Bank Cubic Yard
100 Linear Foot
Days
Each
Linear Foot
Hours
Pounds
Loose Cubic Yard
Lump Sum
Roll
Square Yard
Tons
3/24/20102:44 PM
FINAL
-------
Cost Worksheets
Alternative 6
-------
TABLE CW6-1A
Alternative 6
Capital Cost Sub-Element
Excavation Confirmatory Sampling
Cost Worksheet: CW6-1A
COST WORKSHEET
Site: North Ridge Estates
Location: Klamath County, Oregon
Phase: Final Feasibility Study
Base Year: 2010
Prepared By: AS Date: 3/16/2010
Checked By: GH Date: 3/24/2010
Work Statement:
This sub-element involves intrusive visual inspections (i.e. subsurface inspections within excavations) coupled with ABS analysis would be conducted adjacent to the excavation areas after initial excavation is completed to confirm that contaminated surface materials would be excavated horizontally to the extent they can be
detected most conservative ABS scenario (e.g. raking) would be conducted for areas no greater than 40,000 square feet and would be analyzed by TEM Method. Arsenic sampling at the power plant area would be conducted at a frequency of one sample per 2,500 square feet along the bottom and side-walls of the excavation area.
The following includes the labor, material and equipment cost, and shipping cost required for the soil sampling.
Cost Analysis:
Cost for Confirmatory Soil Sampling (Lump Sum)
COST
DATABASE
CODE
DESCRIPTION
UNIT(S)
ADJ
LABOR
COST SOURCE
CITATION
COMMENTS
Visual Inspection - 2 Person Crew
Mil Mil Assemblies
Per Diem for 2 People
GSAwww.gsa.gov
Sampling - 2 Person Crew
Mil Mil Assemblies
Per Diem for 2 People
GSAwww.gsa.gov
ABS, Sample and Analysis
P Previous Work
Equipment/ABS Area/ABS Event
P Previous Work
Analysis - Arsenic
V Vendor Quote
TOTAL UNIT COST:
Abbreviations:
HTRW productivity factor is from Exhibit B-3 or B-4 of "A Guide to Developing and Documenting Cost Estimates During the Feasibility Study", EPA 2000
The Cost Database Code is a reference code for linking with line item cost information with the cost source database and is not otherwise used within these cost worksheets.
Source of Cost Data:
NA Not Applicable - costs are from previous work or vendor quote
For citation references, the following sources apply:
Mil (Mil Assemblies), GSA (www.gsa.gov), SE (www.salaryexpert.com), A (Allowance), V (Vendor Quote), CW09 (Means CostWorks 2009), P (Previous Work), and FRTR (www.frtr.gov)
Cost Adjustment Checklist:
FACTOR:
H&S Productivity (labor and equipment only)
Escalation to Base Year
Area Cost Factor
Subcontractor Overhead and Profit
Prime Contractor Overhead and Profit
QTY
EQUIP
MATL
HPF
ADJ LABOR
ADJ EQUIP
UNMOD UC
UNMOD LIC
NOTES: UNBURLIC
Field work will be in Level "C" PPE. PC OH
Mil assembly costs include HPF adjustments. PC PF
2009 cost sources are not escalated (EF=1.00). All other costs are escalated based on the USACE CWCCIS, EM 1110-2-1304, Mar 2009. BUR LIC
An AF of 1.13 is used for Oregon, except that an AF of 1.00 (national unmodified average) is used for Mil assembly costs and local vendor quotes.
It is assumed that Subcontractor O&P is either included in the PC O&P or has been factored into vendor quotes or previous work.
It is assumed that home office OH is 8% and profit is 9% for the Prime Contractor. Professional labor overhead is 100%. Allowances and items with mandated costs such as per diem do not have overhead and profit applied.
Quantity
Equipment
Material
HTRW Productivity Factor
Adjusted LaborforHFP
Adjusted Equipment for H FP
Unmodified Unit Cost
Unmodified Line Item Cost
Unburdened Line Item Cost
Prime Contractor Overhead
Prime Contractor Profit
Burdened Line Item Cost
ACR
BCY
CLF
DY
EA
LF
HR
LB
LCY
LS
RL
SY
TN
Acres
Bank Cubic Yard
100 Linear Foot
Days
Each
Linear Foot
Hours
Pounds
Loose Cubic Yard
Lump Sum
Roll
Square Yard
Tons
3/24/20102:49 PM
FINAL
-------
TABLE CW6-1B
Alternative 6
Capital Cost Sub-Element
Confirmatory Sampling Data Evaluation Report
Cost Worksheet: CW6-1B
COST WORKSHEET
Site: North Ridge Estates
Location: Klamath County, Oregon
Phase: Final Feasibility Study
Base Year: 2010
Prepared By: AS Date: 3/16/2010
Checked By: GH Date: 3/24/2010
Work Statement:
This sub-element involves the excavation sampling data evaluation report. The following cost includes labor, material and shipping costs for the removal sampling data evaluation report.
Cost Analysis:
Cost for Confirmatory Sampling Data Evaluation Report (Each)
COST
DATABASE
CODE
DESCRIPTION
UNIT(S)
ADJ
LABOR
COST SOURCE
CITATION
COMMENTS
Project Manager
SE SalaryExpert.con
Hours for 1 report
Environmental Engineer
SE SalaryExpert.con
Hours for 1 report
Environmental Scientist
SE SalaryExpert.con
Hours for 1 report
Quality Control Engineer
SE SalaryExpert.con
Hours for 1 report
SE SalaryExpert.con
Hours for 1 report
Clerks, Typist, Bookkeeper & Receptionist
SE SalaryExpert.con
Hours for 1 report
Copy and Shipping Allowance
A Allowance
TOTAL UNIT COST:
Abbreviations:
HTRW productivity factor is from Exhibit B-3 or B-4 of "A Guide to Developing and Documenting Cost Estimates During the Feasibility Study", EPA 2000
The Cost Database Code is a reference code for linking with line item cost information with the cost source database and is not otherwise used within these cost worksheets.
Source of Cost Data:
NA Not Applicable - costs are from previous work or vendor quote
For citation references, the following sources apply:
Mil (Mil Assemblies), GSA (www.gsa.gov), SE (www.salaryexpert.com), A (Allowance), V (Vendor Quote), CW09 (Means CostWorks 2009), P (Previous Work), and FRTR (www.frtr.gov)
Cost Adjustment Checklist:
FACTOR:
H&S Productivity (labor and equipment only)
Escalation to Base Year
Area Cost Factor
Subcontractor Overhead and Profit
Prime Contractor Overhead and Profit
QTY
EQUIP
MATL
HPF
ADJ LABOR
ADJ EQUIP
UNMOD UC
UNMOD LIC
NOTES: UNBURLIC
Field work will be in Level "C" PPE. PC OH
Mil assembly costs include HPF adjustments. PC PF
2009 cost sources are not escalated (EF=1.00). All other costs are escalated based on the USACE CWCCIS, EM 1110-2-1304, Mar 2009. BUR LIC
An AF of 1.13 is used for Oregon, except that an AF of 1.00 (national unmodified average) is used for Mil assembly costs and local vendor quotes.
It is assumed that Subcontractor O&P is either included in the PC O&P or has been factored into vendor quotes or previous work.
It is assumed that home office OH is 8% and profit is 9% for the Prime Contractor. Professional labor overhead is 100%. Allowances and items with mandated costs such as per diem do not have overhead and profit applied.
Quantity
Equipment
Material
HTRW Productivity Factor
Adjusted LaborforHFP
Adjusted Equipment for H FP
Unmodified Unit Cost
Unmodified Line Item Cost
Unburdened Line Item Cost
Prime Contractor Overhead
Prime Contractor Profit
Burdened Line Item Cost
ACR
BCY
CLF
DY
EA
LF
HR
LB
LCY
LS
RL
SY
TN
Acres
Bank Cubic Yard
100 Linear Foot
Days
Each
Linear Foot
Hours
Pounds
Loose Cubic Yard
Lump Sum
Roll
Square Yard
Tons
3/24/20102:49 PM
FINAL
-------
TABLE CW6-1C
Alternative 6a
Capital Cost Sub-Element
Institutional Controls
Cost Worksheet: CW6-1C
COST WORKSHEET
Site: North Ridge Estates
Location: Klamath County, Oregon
Phase: Final Feasibility Study
Base Year: 2010
Prepared By: AS Date: 3/16/2010
Checked By: GH Date: 3/24/2010
Work Statement:
This sub-element involves implementation of institutional controls for the site. The following cost includes hours for and document legal procedures to establish and cost for document submission and recording. The cost also includes site survey to establish parcel/site boundaries.
Cost Analysis:
Cost for Institutional Controls (Lump Sum)
COST
DATABASE
conF
DESCRIPTION
QTY
UNIT(S)
HPF
LABOR
ADJ
LABOR
EQUIP
ADJ EQUIP
MATL
OTHER
UNMOD UC
UNMOD LIC
PC OH
PC PF
BUR LIC
COST SOURCE
CITATION
COMMENTS
Institutional Controls tor Private Ownership
Parcels (27)
L6
Environmental Lawyer
648
HR
1.00
$71.06
$71.06
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$71.06
$46,046.88
100%
9%
$100,382
SE SalaryExpert.con
24 hrs per parcel
L15
Paralegal
864
HR
1.00
$37.29
$37.29
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$37.29
$32,218.56
100%
9%
$70,236
SE SalaryExpert.con
32 hrs per parcel
L3
Clerks, Typist, Bookkeeper & Receptionist
270
HR
1.00
$19.05
$19.05
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$19.05
$5,143.50
100%
9%
$11,213
SE SalaryExpert.con
10 hrs per parcel
M11A
Document Submission and Recording Allowance
27
LS
1.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$5,000.00
$5,000.00
$135,000.00
0%
0%
$135,000
A Allowance
Institutional Controls tor Receivership Parcels
(29)
L6
Environmental Lawyer
464
HR
1.00
$71.06
$71.06
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$71.06
$32,971.84
100%
9%
$71,879
SE SalaryExpert.con
16 hrs per parcel
L15
Paralegal
696
HR
1.00
$37.29
$37.29
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$37.29
$25,953.84
100%
9%
$56,579
SE SalaryExpert.con
24 hrs per parcel
L3
Clerks, Typist, Bookkeeper & Receptionist
290
HR
1.00
$19.05
$19.05
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$19.05
$5,524.50
100%
9%
$12,043
SE SalaryExpert.con
10 hrs per parcel
M11A
Document Submission and Recording Allowance
29
LS
1.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$5,000.00
$5,000.00
$145,000.00
0%
0%
$145,000
A Allowance
A38A
Site Survey - Clean Area
10
DY
1.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$464.52
$464.52
$4,645.19
8%
9%
$5,468
Mil Mil Assemblies
needed
M12
Surveying Report Allowance
1
LS
1.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$15,000.00
$15,000.00
$15,000.00
0%
0%
$15,000
A Allowance
TOTAL UNIT COST:
$622,800
Notes: Abbreviations:
HTRW productivity factor is from Exhibit B-3 or B-4 of "A Guide to Developing and Documenting Cost Estimates During the Feasibility Study", EPA 2000 QTY
Quantity
ACR
Acres
The Cost Database Code is a reference code for linking with line item cost information with the cost source database and is not otherwise used within these cost worksheets. EQUIP
Equipment
BCY
Bank Cubic Yard
MATL
Material
CLF
100 Linear Foot
Source of Cost Data: HPF
HTRW Productivity Factor
DY
Days
NA Not Applicable - costs are from previous work or vendor quote ADJ LABOR
Adjusted LaborforHFP
EA
Each
For citation references, the following sources apply: ADJ EQU IP
Adjusted Equipment for H FP
LF
Linear Foot
Mil (Mil Assemblies), GSA (www.gsa.gov), SE (www.salaryexpert.com), A (Allowance), V (Vendor Quote), CW09 (Means CostWorks 2009), P (Previous Work), and FRTR (www.frtr.gov) UNMOD UC
Unmodified Unit Cost
HR
Hours
UNMOD LIC
Unmodified Line Item Cost
LB
Pounds
Cost Adjustment Checklist: NOTES: UNRURIIC
Unburdened Line Item Cost
LCY
Loose Cubic Yard
FACTOR: Field work will be in Level "C" PPE. PC OH
Prime Contractor Overhead
LS
Lump Sum
H&S Productivity (labor and equipment only) Mil assembly costs include HPF adjustments. PC PF
Prime Contractor Profit
RL
Roll
Escalation to Base Year 2009 cost sources are not escalated (EF=1.00). All other costs are escalated based on the USACE CWCCIS, EM 1110-2-1304, Mar 2009. BUR LIC
Burdened Line Item Cost
SY
Square Yard
Area Cost Factor An AF of 1.13 is used for Oregon, except that an AF of 1.00 (national unmodified average) is used for Mil assembly costs and local vendor quotes.
TN
Tons
Subcontractor Overhead and Profit It is assumed that Subcontractor O&P is either included in the PC O&P or has been factored into vendor quotes or previous work.
Prime Contractor Overhead and Profit It is assumed that home office OH is 8% and profit is 9% for the Prime Contractor. Professional labor overhead is 100%. Allowances and items with mandated costs such as per diem do not have overhead and profit applied.
3/24/20102:49 PM
FINAL
-------
TABLE CW6-1D
Alternative 6b
Capital Cost Sub-Element
Access Controls
Cost Worksheet: CW6-1D
COST WORKSHEET
Site: North Ridge Estates
Location: Klamath County, Oregon
Phase: Final Feasibility Study
Base Year: 2010
Prepared By: AS Date: 3/16/2010
Checked By: GH Date: 3/24/2010
Work Statement:
This sub-element involves the cost associated with access controls on the site. Access controls include installation of sign posts along the perimeter of the disturbed area, the onsite repositories, and signage along steam pipe on the east side of Old Fort Road.
Cost Analysis:
Cost for Access Controls (Lump Sum)
COST
DATABASE
conF
DESCRIPTION
QTY
UNIT(S)
HPF
LABOR
ADJ
LABOR
EQUIP
ADJ EQUIP
MATL
OTHER
UNMOD UC
UNMOD LIC
PC OH
PC PF
BUR LIC
COST SOURCE
CITATION
COMMENTS
A31C
Signage Installation - Clean Area
1
DY
1.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$1,585.31
$1,585.31
$1,585.31
8%
9%
$1,866
Mil Mil Assemblies
M4A
T-Post, 7' High Steel Post
25
EA
1.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$5.86
$0.00
$5.86
$146.50
8%
9%
$172
V Vendor Quote
Includes wire clips
M9
Signs
25
EA
1.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$99.09
$0.00
$99.09
$2,477.25
8%
9%
$2,916
V Vendor Quote
Assume every 300 FT
TOTAL UNIT COST:
$4,954
Notes: Abbreviations:
HTRW productivity factor is from Exhibit B-3 or B-4 of "A Guide to Developing and Documenting Cost Estimates During the Feasibility Study", EPA 2000 QTY
Quantity
ACR
Acres
The Cost Database Code is a reference code for linking with line item cost information with the cost source database and is not otherwise used within these cost worksheets. EQUIP
Equipment
BCY
Bank Cubic Yard
MATL
Material
CLF
100 Linear Foot
Source of Cost Data: HPF
HTRW Productivity Factor
DY
Days
NA Not Applicable - costs are from previous work or vendor quote ADJ LABOR
Adjusted LaborforHFP
EA
Each
For citation references, the following sources apply: ADJ EQU IP
Adjusted Equipment for H FP
LF
Linear Foot
Mil (Mil Assemblies), GSA (www.gsa.gov), SE (www.salaryexpert.com), A (Allowance), V (Vendor Quote), CW09 (Means CostWorks 2009), P (Previous Work), and FRTR (www.frtr.gov) UNMOD UC
Unmodified Unit Cost
HR
Hours
UNMOD LIC
Unmodified Line Item Cost
LB
Pounds
Cost Adjustment Checklist: NOTES: UNRURIIC
Unburdened Line Item Cost
LCY
Loose Cubic Yard
FACTOR: Field work will be in Level "C" PPE. PC OH
Prime Contractor Overhead
LS
Lump Sum
H&S Productivity (labor and equipment only) Mil assembly costs include HPF adjustments. PC PF
Prime Contractor Profit
RL
Roll
Escalation to Base Year 2009 cost sources are not escalated (EF=1.00). All other costs are escalated based on the USACE CWCCIS, EM 1110-2-1304, Mar 2009. BUR LIC
Burdened Line Item Cost
SY
Square Yard
Area Cost Factor An AF of 1.13 is used for Oregon, except that an AF of 1.00 (national unmodified average) is used for Mil assembly costs and local vendor quotes.
TN
Tons
Subcontractor Overhead and Profit It is assumed that Subcontractor O&P is either included in the PC O&P or has been factored into vendor quotes or previous work.
Prime Contractor Overhead and Profit It is assumed that home office OH is 8% and profit is 9% for the Prime Contractor. Professional labor overhead is 100%. Allowances and items with mandated costs such as per diem do not have overhead and profit applied.
3/24/20102:49 PM
FINAL
-------
TABLE CW6-2A
Alternative 6
Capital Cost Sub-Element
5-Year Site Reviews
Cost Worksheet: CW6-2A
COST WORKSHEET
Site: North Ridge Estates
Location: Klamath County, Oregon
Phase: Final Feasibility Study
Base Year: 2010
Prepared By: AS Date: 3/16/2010
Checked By: GH Date: 3/24/2010
Work Statement:
This sub-element involves the 5-year site visits and 5-year site review report. The following cost includes labor, material and shipping costs for site visits and 5-year site review reports.
Cost Analysis:
Cost for 5-Year Site Review (Lump Sum)
COST
DATABASE
conF
DESCRIPTION
QTY
UNIT(S)
HPF
LABOR
ADJ
LABOR
EQUIP
ADJ EQUIP
MATL
OTHER
UNMOD UC
UNMOD LIC
PC OH
PC PF
BUR LIC
COST SOURCE
CITATION
COMMENTS
A6A
Site Inspection - 2 Person Crew
5
DY
1.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$640.91
$640.91
$3,204.53
8%
9%
$3,772
Mil Mil Assemblies
1 hour per parcel per site visit, 45 parcels
M56
Per Diem for 2 People
5
DY
1.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$288.00
$288.00
$1,440.00
0%
0%
$1,440
GSAwww.gsa.gov
L13
Project Manager
40
HR
1.00
$46.53
$46.53
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$46.53
$1,861.20
100%
9%
$4,057
SE SalaryExpert.con
Hours for 5-year rev
ew report
L5
Environmental Engineer
80
HR
1.00
$31.39
$31.39
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$31.39
$2,511.20
100%
9%
$5,474
SE SalaryExpert.con
Hours for 5-year rev
ew report
11
Environmental Scientist
120
HR
1.00
$27.87
$27.87
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$27.87
$3,344.40
100%
9%
$7,291
SE SalaryExpert.con
Hours for 5-year rev
ew report
L14
Quality Control Engineer
16
HR
1.00
$46.04
$46.04
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$46.04
$736.64
100%
9%
$1,606
SE SalaryExpert.con
Hours for 5-year rev
ew report
L1
CAD Drafter
40
HR
1.00
$25.70
$25.70
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$25.70
$1,028.00
100%
9%
$2,241
SE SalaryExpert.con
Hours for 5-year rev
ew report
L3
Clerks, Typist, Bookkeeper & Receptionist
40
HR
1.00
$19.05
$19.05
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$19.05
$762.00
100%
9%
$1,661
SE SalaryExpert.con
Hours for 5-year rev
ew report
M10A
Copy and Shipping Allowance
1
LS
1.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$1,500.00
$1,500.00
$1,500.00
0%
0%
$1,500
A Allowance
TOTAL UNIT COST:
$29,042
Notes: Abbreviations:
HTRW productivity factor is from Exhibit B-3 or B-4 of "A Guide to Developing and Documenting Cost Estimates During the Feasibility Study", EPA 2000 QTY
Quantity
ACR
Acres
The Cost Database Code is a reference code for linking with line item cost information with the cost source database and is not otherwise used within these cost worksheets. EQUIP
Equipment
BCY
Bank Cubic Yard
MATL
Material
CLF
100 Linear Foot
Source of Cost Data: HPF
HTRW Productivity Factor
DY
Days
NA Not Applicable - costs are from previous work or vendor quote ADJ LABOR
Adjusted LaborforHFP
EA
Each
For citation references, the following sources apply: ADJ EQU IP
Adjusted Equipment for H FP
LF
Linear Foot
Mil (Mil Assemblies), GSA (www.gsa.gov), SE (www.salaryexpert.com), A (Allowance), V (Vendor Quote), CW09 (Means CostWorks 2009), P (Previous Work), and FRTR (www.frtr.gov) UNMOD UC
Unmodified Unit Cost
HR
Hours
UNMOD LIC
Unmodified Line Item Cost
LB
Pounds
Cost Adjustment Checklist: NOTES: UNRURIIC
Unburdened Line Item Cost
LCY
Loose Cubic Yard
FACTOR: Field work will be in Level "C" PPE. PC OH
Prime Contractor Overhead
LS
Lump Sum
H&S Productivity (labor and equipment only) Mil assembly costs include HPF adjustments. PC PF
Prime Contractor Profit
RL
Roll
Escalation to Base Year 2009 cost sources are not escalated (EF=1.00). All other costs are escalated based on the USACE CWCCIS, EM 1110-2-1304, Mar 2009. BUR LIC
Burdened Line Item Cost
SY
Square Yard
Area Cost Factor An AF of 1.13 is used for Oregon, except that an AF of 1.00 (national unmodified average) is used for Mil assembly costs and local vendor quotes.
TN
Tons
Subcontractor Overhead and Profit It is assumed that Subcontractor O&P is either included in the PC O&P or has been factored into vendor quotes or previous work.
Prime Contractor Overhead and Profit It is assumed that home office OH is 8% and profit is 9% for the Prime Contractor. Professional labor overhead is 100%. Allowances and items with mandated costs such as per diem do not have overhead and profit applied.
3/24/20102:49 PM
FINAL
-------
TABLE CW6-2B
Alternative 6
Capital Cost Sub-Element
Community Awareness Activities
Cost Worksheet: CW6-2B
COST WORKSHEET
Site: North Ridge Estates
Location: Klamath County, Oregon
Phase: Final Feasibility Study
Base Year: 2010
Prepared By: AS Date: 3/16/2010
Checked By: GH Date: 3/24/2010
Work Statement:
This sub-element involves setting up a community meeting to inform the local community about the status of site. The following includes the labor, material and other cost required for setting up the community awareness meeting which includes costs for renting a meeting hall, court reporter, and publishing and sending notices or
informational flyers.
Cost Analysis:
Cost for Community Awareness Activities (Lump Sum)
COST
DATABASE
conF
DESCRIPTION
QTY
UNIT(S)
HPF
LABOR
ADJ
LABOR
EQUIP
ADJ EQUIP
MATL
OTHER
UNMOD UC
UNMOD LIC
PC OH
PC PF
BUR LIC
COST SOURCE
CITATION
COMMENTS
L12
General Superintendent (P.M.)
16
HR
1.00
$52.74
$52.74
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$52.74
$843.84
100%
9%
$1,840
SE SalaryExpert.con
L13
Project Manager
16
HR
1.00
$46.53
$46.53
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$46.53
$744.48
100%
9%
$1,623
SE SalaryExpert.con
M56
Per Diem for 2 People
2
DY
1.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$288.00
$288.00
$576.00
0%
0%
$576
GSAwww.gsa.gov
M65
Community Awareness Activities Allowance
1
EA
1.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$2,000.00
$2,000.00
$2,000.00
0%
0%
$2,000
A Allowance
1 event per 5-yr review.
TOTAL UNIT COST:
$6,039
Abbreviations:
HTRW productivity factor is from Exhibit B-3 or B-4 of "A Guide to Developing and Documenting Cost Estimates During the Feasibility Study", EPA 2000
The Cost Database Code is a reference code for linking with line item cost information with the cost source database and is not otherwise used within these cost worksheets.
Source of Cost Data:
NA Not Applicable - costs are from previous work or vendor quote
For citation references, the following sources apply:
Mil (Mil Assemblies), GSA (www.gsa.gov), SE (www.salaryexpert.com), A (Allowance), V (Vendor Quote), CW09 (Means CostWorks 2009), P (Previous Work), and FRTR (www.frtr.gov)
Cost Adjustment Checklist:
FACTOR:
H&S Productivity (labor and equipment only)
Escalation to Base Year
Area Cost Factor
Subcontractor Overhead and Profit
Prime Contractor Overhead and Profit
QTY
EQUIP
MATL
HPF
ADJ LABOR
ADJ EQUIP
UNMOD UC
UNMOD LIC
NOTES: UNBURLIC
Field work will be in Level "C" PPE. PC OH
Mil assembly costs include HPF adjustments. PC PF
2009 cost sources are not escalated (EF=1.00). All other costs are escalated based on the USACE CWCCIS, EM 1110-2-1304, Mar 2009. BUR LIC
An AF of 1.13 is used for Oregon, except that an AF of 1.00 (national unmodified average) is used for Mil assembly costs and local vendor quotes.
It is assumed that Subcontractor O&P is either included in the PC O&P or has been factored into vendor quotes or previous work.
It is assumed that home office OH is 8% and profit is 9% for the Prime Contractor. Professional labor overhead is 100%. Allowances and items with mandated costs such as per diem do not have overhead and profit applied.
Quantity
Equipment
Material
HTRW Productivity Factor
Adjusted LaborforHFP
Adjusted Equipment for H FP
Unmodified Unit Cost
Unmodified Line Item Cost
Unburdened Line Item Cost
Prime Contractor Overhead
Prime Contractor Profit
Burdened Line Item Cost
ACR
BCY
CLF
DY
EA
LF
HR
LB
LCY
LS
RL
SY
TN
Acres
Bank Cubic Yard
100 Linear Foot
Days
Each
Linear Foot
Hours
Pounds
Loose Cubic Yard
Lump Sum
Roll
Square Yard
Tons
3/24/20102:49 PM
FINAL
-------
TABLE CW6-2C
Alternative 6
Capital Cost Sub-Element
Non-Intrusive Visual Inspection
Cost Worksheet: CW6-2C
COST WORKSHEET
Site: North Ridge Estates
Location: Klamath County, Oregon
Phase: Final Feasibility Study
Base Year: 2010
Prepared By: AS Date: 3/16/2010
Checked By: GH Date: 3/24/2010
Work Statement:
This sub-element involves non-intrusive visual inspections (i.e. surface inspections) performed in support of 5-year site reviews would be made on all parcels within the site boundary regardless of ownership. The following includes the labor, material and equipment cost inspection.
Cost Analysis:
Cost for Non-Intrusive Visual Inspection (Lump Sum)
COST
DATABASE
conF
DESCRIPTION
QTY
UNIT(S)
HPF
LABOR
ADJ
LABOR
EQUIP
ADJ EQUIP
MATL
OTHER
UNMOD UC
UNMOD LIC
PC OH
PC PF
BUR LIC
COST SOURCE
CITATION
COMMENTS
A6B
Visual Inspection - 2 Person Crew
5
DY
1.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$640.91
$640.91
$3,204.53
8%
9%
$3,772
Mil Mil Assemblies
M56
Per Diem for 2 People
5
DY
1.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$288.00
$288.00
$1,440.00
0%
0%
$1,440
GSAwww.gsa.gov
TOTAL UNIT COST:
$5,212
Notes: Abbreviations:
HTRW productivity factor is from Exhibit B-3 or B-4 of "A Guide to Developing and Documenting Cost Estimates During the Feasibility Study", EPA 2000 QTY
Quantity
ACR
Acres
The Cost Database Code is a reference code for linking with line item cost information with the cost source database and is not otherwise used within these cost worksheets. EQUIP
Equipment
BCY
Bank Cubic Yard
MATL
Material
CLF
100 Linear Foot
Source of Cost Data: HPF
HTRW Productivity Factor
DY
Days
NA Not Applicable - costs are from previous work or vendor quote ADJ LABOR
Adjusted LaborforHFP
EA
Each
For citation references, the following sources apply: ADJ EQU IP
Adjusted Equipment for H FP
LF
Linear Foot
Mil (Mil Assemblies), GSA (www.gsa.gov), SE (www.salaryexpert.com), A (Allowance), V (Vendor Quote), CW09 (Means CostWorks 2009), P (Previous Work), and FRTR (www.frtr.gov) UNMOD UC
Unmodified Unit Cost
HR
Hours
UNMOD LIC
Unmodified Line Item Cost
LB
Pounds
Cost Adjustment Checklist: NOTES: UNRURIIO
Unburdened Line Item Cost
LCY
Loose Cubic Yard
FACTOR: Field work will be in Level "C" PPE. PC OH
Prime Contractor Overhead
LS
Lump Sum
H&S Productivity (labor and equipment only) Mil assembly costs include HPF adjustments. PC PF
Prime Contractor Profit
RL
Roll
Escalation to Base Year 2009 cost sources are not escalated (EF=1.00). All other costs are escalated based on the USACE CWCCIS, EM 1110-2-1304, Mar 2009. BUR LIC
Burdened Line Item Cost
SY
Square Yard
Area Cost Factor An AF of 1.13 is used for Oregon, except that an AF of 1.00 (national unmodified average) is used for Mil assembly costs and local vendor quotes.
TN
Tons
Subcontractor Overhead and Profit It is assumed that Subcontractor O&P is either included in the PC O&P or has been factored into vendor quotes or previous work.
Prime Contractor Overhead and Profit It is assumed that home office OH is 8% and profit is 9% for the Prime Contractor. Professional labor overhead is 100%. Allowances and items with mandated costs such as per diem do not have overhead and profit applied.
3/24/20102:49 PM
FINAL
-------
TABLE CW6-3A
Alternative 6
Capital Cost Sub-Element
Borrow Source Testing
Cost Worksheet: CW6-3A
COST WORKSHEET
Site: North Ridge Estates
Location: Klamath County, Oregon
Phase: Final Feasibility Study
Base Year: 2010
Prepared By: AS Date: 3/16/2010
Checked By: GH Date: 3/24/2010
Work Statement:
This sub-element involves determining whether asbestos fibers are present in proposed borrow source. Samples would be collected from potential soil borrow areas and analyzed for asbestos and non-asbestos COPCs. Visual inspection and ABS activities would be conducted to determine asbestos contamination. The ABS sample;
would be analyzed by TEM Method. Non-asbestos contamination would include organic/inorganic analysis for VOCs, SVOCs, PCBs, TPH, herbicides, pesticides, and target analyte list metals. The following includes the labor, material and equipment cost, and shipping cost required for the borrow material sampling.
Cost Analysis:
Cost for Borrow Material Sampling (Lump Sum)
COST
DATABASE
CODE
DESCRIPTION
UNIT(S)
ADJ
LABOR
COST SOURCE
CITATION
COMMENTS
Sampling - 2 Person Crew
Mil Mil Assemblies
ABS, Sample and Analysis
P Previous Work
Equipment/ABS Area/ABS Event
P Previous Work
Sampling and Other Supplies/ABS Area/ABS Even
P Previous Work
Analysis - Volatile Organic Compounds
V Vendor Quote
Analysis - Semivolatile Organic Compounds
V Vendor Quote
Analysis - Pesticides
V Vendor Quote
Analysis - Herbicides
V Vendor Quote
Analysis - TAL Metals
V Vendor Quote
V Vendor Quote
V Vendor Quote
Sample Shipping Allowance
A Allowance
Sampling/Other Supplies
P Previous Work
TOTAL UNIT COST:
Abbreviations:
HTRW productivity factor is from Exhibit B-3 or B-4 of "A Guide to Developing and Documenting Cost Estimates During the Feasibility Study", EPA 2000
The Cost Database Code is a reference code for linking with line item cost information with the cost source database and is not otherwise used within these cost worksheets.
Source of Cost Data:
NA Not Applicable - costs are from previous work or vendor quote
For citation references, the following sources apply:
Mil (Mil Assemblies), GSA (www.gsa.gov), SE (www.salaryexpert.com), A (Allowance), V (Vendor Quote), CW09 (Means CostWorks 2009), P (Previous Work), and FRTR (www.frtr.gov)
Cost Adjustment Checklist:
FACTOR:
H&S Productivity (labor and equipment only)
Escalation to Base Year
Area Cost Factor
Subcontractor Overhead and Profit
Prime Contractor Overhead and Profit
QTY
EQUIP
MATL
HPF
ADJ LABOR
ADJ EQUIP
UNMOD UC
UNMOD LIC
NOTES: UNBURLIC
Field work will be in Level "C" PPE. PC OH
Mil assembly costs include HPF adjustments. PC PF
2009 cost sources are not escalated (EF=1.00). All other costs are escalated based on the USACE CWCCIS, EM 1110-2-1304, Mar 2009. BUR LIC
An AF of 1.13 is used for Oregon, except that an AF of 1.00 (national unmodified average) is used for Mil assembly costs and local vendor quotes.
It is assumed that Subcontractor O&P is either included in the PC O&P or has been factored into vendor quotes or previous work.
It is assumed that home office OH is 8% and profit is 9% for the Prime Contractor. Professional labor overhead is 100%. Allowances and items with mandated costs such as per diem do not have overhead and profit applied.
Quantity
Equipment
Material
HTRW Productivity Factor
Adjusted LaborforHFP
Adjusted Equipment for H FP
Unmodified Unit Cost
Unmodified Line Item Cost
Unburdened Line Item Cost
Prime Contractor Overhead
Prime Contractor Profit
Burdened Line Item Cost
ACR
BCY
CLF
DY
EA
LF
HR
LB
LCY
LS
RL
SY
TN
Acres
Bank Cubic Yard
100 Linear Foot
Days
Each
Linear Foot
Hours
Pounds
Loose Cubic Yard
Lump Sum
Roll
Square Yard
Tons
3/24/20102:49 PM
FINAL
-------
TABLE CW6-3B
Alternative 6
Capital Cost Sub-Element
Ambient Air Sampling (1 Year)
Cost Worksheet: CW6-3B
COST WORKSHEET
Site: North Ridge Estates
Location: Klamath County, Oregon
Phase: Final Feasibility Study
Base Year: 2010
Prepared By: AS Date: 3/16/2010
Checked By: GH Date: 3/24/2010
Work Statement:
This sub-element involves ambient air sampling and analysis from various locations of the site to assess whether there are current exposure risks from asbestos fibers and non-asbestos COPCs in ambient air. Five locations (TBD) would be selected for sampling and samples would be analyzed for asbestos by TEM Method. The
following includes the labor, material and equipment cost, and shipping cost.
Cost Analysis:
Cost for Ambient Air Sampling (Lump Sum)
COST
DATABASE
CODE
DESCRIPTION
UNIT(S)
ADJ
LABOR
COST SOURCE
CITATION
COMMENTS
Sampling - 2 Person Crew
Mil Mil Assemblies
1 yr, 12 months, 1 sample/month
Per Diem for 2 People
GSAwww.gsa.gov
Ambient Air Sample Analysis
P Previous Work
1 sample/station/month, 5 stations, 12 months
Sampling Setup ( Equipment and Utility)
P Previous Work
Includes sampling equipments and electrical hook-up
Equipment/Ambient Air Sampling Event
Sampling/Other Supplies/Ambient Air Sampling
Event
P Previous Work
1 sample/station/month, 5 stations, 12 months
P Previous Work
Sample Shipping Allowance
TOTAL UNIT COST:
Notes:
HTRW productivity factor is from Exhibit B-3 or B-4 of "A Guide to Developing and Documenting Cost Estimates During the Feasibility Study", EPA 2000
The Cost Database Code is a reference code for linking with line item cost information with the cost source database and is not otherwise used within these cost worksheets.
Source of Cost Data:
Not Applicable - costs are from previous work or vendor quote
For citation references, the following sources apply:
Mil (Mil Assemblies), GSA (www.gsa.gov), SE (www.salaryexpert.com), A (Allowance), V (Vendor Quote), CW09 (Means CostWorks 2009), P (Previous Work), and FRTR (www.frtr.gov)
Cost Adjustment Checklist:
FACTOR:
H&S Productivity (labor and equipment only)
Escalation to Base Year
Area Cost Factor
Subcontractor Overhead and Profit
Prime Contractor Overhead and Profit
NOTES:
Field work will be in Level "C" PPE.
Mil assembly costs include HPF adjustments.
2009 cost sources are not escalated (EF=1.00). All other costs are escalated based on the USACE CWCCIS, EM 1110-2-1304, Mar 2009.
An AF of 1.13 is used for Oregon, except that an AF of 1.00 (national unmodified average) is used for Mil assembly costs and local vendor
It is assumed that Subcontractor O&P is either included in the PC O&P or has been factored into vendor quotes or previous work.
It is assumed that home office OH is 8% and profit is 9% for the Prime Contractor. Professional labor overhead is 100%. Allowances and items with mandated costs such as per diem do not have overhead and profit applied.
Abbreviations:
QTY
Quantity
ACR
Acres
EQUIP
Equipment
BCY
Bank Cubic Yard
MATL
Material
CLF
100 Linear Foot
HPF
HTRW Productivity Factor
DY
Days
ADJ LABOR
Adjusted LaborforHFP
EA
Each
ADJ EQUIP
Adjusted Equipment for H FP
LF
Linear Foot
UNMOD UC
Unmodified Unit Cost
HR
Hours
UNMOD LIC
Unmodified Line Item Cost
LB
Pounds
UNBUR LIC
Unburdened Line Item Cost
LCY
Loose Cubic Yard
PC OH
Prime Contractor Overhead
LS
Lump Sum
PC PF
Prime Contractor Profit
RL
Roll
BUR LIC
Burdened Line Item Cost
SY
Square Yard
quotes.
TN
Tons
3/24/20102:49 PM
FINAL
-------
TABLE CW6-3C
Alternative 6
Capital Cost Sub-Element
Inspection of Areas without Identified Contamination
Cost Worksheet: CW6-3C
COST WORKSHEET
Site: North Ridge Estates
Location: Klamath County, Oregon
Phase: Final Feasibility Study
Base Year: 2010
Prepared By: AS Date: 3/16/2010
Checked By: GH Date: 3/24/2010
Work Statement:
This sub-element involves monitoring for areas of the site with no historical or current contamination and would be performed some time during construction. The monitoring would be performed using a tiered approach with intrusive visual inspection (hand dug test pits), followed by ABS to provide a point-in-time determination
whether these areas were adversely impacted by contamination. A total often locations would be tested.
Cost Analysis:
Cost for Intrusive Visual Inspection and ABS (Lump Sum)
COST
DATABASE
conF
DESCRIPTION
QTY
UNIT(S)
HPF
LABOR
ADJ
LABOR
EQUIP
ADJ EQUIP
MATL
OTHER
UNMOD UC
UNMOD LIC
PC OH
PC PF
BUR LIC
COST SOURCE
CITATION
COMMENTS
A6B
Visual Inspection - 2 Person Crew
5
DY
1.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$640.91
$640.91
$3,204.53
8%
9%
$3,772
Mil Mil Assemblies
M56
Per Diem for 2 People
5
DY
1.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$288.00
$288.00
$1,440.00
0%
0%
$1,440
GSAwww.gsa.gov
A5A
Sampling - 3 Person Crew
5
DY
1.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$1,179.92
$1,179.92
$5,899.61
8%
9%
$6,945
Mil Mil Assemblies
M55
Per Diem for 3 People
5
DY
1.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$432.00
$432.00
$2,160.00
0%
0%
$2,160
GSAwww.gsa.gov
M51
ABS, Sample and Analysis
10
EA
1.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$891.00
$891.00
$8,910.00
8%
9%
$10,489
P Previous Work
M52
Equipment/ABS Area/ABS Event
10
EA
1.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$148.50
$148.50
$1,485.00
8%
9%
$1,748
P Previous Work
M53A
Sampling and Other Supplies/ABS Area/ABS Even
10
EA
1.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$250.00
$250.00
$2,500.00
8%
9%
$2,943
P Previous Work
M54B
Sample Shipping Allowance
1
LS
1.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$1,500.00
$1,500.00
$1,500.00
0%
0%
$1,500
A Allowance
TOTAL UNIT COST:
$30,997
Abbreviations:
HTRW productivity factor is from Exhibit B-3 or B-4 of "A Guide to Developing and Documenting Cost Estimates During the Feasibility Study", EPA 2000
The Cost Database Code is a reference code for linking with line item cost information with the cost source database and is not otherwise used within these cost worksheets.
Source of Cost Data:
NA Not Applicable - costs are from previous work or vendor quote
For citation references, the following sources apply:
Mil (Mil Assemblies), GSA (www.gsa.gov), SE (www.salaryexpert.com), A (Allowance), V (Vendor Quote), CW09 (Means CostWorks 2009), P (Previous Work), and FRTR (www.frtr.gov)
Cost Adjustment Checklist:
FACTOR:
H&S Productivity (labor and equipment only)
Escalation to Base Year
Area Cost Factor
Subcontractor Overhead and Profit
Prime Contractor Overhead and Profit
QTY
EQUIP
MATL
HPF
ADJ LABOR
ADJ EQUIP
UNMOD UC
UNMOD LIC
NOTES: UNBURLIC
Field work will be in Level "C" PPE. PC OH
Mil assembly costs include HPF adjustments. PC PF
2009 cost sources are not escalated (EF=1.00). All other costs are escalated based on the USACE CWCCIS, EM 1110-2-1304, Mar 2009. BUR LIC
An AF of 1.13 is used for Oregon, except that an AF of 1.00 (national unmodified average) is used for Mil assembly costs and local vendor quotes.
It is assumed that Subcontractor O&P is either included in the PC O&P or has been factored into vendor quotes or previous work.
It is assumed that home office OH is 8% and profit is 9% for the Prime Contractor. Professional labor overhead is 100%. Allowances and items with mandated costs such as per diem do not have overhead and profit applied.
Quantity
Equipment
Material
HTRW Productivity Factor
Adjusted LaborforHFP
Adjusted Equipment for H FP
Unmodified Unit Cost
Unmodified Line Item Cost
Unburdened Line Item Cost
Prime Contractor Overhead
Prime Contractor Profit
Burdened Line Item Cost
ACR
BCY
CLF
DY
EA
LF
HR
LB
LCY
LS
RL
SY
TN
Acres
Bank Cubic Yard
100 Linear Foot
Days
Each
Linear Foot
Hours
Pounds
Loose Cubic Yard
Lump Sum
Roll
Square Yard
Tons
3/24/20102:49 PM
FINAL
-------
TABLE CW6-4A
Alternative 6
Capital Cost Sub-Element
Temporary Laydown and Access Road Installation
Cost Worksheet: CW6-4A
COST WORKSHEET
Site: North Ridge Estates
Location: Klamath County, Oregon
Phase: Final Feasibility Study
Base Year: 2010
Prepared By: AS Date: 3/16/2010
Checked By: GH Date: 3/24/2010
Work Statement:
This sub-element involves temporary gravel construction at the site for the gravel laydown area and temporary access roads used to access contaminated areas during construction. It includes costs for material, labor, and equipment.
Cost Analysis:
Cost for Temporary Laydown and Access Road Installation (Lump Sum)
COST
DATABASE
CODE
DESCRIPTION
UNIT(S)
ADJ
LABOR
COST SOURCE
CITATION
COMMENTS
Gravel Laydown Area
Gravel Placement - Clean Area
Mil Mil Assemblies
Gravel, Delivered
V Vendor Quote
Temporary Gravel Access Roads
Gravel Placement - Contaminated Area
Mil Mil Assemblies
Assume 1 mile road, 15 ft wide
Gravel, Delivered
V Vendor Quote
TOTAL UNIT COST:
Abbreviations:
HTRW productivity factor is from Exhibit B-3 or B-4 of "A Guide to Developing and Documenting Cost Estimates During the Feasibility Study", EPA 2000
The Cost Database Code is a reference code for linking with line item cost information with the cost source database and is not otherwise used within these cost worksheets.
Source of Cost Data:
NA Not Applicable - costs are from previous work or vendor quote
For citation references, the following sources apply:
Mil (Mil Assemblies), GSA (www.gsa.gov), SE (www.salaryexpert.com), A (Allowance), V (Vendor Quote), CW09 (Means CostWorks 2009), P (Previous Work), and FRTR (www.frtr.gov)
Cost Adjustment Checklist:
FACTOR:
H&S Productivity (labor and equipment only)
Escalation to Base Year
Area Cost Factor
Subcontractor Overhead and Profit
Prime Contractor Overhead and Profit
QTY
EQUIP
MATL
HPF
ADJ LABOR
ADJ EQUIP
UNMOD UC
UNMOD LIC
NOTES: UNBURLIC
Field work will be in Level "C" PPE. PC OH
Mil assembly costs include HPF adjustments. PC PF
2009 cost sources are not escalated (EF=1.00). All other costs are escalated based on the USACE CWCCIS, EM 1110-2-1304, Mar 2009. BUR LIC
An AF of 1.13 is used for Oregon, except that an AF of 1.00 (national unmodified average) is used for Mil assembly costs and local vendor quotes.
It is assumed that Subcontractor O&P is either included in the PC O&P or has been factored into vendor quotes or previous work.
It is assumed that home office OH is 8% and profit is 9% for the Prime Contractor. Professional labor overhead is 100%. Allowances and items with mandated costs such as per diem do not have overhead and profit applied.
Quantity
Equipment
Material
HTRW Productivity Factor
Adjusted LaborforHFP
Adjusted Equipment for H FP
Unmodified Unit Cost
Unmodified Line Item Cost
Unburdened Line Item Cost
Prime Contractor Overhead
Prime Contractor Profit
Burdened Line Item Cost
ACR
BCY
CLF
DY
EA
LF
HR
LB
LCY
LS
RL
SY
TN
Acres
Bank Cubic Yard
100 Linear Foot
Days
Each
Linear Foot
Hours
Pounds
Loose Cubic Yard
Lump Sum
Roll
Square Yard
Tons
3/24/20102:49 PM
FINAL
-------
TABLE CW6-4B
Alternative 6
Capital Cost Sub-Element
Site Clearing and Grubbing
Cost Worksheet: CW6-4B
COST WORKSHEET
Site: North Ridge Estates
Location: Klamath County, Oregon
Phase: Final Feasibility Study
Base Year: 2010
Prepared By: AS Date: 3/16/2010
Checked By: GH Date: 3/24/2010
Work Statement:
This sub-element involves site clearing and grubbing of the contaminated area. It includes costs for labor, equipment and materials. All the cleared and grubbed material will be chipped in-place.
Cost Analysis:
Cost for Site Clearing and Grubbing (Lump Sum)
COST
DATABASE
CODE
DESCRIPTION
UNIT(S)
ADJ
LABOR
UNMOD LIC PC OH PC PF
COST SOURCE
CITATION
COMMENTS
Clearing and Grubbing
$127,908.88 8%
Mil Mil Assemblies
TOTAL UNIT COST:
Abbreviations:
HTRW productivity factor is from Exhibit B-3 or B-4 of "A Guide to Developing and Documenting Cost Estimates During the Feasibility Study", EPA 2000
The Cost Database Code is a reference code for linking with line item cost information with the cost source database and is not otherwise used within these cost worksheets.
Source of Cost Data:
NA Not Applicable - costs are from previous work or vendor quote
For citation references, the following sources apply:
Mil (Mil Assemblies), GSA (www.gsa.gov), SE (www.salaryexpert.com), A (Allowance), V (Vendor Quote), CW09 (Means CostWorks 2009), P (Previous Work), and FRTR (www.frtr.gov)
Cost Adjustment Checklist:
FACTOR:
H&S Productivity (labor and equipment only)
Escalation to Base Year
Area Cost Factor
Subcontractor Overhead and Profit
Prime Contractor Overhead and Profit
QTY
EQUIP
MATL
HPF
ADJ LABOR
ADJ EQUIP
UNMOD UC
UNMOD LIC
NOTES: UNBURLIC
Field work will be in Level "C" PPE. PC OH
Mil assembly costs include HPF adjustments. PC PF
2009 cost sources are not escalated (EF=1.00). All other costs are escalated based on the USACE CWCCIS, EM 1110-2-1304, Mar 2009. BUR LIC
An AF of 1.13 is used for Oregon, except that an AF of 1.00 (national unmodified average) is used for Mil assembly costs and local vendor quotes.
It is assumed that Subcontractor O&P is either included in the PC O&P or has been factored into vendor quotes or previous work.
It is assumed that home office OH is 8% and profit is 9% for the Prime Contractor. Professional labor overhead is 100%. Allowances and items with mandated costs such as per diem do not have overhead and profit applied.
Quantity
Equipment
Material
HTRW Productivity Factor
Adjusted LaborforHFP
Adjusted Equipment for H FP
Unmodified Unit Cost
Unmodified Line Item Cost
Unburdened Line Item Cost
Prime Contractor Overhead
Prime Contractor Profit
Burdened Line Item Cost
ACR
BCY
CLF
DY
EA
LF
HR
LB
LCY
LS
RL
SY
TN
Acres
Bank Cubic Yard
100 Linear Foot
Days
Each
Linear Foot
Hours
Pounds
Loose Cubic Yard
Lump Sum
Roll
Square Yard
Tons
3/24/20102:49 PM
FINAL
-------
TABLE CW6-5
Alternative 6
Capital Cost Sub-Element
Contaminated Surface Materials Excavation
Cost Worksheet: CW6-5
COST WORKSHEET
Site: North Ridge Estates
Location: Klamath County, Oregon
Phase: Final Feasibility Study
Base Year: 2010
Prepared By: AS Date: 3/16/2010
Checked By: GH Date: 3/24/2010
Work Statement:
This sub-element involves the excavation of contaminated surface materials for offeite disposal. It includes costs for labor, material, and equipment.
Cost Analysis:
Cost for Contaminated Surface Materials Excavation (Lump Sum)
COST
DATABASE
conF
DESCRIPTION
QTY
UNIT(S)
HPF
LABOR
ADJ
LABOR
EQUIP
ADJ EQUIP
MATL
OTHER
UNMOD UC
UNMOD LIC
PC OH
PC PF
BUR LIC
COST SOURCE
CITATION
COMMENTS
A9A
txcavation/Loading - Surticial Contaminated
Materials
54,200
BCY
1.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$8.99
$8.99
$487,203.80
8%
9%
$573,536
Mil Mil Assemblies
TOTAL UNIT COST:
$573,536
Notes: Abbreviations:
HTRW productivity factor is from Exhibit B-3 or B-4 of "A Guide to Developing and Documenting Cost Estimates During the Feasibility Study", EPA 2000 QTY
Quantity
ACR
Acres
The Cost Database Code is a reference code for linking with line item cost information with the cost source database and is not otherwise used within these cost worksheets. EQUIP
Equipment
BCY
Bank Cubic Yard
MATL
Material
CLF
100 Linear Foot
Source of Cost Data: HPF
HTRW Productivity Factor
DY
Days
NA Not Applicable - costs are from previous work or vendor quote ADJ LABOR
Adjusted LaborforHFP
EA
Each
For citation references, the following sources apply: ADJ EQU IP
Adjusted Equipment for H FP
LF
Linear Foot
Mil (Mil Assemblies), GSA (www.gsa.gov), SE (www.salaryexpert.com), A (Allowance), V (Vendor Quote), CW09 (Means CostWorks 2009), P (Previous Work), and FRTR (www.frtr.gov) UNMOD UC
Unmodified Unit Cost
HR
Hours
UNMOD LIC
Unmodified Line Item Cost
LB
Pounds
Cost Adjustment Checklist: NOTES: UNRURIIC
Unburdened Line Item Cost
LCY
Loose Cubic Yard
FACTOR: Field work will be in Level "C" PPE. PC OH
Prime Contractor Overhead
LS
Lump Sum
H&S Productivity (labor and equipment only) Mil assembly costs include HPF adjustments. PC PF
Prime Contractor Profit
RL
Roll
Escalation to Base Year 2009 cost sources are not escalated (EF=1.00). All other costs are escalated based on the USACE CWCCIS, EM 1110-2-1304, Mar 2009. BUR LIC
Burdened Line Item Cost
SY
Square Yard
Area Cost Factor An AF of 1.13 is used for Oregon, except that an AF of 1.00 (national unmodified average) is used for Mil assembly costs and local vendor quotes.
TN
Tons
Subcontractor Overhead and Profit It is assumed that Subcontractor O&P is either included in the PC O&P or has been factored into vendor quotes or previous work.
Prime Contractor Overhead and Profit It is assumed that home office OH is 8% and profit is 9% for the Prime Contractor. Professional labor overhead is 100%. Allowances and items with mandated costs such as per diem do not have overhead and profit applied.
3/24/20102:49 PM
FINAL
-------
TABLE CW6-6
Alternative 6
Capital Cost Sub-Element
Steam Pipe Excavation
Cost Worksheet: CW6-6
COST WORKSHEET
Site: North Ridge Estates
Location: Klamath County, Oregon
Phase: Final Feasibility Study
Base Year: 2010
Prepared By: AS Date: 3/16/2010
Checked By: GH Date: 3/24/2010
Work Statement:
This sub-element involves the excavation and segmentation of steam pipe for offsite disposal. It includes costs for labor, material, and equipment.
Cost Analysis:
Cost for Steam Pipe Excavation (Lump Sum)
COST
DATABASE
conF
DESCRIPTION
QTY
UNIT(S)
HPF
LABOR
ADJ
LABOR
EQUIP
ADJ EQUIP
MATL
OTHER
UNMOD UC
UNMOD LIC
PC OH
PC PF
BUR LIC
COST SOURCE
CITATION
COMMENTS
A8A
Excavation/Loading - Steam Pipe
9,471
BCY
1.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$10.49
$10.49
$99,387.73
8%
9%
$116,999
Mil Mil Assemblies
A27A
Steam Pipe Segmentation
14,125
LF
1.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$16.00
$16.00
$225,977.40
8%
9%
$266,021
Mil Mil Assemblies
TOTAL UNIT COST:
$383,020
Notes: Abbreviations:
HTRW productivity factor is from Exhibit B-3 or B-4 of "A Guide to Developing and Documenting Cost Estimates During the Feasibility Study", EPA 2000 QTY
Quantity
ACR
Acres
The Cost Database Code is a reference code for linking with line item cost information with the cost source database and is not otherwise used within these cost worksheets. EQUIP
Equipment
BCY
Bank Cubic Yard
MATL
Material
CLF
100 Linear Foot
Source of Cost Data: HPF
HTRW Productivity Factor
DY
Days
NA Not Applicable - costs are from previous work or vendor quote ADJ LABOR
Adjusted LaborforHFP
EA
Each
For citation references, the following sources apply: ADJ EQU IP
Adjusted Equipment for H FP
LF
Linear Foot
Mil (Mil Assemblies), GSA (www.gsa.gov), SE (www.salaryexpert.com), A (Allowance), V (Vendor Quote), CW09 (Means CostWorks 2009), P (Previous Work), and FRTR (www.frtr.gov) UNMOD UC
Unmodified Unit Cost
HR
Hours
UNMOD LIC
Unmodified Line Item Cost
LB
Pounds
Cost Adjustment Checklist: NOTES: UNRURIIO
Unburdened Line Item Cost
LCY
Loose Cubic Yard
FACTOR: Field work will be in Level "C" PPE. PC OH
Prime Contractor Overhead
LS
Lump Sum
H&S Productivity (labor and equipment only) Mil assembly costs include HPF adjustments. PC PF
Prime Contractor Profit
RL
Roll
Escalation to Base Year 2009 cost sources are not escalated (EF=1.00). All other costs are escalated based on the USACE CWCCIS, EM 1110-2-1304, Mar 2009. BUR LIC
Burdened Line Item Cost
SY
Square Yard
Area Cost Factor An AF of 1.13 is used for Oregon, except that an AF of 1.00 (national unmodified average) is used for Mil assembly costs and local vendor quotes.
TN
Tons
Subcontractor Overhead and Profit It is assumed that Subcontractor O&P is either included in the PC O&P or has been factored into vendor quotes or previous work.
Prime Contractor Overhead and Profit It is assumed that home office OH is 8% and profit is 9% for the Prime Contractor. Professional labor overhead is 100%. Allowances and items with mandated costs such as per diem do not have overhead and profit applied.
3/24/20102:49 PM
FINAL
-------
TABLE CW6-7
Alternative 6
Capital Cost Sub-Element
Buried Contaminated Materials Excavation
Cost Worksheet: CW6-7
COST WORKSHEET
Site: North Ridge Estates
Location: Klamath County, Oregon
Phase: Final Feasibility Study
Base Year: 2010
Prepared By: AS Date: 3/16/2010
Checked By: GH Date: 3/24/2010
Work Statement:
This sub-element involves the excavation of buried contaminated materials for offeite disposal. This work also includes installation of sheet piling to provide stability to the area surrounding the excavation. It includes costs for labor, material, and equipment.
Cost Analysis:
Cost for Buried Contaminated Materials Excavation (Lump Sum)
COST
DATABASE
conF
DESCRIPTION
QTY
UNIT(S)
HPF
LABOR
ADJ
LABOR
EQUIP
ADJ EQUIP
MATL
OTHER
UNMOD UC
UNMOD LIC
PC OH
PC PF
BUR LIC
COST SOURCE
CITATION
COMMENTS
A8B
Materials
57,671
BCY
1.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$10.49
$10.49
$605,193.71
8%
9%
$712,434
Mil Mil Assemblies
A36A
Sheet Piling
4,095
SF
1.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$35.36
$35.36
$144,799.61
8%
9%
$170,458
Mil Mil Assemblies
TOTAL UNIT COST:
$882,892
Notes: Abbreviations:
HTRW productivity factor is from Exhibit B-3 or B-4 of "A Guide to Developing and Documenting Cost Estimates During the Feasibility Study", EPA 2000 QTY
Quantity
ACR
Acres
The Cost Database Code is a reference code for linking with line item cost information with the cost source database and is not otherwise used within these cost worksheets. EQUIP
Equipment
BCY
Bank Cubic Yard
MATL
Material
CLF
100 Linear Foot
Source of Cost Data: HPF
HTRW Productivity Factor
DY
Days
NA Not Applicable - costs are from previous work or vendor quote ADJ LABOR
Adjusted LaborforHFP
EA
Each
For citation references, the following sources apply: ADJ EQU IP
Adjusted Equipment for H FP
LF
Linear Foot
Mil (Mil Assemblies), GSA (www.gsa.gov), SE (www.salaryexpert.com), A (Allowance), V (Vendor Quote), CW09 (Means CostWorks 2009), P (Previous Work), and FRTR (www.frtr.gov) UNMOD UC
Unmodified Unit Cost
HR
Hours
UNMOD LIC
Unmodified Line Item Cost
LB
Pounds
Cost Adjustment Checklist: NOTES: UNRURIIO
Unburdened Line Item Cost
LCY
Loose Cubic Yard
FACTOR: Field work will be in Level "C" PPE. PC OH
Prime Contractor Overhead
LS
Lump Sum
H&S Productivity (labor and equipment only) Mil assembly costs include HPF adjustments. PC PF
Prime Contractor Profit
RL
Roll
Escalation to Base Year 2009 cost sources are not escalated (EF=1.00). All other costs are escalated based on the USACE CWCCIS, EM 1110-2-1304, Mar 2009. BUR LIC
Burdened Line Item Cost
SY
Square Yard
Area Cost Factor An AF of 1.13 is used for Oregon, except that an AF of 1.00 (national unmodified average) is used for Mil assembly costs and local vendor quotes.
TN
Tons
Subcontractor Overhead and Profit It is assumed that Subcontractor O&P is either included in the PC O&P or has been factored into vendor quotes or previous work.
Prime Contractor Overhead and Profit It is assumed that home office OH is 8% and profit is 9% for the Prime Contractor. Professional labor overhead is 100%. Allowances and items with mandated costs such as per diem do not have overhead and profit applied.
3/24/20102:49 PM
FINAL
-------
TABLE CW6-8A
Alternative 6
Capital Cost Sub-Element
Hauling of Contaminated Materials for Offsite Disposal
Cost Worksheet: CW6-8A
COST WORKSHEET
Site: North Ridge Estates
Location: Klamath County, Oregon
Phase: Final Feasibility Study
Base Year: 2010
Prepared By: AS Date: 3/16/2010
Checked By: GH Date: 3/24/2010
Work Statement:
This sub-element involves hauling of excavated contaminated materials for offiste disposal at an permitted disposal "facility. It includes costs for labor, material, and equipment.
Cost Analysis:
Cost for Hauling of Contaminated Materials for Offsite Disposal (Lump Sum)
COST
DATABASE
CODE
DESCRIPTION
UNIT(S)
ADJ
LABOR
UNMOD LIC PC OH PC PF
COST SOURCE
CITATION
COMMENTS
Mil Mil Assemblies
TOTAL UNIT COST:
Abbreviations:
HTRW productivity factor is from Exhibit B-3 or B-4 of "A Guide to Developing and Documenting Cost Estimates During the Feasibility Study", EPA 2000
The Cost Database Code is a reference code for linking with line item cost information with the cost source database and is not otherwise used within these cost worksheets.
Source of Cost Data:
NA Not Applicable - costs are from previous work or vendor quote
For citation references, the following sources apply:
Mil (Mil Assemblies), GSA (www.gsa.gov), SE (www.salaryexpert.com), A (Allowance), V (Vendor Quote), CW09 (Means CostWorks 2009), P (Previous Work), and FRTR (www.frtr.gov)
Cost Adjustment Checklist:
FACTOR:
H&S Productivity (labor and equipment only)
Escalation to Base Year
Area Cost Factor
Subcontractor Overhead and Profit
Prime Contractor Overhead and Profit
QTY
EQUIP
MATL
HPF
ADJ LABOR
ADJ EQUIP
UNMOD UC
UNMOD LIC
NOTES: UNBURLIC
Field work will be in Level "C" PPE. PC OH
Mil assembly costs include HPF adjustments. PC PF
2009 cost sources are not escalated (EF=1.00). All other costs are escalated based on the USACE CWCCIS, EM 1110-2-1304, Mar 2009. BUR LIC
An AF of 1.13 is used for Oregon, except that an AF of 1.00 (national unmodified average) is used for Mil assembly costs and local vendor quotes.
It is assumed that Subcontractor O&P is either included in the PC O&P or has been factored into vendor quotes or previous work.
It is assumed that home office OH is 8% and profit is 9% for the Prime Contractor. Professional labor overhead is 100%. Allowances and items with mandated costs such as per diem do not have overhead and profit applied.
Quantity
Equipment
Material
HTRW Productivity Factor
Adjusted LaborforHFP
Adjusted Equipment for H FP
Unmodified Unit Cost
Unmodified Line Item Cost
Unburdened Line Item Cost
Prime Contractor Overhead
Prime Contractor Profit
Burdened Line Item Cost
ACR
BCY
CLF
DY
EA
LF
HR
LB
LCY
LS
RL
SY
TN
Acres
Bank Cubic Yard
100 Linear Foot
Days
Each
Linear Foot
Hours
Pounds
Loose Cubic Yard
Lump Sum
Roll
Square Yard
Tons
3/24/20102:49 PM
FINAL
-------
TABLE CW6-8B
Alternative 6
Capital Cost Sub-Element
Disposal Charges for Permitted Facility
Cost Worksheet: CW6-8B
COST WORKSHEET
Site: North Ridge Estates
Location: Klamath County, Oregon
Phase: Final Feasibility Study
Base Year: 2010
Prepared By: AS Date: 3/16/2010
Checked By: GH Date: 3/24/2010
Work Statement:
This sub-element involves the disposal charges for the permitted "facility.
Cost Analysis:
Cost for Disposal Charges for Permitted Facility (Lump Sum)
COST
DATABASE
CODE
DESCRIPTION
UNIT(S)
ADJ
LABOR
COST SOURCE
CITATION
COMMENTS
Lowest unit cost of disposal fees for 3 Oregon Permitted
Authorized Disposal Facilities
Permitted Authorized Disposal Facility Charges
V Vendor Quote
TOTAL UNIT COST:
Notes:
HTRW productivity factor is from Exhibit B-3 or B-4 of "A Guide to Developing and Documenting Cost Estimates During the Feasibility Study", EPA 2000
The Cost Database Code is a reference code for linking with line item cost information with the cost source database and is not otherwise used within these cost worksheets.
Source of Cost Data:
Not Applicable - costs are from previous work or vendor quote
For citation references, the following sources apply:
Mil (Mil Assemblies), GSA (www.gsa.gov), SE (www.salaryexpert.com), A (Allowance), V (Vendor Quote), CW09 (Means CostWorks 2009), P (Previous Work), and FRTR (www.frtr.gov)
Cost Adjustment Checklist:
FACTOR:
H&S Productivity (labor and equipment only)
Escalation to Base Year
Area Cost Factor
Subcontractor Overhead and Profit
Prime Contractor Overhead and Profit
NOTES:
Field work will be in Level "C" PPE.
Mil assembly costs include HPF adjustments.
2009 cost sources are not escalated (EF=1.00). All other costs are escalated based on the USACE CWCCIS, EM 1110-2-1304, Mar 2009.
An AF of 1.13 is used for Oregon, except that an AF of 1.00 (national unmodified average) is used for Mil assembly costs and local vendor
It is assumed that Subcontractor O&P is either included in the PC O&P or has been factored into vendor quotes or previous work.
It is assumed that home office OH is 8% and profit is 9% for the Prime Contractor. Professional labor overhead is 100%. Allowances and items with mandated costs such as per diem do not have overhead and profit applied.
Abbreviations:
QTY
Quantity
ACR
Acres
EQUIP
Equipment
BCY
Bank Cubic Yard
MATL
Material
CLF
100 Linear Foot
HPF
HTRW Productivity Factor
DY
Days
ADJ LABOR
Adjusted LaborforHFP
EA
Each
ADJ EQUIP
Adjusted Equipment for H FP
LF
Linear Foot
UNMOD UC
Unmodified Unit Cost
HR
Hours
UNMOD LIC
Unmodified Line Item Cost
LB
Pounds
UNBUR LIC
Unburdened Line Item Cost
LCY
Loose Cubic Yard
PC OH
Prime Contractor Overhead
LS
Lump Sum
PC PF
Prime Contractor Profit
RL
Roll
BUR LIC
Burdened Line Item Cost
SY
Square Yard
quotes.
TN
Tons
3/24/20102:49 PM
FINAL
-------
TABLE CW6-9
Alternative 6
Capital Cost Sub-Element
Excavation Backfilling
Cost Worksheet: CW6-9
COST WORKSHEET
Site: North Ridge Estates
Location: Klamath County, Oregon
Phase: Final Feasibility Study
Base Year: 2010
Prepared By: AS Date: 3/16/2010
Checked By: GH Date: 3/24/2010
Work Statement:
This sub-element involves backfilling of excavations. The backfill would include a subsoil layer placed below a topsoil layer and organic amendment of the topsoil. It includes costs for labor, material, and equipment.
Cost Analysis:
Cost for Excavation Backfilling (Lump Sum)
COST
DATABASE
CODE
DESCRIPTION
UNIT(S)
ADJ
LABOR
COST SOURCE
CITATION
COMMENTS
Clean Fill/Soil from Near Offsite Borrow Source
Excavation - Borrow Source
Mil Assemblies
Material Loading - Clean Fill
Mil Assemblies
Hauling - Near Offsite Borrow Source
Clean Fill/Soil from Distant Offsite Borrow
Mil Assemblies
Excavation - Borrow Source
Mil Assemblies
Material Loading - Clean Fill
Mil Assemblies
Hauling - Distant Offsite Borrow Source
Mil Assemblies
Assumed Royalty Allowance for Soil
Subsoil Replacement and Compaction
Clean Fill Spreading/Grading
Mil Assemblies
Clean Fill Compaction - Large Open Area
Mil Assemblies
Assume 90% of total fi
Clean Fill Compaction - Small Area
Mil Assemblies
Assume 10% of total fi
Topsoil Replacement and Compaction
Top Soil Spreading/Grading
Mil Assemblies
Clean Fill Compaction - Large Open Area
Mil Assemblies
Assume 90% of total fi
Clean Fill Compaction - Small Area
Mil Assemblies
Assume 10% of total fi
Organic Material for Topsoil Amendment
Organic Delivery
Mil Mil Assemblies
Organic Amendment and Processing
Mil Mil Assemblies
Organic Material
V Vendor Quote
TOTAL UNIT COST:
Notes:
HTRW productivity factor is from Exhibit B-3 or B-4 of "A Guide to Developing and Documenting Cost Estimates During the Feasibility Study", EPA 2000
The Cost Database Code is a reference code for linking with line item cost information with the cost source database and is not otherwise used within these cost worksheets.
Source of Cost Data:
NA Not Applicable - costs are from previous work or vendor quote
For citation references, the following sources apply:
Mil (Mil Assemblies), GSA (www.gsa.gov), SE (www.salaryexpert.com), A (Allowance), V (Vendor Quote), CW09 (Means CostWorks 2009), P (Previous Work), and FRTR (www.frtr.gov)
Abbreviations:
Cost Adjustment Checklist:
FACTOR:
H&S Productivity (labor and equipment only)
Escalation to Base Year
Area Cost Factor
Subcontractor Overhead and Profit
Prime Contractor Overhead and Profit
NOTES:
Field work will be in Level "C" PPE.
Mil assembly costs include HPF adjustments.
2009 cost sources are not escalated (EF=1.00). All other costs are escalated based on the USACE CWCCIS, EM 1110-2-1304, Mar 2009.
An AF of 1.13 is used for Oregon, except that an AF of 1.00 (national unmodified average) is used for Mil assembly costs and local vendor
It is assumed that Subcontractor O&P is either included in the PC O&P or has been factored into vendor quotes or previous work.
It is assumed that home office OH is 8% and profit is 9% for the Prime Contractor. Professional labor overhead is 100%. Allowances and items with mandated costs such as per diem do not have overhead and profit applied.
QTY
Quantity
ACR
Acres
EQUIP
Equipment
BCY
Bank Cubic Yard
MATL
Material
CLF
100 Linear Foot
HPF
HTRW Productivity Factor
DY
Days
ADJ LABOR
Adjusted LaborforHFP
EA
Each
ADJ EQUIP
Adjusted Equipment for H FP
LF
Linear Foot
UNMOD UC
Unmodified Unit Cost
HR
Hours
UNMOD LIC
Unmodified Line Item Cost
LB
Pounds
UNBUR LIC
Unburdened Line Item Cost
LCY
Loose Cubic Yard
PC OH
Prime Contractor Overhead
LS
Lump Sum
PC PF
Prime Contractor Profit
RL
Roll
BUR LIC
Burdened Line Item Cost
SY
Square Yard
quotes.
TN
Tons
3/24/20102:49 PM
FINAL
-------
TABLE CW6-10
Alternative 6
Capital Cost Sub-Element
Revegetation of Disturbed Areas
Cost Worksheet: CW6-10
COST WORKSHEET
Site: North Ridge Estates
Location: Klamath County, Oregon
Phase: Final Feasibility Study
Base Year: 2010
Prepared By: AS Date: 3/16/2010
Checked By: GH Date: 3/24/2010
Work Statement:
This sub-element involves the revegetation of disturbed areas on the site. It includes hydro-seeding with fertilizer and hydomulch.
Cost Analysis:
Cost for Revegetation of Disturbed Areas (Lump Sum)
COST
DATABASE
CODE
DESCRIPTION
UNIT(S)
ADJ
LABOR
COST SOURCE
CITATION
COMMENTS
Hydroseeding/Revegetation
Hydro-Seeding Crew
Mil Mil Assemblies
V Vendor Quote
V Vendor Quote
Fertilizer (P205)
V Vendor Quote
P Previous Work
TOTAL UNIT COST:
Abbreviations:
HTRW productivity factor is from Exhibit B-3 or B-4 of "A Guide to Developing and Documenting Cost Estimates During the Feasibility Study", EPA 2000
The Cost Database Code is a reference code for linking with line item cost information with the cost source database and is not otherwise used within these cost worksheets.
Source of Cost Data:
NA Not Applicable - costs are from previous work or vendor quote
For citation references, the following sources apply:
Mil (Mil Assemblies), GSA (www.gsa.gov), SE (www.salaryexpert.com), A (Allowance), V (Vendor Quote), CW09 (Means CostWorks 2009), P (Previous Work), and FRTR (www.frtr.gov)
Cost Adjustment Checklist:
FACTOR:
H&S Productivity (labor and equipment only)
Escalation to Base Year
Area Cost Factor
Subcontractor Overhead and Profit
Prime Contractor Overhead and Profit
QTY
EQUIP
MATL
HPF
ADJ LABOR
ADJ EQUIP
UNMOD UC
UNMOD LIC
NOTES: UNBURLIC
Field work will be in Level "C" PPE. PC OH
Mil assembly costs include HPF adjustments. PC PF
2009 cost sources are not escalated (EF=1.00). All other costs are escalated based on the USACE CWCCIS, EM 1110-2-1304, Mar 2009. BUR LIC
An AF of 1.13 is used for Oregon, except that an AF of 1.00 (national unmodified average) is used for Mil assembly costs and local vendor quotes.
It is assumed that Subcontractor O&P is either included in the PC O&P or has been factored into vendor quotes or previous work.
It is assumed that home office OH is 8% and profit is 9% for the Prime Contractor. Professional labor overhead is 100%. Allowances and items with mandated costs such as per diem do not have overhead and profit applied.
Quantity
Equipment
Material
HTRW Productivity Factor
Adjusted LaborforHFP
Adjusted Equipment for H FP
Unmodified Unit Cost
Unmodified Line Item Cost
Unburdened Line Item Cost
Prime Contractor Overhead
Prime Contractor Profit
Burdened Line Item Cost
ACR
BCY
CLF
DY
EA
LF
HR
LB
LCY
LS
RL
SY
TN
Acres
Bank Cubic Yard
100 Linear Foot
Days
Each
Linear Foot
Hours
Pounds
Loose Cubic Yard
Lump Sum
Roll
Square Yard
Tons
3/24/20102:49 PM
FINAL
-------
TABLE CW6-11
Alternative 6
Capital Cost Sub-Element
Mobilization/Demobilization
Cost Worksheet: CW6-11
COST WORKSHEET
Site: North Ridge Estates
Location: Klamath County, Oregon
Phase: Final Feasibility Study
Base Year: 2010
Prepared By: AS Date: 3/16/2010
Checked By: GH Date: 3/24/2010
Work Statement:
This sub-element involves mobilization and demobilization of all the required equipment to and from the site respectively.
Cost Analysis:
Cost for Mobilization/Demobilization (Lump Sum)
COST
DATABASE
conF
DESCRIPTION
QTY
UNIT(S)
HPF
LABOR
ADJ
LABOR
EQUIP
ADJ EQUIP
MATL
OTHER
UNMOD UC
UNMOD LIC
PC OH
PC PF
BUR LIC
COST SOURCE
CITATION
COMMENTS
A37A
Mobilization and Demobilization - Heavy Equipmen
10
EA
1.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$2,384.82
$2,384.82
$23,848.22
8%
9%
$28,074
Mil Mil Assemblies
A37B
Mobilization and Demobilization - Medium-Sizec
Equipment
6
EA
1.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$974.68
$974.68
$5,848.08
8%
9%
$6,884
Mil Mil Assemblies
A37C
Mobilization and Demobilization - Small Equipment
5
EA
1.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$605.12
$605.12
$3,025.61
8%
9%
$3,562
Mil Mil Assemblies
A37D
Mobilization and Demobilization - Selt-Propellec
Equipment
10
EA
1.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$2,469.12
$2,469.12
$24,691.17
8%
9%
$29,066
Mil Mil Assemblies
TOTAL UNIT COST:
$67,586
Notes: Abbreviations:
HTRW productivity factor is from Exhibit B-3 or B-4 of "A Guide to Developing and Documenting Cost Estimates During the Feasibility Study", EPA 2000 QTY
Quantity
ACR
Acres
The Cost Database Code is a reference code for linking with line item cost information with the cost source database and is not otherwise used within these cost worksheets. EQUIP
Equipment
BCY
Bank Cubic Yard
MATL
Material
CLF
100 Linear Foot
Source of Cost Data: HPF
HTRW Productivity Factor
DY
Days
NA Not Applicable - costs are from previous work or vendor quote ADJ LABOR
Adjusted LaborforHFP
EA
Each
For citation references, the following sources apply: ADJ EQU IP
Adjusted Equipment for H FP
LF
Linear Foot
Mil (Mil Assemblies), GSA (www.gsa.gov), SE (www.salaryexpert.com), A (Allowance), V (Vendor Quote), CW09 (Means CostWorks 2009), P (Previous Work), and FRTR (www.frtr.gov) UNMOD UC
Unmodified Unit Cost
HR
Hours
UNMOD LIC
Unmodified Line Item Cost
LB
Pounds
Cost Adjustment Checklist: NOTES: IINRURIIC
Unburdened Line Item Cost
LCY
Loose Cubic Yard
FACTOR: Field work will be in Level "C" PPE. PC OH
Prime Contractor Overhead
LS
Lump Sum
H&S Productivity (labor and equipment only) Mil assembly costs include HPF adjustments. PC PF
Prime Contractor Profit
RL
Roll
Escalation to Base Year 2009 cost sources are not escalated (EF=1.00). All other costs are escalated based on the USACE CWCCIS, EM 1110-2-1304, Mar 2009. BUR LIC
Burdened Line Item Cost
SY
Square Yard
Area Cost Factor An AF of 1.13 is used for Oregon, except that an AF of 1.00 (national unmodified average) is used for Mil assembly costs and local vendor quotes.
TN
Tons
Subcontractor Overhead and Profit It is assumed that Subcontractor O&P is either included in the PC O&P or has been factored into vendor quotes or previous work.
Prime Contractor Overhead and Profit It is assumed that home office OH is 8% and profit is 9% for the Prime Contractor. Professional labor overhead is 100%. Allowances and items with mandated costs such as per diem do not have overhead and profit applied.
3/24/20102:49 PM
FINAL
-------
TABLE CW6-12
Alternative 6
Capital Cost Sub-Element
Surveying for Construction Control
Cost Worksheet: CW6-12
COST WORKSHEET
Site: North Ridge Estates
Location: Klamath County, Oregon
Phase: Final Feasibility Study
Base Year: 2010
Prepared By: AS Date: 3/16/2010
Checked By: GH Date: 3/24/2010
Work Statement:
This sub-element involves cost for site surveying before and after the remedial alternative is implemented.
Cost Analysis:
Cost for Surveying for Construction Control (Lump Sum)
COST
DATABASE
CODE
DESCRIPTION
UNIT(S)
ADJ
LABOR
COST SOURCE
CITATION
COMMENTS
Site Survey - Contaminated Area
Mil Mil Assemblies
Assume 4 acres/day
Site Survey - Clean Area
Mil Mil Assemblies
Assume 6 acres/day
Surveying Report Allowance
A Allowance
TOTAL UNIT COST:
Abbreviations:
HTRW productivity factor is from Exhibit B-3 or B-4 of "A Guide to Developing and Documenting Cost Estimates During the Feasibility Study", EPA 2000
The Cost Database Code is a reference code for linking with line item cost information with the cost source database and is not otherwise used within these cost worksheets.
Source of Cost Data:
NA Not Applicable - costs are from previous work or vendor quote
For citation references, the following sources apply:
Mil (Mil Assemblies), GSA (www.gsa.gov), SE (www.salaryexpert.com), A (Allowance), V (Vendor Quote), CW09 (Means CostWorks 2009), P (Previous Work), and FRTR (www.frtr.gov)
Cost Adjustment Checklist:
FACTOR:
H&S Productivity (labor and equipment only)
Escalation to Base Year
Area Cost Factor
Subcontractor Overhead and Profit
Prime Contractor Overhead and Profit
QTY
EQUIP
MATL
HPF
ADJ LABOR
ADJ EQUIP
UNMOD UC
UNMOD LIC
NOTES: UNBURLIC
Field work will be in Level "C" PPE. PC OH
Mil assembly costs include HPF adjustments. PC PF
2009 cost sources are not escalated (EF=1.00). All other costs are escalated based on the USACE CWCCIS, EM 1110-2-1304, Mar 2009. BUR LIC
An AF of 1.13 is used for Oregon, except that an AF of 1.00 (national unmodified average) is used for Mil assembly costs and local vendor quotes.
It is assumed that Subcontractor O&P is either included in the PC O&P or has been factored into vendor quotes or previous work.
It is assumed that home office OH is 8% and profit is 9% for the Prime Contractor. Professional labor overhead is 100%. Allowances and items with mandated costs such as per diem do not have overhead and profit applied.
Quantity
Equipment
Material
HTRW Productivity Factor
Adjusted LaborforHFP
Adjusted Equipment for H FP
Unmodified Unit Cost
Unmodified Line Item Cost
Unburdened Line Item Cost
Prime Contractor Overhead
Prime Contractor Profit
Burdened Line Item Cost
ACR
BCY
CLF
DY
EA
LF
HR
LB
LCY
LS
RL
SY
TN
Acres
Bank Cubic Yard
100 Linear Foot
Days
Each
Linear Foot
Hours
Pounds
Loose Cubic Yard
Lump Sum
Roll
Square Yard
Tons
3/24/20102:49 PM
FINAL
-------
TABLE CW6-13
Alternative 6
Capital Cost Sub-Element
Equipment Decontamination
Cost Worksheet: CW6-13
COST WORKSHEET
Site: North Ridge Estates
Location: Klamath County, Oregon
Phase: Final Feasibility Study
Base Year: 2010
Prepared By: AS Date: 3/16/2010
Checked By: GH Date: 3/24/2010
Work Statement:
This sub-element involves decontamination of equipment used onsite.
Cost Analysis:
Cost for Equipment Decontamination (Lump Sum)
COST
DATABASE
conF
DESCRIPTION
QTY
UNIT(S)
HPF
LABOR
ADJ
LABOR
EQUIP
ADJ EQUIP
MATL
OTHER
UNMOD UC
UNMOD LIC
PC OH
PC PF
BUR LIC
COST SOURCE
CITATION
COMMENTS
Equipment Decon/Washing
A3A
Equipment Decon/Washing
624
DY
1.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$168.44
$168.44
$105,105.12
8%
9%
$123,730
Mil Mil Assemblies
Assume 8 months/yr, 3 yrs
M46
PolyTank, 5,300 Gal
1
EA
1.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$2,250.24
$0.00
$2,250.24
$2,250.24
8%
9%
$2,649
V Vendor Quote
M47
Wash Rack w/ Solids Filtration Unit, Closed Loop
1
LS
1.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$55,655.04
$0.00
$55,655.04
$55,655.04
8%
9%
$65,517
V Vendor Quote
TOTAL UNIT COST:
$191,896
Notes: Abbreviations:
HTRW productivity factor is from Exhibit B-3 or B-4 of "A Guide to Developing and Documenting Cost Estimates During the Feasibility Study", EPA 2000 QTY
Quantity
ACR
Acres
The Cost Database Code is a reference code for linking with line item cost information with the cost source database and is not otherwise used within these cost worksheets. EQUIP
Equipment
BCY
Bank Cubic Yard
MATL
Material
CLF
100 Linear Foot
Source of Cost Data: HPF
HTRW Productivity Factor
DY
Days
NA Not Applicable - costs are from previous work or vendor quote ADJ LABOR
Adjusted LaborforHFP
EA
Each
For citation references, the following sources apply: ADJ EQU IP
Adjusted Equipment for H FP
LF
Linear Foot
Mil (Mil Assemblies), GSA (www.gsa.gov), SE (www.salaryexpert.com), A (Allowance), V (Vendor Quote), CW09 (Means CostWorks 2009), P (Previous Work), and FRTR (www.frtr.gov) UNMOD UC
Unmodified Unit Cost
HR
Hours
UNMOD LIC
Unmodified Line Item Cost
LB
Pounds
Cost Adjustment Checklist: NOTES: UNRURIIO
Unburdened Line Item Cost
LCY
Loose Cubic Yard
FACTOR: Field work will be in Level "C" PPE. PC OH
Prime Contractor Overhead
LS
Lump Sum
H&S Productivity (labor and equipment only) Mil assembly costs include HPF adjustments. PC PF
Prime Contractor Profit
RL
Roll
Escalation to Base Year 2009 cost sources are not escalated (EF=1.00). All other costs are escalated based on the USACE CWCCIS, EM 1110-2-1304, Mar 2009. BUR LIC
Burdened Line Item Cost
SY
Square Yard
Area Cost Factor An AF of 1.13 is used for Oregon, except that an AF of 1.00 (national unmodified average) is used for Mil assembly costs and local vendor quotes.
TN
Tons
Subcontractor Overhead and Profit It is assumed that Subcontractor O&P is either included in the PC O&P or has been factored into vendor quotes or previous work.
Prime Contractor Overhead and Profit It is assumed that home office OH is 8% and profit is 9% for the Prime Contractor. Professional labor overhead is 100%. Allowances and items with mandated costs such as per diem do not have overhead and profit applied.
3/24/20102:49 PM
FINAL
-------
TABLE CW6-14
Alternative 6
Capital Cost Sub-Element
Site Maintenance and Control During Construction
Cost Worksheet: CW6-14
COST WORKSHEET
Site: North Ridge Estates
Location: Klamath County, Oregon
Phase: Final Feasibility Study
Base Year: 2010
Prepared By: AS Date: 3/16/2010
Checked By: GH Date: 3/24/2010
Work Statement:
This sub-element involves site maintenance during construction. The annual costs for site maintenance during construction include labor, material, and equipment.
Cost Analysis:
Cost for Site Maintenance and Control During Construction (Lump Sum)
COST
DATABASE
conF
DESCRIPTION
QTY
UNIT(S)
HPF
LABOR
ADJ
LABOR
EQUIP
ADJ EQUIP
MATL
OTHER
UNMOD UC
UNMOD LIC
PC OH
PC PF
BUR LIC
COST SOURCE
CITATION
COMMENTS
Dust Control
A1A
Dust Control/Washing
624
DY
1.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$564.97
$564.97
$352,543.65
8%
9%
$415,014
Mil Mil Assemblies
Equipment Fueling
A2A
Equipment Fueling
624
DY
1.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$68.46
$68.46
$42,717.67
8%
9%
$50,287
Mil Mil Assemblies
Construction Safety and Traffic Control
A33A
Barricade and Traffic Control Setup
2
DY
1.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$987.96
$987.96
$1,975.92
8%
9%
$2,326
Mil Mil Assemblies
M36
3" x 1,000' Yellow Caution Tape
10
RL
1.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$10.61
$0.00
$10.61
$106.10
8%
9%
$125
V Vendor Quote
M37
3" x 1,000' Red Danger Asbestos Haz Tape
10
RL
1.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$10.61
$0.00
$10.61
$106.10
8%
9%
$125
V Vendor Quote
M38
Reflecting Barricade with Light
15
EA
1.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$72.55
$0.00
$72.55
$1,088.25
8%
9%
$1,281
V Vendor Quote
M39
Orange Safety Fence with Posts
20
CLF
1.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$53.52
$0.00
$53.52
$1,070.40
8%
9%
$1,260
V Vendor Quote
TOTAL UNIT COST:
$470,418
Abbreviations:
HTRW productivity factor is from Exhibit B-3 or B-4 of "A Guide to Developing and Documenting Cost Estimates During the Feasibility Study", EPA 2000
The Cost Database Code is a reference code for linking with line item cost information with the cost source database and is not otherwise used within these cost worksheets.
Source of Cost Data:
NA Not Applicable - costs are from previous work or vendor quote
For citation references, the following sources apply:
Mil (Mil Assemblies), GSA (www.gsa.gov), SE (www.salaryexpert.com), A (Allowance), V (Vendor Quote), CW09 (Means CostWorks 2009), P (Previous Work), and FRTR (www.frtr.gov)
Cost Adjustment Checklist:
FACTOR:
H&S Productivity (labor and equipment only)
Escalation to Base Year
Area Cost Factor
Subcontractor Overhead and Profit
Prime Contractor Overhead and Profit
QTY
EQUIP
MATL
HPF
ADJ LABOR
ADJ EQUIP
UNMOD UC
UNMOD LIC
NOTES: UNBURLIC
Field work will be in Level "C" PPE. PC OH
Mil assembly costs include HPF adjustments. PC PF
2009 cost sources are not escalated (EF=1.00). All other costs are escalated based on the USACE CWCCIS, EM 1110-2-1304, Mar 2009. BUR LIC
An AF of 1.13 is used for Oregon, except that an AF of 1.00 (national unmodified average) is used for Mil assembly costs and local vendor quotes.
It is assumed that Subcontractor O&P is either included in the PC O&P or has been factored into vendor quotes or previous work.
It is assumed that home office OH is 8% and profit is 9% for the Prime Contractor. Professional labor overhead is 100%. Allowances and items with mandated costs such as per diem do not have overhead and profit applied.
Quantity
Equipment
Material
HTRW Productivity Factor
Adjusted LaborforHFP
Adjusted Equipment for H FP
Unmodified Unit Cost
Unmodified Line Item Cost
Unburdened Line Item Cost
Prime Contractor Overhead
Prime Contractor Profit
Burdened Line Item Cost
ACR
BCY
CLF
DY
EA
LF
HR
LB
LCY
LS
RL
SY
TN
Acres
Bank Cubic Yard
100 Linear Foot
Days
Each
Linear Foot
Hours
Pounds
Loose Cubic Yard
Lump Sum
Roll
Square Yard
Tons
3/24/20102:49 PM
FINAL
-------
TABLE CW6-15
Alternative 6
Capital Cost Sub-Element
Temporary Site Facilitites During Construction
Cost Worksheet: CW6-15
COST WORKSHEET
Site: North Ridge Estates
Location: Klamath County, Oregon
Phase: Final Feasibility Study
Base Year: 2010
Prepared By: AS Date: 3/16/2010
Checked By: GH Date: 3/24/2010
Work Statement:
This sub-element involves rental cost for onsite office trailer, storage box, portable toilets, and utilities.
Cost Analysis:
Cost for Temporary Site Facilitites During Construction (Lump Sum)
COST
DATABASE
CODE
DESCRIPTION
UNIT(S)
ADJ
LABOR
COST SOURCE
CITATION
COMMENTS
Site Trailer/Office
Site Office Trailer Installation - One Time Cost
V Vendor Quote
Trailer Rental and Storage Box
V Vendor Quote
Office Furniture
V Vendor Quote
Portable Toilets
V Vendor Quote
General Office Supplies Allowance
A Allowance
Erosion Control Measures Allowance
A Allowance
Utilities (Phone, Internet, Electricity)
V Vendor Quote
TOTAL UNIT COST:
Abbreviations:
HTRW productivity factor is from Exhibit B-3 or B-4 of "A Guide to Developing and Documenting Cost Estimates During the Feasibility Study", EPA 2000
The Cost Database Code is a reference code for linking with line item cost information with the cost source database and is not otherwise used within these cost worksheets.
Source of Cost Data:
NA Not Applicable - costs are from previous work or vendor quote
For citation references, the following sources apply:
Mil (Mil Assemblies), GSA (www.gsa.gov), SE (www.salaryexpert.com), A (Allowance), V (Vendor Quote), CW09 (Means CostWorks 2009), P (Previous Work), and FRTR (www.frtr.gov)
Cost Adjustment Checklist:
FACTOR:
H&S Productivity (labor and equipment only)
Escalation to Base Year
Area Cost Factor
Subcontractor Overhead and Profit
Prime Contractor Overhead and Profit
QTY
EQUIP
MATL
HPF
ADJ LABOR
ADJ EQUIP
UNMOD UC
UNMOD LIC
NOTES: UNBURLIC
Field work will be in Level "C" PPE. PC OH
Mil assembly costs include HPF adjustments. PC PF
2009 cost sources are not escalated (EF=1.00). All other costs are escalated based on the USACE CWCCIS, EM 1110-2-1304, Mar 2009. BUR LIC
An AF of 1.13 is used for Oregon, except that an AF of 1.00 (national unmodified average) is used for Mil assembly costs and local vendor quotes.
It is assumed that Subcontractor O&P is either included in the PC O&P or has been factored into vendor quotes or previous work.
It is assumed that home office OH is 8% and profit is 9% for the Prime Contractor. Professional labor overhead is 100%. Allowances and items with mandated costs such as per diem do not have overhead and profit applied.
Quantity
Equipment
Material
HTRW Productivity Factor
Adjusted LaborforHFP
Adjusted Equipment for H FP
Unmodified Unit Cost
Unmodified Line Item Cost
Unburdened Line Item Cost
Prime Contractor Overhead
Prime Contractor Profit
Burdened Line Item Cost
ACR
BCY
CLF
DY
EA
LF
HR
LB
LCY
LS
RL
SY
TN
Acres
Bank Cubic Yard
100 Linear Foot
Days
Each
Linear Foot
Hours
Pounds
Loose Cubic Yard
Lump Sum
Roll
Square Yard
Tons
3/24/20102:49 PM
FINAL
-------
TABLE CW6-16A
Cost Worksheet: CW6-16A
Alternative 6
Capital Cost Sub-Element
Cover, Backfill, and Access Controls O&M During Construction
COST WORKSHEET
Site: North Ridge Estates
Location: Klamath County, Oregon
Phase: Final Feasibility Study
Base Year: 2010
Prepared By: AS Date: 3/16/2010
Checked By: GH Date: 3/24/2010
Work Statement:
This sub-element involves the cover, backfill, and access controls O&M pertaining to the covered/backfilled areas during construction. It includes costs for on-site labor, equipment, materials and allowances for maintaining the cover and signage.
Cost Analysis:
Cost for Backfilled Area and Site O&M (Lump Sum)
COST
DATABASE
CODE
DESCRIPTION
UNIT(S)
ADJ
LABOR
COST SOURCE
CITATION
COMMENTS
Backfilled Area Operations and Maintenance Crew
Mil Mil Assemblies
Includes cost for cover maintenance, erosion repair, and
repair of fencing/signs.
O&M Allowance
TOTAL UNIT COST:
Notes:
HTRW productivity factor is from Exhibit B-3 or B-4 of "A Guide to Developing and Documenting Cost Estimates During the Feasibility Study", EPA 2000
The Cost Database Code is a reference code for linking with line item cost information with the cost source database and is not otherwise used within these cost worksheets.
Source of Cost Data:
Not Applicable - costs are from previous work or vendor quote
For citation references, the following sources apply:
Mil (Mil Assemblies), GSA (www.gsa.gov), SE (www.salaryexpert.com), A (Allowance), V (Vendor Quote), CW09 (Means CostWorks 2009), P (Previous Work), and FRTR (www.frtr.gov)
Cost Adjustment Checklist:
FACTOR:
H&S Productivity (labor and equipment only)
Escalation to Base Year
Area Cost Factor
Subcontractor Overhead and Profit
Prime Contractor Overhead and Profit
NOTES:
Field work will be in Level "C" PPE.
Mil assembly costs include HPF adjustments.
2009 cost sources are not escalated (EF=1.00). All other costs are escalated based on the USACE CWCCIS, EM 1110-2-1304, Mar 2009.
An AF of 1.13 is used for Oregon, except that an AF of 1.00 (national unmodified average) is used for Mil assembly costs and local vendor
It is assumed that Subcontractor O&P is either included in the PC O&P or has been factored into vendor quotes or previous work.
It is assumed that home office OH is 8% and profit is 9% for the Prime Contractor. Professional labor overhead is 100%. Allowances and items with mandated costs such as per diem do not have overhead and profit applied.
Abbreviations:
QTY
Quantity
ACR
Acres
EQUIP
Equipment
BCY
Bank Cubic Yard
MATL
Material
CLF
100 Linear Foot
HPF
HTRW Productivity Factor
DY
Days
ADJ LABOR
Adjusted LaborforHFP
EA
Each
ADJ EQUIP
Adjusted Equipment for H FP
LF
Linear Foot
UNMOD UC
Unmodified Unit Cost
HR
Hours
UNMOD LIC
Unmodified Line Item Cost
LB
Pounds
UNBUR LIC
Unburdened Line Item Cost
LCY
Loose Cubic Yard
PC OH
Prime Contractor Overhead
LS
Lump Sum
PC PF
Prime Contractor Profit
RL
Roll
BUR LIC
Burdened Line Item Cost
SY
Square Yard
quotes.
TN
Tons
3/24/20102:49 PM
FINAL
-------
TABLE CW6-16B
Alternative 6
Capital Cost Sub-Element
Cover, Backfill, and Access Controls O&M
Cost Worksheet: CW6-16B
COST WORKSHEET
Site: North Ridge Estates
Location: Klamath County, Oregon
Phase: Final Feasibility Study
Base Year: 2010
Prepared By: AS Date: 3/16/2010
Checked By: GH Date: 3/24/2010
Work Statement:
This sub-element involves the cover, backfill, and access controls O&M pertaining to the covered/backfilled areas. It includes costs for on-site labor, equipment, materials and allowances for maintaining the cover, backfill, and signage.
Cost Analysis:
Cost for Cover, Backfill, and Access Controls O&M (Lump Sum)
COST
DATABASE
conF
DESCRIPTION
QTY
UNIT(S)
HPF
LABOR
ADJ
LABOR
EQUIP
ADJ EQUIP
MATL
OTHER
UNMOD UC
UNMOD LIC
PC OH
PC PF
BUR LIC
COST SOURCE
CITATION
COMMENTS
A7C
Backfilled Area Operations and Maintenance Crew
12
DY
1.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$530.94
$530.94
$6,371.24
8%
9%
$7,500
Mil Mil Assemblies
M22B
O&M Allowance
89
ACR
1.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$100.00
$100.00
$8,900.00
0%
0%
$8,900
A Allowance
Includes cost tor cover maintenance, erosion repair, and
repair of fencing/signs.
TOTAL UNIT COST:
$16,400
Notes: Abbreviations:
HTRW productivity factor is from Exhibit B-3 or B-4 of "A Guide to Developing and Documenting Cost Estimates During the Feasibility Study", EPA 2000 QTY
Quantity
ACR
Acres
The Cost Database Code is a reference code for linking with line item cost information with the cost source database and is not otherwise used within these cost worksheets. EQUIP
Equipment
BCY
Bank Cubic Yard
MATL
Material
CLF
100 Linear Foot
Source of Cost Data: HPF
HTRW Productivity Factor
DY
Days
NA Not Applicable - costs are from previous work or vendor quote ADJ LABOR
Adjusted LaborforHFP
EA
Each
For citation references, the following sources apply: ADJ EQU IP
Adjusted Equipment for H FP
LF
Linear Foot
Mil (Mil Assemblies), GSA (www.gsa.gov), SE (www.salaryexpert.com), A (Allowance), V (Vendor Quote), CW09 (Means CostWorks 2009), P (Previous Work), and FRTR (www.frtr.gov) UNMOD UC
Unmodified Unit Cost
HR
Hours
UNMOD LIC
Unmodified Line Item Cost
LB
Pounds
Cost Adjustment Checklist: NOTES: IINRURIIC
Unburdened Line Item Cost
LCY
Loose Cubic Yard
FACTOR: Field work will be in Level "C" PPE. PC OH
Prime Contractor Overhead
LS
Lump Sum
H&S Productivity (labor and equipment only) Mil assembly costs include HPF adjustments. PC PF
Prime Contractor Profit
RL
Roll
Escalation to Base Year 2009 cost sources are not escalated (EF=1.00). All other costs are escalated based on the USACE CWCCIS, EM 1110-2-1304, Mar 2009. BUR LIC
Burdened Line Item Cost
SY
Square Yard
Area Cost Factor An AF of 1.13 is used for Oregon, except that an AF of 1.00 (national unmodified average) is used for Mil assembly costs and local vendor quotes.
TN
Tons
Subcontractor Overhead and Profit It is assumed that Subcontractor O&P is either included in the PC O&P or has been factored into vendor quotes or previous work.
Prime Contractor Overhead and Profit It is assumed that home office OH is 8% and profit is 9% for the Prime Contractor. Professional labor overhead is 100%. Allowances and items with mandated costs such as per diem do not have overhead and profit applied.
3/24/20102:49 PM
FINAL
-------
TABLE CW6-16C
Alternative 6
Capital Cost Sub-Element
Cover and Backfill Inspection
Cost Worksheet: CW6-16C
COST WORKSHEET
Site: North Ridge Estates
Location: Klamath County, Oregon
Phase: Final Feasibility Study
Base Year: 2010
Prepared By: AS Date: 3/16/2010
Checked By: GH Date: 3/24/2010
Work Statement:
This sub-element involves monitoring protocol for covered portions of privately owned and receiver-managed parcels would include routine non-intrusive visual inspections (i.e. surface inspections) to ensure integrity of the covers and backfill. The following includes the labor, material and equipment costs for inspection.
Cost Analysis:
Cost for Cover and Backfill Inspection (Lump Sum)
COST
DATABASE
conF
DESCRIPTION
QTY
UNIT(S)
HPF
LABOR
ADJ
LABOR
EQUIP
ADJ EQUIP
MATL
OTHER
UNMOD UC
UNMOD LIC
PC OH
PC PF
BUR LIC
COST SOURCE
CITATION
COMMENTS
A6B
Visual Inspection - 2 Person Crew
5
DY
1.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$640.91
$640.91
$3,204.53
8%
9%
$3,772
Mil Mil Assemblies
M56
Per Diem for 2 People
5
DY
1.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$288.00
$288.00
$1,440.00
0%
0%
$1,440
GSAwww.gsa.gov
TOTAL UNIT COST:
$5,212
Notes: Abbreviations:
HTRW productivity factor is from Exhibit B-3 or B-4 of "A Guide to Developing and Documenting Cost Estimates During the Feasibility Study", EPA 2000 QTY
Quantity
ACR
Acres
The Cost Database Code is a reference code for linking with line item cost information with the cost source database and is not otherwise used within these cost worksheets. EQUIP
Equipment
BCY
Bank Cubic Yard
MATL
Material
CLF
100 Linear Foot
Source of Cost Data: HPF
HTRW Productivity Factor
DY
Days
NA Not Applicable - costs are from previous work or vendor quote ADJ LABOR
Adjusted LaborforHFP
EA
Each
For citation references, the following sources apply: ADJ EQU IP
Adjusted Equipment for H FP
LF
Linear Foot
Mil (Mil Assemblies), GSA (www.gsa.gov), SE (www.salaryexpert.com), A (Allowance), V (Vendor Quote), CW09 (Means CostWorks 2009), P (Previous Work), and FRTR (www.frtr.gov) UNMOD UC
Unmodified Unit Cost
HR
Hours
UNMOD LIC
Unmodified Line Item Cost
LB
Pounds
Cost Adjustment Checklist: NOTES: UNRURIIC
Unburdened Line Item Cost
LCY
Loose Cubic Yard
FACTOR: Field work will be in Level "C" PPE. PC OH
Prime Contractor Overhead
LS
Lump Sum
H&S Productivity (labor and equipment only) Mil assembly costs include HPF adjustments. PC PF
Prime Contractor Profit
RL
Roll
Escalation to Base Year 2009 cost sources are not escalated (EF=1.00). All other costs are escalated based on the USACE CWCCIS, EM 1110-2-1304, Mar 2009. BUR LIC
Burdened Line Item Cost
SY
Square Yard
Area Cost Factor An AF of 1.13 is used for Oregon, except that an AF of 1.00 (national unmodified average) is used for Mil assembly costs and local vendor quotes.
TN
Tons
Subcontractor Overhead and Profit It is assumed that Subcontractor O&P is either included in the PC O&P or has been factored into vendor quotes or previous work.
Prime Contractor Overhead and Profit It is assumed that home office OH is 8% and profit is 9% for the Prime Contractor. Professional labor overhead is 100%. Allowances and items with mandated costs such as per diem do not have overhead and profit applied.
3/24/20102:49 PM
FINAL
-------
Calculations
-------
TABLE CA-3-1
Alternative 3
Calculation Worksheet
Required Materials Input Calculations
COST WORKSHEET
Site:
Location:
Phase:
Base Year:
North Ridge Estates
Klamath County, Oregon
Final Feasibility Study
2010
Prepared By: AS
Checked By: GH
Date: 3/16/2010
Date: 3/24/2010
Work Statement:
The spreadsheet also allow the user to change the amendment rates of the soil materials, quantities of earthwork and period of construction. Changes to the input fields on this calculation sheet will also change the quantities and types of materials for amendment of soils and cover
construction, revegetation, and the resulting capital costs.
Signage
Number of Warning Sings Required (EA)
69
Number of Signage over Steam Pipe (EA)
9 1
Total Number of Signage (EA)
78 |
Notes:
1. Warning signs placed at intervals of 300 ft or less along perimeter.
Amendment Components
Amendment Rate
(tons per acre-FT)
Application Rate
(pounds per acre)
Compost for Topsoil Amendment
C i° Ij
Nitrogen Fertilizer for Topsoil Amendment
65
Phosphorus Fertilizer for Topsoil
Amendment
109
Hydromulching
3,000
Seed Mix for Topsoil Areas
100
Soil Cover
Area (SF)
Area (SY)
Area (ACR)
Total Surface Area to be Covered
2,268,800
252,089
53.0
Borrow Materials Assumptions
~
Expansion Factor
Cover Reduction
Cover - CY/Day
Borrow Source - Near Offsite vs. Distant
Offsite
1.15
50%
750
50%
Temporary Gravel Construction
Length (FT)
Width (FT)
Thickness (IN)
Gravel Lay down Area
l___12.°
L__J°_°
In-Place Capping/Cover
Volume (BCF)
Volume (BCY)
Volume (LCY)
Total Soil Required:
4,537,600
168,060
193,269
Total Common Backfill Required:
3,403,200
126,045
144,952
Total Topsoil Required:
1,134,400
42,015
48,318
Soil for Cover
Volume (BCF)
Volume (BCY)
Volume (LCY)
Total Soil Required from Near Offsite Borrow
2,268,800
84,030
96,635
Total Soil Reauired from Distant Offsite
Borrow
2,268,800
84,030
96,635
Clearing and Grubbing
SF
Acre
Reduced (50%)
Acre
Clearing and Grubbing 1
602,375
14
7.0
Estimated Duration of the Project
Number of Years to Complete:
1.3
years
Number of Months (April 1 to Nov 30):
months
4 Days off per month in 30 days months:
L 2i
per month
Number of working days (500 cy/day)
258
days
Total number of working days:
258
days
Interior House Cleaning
Number of Houses, (EA) A
1
1
24
Number of Residents per House, Assumed, (EA)
2
Number of Days Required for Cleaning, (DY)
5 1
Notes:
A Private developed parcels with houses within the site boundary, includes 3 apartment houses
Since the location of the remedy is undetermined, same percentage of in-place cover was used to calculate the clearing and grubbing area.
Input fields are denoted by a dashed line. Do not overwrite information not contained within the dashed lines.
Number Borrow Area Samples (1/10,000
CY)
3/25/201011:54 AM
-------
TABLE CA-3-2
Alternative 3
Calculation Worksheet COST WORKSHEET
Required Materials Output Calculations
Site:
North Ridge Estates
Prepared By: AS
Date: 3/16/2010
Location:
Klamath County, Oregon
Phase:
Final Feasibility Study
Checked By: GH
Date: 3/24/2010
Base Year:
2010
Work Statement:
This calculation output sheet allows the user to calculate the volumes of various material required for cover construction, temporary access road and other material. Changes to the input fields on this calculation sheet will also change the quantities and
types of materials for amendment of soils cover construction, revegetation, and the resulting capital costs.
Remedy Components
Seed Mix for Topsoil Areas
(Pounds)
Nitrogen Fertilizer for
Topsoil Areas
(Pounds)
Phosphorus Fertilizer
for Topsoil Areas
(Pounds)
Hydromulching for
Topsoil Areas
(Pounds)
Compost for Topsoil
Amendment (Tons)
In-Place Capping/Cover
5,300
3,500
5,800
159,000
1,400
Temporary Access Road
Construction Components
Surface Area (SY)
Volume of Gravel
(BCY)
Volume of Gravel (LCY)
Weight of Gravel
(Ton)
Gravel Laydown Area
—
___
334
3/24/20102:21 PM
-------
TABLE CA-4-1
Alternative 4
Calculation Worksheet
Required Materials Input Calculations
COST WORKSHEET
Site:
Location:
Phase:
Base Year:
North Ridge Estates
Klamath County, Oregon
Final Feasibility Study
2010
Prepared By: AS Date: 3/16/2010
Checked By: GH Date: 3/24/2010
Work Statement:
The spreadsheet also allow the user to change the amendment rates of the soil materials, quantities of earthwork, and period of construction. Changes to the input fields on this calculation sheet will also change the quantities and types of materials for amendment of soils and cover construction
and revegetation and the resulting capital costs.
Signage
Number of Signage over Steam Pipe (EA)
25
Total Number of Signage (EA)
25
Notes:
1. Warning signs placed at intervals of 300 ft or less along fenceline.
Amendment Components
Amendment Rate (tons
per acre-FT)
Application Rate
(pounds per acre)
Compost for Topsoil Amendment
50
Nitrogen Fertilizer for Topsoil Amendment
65
Phosphorus Fertilizer for Topsoil
Amendment
109
Hydromulching
3,000
Seed Mix for Topsoil Areas
100
L J
In-Place Capping/Cover
Area (SF)
Area (SY)
Area (ACR)
Total Surface Area to be Covered
3,799,400
422,156
88
Borrow Materials Assumptions
Expansion Factor
1.15
Cover - CY/Day
750
l_
Borrow Source - Near Offsite vs. Distant
50%
50%
Offsite
Notes:
Input fields are denoted by a dashed line. Do not overwrite information not contained within the dashed lines.
Temporary Gravel Construction
Length (FT)
Width (FT)
Thickness (IN)
Gravel Laydown Area
100
l___8£
In-Place Capping/Cover
Volume (BCF)
Volume (BCY)
Volume (LCY)
Total Soil Required:
7,505,000
277,963
319,658
Total Common Backfill Required:
5,605,300
207,604
238,745
Total Topsoil Required:
1,899,700
70,360
80,914
Soil for Cover
Volume (BCF)
Volume (BCY)
Volume (LCY)
Total Soil Reauired from Near Offsite
Borrow
3,752,500
138,982
159,829
Total Soil Reauired from Distant Offsite
Borrow
3,752,500
138,982
159,829
Clearing and Grubbing
SF
Acre
Clearing and Grubbing
602,375
14
Estimated Duration of the Project
Number of Years to Complete:
2
years
Number of Months (April 1 to Nov 30):
16.5
months
4 Days off per month in 30 days months:
26
per month
Number of working days (750 cy/day)
427
days
Total number of working days:
427
days
Number Borrow Area Samples (1/10,001
CY)
3/24/20102:25 PM
-------
TABLE CA-4-2
Alternative 4
Calculation Worksheet COST WORKSHEET
Required Materials Output Calculations
Site:
North Ridge Estates
Prepared By: AS
Date: 3/16/2010
Location:
Klamath County, Oregon
Phase:
Final Feasibility Study
Checked By: GH
Date: 3/24/2010
Base Year:
2010
Work Statement:
This calculation output sheet allows the user to calculate the volumes of various material required for cover construction, access road and other material. Changes to the input fields on this calculation sheet will also change the quantities and types of
materials for amendment of soils cover construction, revegetation, and the resulting capital costs.
Remedy Components
Seed Mix for Topsoil Areas
(Pounds)
Nitrogen Fertilizer
for Topsoil Areas
(Pounds)
Phosphorus
Fertilizer for Topsoil
Areas(Pounds)
Hydromulchincj for
Topsoil Areas
(Pounds)
Compost for Topsoil
Amendment (Tons)
Access Road Construction
Components
Surface Area (SY)
Volume of Gravel
(BCY)
Volume of Gravel
(LCY)
Weight of Gravel
(Ton)
Gravel Laydown Area
1,111
200
230
334
3/24/20102:25 PM
-------
TABLE CA-5a-1
Alternative 5a
Calculation Worksheet
Required Materials Input Calculations
COST WORKSHEET
Site:
Location:
Phase:
Base Year:
North Ridge Estates
Klamath County, Oregon
Final Feasibility Study
2010
Prepared By: AS Date: 3/16/2010
Checked By: GH Date: 3/24/2010
Work Statement:
The spreadsheet also allow the user to change the amendment rates of the soil materials, quantities of earthwork, and period of construction. Changes to the input fields on this calculation sheet will also change the quantities and types of materials for amendment of soils, cover and backfill
construction, revegetation, and the resulting capital costs.
Signage
Offset Distance (FT)
Total Perimeter or
Length (FT)
Consolidation Area 1
50
2,700
Number of Warning Sings Required (EA)
10
Number of Signage over Steam Pipe (EA)
15
Total Number of Signage (EA)
25
Notes:
1. Warning signs placed at intervals of 300 ft or less along perimeter.
Amendment Components
Amendment Rate (tons
per acre-FT)
Application Rate
(pounds per acre)
Compost for Topsoil Amendment
50
Nitrogen Fertilizer for Topsoil Amendment
65
Phosphorus Fertilizer for Topsoil
Amendment
109
Hydromulching
3,000
Seed Mix for Topsoil Areas
100
Contaminated Surface Materials Area
Area (SF)
Area (SY)
Area (ACR)
Contaminated Surface Materials
Excavation Area
2,987,200
331,912
69
Buried Contaminated Materials Excavation
Area
505,000
56,112
12
Total
3,492,200
388,023
81
Total Surface Area of Consolidation Area
310,494
34,500
8
Contaminated Surface Materials Volumi
Volume (BCF)
Volume (BCY)
Volume (LCY)
Contaminated Surface Materials Volume
1,344,000
49,778
57,245
Buried Contaminated Materials Volume
932,300
34,530
39,710
Temporary Gravel Construction
Length (FT)
Width (FT)
Thickness (IN)
Gravel Road Base - Temporary Access Road
5,500
15
6.0
Gravel Laydown Area
100
100
6.0
Consolidation/Landfill Area
Volume (BCF)
Volume (BCY)
Volume (LCY)
Total Excavated Soil:
2,276,300
84,308
96,955
Total Common Fill (Active Landfills):
569,075
21,077
24,239
Total Common Fill (Inactive Landfills):
620,989
23,000
26,450
Total Common Fill:
1,190,064
44,077
50,689
Total Topsoil (Inactive Landfills):
155,247
5,750
6,613
Soil for Cover for Consolidation/Landfill Are
i Volume (BCF)
Volume (BCY)
Volume (LCY)
Total Soil Required from Near Offsite Borrow
672,656
24,914
28,651
Total Soil Reauiredfrom Distant Offsite
Borrow
672,656
24,914
28,651
Excavated Area/Full Site
Volume (BCF)
Volume (BCY)
Volume (LCY)
Total Excavated Soil:
2,276,300
84,308
96,955
Total Common Backfill Required:
739,600
27,393
31,502
Total Topsoil Required:
1,630,600
60,393
69,452
Soil for Backfilled Area
Volume (BCF)
Volume (BCY)
Volume (LCY)
Total Soil Reauiredfrom Near Offsite Borrow
1,185,100
43,893
50,477
Total Soil Reauiredfrom Distant Offsite
Borrow
1,185,100
43,893
50,477
ABS Sampling |
Sample Density (SF)
40,000 .
Total Number of Samples
81 |
Borrow Materials Assumptions
Expansion Factor J 1.15
Arsenic Sampling at Power Plant |
Borrow Source - Near Offsite vs. Distant 1 cnn,
.. 1 50%
Offsite [
50% j
Sample Density (SF)
2,500 |
Total Number of Samples
24 1
Clearing and Grubbing
SF
Acre
Clearing and Grubbing
602,375
14
Number Borrow Area
Samples (1/10,000 CY)
Notes:
input fields are denoted by a dashed line. Do not overwrite information not contained within the dashed lines.
3/24/20102:31 PM
-------
TABLE CA-5a-2
Alternative 5a
Calculation Worksheet COST WORKSHEET
Required Materials Output Calculations
Site: North Ridge Estates Prepared By: AS Date: 3/16/2010
Location: Klamath County, Oregon
Phase: Final Feasibility Study Checked By: GH Date: 3/24/2010
Base Year: 2010
Work Statement:
This calculation output sheet allows the user to calculate the volumes of various material required for cover and backfill construction, temporary access roads, and other materials. Changes to the input fields on this
calculation sheet will also change the quantities and types of materials for amendment of soils cover construction, reclamation and the resulting capital costs.
Remedy Components
Seed Mix for Topsoil Areas
(Pounds)
Nitrogen Fertilizer
for Topsoil Areas
(Pounds)
Phosphorus
Fertilizer for Topsoil
Areas(Pounds)
Hydromulching for
Topsoil Areas
(Pounds)
Compost for Topsoil
Amendment (Tons)
Consolidation/Landfill Area
800
500
900
24,000
200
Excavated Area/Full Site
8,100
5,300
8,900
243,000
1,900
Temporary Access Road
Construction Components
Surface Area (SY)
Volume of Gravel
(BCY)
Volume of Gravel
(LCY)
Weight of Gravel
(Ton)
Gravel Road Base - Temporary
Access Road
9,167
1,500
1,725
2,502
Gravel Laydown Area
1,112
200
230
334
Estimated Offsite Landfill Disposal
Assumed Density for ACM (LB/CF)
114
Total Weight of ACM Excavated (LB) - Yr 1 to 10
21,803
Total Weight of ACM (TN)
11
Total Weight of ACM Excavated (LB) - Yr 11 to 20
13,253
Total Weight of ACM (TN)
7
Total Weight of ACM Excavated (LB) - Yr 21 to 30
4,703
Total Weight of ACM (TN)
3
3/24/20102:31 PM
-------
TABLE CA-5b-1
Alternative 5b
Calculation Worksheet
Required Materials Input Calculations
COST WORKSHEET
Site:
Location:
Phase:
Base Year:
North Ridge Estates
Klamath County, Oregon
Final Feasibility Study
2010
Prepared By: AS
Checked By: GH
Date: 3/16/2010
Date: 3/24/2010
Work Statement:
The spreadsheet also allow the user to change the amendment rates of the soil materials, quantities of earthwork, and period of construction. Changes to the input fields on this calculation sheet will also change the quantities and types of materials for amendment of soils, cover
and backfill construction, revegetation, and the resulting capital costs.
Signage
Offset Distance (FT)
Total Perimeter or
Length (FT)
Consolidation Area 1
50
2,700
Number of Warning Sings Required (EA)
10
Number of Signage over Steam Pipe (EA)
15
Total Number of Signage (EA)
25
Temporary Gravel Construction
Length (FT)
Width (FT)
Thickness (IN)
Gravel Road Base - Temporary Access
5,500
15
6.0
Gravel Laydown Area
100
Notes:
1. Warning signs placed at intervals of 300 ft or less along fenceline.
Amendment Components
Amendment Rate
(tons per acre-FT)
Application Rate
(pounds per acre)
Compost for Topsoil Amendment
50
Nitrogen Fertilizer for Topsoil
65
Phosphorus Fertilizer for Topsoil
Amendment
109
Hydromulching
3,000
Seed Mix for Topsoil Areas
100
L J
Contaminated Surface Materials Are;
Area (SF)
Area (SY)
Area (ACR)
Contaminated Surface Materials
Excavation Area
2,987,200
331,912
69
Buried Contaminated Materials
Excavation Area
505,000
56,112
12
Pipe Insulation Excavation Area
37,100
4,123
1
Total
3,529,300
392,145
82
Total Surface Area of Landfill
311,992
34,666
8
Contaminated Surface Materials
Volume
Volume (BCF)
Volume (BCY)
Volume (LCY)
Contaminated Surface Materials
1,344,000
49,778
57,245
Buried Contaminated Materials Volume
1,487,800
55,104
63,370
Pipe Insulation Excavation Volume
227,500
8,426
9,690
Total Length of Pipe
14,125
Consolidation/Landfill Area
Volume (BCF)
Volume (BCY)
Volume (LCY)
Total Excavated Soil:
3,059,300
113,308
130,305
Total Common Fill (Active Landfills):
764,800
28,326
32,575
Total Common Fill (Inactive Landfills):
623,984
23,111
26,578
Total Common Fill:
1,388,784
51,437
59,153
Total Topsoil (Inactive Landfills):
155,996
5,778
6,645
Soil for Cover for Consolidation/Landfill
Area
Volume (BCF)
Volume (BCY)
Volume (LCY)
Total Soil Required from Near Offsite
772,390
28,608
32,899
Total Soil Reauiredfrom Distant Offsite
Borrow
772,390
28,608
32,899
Excavated Area/Full Site
Volume (BCF)
Volume (BCY)
Volume (LCY)
Total Excavated Soil:
3,059,300
113,308
130,305
Total Common Backfill Required:
1,496,500
55,426
63,740
Total Topsoil Required:
1,656,700
61,360
70,564
Soil for Backfilled Area
Volume (BCF)
Volume (BCY)
Volume (LCY)
Total Soil Reauired from Near Offsite
1,576,600
58,393
67,152
Total Soil Reauiredfrom Distant Offsite
Borrow
1,576,600
58,393
67,152
ABS Sampling |
Sample Density (SF)
40,000 J
Total Number of Samples
88 1
Borrow Materials Assumptions
Arsenic Sampling at Power Plant |
1
Expansion Factor 1 1.15
1
Sample Density (SF)
n
2,500 1
Borrow Source - Near Offsite vs. ' J-no/
Distant Offsite j
50% |
1
Total Number of Samples
24
Notes:
Input fields are denoted by a dashed line. Do not overwrite information not contained within the dashed lines.
Clearing and Grubbing
SF
Acre
Clearing and Grubbing
602,375
14
Sheet Piling - Length (FT)
Depth (FT)
Area (SF)
273
15
4,095
Number Borrow Area
Samples (1/10,000 CY)
3/24/20102:44 PM
-------
TABLE CA-5b-2
Alternative 5b
Calculation Worksheet COST WORKSHEET
Required Materials Output Calculations
Site: North Ridge Estates Prepared By: AS Date: 3/16/2010
Location: Klamath County, Oregon
Phase: Final Feasibility Study Checked By: GH Date: 3/24/2010
Base Year: 2010
Work Statement:
This calculation output sheet allows the user to calculate the volumes of various material required for cover construction, access road and other material. Changes to the input fields on this calculation sheet will also
change the quantities and types of materials for amendment of soils, cover and backfill construction, revegetation, and the resulting capital costs.
Remedy Components
Seed Mix for Topsoil Areas
(Pounds)
Nitrogen Fertilizer
for Topsoil Areas
(Pounds)
Phosphorus
Fertilizer for Topsoil
Areas(Pounds)
Hydromulching for
Topsoil Areas
(Pounds)
Compost for Topsoil
Amendment (Tons)
Consolidation/Landfill Area
800
500
900
24,000
200
Excavated Area/Full Site
8,200
5,400
9,000
246,000
1,900
Temporary Access Road
Construction Components
Surface Area (SY)
Volume of Gravel
(BCY)
Volume of Gravel
(LCY)
Weight of Gravel
(Ton)
Gravel Road Base - Temporary
Access Road
9,167
1,500
1,725
2,502
Gravel Laydown Area
1,112
200
230
334
3/24/20102:44 PM
-------
TABLE CA-6-1
Alternative 6
Calculation Worksheet COST WORKSHEET
Required Materials Input Calculations
Site: North Ridge Estates Prepared By: AS Date: 3/16/2010
Location: Klamath County, Oregon
Phase: Final Feasibility Study Checked By: GH Date: 3/24/2010
Base Year: 2010
Work Statement:
The spreadsheet also allow the user to change the amendment rates of the soil materials, quantities of earthwork, and period of construction. Changes to the input fields on this calculation sheet will also change the quantities and types of materials for amendment of soils, cover and backfill
construction, revegetation, and the resulting capital costs.
Signage
Temporary Gravel Construction
Length (FT)
Width (FT)
Thickness (IN)
Clearing and Grubbing
SF
Acre
Number of Signage over Steam Pipe (EA)
25
Gravel Road Base - Temporary Access Road
5,500
15
6.0
Clearing and Grubbing
602,375
14
Total Number of Signage (EA)
25
Gravel Laydown Area
100
100
6.0
Notes:
Landfill Disposal
1. Warning signs placed at intervals of 300 ft or less along steam pipe.
Excavated Area/Full Site
Volume (BCF)
Volume (BCY)
Volume (LCY)
Assumed Density for Contaminated
Materials (LB/CF)
114
Total Excavated Soil:
3,276,200
121,341
139,543
Total Weight of Contaminated Materials
Excavated (LB)
373,486,800
Amendment Components
Amendment Rate (tons
per acre-FT)
Application Rate
(pounds per acre)
Total Common Backfill Required:
1,577,000
58,408
67,170
Total Weight of Contaminated Material
Excavated (TN)
' 186,744
Compost for Topsoil Amendment
50
Total Topsoil Required:
1,792,900
66,404
76,365
Nitrogen Fertilizer for Topsoil Amendment
65
ABS Sampling
Phosphorus Fertilizer for Topsoil
Amendment
109
Soil for Backfilled Area
Volume (BCF)
Volume (BCY)
Volume (LCY)
Sample Density (SF)
40,000
Hydromulching
3,000
Total Soil Required from Near Offsite Borrow
1,684,950
62,406
71,768
Total Number of Samples
95
Seed Mix for Topsoil Areas
100
Total Soil Reauiredfrom Distant Offsite
Borrow
1,684,950
62,406
71,768
Arsenic Sampling at Power Plant
Contaminated Surface Materials Area
Area (SF)
Area (SY)
Area (ACR)
Sheet Piling - Length (FT)
Depth (FT)
Area (SF)
Sample Density (SF)
2,500
Contaminated Surface Materials
Excavation Area
3,226,000
358,445
75
273
15
4,095
Total Number of Samples
•
Buried Contaminated Materials Excavation
Area
531,800
59,089
13
Pipe Insulation Excavation Area
42,400
4,712
1
Estimated Duration of the Project
Total
3,800,200
422,245
89
Number of Years to Complete:
i
years
Work from April 1 until November 30:
8
months
Contaminated Surface Materials Volumi
Volume (BCF)
Volume (BCY)
Volume (LCY)
4 Days off per month in 30 days months:
26
per month
Contaminated Surface Materials Volume
1,463,400
54,200
62,330
Number of working days:
208
days
Buried Contaminated Materials Volume
1,557,100
57,671
66,322
Total number of working days:
624
days
Pipe Insulation Excavation Volume
255,700
9,471
10,892
Total Length of Pipe
14,125
Number Borrow Area Samples (1/10,000 CY)
14
Borrow Materials Assumptions
Expansion Factor
1.15
the dashed lines.
Borrow Source - Near Offsite vs. Distant
Offsite
50%
L
r 1
50%
L J
Notes:
Input fields are denoted by a dashed line. Do not overwrite information not contained withi
3/25/201011:55 AM
-------
TABLE CA-6-2
Alternative 6
Calculation Worksheet COST WORKSHEET
Required Materials Output Calculations
Site: North Ridge Estates Prepared By: AS Date: 3/16/2010
Location: Klamath County, Oregon
Phase: Final Feasibility Study Checked By: GH Date: 3/24/2010
Base Year: 2010
Work Statement:
This calculation output sheet allows the user to calculate the volumes of various material required for cover and backfill construction, temporary access roads, and other materials. Changes to the input fields on this calculation sheet will also change the
quantities and types of materials for amendment of soils, cover and backfill construction, revegetation, and the resulting capital costs.
Remedy Components
(Pounds)
Nitrogen Fertilizer
for Topsoil Areas
(Pounds)
Phosphorus
Fertilizer for Topsoil
Areas (Pounds)
Hydromulching for
Topsoil Areas
(Pounds)
Compost for Topsoil
Amendment (Tons)
Excavated Area/Full Site
8,900
5,900
9,700
267,000
2,100
Temporary Access Road Construction Components
Surface Area (SY)
Volume of Gravel
(BCY)
Volume of Gravel
(LCY)
Weight of Gravel
(Ton)
Gravel Road Base - Temporary Access Road
9,167
1,500
1,725
2,501
Gravel Laydown Area
1,111
200
230
334
3/24/20102:49 PM
-------
Cost Estimate Backup
-------
COST INDICES FOR ESCALATION
Base Year for Work: 2010
Year
Cost Index1
1990
398.34
1991
406.78
1992
415.22
1993
427.83
1994
439.45
1995
452.31
1996
462.16
1997
472.17
1998
478.10
1999
486.21
2000
497.07
2001
503.52
2002
517.46
2003
529.95
2004
571.29
2005
608.36
2006
641.91
2007
673.52
2008
716.54
2009
701.41
2010
706.49
2011
716.38
2012
728.56
2013
741.67
2014
755.02
2015
768.61
2016
782.45
2017
796.53
2018
810.87
2019
825.47
2020
840.33
2021
855.45
2022
870.85
2023
886.52
2024
902.48
2025
918.73
1 Yearly composite cost index (weighted average) from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Civil Works
Construction Cost Index System (CWCCIS), EM 1110-2-1304, 31 March 2000. Revised as of 30
September 2009.
Page 1 of 7
-------
SalaryExpert Cost Sources
Base Year: 2010 COST CODES FOR LABOR AND UNIT COSTS
Cost
Code DescriDtion
Units
Unit
Labor
Cost
Unit
Equipment
Cost
Unit
Material
Cost
Unit
Other
Cost
Year of
Cost
Source
Escalation
Factor
Area
Factor
Adjusted
Labor
Cost
Adjusted
Equipment
Cost
Adjusted
Material
Cost
Adjusted
Other
Cost
PC OH
PC PF
Cost Source
Source Source ID
Comments
CAD Drafter
HR
$25.70
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
2010
1
1
$25.70
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
100%
9%
SE
SalaryExpert.com
L2
Civil Engineer
HR
$39.37
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
2010
1
1
$39.37
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
100%
9%
SE
SalaryExpert.com
L3
Clerks, Typist, Bookkeeper & Receptionist
HR
$19.05
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
2010
1
1
$19.05
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
100%
9%
SE
SalaryExpert.com
L4
Electrical Engineer
HR
$41.73
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
2010
1
1
$41.73
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
100%
9%
SE
SalaryExpert.com
L5
Environmental Engineer
HR
$31.39
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
2010
1
1
$31.39
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
100%
9%
SE
SalaryExpert.com
L6
Environmental Lawyer
HR
$71.06
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
2010
1
1
$71.06
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
100%
9%
SE
SalaryExpert.com
L7
Environmental Scientist
HR
$27.87
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
2010
1
1
$27.87
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
100%
9%
SE
SalaryExpert.com
L8
Field Engineer
HR
$22.94
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
2010
1
1
$22.94
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
100%
9%
SE
SalaryExpert.com
L9
Field Foreman
HR
$19.13
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
2010
1
1
$19.13
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
100%
9%
SE
SalaryExpert.com
L10
Field Technician
HR
$22.64
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
2010
1
1
$22.64
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
100%
9%
SE
SalaryExpert.com
L11
Geologist
HR
$27.30
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
2010
1
1
$27.30
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
100%
9%
SE
SalaryExpert.com
L12
General Superintendent (P.M.)
HR
$52.74
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
2010
1
1
$52.74
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
100%
9%
SE
SalaryExpert.com
L13
Project Manager
HR
$46.53
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
2010
1
1
$46.53
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
100%
9%
SE
SalaryExpert.com
L14
Quality Control Engineer
HR
$46.04
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
2010
1
1
$46.04
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
100%
9%
SE
SalaryExpert.com
L15
Paralegal
HR
$37.29
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
2010
1
1
$37.29
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
100%
9%
SE
SalaryExpert.com
L16
Electrician
HR
$26.60
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
2010
1
1
$26.60
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
100%
9%
SE
SalaryExpert.com
L17
Plumber
HR
$19.37
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
2010
1
1
$19.37
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
100%
9%
SE
SalaryExpert.com
L18
Suveyor
HR
$31.44
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
2010
1
1
$31.44
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
100%
9%
SE
SalaryExpert.com
L19
Suveyor Assistant
HR
$26.85
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
2010
1
1
$26.85
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
100%
9%
SE
SalaryExpert.com
FINAL
Page 2 of 7
-------
Base Year: 2010 COST CODES FOR MATERIAL AND UNIT COSTS
Cost
Code
Description
Units
Unit
Cost
Unit
Equipment
Cost
Unit
Material
Cost
Unit
Other
Cost
Year of
Cost
Escalation
Area
Factor
Adjusted
Labor
Cost
Adjusted
Equipment
Cost
Adjusted
Material
Cost
Adjusted
Other
Cost
PC OH
PC PF
Cost Source
Comments
Source Source ID
M1
Gate, Chain Link, Double Swing, 4' High x 10' Wide
EA
$0.00
$0.00
$252.55
$0.00
2009
1.01
1
$0.00
$0.00
$255.08
$0.00
8%
9%
V
Vendor Quote
M2
Gate Fittings and Accessories
EA
$0.00
$0.00
$230.32
$0.00
2009
1.01
1
$0.00
$0.00
$232.62
$0.00
8%
9%
V
Vendor Quote
M3
Chain Link Fence, Galvanized 2" Mesh, 4' High
LF
$0.00
$0.00
$2.64
$0.00
2009
1.01
1
$0.00
$0.00
$2.67
$0.00
8%
9%
V
Vendor Quote
M3A
3arbed Wire, 12 1/2 Gauge, 4 pt. Barbs, Galv.
LF
$0.00
$0.00
$0.35
$0.00
2009
1.01
1
$0.00
$0.00
$0.35
$0.00
8%
9%
V
Vendor Quote
5 strands of barb wire
M4
3ipe, Galvanized Pipe, 2 1/2" Dia, 6' High
EA
$0.00
$0.00
$17.50
$0.00
2009
1.01
1
$0.00
$0.00
$17.68
$0.00
8%
9%
V
Vendor Quote
M4A
f-Post, 7' High Steel Post
EA
$0.00
$0.00
$5.80
$0.00
2009
1.01
1
$0.00
$0.00
$5.86
$0.00
8%
9%
V
Vendor Quote
Includes wire clips
M5
-ence Fittings & Accessories
EA
$0.00
$0.00
$7.46
$0.00
2009
1.01
1
$0.00
$0.00
$7.53
$0.00
8%
9%
V
Vendor Quote
M9
Signs
EA
$0.00
$0.00
$98.11
$0.00
2009
1.01
1
$0.00
$0.00
$99.09
$0.00
8%
9%
V
Vendor Quote
M10
Copy and Shipping Allowance
LS
I0.00
;o.oo
I0.00
$2,000
2010
1
1
;o.oo
I0.00
I0.00
$2,000.00
0%
0%
A
Allowance
M1 OA
Copy and Shipping Allowance
LS
;o.oo
;o.oo
I0.00
$1,500
2010
1
1
;o.oo
;o.oo
I0.00
$1,500.00
0%
0%
A
Allowance
M11
Copy and Shipping Allowance
LS
;o.oo
;o.oo
I0.00
$1,000
2010
1
1
;o.oo
;o.oo
I0.00
$1,000.00
0%
0%
A
Allowance
M11A
Document Submission and Recording Allowance
LS
;o.oo
;o.oo
I0.00
$5,000
2010
1
1
I0.00
;o.oo
I0.00
$5,000.00
0%
0%
A
Allowance
M12
Surveying Report Allowance
LS
;o.oo
;o.oo
I0.00
$15,000.00
2010
1
1
I0.00
;o.oo
I0.00
$15,000.00
0%
0%
A
Allowance
M12A
Surveying Report Allowance
LS
;o.oo
;o.oo
I0.00
$5,000.00
2010
1
1
I0.00
;o.oo
I0.00
$5,000.00
0%
0%
A
Allowance
M13
Site Inspection Report Allowance
LS
;o.oo
;o.oo
I0.00
$1,000.00
2010
1
1
I0.00
;o.oo
I0.00
$1,000.00
0%
0%
A
Allowance
M15
Seed Mix
ACR
I0.00
$0.00
$200.00
I0.00
2009
1.01
1
I0.00
I0.00
$202.00
I0.00
8%
9%
V
Vendor Quote
M16
Seed Mix
LB
I0.00
$0.00
$2.00
;o.oo
2009
1.01
1
I0.00
I0.00
$2.02
I0.00
8%
9%
V
Vendor Quote
M17A
-ertilizer (N2)
ACR
I0.00
$0.00
$19.50
;o.oo
2009
1.01
1
I0.00
I0.00
$19.70
I0.00
8%
9%
V
Vendor Quote
M17B
-ertilizer (P205)
ACR
I0.00
$0.00
$25.07
;o.oo
2009
1.01
1
I0.00
I0.00
$25.32
I0.00
8%
9%
V
Vendor Quote
M18A
-ertilizer (N2)
LB
;o.oo
$0.00
$0.30
I0.00
2009
1.01
1
;o.oo
;o.oo
$0.30
;o.oo
8%
9%
V
Vendor Quote
M18B
-ertilizer (P205)
LB
;o.oo
$0.00
$0.23
I0.00
2009
1.01
1
;o.oo
;o.oo
$0.23
;o.oo
8%
9%
V
Vendor Quote
M19
Hydomulching
ACR
;o.oo
$0.00
$810.00
I0.00
2008
0.99
1
;o.oo
;o.oo
$801.90
$801.90
8%
9%
P
Previous Work
M20
Hydomulching
LB
;o.oo
$0.00
$0.27
I0.00
2008
0.99
1
;o.oo
;o.oo
$0.27
$0.27
8%
9%
P
Previous Work
M21
zrosion Repair Material Allowance
LS
;o.oo
$0.00
;u.uu
$5,000.00
2010
1
1
;u.uu
;o.oo
;o.oo
;5,ooo.oo
0%
0%
A
Allowance
M21A
zrosion Repair Material Allowance
LS
;o.oo
$0.00
;o.oo
$2,000.00
2010
1
1
;o.oo
;o.oo
;o.oo
12,000.00
0%
0%
A
Allowance
M21B
zrosion Repair Material Allowance
LS
;o.oo
$0.00
;o.oo
$3,000.00
2010
1
1
;o.oo
;o.oo
;o.oo
13,000.00
0%
0%
A
Allowance
M21C
zrosion Repair Material Allowance
LS
;o.oo
$0.00
;o.oo
$4,000.00
2010
1
1
;o.oo
;o.oo
;o.oo
!4, 000.00
0%
0%
A
Allowance
M22
-ence and Sign Maintenance Allowance
LS
;o.oo
$0.00
;o.oo
$1,000.00
2010
1
1
;o.oo
;o.oo
;o.oo
11,000.00
0%
0%
A
Allowance
M22A
-ence and Sign Maintenance Allowance
LS
;o.oo
$0.00
;o.oo
$1,200.00
2010
1
1
;o.oo
;o.oo
;o.oo
11,200.00
0%
0%
A
Allowance
$100 permonth
M22B
O&M Allowance
ACR
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$100.00
2010
1
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$100.00
0%
0%
A
Allowance
Includes cost for cover maintenance, erosion
repair, and repair of fencing/signs.
M23
Geomembrane, 80 mil LLDPE
ACR
$0.00
$0.00
$28,136.00
$0.00
2008
0.99
1
$0.00
$0.00
$27,854.64
$0.00
8%
9%
V
Vendor Quote
M24
Geotextile, 8 oz/sy, Polypropylene
ACR
$0.00
$0.00
$4,894.64
$0.00
2008
0.99
1
$0.00
$0.00
$4,845.69
$0.00
8%
9%
V
Vendor Quote
M25
Organic Material
TN
$0.00
$0.00
$25.00
$0.00
2009
1.01
1
$0.00
$0.00
$25.25
$0.00
8%
9%
V
Vendor Quote
M27
3100 Respirator Cassettes (North) 72 pr/cs (Hepa)
CS
I0.00
;o.oo
$302.40
I0.00
2009
1.01
1
;o.oo
I0.00
$305.42
;o.oo
8%
9%
P
Previous Work
M28
3PE Wpes
BX
;o.oo
;o.oo
$5.00
;o.oo
2009
1.01
1
I0.00
;o.oo
$5.05
I0.00
8%
9%
P
Previous Work
M29
Mitrile Gloves 2XL Powderlree 50 pr/bx, 10 bx/cs
BX
;o.oo
;o.oo
$10.95
;o.oo
2009
1.01
1
I0.00
;o.oo
$11.06
;o.oo
8%
9%
P
Previous Work
M30
fyvek Hoods 100/cs
CS
;o.oo
;o.oo
$72.56
;o.oo
2009
1.01
1
I0.00
;o.oo
$73.29
;o.oo
8%
9%
P
Previous Work
M31
f yvek Booties High Top Shoe Covers 200 pr/cs
CS
;o.oo
;o.oo
$188.85
;o.oo
2009
1.01
1
I0.00
;o.oo
$190.74
;o.oo
8%
9%
P
Previous Work
M32
fyvek Suits 4XL 25/cs
CS
;o.oo
;o.oo
$131.60
;o.oo
2009
1.01
1
I0.00
;o.oo
$132.92
;o.oo
8%
9%
P
Previous Work
M33
3oly Roll, Clear, 6 Mil, 10ft x 100ft
RL
;o.oo
;o.oo
$24.98
;o.oo
2009
1.01
1
I0.00
;o.oo
$25.23
;o.oo
8%
9%
P
Previous Work
M34
36 x 60 Clear l/WACM Bag, 50 bgs/rl - Asbestos Dng
RL
;o.oo
;o.oo
$38.40
;o.oo
2009
1.01
1
I0.00
;o.oo
$38.78
;o.oo
8%
9%
P
Previous Work
M35
14x18 Paper Asbestos Danger Signs 200 /pk
PK
;o.oo
;o.oo
$21.60
;o.oo
2009
1.01
1
I0.00
;o.oo
$21.82
;o.oo
8%
9%
P
Previous Work
M36
3" x 1,000' Yellow Caution Tape
RL
$0.00
$0.00
$10.50
$0.00
2009
1.01
1
$0.00
$0.00
$10.61
$0.00
8%
9%
V
Vendor Quote
M37
3"x 1,000' Red Danger Asbestos Haz Tape
RL
$0.00
$0.00
$10.50
$0.00
2009
1.01
1
$0.00
$0.00
$10.61
$0.00
8%
9%
V
Vendor Quote
M38
Reflecting Barricade with Light
EA
$0.00
$0.00
$71.83
$0.00
2009
1.01
1
$0.00
$0.00
$72.55
$0.00
8%
9%
V
Vendor Quote
M39
Orange Safety Fence with Posts
CLF
$0.00
$0.00
$52.99
$0.00
2009
1.01
1
$0.00
$0.00
$53.52
$0.00
8%
9%
V
Vendor Quote
M39A
Marker Layer for Cover or Backfill Demarcation
SF
$0.00
$0.00
$0.08
$0.00
2009
1.01
1
$0.00
$0.00
$0.08
$0.00
8%
9%
v
Vendor Quote
Marker layer assumed to be orange construction
fencing.
M40
Concrete, Delivered
CY
I0.00
0.00
$109.20
I0.00
2009
1.01
1
;o.oo
I0.00
$110.29
;o.oo
8%
9%
V
Vendor Quote
M41A
Asphalt for Road/Parking Lot, Delivered
TN
;o.oo
0.00
$55.00
I0.00
2009
1.01
1
;o.oo
;o.oo
55.55
;o.oo
8%
9%
V
Vendor Quote
M41B
Asphalt for Road/Parking Lot, Delivered
CY
;o.oo
0.00
$60.14
I0.00
2009
1.01
1
;o.oo
;o.oo
60.74
;o.oo
8%
9%
V
Vendor Quote
M42A
Sand, Delivered
TN
;o.oo
0.00
$15.60
I0.00
2009
1.01
1
;o.oo
;o.oo
15.76
;o.oo
8%
9%
V
Vendor Quote
M42B
Sand, Delivered
LCY
;o.oo
0.00
$24.18
I0.00
2009
1.01
1
;o.oo
;o.oo
24.42
;o.oo
8%
9%
V
Vendor Quote
M43A
Gravel, Delivered
TN
;o.oo
0.00
$13.45
I0.00
2009
1.01
1
;o.oo
;o.oo
13.58
;o.oo
8%
9%
V
Vendor Quote
M43B
Gravel, Delivered
LCY
;o.oo
0.00
$20.78
I0.00
2009
1.01
1
;o.oo
;o.oo
20.99
;o.oo
8%
9%
V
Vendor Quote
M44A
Riprap, Delivered
TN
;o.oo
0.00
$20.75
I0.00
2009
1.01
1
;o.oo
;o.oo
20.96
;o.oo
8%
9%
V
Vendor Quote
M44B
Riprap, Delivered
LCY
;o.oo
0.00
$41.50
I0.00
2009
1.01
1
;o.oo
;o.oo
41.92
;o.oo
8%
9%
V
Vendor Quote
M45
Clean Fill/Subsoil
LCY
;o.oo
0.00
$8.72
;o.oo
2009
1.01
1
;o.oo
;o.oo
$8.81
;o.oo
8%
9%
p
Previous Work
Includes purchase and delivery to the Site.
M46
3oly Tank, 5,300 Gal
EA
$0.00
$0.00
$2,227.96
$0.00
2009
1.01
1
$0.00
$0.00
$2,250.24
$0.00
8%
9%
V
Vendor Quote
M47
Wash Rack w/Solids Filtration Unit, Closed Loop
LS
$0.00
$0.00
$55,104.00
$0.00
2009
1.01
1
$0.00
$0.00
$55,655.04
$0.00
8%
9%
V
Vendor Quote
M48
Weed Control Sen/ices
ACR
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$62.64
2009
1.01
1
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$63.27
8%
9%
p
Previous Work
Includes labor, equipment, and materials for
application of weed control chemicals.
M49
Assumed Royalty Allowance for Soil
LCY
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$3.00
2010
1
1
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$3.00
0%
0%
A
Allowance
FINAL
Page 3 of 7
-------
Base Year: 2010 COST CODES FOR MATERIAL AND UNIT COSTS
Cost
Code
Description
Units
Unit
Cost
Unit
Equipment
Cost
Unit
Material
Cost
Unit
Other
Cost
Year of
Cost
Escalation
Area
Factor
Adjusted
Labor
Cost
Adjusted
Equipment
Cost
Adjusted
Material
Cost
Adjusted
Other
Cost
PC OH
PC PF
Cost Source
Comments
Source Source ID
M50
Soil Sample Analysis (PLM-VE)
EA
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$25.00
2008
0.99
1
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$24.75
8%
9%
P
Previous Work
M50A
Soil Sample Analysis (Stereomicroscopv)
EA
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$25.00
2008
0.99
1
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$24.75
8%
9%
P
Previous Work
M51
ABS, Sample and Analysis
EA
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$900.00
2008
0.99
1
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$891.00
8%
9%
P
Previous Work
M51A
Ambient Air Sample Analysis
EA
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$400.00
2008
0.99
1
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$396.00
8%
9%
P
Previous Work
Analyzed by TEM ISO Method 10312
M51B
Indoor Air Sample Analysis
EA
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$225.00
2008
0.99
1
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$222.75
8%
9%
P
Previous Work
Analyzed by TEM ISO Method 10312
M51C
Equipment/lndoorAirSamplinq Event
LS
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$5,000.00
2010
1
1
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$5,000.00
8%
9%
P
Previous Work
M52
Equipment/ABS Area/ABS Event
EA
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$150.00
2008
0.99
1
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$148.50
8%
9%
P
Previous Work
M52A
Samplinq Setup ( Equipment and Utility)
LS
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$4,200.00
2010
1
1
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$4,200.00
8%
9%
P
Previous Work
Includes sampling equipments and electrical hook-
M52B
Equipment/Ambient Air Samplinq Event
EA
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$150.00
2010
1
1
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$150.00
8%
9%
P
Previous Work
M53A
Samplinq and Other Supplies/ABS Area/ABS Event
EA
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$250.00
2010
1
1
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$250.00
8%
9%
P
Previous Work
M53B
Samplinq/Other Supplies
LS
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$1,500.00
2010
1
1
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$1,500.00
8%
9%
P
Previous Work
M53C
Samplinq/Other Supplies/Ambient Air Samplinq Event
LS
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$1,500.00
2010
1
1
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$1,500.00
8%
9%
P
Previous Work
M53D
Samplinq/Other Supplies
LS
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$250.00
2010
1
1
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$250.00
8%
9%
P
Previous Work
M54A
Sample Shippinq Allowance
LS
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$3,000.00
2010
1
1
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$3,000.00
0%
0%
A
Allowance
M54B
Sample Shippinq Allowance
LS
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$1,500.00
2010
1
1
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$1,500.00
0%
0%
A
Allowance
M54C
Sample Shippinq
EA
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$120.00
2010
1
1
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$120.00
8%
9%
P
Previous Work
15 Samples per shipment
M54D
Sample Shippinq Allowance
LS
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$500.00
2010
1
1
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$500.00
0%
0%
A
Allowance
M55
^erDiem for 3 People
DY
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$432.00
2010
1
1
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$432.00
0%
0%
GSA
www.qsa.qov
M56
^erDiem for 2 People
DY
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$288.00
2010
1
1
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$288.00
0%
0%
GSA
www.qsa.qov
M57
^erDiem fori Person
DY
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$144.00
2010
1
1
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$144.00
0%
0%
GSA
www.qsa.qov
M57A
Interior Cleaninq
LS
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$15,000.00
2004
1.24
1
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$18,600.00
8%
9%
P
Previous Work
M57B
^erDiem for Resident Temporary Relocation- Lodqinq
DY
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$88.00
2010
1
1
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$88.00
0%
0%
GSA
www.qsa.qov
3er House
M57C
^erDiem for Resident Temporary Relocation - M&IE
DY
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$56.00
2010
1
1
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$56.00
0%
0%
GSA
www.qsa.qov
3 er Person
M58
SiteOfficeTrailerlnstallation-OneTimeCost
LS
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$2,040.00
2009
1.01
1
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$2,060.40
8%
9%
V
Vendor Quote
M59
Trailer Rental and Storaqe Box
MO
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$80.00
2009
1.01
1
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$80.80
8%
9%
V
Vendor Quote
M60
Office Furniture
MO
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$205.00
2009
1.01
1
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$207.05
8%
9%
V
Vendor Quote
M61
Portable Toilets
MO
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$365.00
2009
1.01
1
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$368.65
8%
9%
V
Vendor Quote
M62
Jtilities (Phone, Internet, Electricity)
MO
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$155.00
2009
1.01
1
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$156.55
8%
9%
V
Vendor Quote
M63
General Office Supplies Allowance
MO
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$750.00
2010
1
1
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$750.00
0%
0%
A
Allowance
M64
Erosion Control Measures Allowance
LS
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$30,000.00
2010
1
1
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$30,000.00
0%
0%
A
Allowance
M65
Community Awareness Activities Allowance
EA
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$2,000.00
2010
1
1
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$2,000.00
0%
0%
A
Allowance
1 event per 5-yr review.
M66A
Analysis - Volatile Orqanic Compounds
EA
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$104.73
2009
1.01
1
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$105.78
8%
9%
V
Vendor Quote
M66B
Analysis - Semivolatile Orqanic Compounds
EA
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$213.34
2009
1.01
1
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$215.47
8%
9%
V
Vendor Quote
M66C
Analysis - Pesticides
EA
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$151.28
2009
1.01
1
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$152.79
8%
9%
V
Vendor Quote
M66D
Analysis - Herbicides
EA
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$131.33
2009
1.01
1
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$132.64
8%
9%
V
Vendor Quote
M66E
Analysis -TAL Metals
EA
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$128.00
2009
1.01
1
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$129.28
8%
9%
V
Vendor Quote
M66F
Analysis - PCBs
EA
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$131.88
2009
1.01
1
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$133.20
8%
9%
V
Vendor Quote
M66G
Analysis-TPH
EA
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$87.55
2009
1.01
1
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$88.43
8%
9%
V
Vendor Quote
M66H
Analysis - Arsenic
EA
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$26.45
2009
1.01
1
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$26.71
8%
9%
V
Vendor Quote
FINAL
Page 4 of 7
-------
Base Year: 2010
COST CODES FOR SUBCONTRACTORS AND UNIT COSTS
Cost
Code
Work or Material Description
Description for Cost Worksheets
Units
Unit
Cost
Year of
Cost
Source
Escalation
Factor
Area
Factor
Adjusted
Unit Cost
PC OH
PC PF
Cost Source
Source Source ID
Comments
Landfill Disposal Charges (Subtitle D Only)
Subtitle D Landfill Disposal Charges
TN
$43.00
2009
1.01
1
S43.43
8%
9%
Averaged unit cost of disposal fees for 2 Subtitle
S2A
Landfill Disposal Charges (Oregon Permitted
Authorized Only)
Disposal Charges for Permitted Facility
TN
$60.00
2009
1.01
1
$60.60
8%
9%
V
Vendor Quote
Averaged unit cost of disposal fees for 3 Oregon
Authorized Disposal Facilities
S2B
Landfill Disposal Charqes
Disposal Facility Charqes
EA
$13,300.00
2009
1.01
1
$13,433.00
8%
9%
V
Vendor Quote
S2C
Landfill Disposal Charges (Oregon Non-Permitted
Authorized Only)
Non-Permitted Authorized Disposal Facility
Charqes
TN
$25.00
2009
1.01
1
$25.25
8%
9%
V
Vendor Quote
Lowest unit cost of disposal fees for 3 Oregon
Permitted Authorized Disposal Facilities
S2D
Landfill Disposal Charges (Oregon Permitted
Authorized Only) - Weiqhted %
Permitted Authorized Disposal Facility Charges
TN
$52.00
2009
1.01
1
$52.52
8%
9%
V
Vendor Quote
Lowest unit cost of disposal fees for 3 Oregon
Permitted Authorized Disposal Facilities
S2E
Landfill Disposal Charges (Subtitle D Cost)
Permitted Authorized Disposal Facility Charges
TN
$118.90
2009
1.01
1
$120.09
8%
9%
V
Vendor Quote
Lowest unit cost of disposal fees for 3 Oregon
Permitted Authorized Disposal Facilities
S3A
Plasma/Thermal Treatment
Onsite Plasma/Thermal Treatment
TN
$1,250.00
2009
1.01
1
$1,262.50
8%
9%
V
Vendor Quote
S4A
Thermo-Chemical Treatment
Offsite Thermo-Chemical Treatment
TN
$400.00
2009
1.01
1
$404.00
8%
9%
V
Vendor Quote
Offsite facility located at Tacoma, WA
FINAL
Page 5 of 7
-------
Base Year: 2010
COST CODES FOR Mil ASSEMBLIES AND UNIT COSTS
Cost
Code
Work or Material Description
Description for Cost Worksheets
Units
Mil
Unit
Cost
Year of
Cost
Source
Escalation
Factor
Area
Factor
Adjusted
Ml
Unit Cost
PC OH
PC PF
Cost Source
Comments
Source Source ID
A1A
Dust Control
Dust Control/Washing
DY
$559.38
2009
1.01
1
$564.97
8%
9%
Mil
Mil Assemblies
A2A
Equipment Fueling
Equipment Fueling
DY
$67.78
2009
1.01
1
$68.46
8%
9%
Mil
Mil Assemblies
ASA
Equipment Decon/Washing
Equipment Decon/Washing
DY
$166.77
2009
1.01
1
$168.44
8%
9%
Mil
Mil Assemblies
MA
Sampling - 2 Person Crew
Sampling - 2 Person Crew
DY
$779.83
2009
1.01
1
$787.63
8%
9%
Mil
Mil Assemblies
ASA
Sampling - 3 Person Crew
Sampling - 3 Person Crew
DY
$1,168.24
2009
1.01
1
$1,179.92
8%
9%
Mil
Mil Assemblies
A6A
Site Inspection - 2 Person Crew
Site Inspection - 2 Person Crew
DY
$634.56
2009
1.01
1
$640.91
8%
9%
Mil
Mil Assemblies
A6B
Visual Inspection - 2 Person Crew
Visual Inspection - 2 Person Crew
DY
$634.56
2009
1.01
1
$640.91
8%
9%
Mil
Mil Assemblies
A6C
Site Inspection -1 Person Crew
Site Inspection -1 Person Crew
DY
$324.86
2009
1.01
1
$328.11
8%
9%
Mil
Mil Assemblies
A6D
Visual Inspection - 1 Person Crew
Visual Inspection - 1 Person Crew
DY
$324.86
2009
1.01
1
$328.11
8%
9%
Mil
Mil Assemblies
A7A
Site Operations and Maintenance
Cover and Backfill Operations and Maintenance Crew
DY
$525.68
2009
1.01
1
$530.94
8%
9%
Mil
Mil Assemblies
A7B
Site Operations and Maintenance
Fence Maintenance Crew
DY
$525.68
2009
1.01
1
$530.94
8%
9%
Mil
Mil Assemblies
A7C
Site Operations and Maintenance
Backfilled Area Operations and Maintenance Crew
DY
$525.68
2009
1.01
1
$530.94
8%
9%
Mil
Mil Assemblies
A8A
Excavation/Loading - Buried Contaminated Material/Steam Pipe
Excavation/Loading - Steam Pipe
BCY
$10.39
2009
1.01
1
$10.49
8%
9%
Mil
Mil Assemblies
A8B
Excavation/Loading - Buried Contaminated Material/Steam Pipe
Excavation/Loading - Buried Contaminated Materials
BCY
$10.39
2009
1.01
1
$10.49
8%
9%
Mil
Mil Assemblies
A9A
Excavation/Loading - Surficial Contaminated Material/Miscellaneous (Crawler
Dozer)
Excavation/Loading - Surficial Contaminated Materials
BCY
$8.90
2009
1.01
1
$8.99
8%
9%
Mil
Mil Assemblies
A9B
Excavation/Loading - Surficial Contaminated Material/Miscellaneous (Crawler
Dozer)
Excavation/Loading
BCY
$8.90
2009
1.01
1
$8.99
8%
9%
Mil
Mil Assemblies
A10A
Excavation - Borrow Source
Excavation - Borrow Source
BCY
$2.11
2009
1.01
1
$2.13
8%
9%
Mil
Mil Assemblies
A11A
Grading - Contaminated Material Loading/Spreading/Grading
Contaminated Material Spreading/Grading
LCY
$10.63
2009
1.01
1
$10.74
8%
9%
Mil
Mil Assemblies
A12A
Grading - Interim Cover Loading/Spreading/Grading
Interim Cover Spreading/Grading
LCY
$12.30
2009
1.01
1
$12.42
8%
9%
Mil
Mil Assemblies
A12B
Grading - Interim Cover Loading/Spreading/Grading
Final CoverSpreading/Grading
LCY
$12.30
2009
1.01
1
$12.42
8%
9%
Mil
Mil Assemblies
A12C
Grading - Interim Cover Loading/Spreading/Grading
Subsoil Spreading/Grading
LCY
$12.30
2009
1.01
1
$12.42
8%
9%
Mil
Mil Assemblies
A13A
Grading - Clean Fill Loading/Spreading/Grading
Clean Fill Spreading/Grading
LCY
$2.65
2009
1.01
1
$2.68
8%
9%
Mil
Mil Assemblies
A13B
Grading - Clean Fill Loading/Spreading/Grading
Top Soil Spreading/Grading
LCY
$2.65
2009
1.01
1
$2.68
8%
9%
Mil
Mil Assemblies
A14A
Material Loading - Clean Fill
Material Loading - Clean Fill
LCY
$0.32
2009
1.01
1
$0.32
8%
9%
Mil
Mil Assemblies
A14B
Material Loading - Contaminated Material
Material Loading - Contaminated Material Feed for Treatment
LCY
$0.88
2009
1.01
1
$0.89
8%
9%
Mil
Mil Assemblies
A14C
Material Loading - Contaminated Material
Material Loading - Treated Contaminated Material
LCY
$0.88
2009
1.01
1
$0.89
8%
9%
Mil
Mil Assemblies
A15A
Material Placement - Riprap
Riprap Placement
LCY
$7.75
2009
1.01
1
$7.83
8%
9%
Mil
Mil Assemblies
A15B
Material Placement - Riprap
Riprap Placement
TN
$3.87
2009
1.01
1
$3.91
8%
9%
Mil
Mil Assemblies
A16A
Material Placement - Fill/Subsoil/Topsoil - Clean Fill
Clean Fill/Subsoil/Topsoil Placement
LCY
$1.79
2009
1.01
1
$1.81
8%
9%
Mil
Mil Assemblies
A17A
Material Placement - Sand/Gravel Placement
Sand/Gravel Placement
LCY
$1.79
2009
1.01
1
$1.81
8%
9%
Mil
Mil Assemblies
A18A
Gravel Placement - Clean Area
Gravel Placement - Clean Area
SY
$0.32
2009
1.01
1
$0.32
8%
9%
Mil
Mil Assemblies
A18B
Gravel Placement - Contaminated Area
Gravel Placement - Contaminated Area
SY
$1.47
2009
1.01
1
$1.48
8%
9%
Mil
Mil Assemblies
A19A
Compaction - Large Open Area - Contaminated Material
Contaminated Material Compaction - Large Open Area
LCY
$0.89
2009
1.01
1
$0.90
8%
9%
Mil
Mil Assemblies
A20A
Compaction - Small Area - Contaminated Material
Contaminated Material Compaction - Small Area
LCY
$19.19
2009
1.01
1
$19.38
8%
9%
Mil
Mil Assemblies
A21A
Compaction - Large Open Area - Clean Fill
Clean Fill Compaction - Large Open Area
LCY
$0.18
2009
1.01
1
$0.18
8%
9%
Mil
Mil Assemblies
A22A
Compaction - Small Area - Clean Fill
Clean Fill Compaction - Small Area
LCY
$2.22
2009
1.01
1
$2.24
8%
9%
Mil
Mil Assemblies
A23A
Hauling - Offeite Borrow Source
Hauling - Distant Offeite Borrow Source
LCY
$2.79
2009
1.01
1
$2.82
8%
9%
Mil
Mil Assemblies
A23B
Hauling - On site Borrow Source
Hauling - Near Offsite Borrow Source
LCY
$2.10
2009
1.01
1
$2.12
8%
9%
Mil
Mil Assemblies
A23C
Hauling - Offsite Borrow Source
Hauling - Riprap Material
LCY
$2.79
2009
1.01
1
$2.82
8%
9%
Mil
Mil Assemblies
A23D
Hauling - Offeite
Hauling - Debris Offeite
HR
$385.10
2009
1.01
1
$388.95
8%
9%
Mil
Mil Assemblies
Includes 5 trucks
A23E
Hauling - Offeite
Offsite Debris Disposal, Hauling to Permitted Authorized Landfill
HR
$75.01
2009
1.01
1
$75.76
8%
9%
Mil
Mil Assemblies
A23F
Hauling - Offeite
Offsite Debris Disposal, Hauling to Permitted Authorized Landfill
HR
$61.22
2009
1.01
1
$61.83
8%
9%
Mil
Mil Assemblies
A23G
Hauling - Offeite
Offsite Debris Disposal, Hauling to Permitted Authorized Landfill
HR
$78.72
2009
1.01
1
$79.51
8%
9%
Mil
Mil Assemblies
A24A
Hauling - On site Debris Disposal
Hauling - On site Disposal
LCY
$3.67
2009
1.01
1
$3.71
8%
9%
Mil
Mil Assemblies
A24B
Hauling - On site Debris
Hauling - On site Treatment
LCY
$3.67
2009
1.01
1
$3.71
8%
9%
Mil
Mil Assemblies
A24C
Hauling - On site Debris
Hauling - On site Treated
LCY
$1.54
2009
1.01
1
$1.56
8%
9%
Mil
Mil Assemblies
A25A
Hauling - Offeite Debris Disposal Subtitle D Landfill
Offeite Debris Hauling to Subtitle D Landfill
LCY
$39.88
2009
1.01
1
$40.28
8%
9%
Mil
Mil Assemblies
A26A
Hauling - Offeite Debris Disposal Permitted Authorized Landfill
Offeite Debris Hauling to Permitted Disposal Facility
LCY
$23.44
2009
1.01
1
$23.67
8%
9%
Mil
Mil Assemblies
A26B
Hauling - Offeite Debris, Thermo-Chemical Treatment Facility
Offeite Debris Hauling to Thermo-Chemical Treatment Facility
LCY
$56.18
2009
1.01
1
$56.74
8%
9%
Mil
Mil Assemblies
A26C
Hauling - Debris, Thermo-Chemical Treatment Facility
Treated Debris Hauling from Thermo-Chemical Treatment Facility
LCY
$56.18
2009
1.01
1
$56.74
8%
9%
Mil
Mil Assemblies
A26D
Hauling - Offeite Debris Disposal Non-Permitted Authorized Landfill
Offeite Debris Hauling to Non-Permitted Disposal Facility
LCY
$8.14
2009
1.01
1
$8.22
8%
9%
Mil
Mil Assemblies
A26E
Hauling - Offeite Debris Disposal Permitted Authorized Landfill (V\feighted %)
Offeite Debris Hauling to Permitted Disposal Facility
LCY
$19.07
2009
1.01
1
$19.26
8%
9%
Mil
Mil Assemblies
A27A
Demolition - Pipe/Culvert
Steam Pipe Segmentation
LF
$15.84
2009
1.01
1
$16.00
8%
9%
Mil
Mil Assemblies
A27B
Demolition - House
Onsite House Demolition
HR
$566.28
2009
1.01
1
$571.94
8%
9%
Mil
Mil Assemblies
A28A
Geomembrane Cover System Installation
Geomembrane Cover System Installation
SF
$0.69
2009
1.01
1
$0.70
8%
9%
Mil
Mil Assemblies
A28B
Geomembrane Cover System Installation
Geomembrane Cover System Installation
ACR
$30,056.40
2009
1.01
1
$30,356.96
8%
9%
Mil
Mil Assemblies
A29A
Geotextile Cover System Installation
Geotextile Cover System Installation
SF
$0.10
2009
1.01
1
$0.10
8%
9%
Mil
Mil Assemblies
A29B
Geotextile Cover System Installation
Geotextile Cover System Installation
ACR
$4,356.00
2009
1.01
1
$4,399.56
8%
9%
Mil
Mil Assemblies
A30A
Hydro-Seeding Crew
Hydro-Seeding Crew
ACR
$112.45
2009
1.01
1
$113.57
8%
9%
Mil
Mil Assemblies
A31A
Fence Installation
Fence Installation - Contaminated Area
LF
$30.36
2009
1.01
1
$30.66
8%
9%
Mil
Mil Assemblies
A31B
Fence Installation
Fence Installation - Clean Area
LF
$6.48
2009
1.01
1
$6.54
8%
9%
Mil
Mil Assemblies
A31C
Fence Installation
Signage Installation - Clean Area
DY
$1,569.61
2009
1.01
1
$1,585.31
8%
9%
Mil
Mil Assemblies
FINAL
Page 6 of7
-------
Base Year: 2010
COST CODES FOR Mil ASSEMBLIES AND UNIT COSTS
Cost
Code
Work or Material Description
Description for Cost Worksheets
Units
Mil
Unit
Cost
Year of
Cost
Source
Escalation
Factor
Area
Factor
Adjusted
Ml
Unit Cost
PC OH
PC PF
Cost Source
Comments
Source Source ID
A32A
Clearing and Grubbing
Clearing and Grubbing
ACR
$9,045.89
2009
1.01
1
$9,136.35
8%
9%
Mil
Mil Assemblies
A33A
Barricade and Traffic Control
Barricade and Traffic Control Setup
DY
$978.18
2009
1.01
1
$987.96
8%
9%
Mil
Mil Assemblies
A34A
Asphalt Work
Asphalt Work
SY
$16.87
2009
1.01
1
$17.04
8%
9%
Mil
Mil Assemblies
A35A
Concrete Work
Concrete Work
SY
$30.09
2009
1.01
1
$30.39
8%
9%
Mil
Mil Assemblies
A36A
Sheet Piling
Sheet Piling
SF
$35.01
2009
1.01
1
$35.36
8%
9%
Mil
Mil Assemblies
A37A
Mobilization and Demobilization - Heavy Equipment
Mobilization and Demobilization - Heavy Equipment
EA
$2,361.21
2009
1.01
1
$2,384.82
8%
9%
Mil
Mil Assemblies
A37B
Mobilization and Demobilization - Medium-Sized Equipment
Mobilization and Demobilization - Medium-Sized Equipment
EA
$965.03
2009
1.01
1
$974.68
8%
9%
Mil
Mil Assemblies
A37C
Mobilization and Demobilization - Small Equipment
Mobilization and Demobilization - Small Equipment
EA
$599.13
2009
1.01
1
$605.12
8%
9%
Mil
Mil Assemblies
A37D
Mobilization and Demobilization - Self-Propel led Equipment
Mobilization and Demobilization - Self-Propelled Equipment
EA
$2,444.67
2009
1.01
1
$2,469.12
8%
9%
Mil
Mil Assemblies
A38A
Site Survey
Site Survey - Clean Area
DY
$459.92
2009
1.01
1
$464.52
8%
9%
Mil
Mil Assemblies
A38B
Site Survey
Site Survey - Contaminated Area
DY
$992.32
2009
1.01
1
$1,002.24
8%
9%
Mil
Mil Assemblies
A39A
Organic Delivery
Organic Delivery
LCY
$6.42
2009
1.01
1
$6.48
8%
9%
Mil
Mil Assemblies
A39B
Organic Delivery
Organic Delivery
TN
$8.56
2009
1.01
1
$8.65
8%
9%
Mil
Mil Assemblies
A40A
Organic Amendment and Processing
Organic Amendment and Processing
ACR
$1,071.37
2009
1.01
1
$1,082.08
8%
9%
Mil
Mil Assemblies
A41A
ACM Surface Excavation/Pickup Crew
ACM Surface Excavation/Pickup Crew
DY
$2,806.32
2009
1.01
1
$2,834.38
8%
9%
Mil
Mil Assemblies
A42A
Contaminated Material Loading/Spreading/Grading
Contaminated Material Loading/Spreading/Grading
DY
$1,091.03
2009
1.01
1
$1,101.94
8%
9%
Mil
Mil Assemblies
A43A
Clean Fill Loading/Spreading/Grading
Clean Fill Loading/Spreading/Grading
DY
$1,091.03
2009
1.01
1
$1,101.94
8%
9%
Mil
Mil Assemblies
A44A
Compaction - Contaminated Material
Compaction - Contaminated Material
DY
$1,064.52
2009
1.01
1
$1,075.17
8%
9%
Mil
Mil Assemblies
A45A
Compaction - Clean Fill
Compaction - Clean Fill
DY
$333.27
2009
1.01
1
$336.60
8%
9%
Mil
Mil Assemblies
A46A
Equipment Decon
Equipment Decon
DY
$346.17
2009
1.01
1
$349.63
8%
9%
Mil
Mil Assemblies
FINAL
Page 7 of7
------- |