RECORD OF DECISION
OPERABLE UNIT 1
JACKSON CERAMIX SUPERFUND SITE
FALLS CREEK, JEFFERSON COUNTY,
PENNSYLVANIA
($8z)
PRO^
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION 3
PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA
MARCH 2021
-------
[Page intentionally left blank]
2
-------
Table of Contents
I. DECLARATION 8
II. DECISION SUMMARY 12
1.0 Site Name, Location and Description 13
2.0 Site History and Enforcement Activities 14
2.1 History of Contamination 14
2.2 Previous Environmental Investigations and Response Actions 15
3.0 Community Participation 16
4.0 Scope and Role of Operable Unit 17
5.0 Site Characteristics 17
5.1 Overview of the Site 17
5.2 Geology and Hydrogeology 18
5.3 Nature and Extent of Contamination and Conceptual Site Model 19
6.0 Current and Future Potential Land Use and Water Use 23
7.0 Summary of Site Risks 25
7.1 Human Health Risk Assessment 26
7.2 Ecological Risk Assessment 27
7.3 Basis for Remedial Action 28
8.0 Remedial Action Objectives 28
8.1 FMA RAOs 28
8.2 FMA Remediation Goals 29
8.3 BFA RAO 29
8.4 BFA Remediation Goals 29
8.5 NDC/FL RAOs: 30
8.6 NDC/FL Remediation Goals 30
9.0 Description of Alternatives 31
9.1 Remedial Alternatives 31
9.2 Expected Outcomes of the Selected Remedies 40
10.0 Comparative Analysis of Alternatives 40
10.1 Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment 41
10.2 Compliance with ARARs 42
10.3 Long Term Effectiveness and Permanence 43
10.4 Reduction of Toxicity. Mobility, or Volume through Treatment 44
10.5 Short-term Effectiveness 45
3
-------
10.6 Implementability 46
10.7 Cost 47
10.8 State Acceptance 49
10.9 Community Acceptance 49
11.0 Principal Threat Waste 49
12.0 Selected Remedy 50
12.1 Summary of the Rationale for Selected Remedy 50
12.2 Description of the Selected Remedy 51
12.3 Cost Estimate for the Selected Remedy 54
12.4 Expected Outcomes of the Selected Remedy 55
13.0 Statutory Determinations 55
13.1 Protection of Human Health and the Environment 55
13.2 Compliance with Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements 56
13.3 Cost Effectiveness 56
13.4 Utilization of Permanent Solutions to the Maximum Extent Practicable 56
13.5 Five-Year Review Requirements 57
14.0 Documentation of Significant Changes 57
15. State Role 57
III. RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY 58
FIGURES, TABLES, APPENDICES
FIGURES
Figure 1 - Site Layout
Figure 2 - Layout of Operable Unit 1
Figure 3 - Nature and Extent of Contamination in the Former Manufacturing Area
Figure 4 - Former Hotspot in the Baseball Field Area
Figure 5 - Nature and Extent of Contamination in the Northern Drainage Channel/Former Lagoon
Figure 6 - Conceptual Site Model
Figure 7 - Selected Remedy for the Former Manufacturing Area
Figure 8 - Selected Remedy for the Northern Drainage Channel/Former Lagoon
4
-------
TABLES
Table 1 - Contaminants of Concern in the Former Manufacturing Area
Table 2 - Former Manufacturing Area Maximum Soil Concentrations (mg/kg)
Table 3 - Contaminants of Concern in the Northern Drainage Channel/Former Lagoon
Table 4 - Northern Drainage Channel/Former Lagoon Maximum Soil, Sediment, and Surface Water
Concentrations
Table 5 - OIJ1 Ecological Contaminants of Concern
Table 6 - Former Manufacturing Area Performance Standards
Table 7 - Baseball Field Area Performance Standard
Table 8 - Northern Drainage Channel/Former Lagoon Performance Standards
APPENDICES
Appendix A Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection Correspondence
Appendix B Risk Assessment Tables and Rationale
Appendix C Detailed Cost Estimate
Appendix D Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements
LIST OF ACRONYMS
AOC Area of Concern
ARARs Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements
BFA Baseball Field Area
bgs Below Ground Surface
B&P Buffalo Pittsburgh Railroad
BTAG Biological Technical Assistance Group
CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response. Compensation and Liability Act
cis-1,2-DCE cis-1,2-Dichloroethene
COC Contaminant of Concern
CSM Conceptual Site Model
CY Cubic Yards
-------
DNAPL
Dense Non-Aqueous Phase Liquid
EPA
United States Environmental Protection Agency
ERA
Ecological Risk Assessment
FMA
Former Manufacturing Area
FS
Feasibility Study
FYR
Five-Year Review
gPm
Gallons per Minute
HHRA
Human Health Risk Assessment
HI
Hazard Index
ICs
Institutional Controls
ISTR
In Situ Thermal Remediation
LCY
Loose Cubic Yards
LDR
Land Disposal Requirements
MCL
Maximum Contaminant Level
MCLG
Maximum Contaminant Level Goal
mg/kg
Milligrams per Kilogram
MNA
Monitored Natural Attenuation
NAPL
Non-Aqueous Phase Liquid
NCP
National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan
NDC/FL
Northern Drainage Channel/Former Lagoon
NPDES
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
NPL
National Priorities List
OU
Operable Unit
OU1
Operable Unit 1
OU2
Operable Unit 2
OU3
Operable Unit 3
O&M
Operation and Maintenance
PADEP
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection
PCE
T etrachloroethylene
PDI
Preliminary Design Investigation
RAO
Remedial Action Objective
RI
Remedial Investigation
-------
ROD
Record of Decision
TBC
To Be Considered
TCE
T richloroethy lene
TCLP
Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure
TTZ
Target Treatment Zone
jig/dL
Micrograms per Deciliter
PLg/L
Micrograms per Liter
voc
Volatile Organic Compound
-------
I. DECLARATION
JACKSON CERAMIX SUPERFUND SITE
OPERABLE UNIT 1
FALLS CREEK, JEFFERSON COUNTY, PENNSYLV ANIA
-------
RECORD OF DECISION FOR REMEDIAL ACTION
JACKSON CERAMIX SUPERFUND SITE
I. DECLARATION
Site Name and Location
The Jackson Ceramix Superfund Site (Site) is located in the southern portion of the Borough of Falls
Creek (the Borough), Pennsylvania. It consists of 233 acres and extends into both Jefferson and Clearfield
Counties. The Site includes a former china manufacturing facility that operated from 1917 to 1985. The
National Superfund Database Identification Number is PADOO1222025. A Site Location Map is included
as Figure 1 and the Site Layout is included as Figure 2.
Statement of Basis and Purpose
The Site has been subdivided into three Operable Units (OUs). OIJ1 encompasses soil, sediment, and
surface water impacted by manufacturing activities west of and including the Buffalo and Pittsburgh
(B&P) rail line. It includes about 37 acres and has been further subdivided into the following areas of
concern (AOCs): the Former Manufacturing Area (FMA), the Baseball Field Area (BFA), the Northern
Drainage Channel (NDC), and the former sludge settling lagoon (the Former Lagoon [FL]). The NDC
and FL are discussed together, as one AOC, in this Record of Decision (ROD) because of their similar
environmental settings and risk exposure pathways. OU2 encompasses the portion of the Sandy Lick
Creek floodplain impacted by the migration of waste from the manufacturing area to the
fl oodpl ai n/wetl and, including segments of Wolf Run and Sandy Lick Creek adjacent to the floodplain.
OU3 is the overburden and bedrock groundwater aquifers beneath OIJ 1 and OU2 (Figure 1).
This ROD presents the United States Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) Selected Remedy for
each AOC at OIJ 1 to address contamination in the soil, sediment, and surface water. The Selected
Remedy for the FMA will treat the soil and principal threat waste, eliminating a major source to
groundwater contamination (OU3).
The Selected Remedies were chosen in accordance with the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA), 42 U.S.C. § 9601, et sea, as amended, and to the
extent practicable, the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP), 40
C.F.R. Part 300, as amended. This ROD is based on the Administrative Record for the Site, which was
developed in accordance with Section 113(k) of CERCL A, 42 U.S.C. § 9613(k).
The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) concurs with the Selected
Remedies (Appendix A).
Assessment of the Site
The Selected Remedies in this ROD are necessary to protect the public health or welfare or the
environment from actual or threatened releases of hazardous substances into the environment.
9
-------
Description of the Selected Remedy
The Selected Remedies in this ROD will address the three AOCs (FMA, BFA, NDC/FL) within OU1.
EPA has determined that the Selected Remedy for each of the AOCs will be the most effective approach
for addressing contamination in the soil, sediment, and surface water. Additionally, the Selected Remedy
for OIJ1 FMA, specifically the In Situ Thermal Remediation component, will treat the soil and principal
threat waste, eliminating a major source to groundwater contamination (OU3).
The Selected Remedy for the FMA (FMA Alternative 2) consists of the following components:
• Repair of the existing soil cover;
• In Situ Thermal Remediation of the volatile organic compounds (VOC)-contaminated soil, and
dense non-aqueous phase liquid (DNAPL); and
• Institutional Controls (ICs).
The Selected Remedy for the BFA (BFA Alternative 1) consists of the following component:
• No Further Action
The Selected Remedy for the NDC/FL (NDC/FL Alternative 4) consists of the following components:
• In Situ Stabilization for NDC Surface Soils;
• Excavation with Ex Situ Stabilization and Off-Site Disposal for FL Sediments and FL Subsurface
Soil Hotspot; and
• ICs.
Statutory Determinations
The Selected Remedies for the AOCs in OIJ 1 are protective of human health and the environment, are
cost effective, and utilize permanent solutions for treatment of principal threat waste. The principal threat
waste (i.e., DN APL) will be addressed by In Situ Thermal Remediation.
10
-------
ROD Data Certification Checklist
The following information is included in the Decision Summary (Part II) of this ROD. Additional
information can be found in the Administrative Record for the Site:
ROD CERTIFICATION CHECKLIST
Information
Location/Page Number
COCs and respective concentrations
Section 5.3, pages 19-22
Baseline risk represented by COCs
Section 7, pages 25-27
Cleanup levels established for COCs and the basis for
these levels
Section 8.0, pages 28-30
How source materials constituting principal threat are
addressed
Section 11.0, page 49
Current and reasonably anticipated future land use
assumptions and potential future beneficial uses of
groundwater used in the baseline risk assessment and
ROD
Section 6.0, page 23-24
Potential land use that will be available at the Site as a
result of the Selected Remedy
Section 6.0, page 23-24
Estimated capital, annual Operations & Maintenance
(O&M), and total present worth costs, discount rate, and
the number of years over which the remedy cost estimates
are proj ected
Section 10.7, pages 47-49
Section 12.3, page 54
Key factors that led to selecting the remedy
Section 12.1, page 50-51
Digitally signed by LINDA
I IN DA DIFT7DIETZ
l_l I N L-TY L-'l L_ I i— Date:2021.03.23 15:43:39
"04,°0, March 23, 2021
Linda Dietz, Acting Director
Superfund and Emergency Management Division
EPA Region III
Date
11
-------
IL DECISION SUMMARY
JACKSON CERAMIX SUPERFUND SITE
OPERABLE UNIT 1
FALLS CREEK, JEFFERSON COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
-------
II. DECISION SUMMARY
1.0 Site Name, Location and Description
The Site is located in the southern portion of the Borough of Falls Creek (the Borough), Pennsylvania.
The City of Dubois is approximately 1.6 miles southeast of the Site. The Site extends into both Jefferson
and Clearfield Counties. The Site includes a former manufacturing facility that operated from 1917 until
1985. The Site has been subdivided into three Operable Units (OUs) and each OU is being addressed
separately. OlJ 1 is in Jefferson County and is where former manufacturing operations took place. While
some remnants of building foundations still exist in the subsurface at the Site, the only remaining
structure on OlJ 1 is a former china shop in the southwest comer of the Site property. OU2 is in Clearfield
County and encompasses the portion of the Sandy Lick Creek floodplain affected by the migration of
waste from the former manufacturing area to the wetland area. OU3 is the groundwater impacted by the
migration of contamination from OlJ 1 and OU2 soils and sediments to the underlying groundwater. OlJ 1
is the focus of this ROD and a description of each AOC in OlJ 1 is provided below. The National
Superfund Database Identification Number for the Site is PAD001222025.
OH IFMA
The FMA is approximately 20 acres in size, consisting of about 12 acres of a grass covered clearing, 4
acres of woodlands, and 5 acres of Buffalo & Pittsburgh (B&P) Railroad property. It is currently zoned
for commercial and industrial use and it is not anticipated that the land use designation will change in the
future. On August 12, 2016, the Borough acquired 15.12 acres of the FMA property from the Caiserra
Corporation (Caiserra) (Figure 2). The 2 acres of the FMA's southwestern corner, including the china
shop, were retained by Caiserra. The portion of the FMA owned by the Borough and the 2 acres owned
by Caiserra have Environmental Covenants (ECs) pursuant to the Pennsylvania Uniform Environmental
Covenants Act No. 68 of 2007, 27 Pa. CS §§ 6501- 6517. Language in the ECs relevant to the FMA
includes:
• The properties can only be used for industrial activities as defined under Section 103 of the Land
Recycling Act, 35 P.S. § 6026.103;
• The groundwater at the properties cannot be used for any purposes;
• Only a permitted public water supply shall be used for the potable water source for the properties;
• Except upon prior written approval by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental. Protection
(PADHP), no activities should occur on the properties that would be inconsistent with, or disturb,
the Class III Residual Waste Landfill soil cover or any other Response Actions at the Site.
The FMA also includes the OlJ 1 Eastern Drainage Ditch (EDD). The OlJ 1 EDD is a surface water body
located between the former china manufacturing building and the B&P Railroad property that captures
surface water runoff from both properties and funnels the runoff northward into the FL. The B&P
Railroad property consists of two active rail lines and one railroad spur. The spur has been used
consistently for box car storage since initiation of the Remedial Investigation (RI) in 2009. A gravel/dirt-
pa eked service road is adjacent to the rail line. East of the service road is a wooded area that eventually
slopes into the adjacent Sandy Lick Creek Floodplain.
OH IBFA
The BFA is owned by the Borough. The zoning in the BFA is currently divided between residential, in
the north part of the property, and i ndustri al/com m erci al in the south part of the property. The BFA is
bounded by Taylor Avenue to the north, residential properties to the east, the NDC to the east and
13
-------
southeast, the FMA to the south, and residential properties and Third Street (State Route 950) to the west.
The BFA encompasses both the Taylor Municipal Park (park) and a storage lot which is located between
the park, the FMA, and the NDC. The park is approximately 5.5 acres in size and has been in existence
from as early as 1939. The park is well maintained and includes a baseball diamond, an asphalt basketball
court, and a concrete pavilion. The storage lot is approximately 2.5 acres and has been used by the
Borough for storage of aggregate materials (e.g., concrete rubble, asphalt, soil mixed with rubble, etc.)
and slashed vegetation, or vegetation that is cut as part of normal maintenance activities. The Borough
has expressed a desire to incorporate the southern portion of the BF A into the park.
OH I NDC and FL
The NDC/FL is currently zoned industrial/commercial and includes parcels owned by the Borough,
Russel Stone Products, and B&P Railroad. The NDC/FL is approximately 8 acres in size. The majority of
the 8 acres in the NDC/FL is wetland, and the nature of this habitat has greatly influenced the
development and selection of the remedy for this area. The NDC lies adjacent to the BFA and FMA and
is bounded to the northeast by residential and commercial properties. The NDC was formerly used
commercially, housing three radio towers and a service shed. The Borough acquired the majority of the
NDC by 2016. The FL is located south of the NDC and is mostly situated on a parcel of land owned by
Russel Stone Products. The FL was a 7,200 square foot unlined sludge settling lagoon that received
process wastewater from the china manufacturing facility. Surface water from the FL discharges to the
Sandy Lick Creek Floodplain via a 48-inch diameter drainage culvert located beneath the B&P Railroad.
For the purposes of this ROD, the FL refers to the areas of ponded water and the areas immediately
adjacent to the 48-inch culvert that connects the FL part of OIJ1 to the wetlands in OU2. The remainder
of the NDC/FL is owned by B&P Railroad (<1 acre).
Land and groundwater use at the portion of the NDC/FL owned by the Borough is restricted by the ECs
referenced above (pursuant to the Pennsylvania Uniform Environmental Covenants Act No. 68 of 2007,
27 Pa. CS §§ 6501- 6517). Language in the EC relevant to the NDC/FL includes:
• The properties can only be used for industrial activities as defined under Section 103 of the Land
Recycling Act, 35 P.S. § 6026.103;
• The groundwater at the properties cannot be used for any purposes;
• Only a permitted public water supply shall be used for the potable water source for the properties;
• No construction, earth disturbance, development, maintenance, or other actions of any kind can
occur in the identified wetlands, or in any area that would adversely affect the wetlands at the Site.
2.0 Site History and Enforcement Activities
This section of the ROD provides the history of the Site and a discussion of EPA and PADEP
investigations and response activities. The "Proposed Rule" proposing the Site to the National Priorities
List (NPL) was published in the Federal Register on April 27, 2005. The "Final Rule" adding the Site to
the NPL was published in the Federal Register on September 14, 2005. To date, EPA has not identified
any viable potentially responsible parties at the Site to perform response actions and EPA has conducted
response actions at the Site as fund lead.
2.1 History of Contamination
The Site includes a former china manufacturing facility that operated at the FMA from 1917 until 1985.
After operations ceased, the facility was abandoned. A fire in October 1989 destroyed about 75 percent of
the facility, including the main building. The china manufacturing process involved the production of
14
-------
decorated, vitrified china plates, cups, saucers, and a variety of other chinaware. Undecorated chinaware
was initially molded in the mold shop and fired in kilns to create china blanks. A glazing compound,
typically containing lead (i.e., frit) was then sprayed onto the china blanks in the glaze spray area (also
known as the slip house). During wash-down cycles and daily cleanup in the glaze spray area, wastewater
containing unheated glaze was discharged to a former 7,200 square-foot unlined sludge settling lagoon
(now the OIJ1 FL). In addition, wastewater from other operating areas within the facility, including the
slip house (china manufacturing process area) and the paint process line, were also discharged to the
settling lagoon (OIJ 1 FL) via the former drainage ditch. The wastewater was documented to be laden with
production sludge consisting of sand, clay, unheated glazing product, and paints containing oxides of
aluminum, tin, chromium, manganese, lead, and possibly copper. These materials were discharged to the
settling lagoon (OIJ 1 FL) until the facility closed in 1985. The OIJ 1 FL discharges to the OU2 Sandy
Lick Creek Floodplain via a 48-inch drainage culvert running beneath the B&P Railroad.
Another source of waste generation was the stockpiling of off-specification and broken china debri s at the
FMA. Mounds of china debris disposed in the FMA and the volume of china debris is estimated at 47,037
cubic yards (cy). Additionally, contamination likely resulted from the spills and leaks originating from
drums and containers storing chemicals and materials related to manufacturing processes (e.g. paint
thinning).
2.2 Previous Environmental Investigations and Response Actions
In October 1983, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources (PADER), now PADEP,
conducted a site inspection at Jackson China (name subsequently changed to Jackson Ceramix), and
determined it was a generator of hazardous paint waste. In January and February of 1989, EPA conducted
a removal action under CERCLA to abate potential risks posed by the lead contaminated materials
present in the OIJ 1 FL and stockpiled drums containing hazardous substances. Analytical results of
samples collected from 1987 to 1989 were utilized by EPA in evaluating the areas to remediate.
Approximately 1,900 cy of sludge were removed from the OIJ 1 FL and the drainage ditch. EPA ceased
the excavation and removal efforts after analytical results from soil samples revealed that the removal
was effective in bringing lead levels to below background levels.
Between December 1998 and July 1999, PADEP conducted a Prompt Interim Response Remedial Action.
This work included the removal and off-Site disposal of hazardous substances and materials from the
Site, on-Site stabilization of contaminated sludge and sediment, asbestos removal, building demolition,
and installation of a 2-foot thick soil cover over most of the FMA. The following activities were
conducted:
With exception of the China Shop, all Site buildings were demolished. Some of the generated
rubble, along with china debris, was used as fill material on the Site. Some of the rubble that could
not be utilized as fill material was disposed of off-Site.
Fluids from an UST were removed from the UST and disposed of off-Site. The UST was then
removed from the Site.
All transformers were removed from the Site. A transformer containing nonhazardous fluid and
soil contaminated with the transformer fluid was stabilized and disposed of off-Site along with
sludge beneath the soil cover.
15
-------
• Nonhazardous materials from the facility were recycled or stockpiled for placement beneath the
soil cover.
Hazardous wastes, including drum contents, packaged materials, and lead-contaminated soils and
sediments, based on toxicity characteristic test results, were stabilized on-Site and staged for
placement beneath the soil cover after treatment. Verification toxicity characteristic sampling
results indicated the treated material was acceptable for on-Site burial before being placed beneath
the soil cover. Some hazardous materials stockpiled on-Site were disposed off-Site at a hazardous
waste landfill.
The sludge from the Eastern Drainage Ditch (EDD) was excavated several times and confirmation
sampling was performed along 100-foot centers until measured concentrations were below
PADEP Land Recycling Program standards (also known as Act II). The amount of sludge
removed from the EDD is unknown. Excavation activities were conducted based on visual
observations conducted by PADEP's contractor and/or the PADEP Regional Project Officer or
based on analytical results obtained during the 1998 Final Site Characterization study performed
by Ogden Environmental and Energy Services for PADEP.
The former lagoon (currently OIJ1 FL) was excavated in several stages. Excavation activities
were conducted by visually observing the presence or absence of light gray sludge. During the
excavation event, groundwater was encountered at 4 feet below ground surface (ft bgs). Once no
sludge was determined to be present, based on a visual inspection, 666 tons of riprap were placed
into the excavations. Sludge was stabilized on-Site using Portland cement, tested for leachability,
and then placed beneath the soil cover.
After razing the Site structures and completing excavation activities, 12 acres of the FMA were
regraded to minimize surface water infiltration. The stockpiled china debris, prior to the Prompt
Interim Response Remedial Action, was then laid on the surface of the FMA. A soil cover was
then installed over the china debris layer and FMA surface in two 1 -foot lifts. The western portion
of the former lagoon and the EDD were buried beneath the soil cover. Installation of the soil cover
was gauged by PADEP to ensure the proper thickness. The soil cover was then vegetated with
grasses. The approximate extent of the soil cover is shown on Figure 3. A new EDD, located
closer to the B&P Railroad property, was constructed and lined with riprap.
3.0 Community Participation
During various stages of the Site work there have been numerous meetings with the Falls Creek Borough
Council, hosted by EPA, in close proximity to the Site. These meetings included information sessions for
EPA to answer questions on current activities and for EPA to provide presentations on Site progress.
Additionally, the Borough is investigating the potential to redevelop the former manufacturing area and
surrounding area of the Site for commercial and/or industrial uses and EPA is providing reuse planning
support through the Superfund Redevelopment Program. In October 2019, EPA and its contractor, Skeo,
conducted a reuse working session with the Borough and local stakeholders to discuss the assets at the
FMA and surrounding area, and potential opportunities for redevelopment. EPA and Skeo have also
developed a "Reuse Profile" that EPA and the Borough can provide to potential developers. EPA will
continue to support the Borough in reuse planning.
On August 31, 2020, pursuant to Section 113(k)(2)(B) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. § 9613(k)(2)(B), EPA
released the Proposed Plan for OIJ 1 for a 30-day public comment period. The Proposed Plan was based
16
-------
on documents contained in the Administrative Record File for the Site and set forth EPA's preferred
remedial alternative. EP A recorded a video presentation that was published in place of a public meeting
to inform local officials, interested citizens, and other stakeholders about EPA's proposed cleanup plan
and the Superfund process and to receive comments on the Proposed Plan. During the public comment
period, EPA accepted written comments and responded to the comments in the Responsiveness Summary
section, which is included as Part 111 of this ROD. Oral comments could be submitted via voicemail, but
none were received. These community participation activities meet the public participation requirements
in CERCLA Section 1 17, 42 U.S.C. § 9617, and 40 C.F.R. § 300.430(f)(3) of the NCP.
The Administrative Record can be found in the Administrative Record File located in the EPA Region 111
Office, the DuBois Public library, in DuBois, Pennsylvania, and online at https://semspub.epa.gov. The
notice of the availability of these documents was published in the Courier-Express on August 31, 2020.
The public comment period was held from August 3 1 to September 30, 2020.
A fact sheet detailing the Proposed Plan was mailed to local citizens on August 3 1, 2020.
4.0 Scope and Role of Operable Unit
OIJ1 is located in Jefferson County and consists of soil, sediment and surface water in the area west of
the B&P Railroad property, where former manufacturing operations took place. It is the first of three
operable units to move forward with a remedial strategy. OIJ 1 has been made a priority due to the
Borough's interest in redeveloping the portion of the land in the vicinity of the OIJ 1 FMA. The majority
of OU2 is located in Clearfield County, to the east of the B&P Railroad property and consists of the 200-
acre Sandy Lick Creek floodplain (or wetland). OU3 is the groundwater underlying OIJ 1 and OU2. EPA
is currently reviewing remedial alternatives for OU2 and OU3, and a treatability study for the NDC
portion of OIJ 1 and OU2 is underway where different amendments that can reduce the bioavailability and
the toxicity of lead and zinc are being evaluated. The treatability study will provide EPA information
relevant to the design of the NDC portion of OIJ 1 and will be informative in selecting a remedial
alternative for OU2.
5.0 Site Characteristics
This section of the ROD provides an overview of the Site's geology, the sampling strategy used during
Site investigations, and the nature and extent of contamination. Additional information regarding the
nature and extent of contamination can be found in the Administrative Record.
5.1 Overview of the Site
The Site is located in the southern portion of the Borough of Falls Creek, Pennsylvania. It extends into
both Jefferson and Clearfield Counties. The Site includes a former manufacturing facility that operated
from 1917 until 1985. The Site has been subdivided into three Operable Units (OUs) and each OU is
being addressed separately. OlJ 1 is in Jefferson County and is where former manufacturing operations
took place. While some remnants of building foundations still exist in the subsurface at the Site, the only
remaining structure on OlJ 1 is a former china shop in the southwest corner of the Site property. OU2 is in
Clearfield County and encompasses the portion of the Sandy Lick Creek floodplain wetland affected by
the migration of waste from the former manufacturing area to the wetland area. OU3 is the groundwater
impacted by the migration of contamination from OlJ 1 and OU2 soils and sediments to the underlying
groundwater. The City of Dubois is approximately 1.6 miles southeast of the Site. The National
Superfund Database Identification Number is PADOO1222025. OU 1 is the focus of this ROD and a
remedy has been selected for each AOC: the FMA, the BFA, and the NDC/FL.
17
-------
5.2 Geology and Hydrogeology
OH IFMA - Former Manufacturing Area
A range of soil types were encountered during previous investigations at the FMA. The soil cover placed
across the FMA by PADEP consists of silty fill and kiln dust and contains an average thickness of 1.5 ft.
Outside the cover, near the former china shop and beneath the main rail line of the B&P Railroad
property, fill material is present and consists of reworked soils with sporadic occurrences of brick,
concrete, and china debris ranging in depth from 0.5 to 3 ft bgs. Variably weathered saprolite is beneath
the fill material and the soils outside the cap. The saprolite consists of fine to medium sandy silts and
clays with inclusions of less weathered bedrock. An intermittent coal layer exists within the saprolite. The
Millstone Run Formation is a persistent bedrock formation that underlies most of the Site. At the FMA,
the Millstone Run Formation was encountered at depths ranging from 10 to 42 ft bgs. It consists of
sandstone with some interbedding of shale layers and coal seams and generally dips to the east beneath
the FMA.
Groundwater in the overburden is typically encountered between 3 and 19 ft bgs, at the soil-bedrock
interface, the deepest occurrences in the western portion of the FMA. Hydraulic data indicates a
consistent groundwater flow direction under OIJ1 to the east-southeast direction. The only surface water
body at the FMA is the EDD, located between the former china manufacturing parcel and the B&P
Railroad property.
OH! HI-A - Baseball Field Area
The majority of the BFA is covered with 0.5 to 1 foot of topsoil which is underlain with saprolitic soils.
The saprolitic soils consist of silty clay, silts, fine to coarse-grained sand, and sandstone fragments. Fill
material mixed with china waste was encountered along the BFA and NDC boundary. The fill material
consists of sands, silts, and clays mixed with china debris, concrete rubble, brick fragments, glass,
and ash material. The fill material was first encountered at 0.5 foot bgs and extends to a maximum
depth of 10 ft bgs. In portions of the BFA, some construction debris fill (i.e. concrete rubble) is evident at
the surface. The Millstone Run Formation that is found in the southeastern portion of the FMA and
NDC/FL was not encountered at the BFA. Regionally, the Clearfield Creek Formation underlies the
Millstone Creek Formation and both formations are part of the Allegheny Group. At the BFA, the
Clearfield Creek Formation was first encountered at 6 ft to greater than 16 ft bgs, primarily consists of
sandstone, and dips to the southeast and south.
OH I NDC/FL - Northern Drainage Channel/Former Lagoon
Due to the intermittent nature of the surface water drainages and wetlands within the NDC/FL, sediments
(0 to 0.5-foot bgs) have the potential to dry out and be exposed to air during the dry season and
shallow soils (0.5 to 2 ft bgs) have the potential to be inundated with water periodically during
the wet season. Organic sediments, silts, and silty clays were observed in the NDC overlying saprolite.
The saprolite contained silty clay grading to sandy, gravelly clay and was observed to
the maximum investigated depth of 10 ft bgs. Saprolite beneath the NDC was generally moist
to wet. Bedrock was not encountered in any of the soil borings completed in the NDC. Depth to
groundwater at the NDC/FL was documented at 0.5 to 1 foot bgs. One soil boring in the FL encountered
the top of rock at 14 ft bgs, and this bedrock represents either the top of the Millstone or Clearfield Creek
formations.
18
-------
The NDC receives runoff from three different storm water drain outfalls and groundwater discharge. The
outfalls are located to the north, northwest and south of the NDC, and discharge surface water runoff into
moderately to well-defined channels or poorly defined drainage swales. All three primary drainages
converge where the former railroad spur bisects the NDC. The former railroad spur results in the
formation of a venial pool immediately west of the spur. Several incised cuts and a drainage culvert allow
surface water runoff to flow across the former spur and discharge to the FL. The surface water ponds
appear to be relatively constant. Springs were observed near the toe of the boundary of the BFA and
NDC, near the Middle and Southern NDC Drainages. Little surface water flow was observed emanating
from the springs; however, the presence of the springs indicates groundwater flowing beneath the BFA
discharges to the NDC. It is currently unknown whether groundwater from the FMA discharges to the
Southern NDC Drainage.
5.3 Nature and Extent of Contamination and Conceptual Site Model
5.3.1 Remedial Investigation
Based upon the results of the RI, EP A has identified the following Contaminants of Concern (COCs) at
OIJ1 described below, broken down by AOC.
OH I FMA
The thickness of the soil cover installed by PADEP varies from several inches to 2 ft over most of the
FMA. Where the cover was less than 2 ft, EPA collected surface soil samples from below the cover to 2 ft
bgs. Surface soils were evaluated for VOCs and, while VOCs were present, they were not found at
concentrations that would identify them as human health COCs (as opposed to ecological COCs). Of the
VOCs detected in subsurface soil (2 to 10 ft bgs), only trichloroethene (TCE) was identified as a current
human health COC via direct contact. However, TCE as well as tetrachloroethene (PCE), cis-1,2-
dichloroethene (cis-l,2-DCE), toluene, and vinyl chloride were also identified as human health COCs for
their future potential to migrate into groundwater. In addition, screening calculations showed that
benzene, carbon tetrachloride, chloroform, PCE, TCE, and vinyl chloride could pose unacceptable risks to
human health via vapor intrusion if buildings were constructed on the FMA in the future and therefore
EPA identified them as COCs. Benzo(a)pyrene, benz[a]anthracene, dibenz[a,h]anthracene,
benzo[b]fluoranthene, and indeno[ 1,2,3-c,d]pyrene are polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) that
EPA found at concentrations determined to be potential future human health risk for residential or
unrestricted use. As a result, these PAHs were identified as human health COCs for subsurface soils. Of
the metals detected in subsurface soils, EPA identified only lead as a COC based on human health risk.
The COCs at the OIJ 1 FMA are summarized below in Table 1. Due to the presence of the soil cover,
there is no exposure pathway to ecological receptors. Therefore, the surface soil and subsurface soil risk
evaluation is limited to human health.
EPA found significant lead contamination in soil at the OIJ 1 FMA at one location underlying the existing
soil cap at a depth of 3 to 5 ft bgs. P AHs were found at another location underlying the center of the
former manufacturing facility footprint. This particular soil sample was collected at 8 to 10 ft bgs. While
the concentrations of PAHs are currently protective of human health for nonresidential uses, they are
being maintained as COCs since they pose a potential future risk to human health and therefore serve as
the basis for requiring ICs that restrict future residential use. TCE contamination in unsaturated and
saturated subsurface soil is present under the existing soil cap and outside the cap in the OIJ 1 FMA,
extending to areas underlying and to the east of the B&P Railroad property. Soil samples from borings
collected by EP A from an area east of the railroad showed PCE concentrations (12,000 milligrams per
kilogram [nig/kg]) indicative of dense non-aqueous phase liquid (DN APL), suggesting the presence of
19
-------
DNAPL in soils underlying the railroad as well. The presence of DNAPL in subsurface soils was
confirmed by EPA via visible evidence in the field. The origin of this DNAPL was likely a release of
pure product and/or at high concentrations of PCE and TCE to the ground. Because groundwater in this
area also contains elevated concentrations of VOCs (PCE as high as 97,000 micrograms per liter [ug/L]),
the VOC waste stream likely migrated downward through soils to the overburden groundwater, resulting
in a VOC groundwater plume. This area is referred to as the VOC Source Area and serves as an ongoing
source of groundwater contamination.
The high concentrations of PCE and TCE are indicative of DNAPL and are considered by EPA to be
principal threat waste. Principal threat wastes are materials that include or contain hazardous substances,
pollutants or contaminants that act as a reservoir for migration of contamination to groundwater, surface
water, or air, or act as a source for direct exposure. In this case, the DNAPL is considered a principal
threat waste that is a source of contamination to groundwater. The depth of VOC contamination in soil
extends to 23 ft bgs and the estimated area of contamination is about 12,000 square ft. Overall, the area of
lead, PAH, and TCE contamination in soil is shown in Figure 3.
Table 1. CONTAMINANTS OF CONCERN IN THE
FORMER MANUFACTURING AREA
Soil Residential and Worker Risk
TCE
Lead
Soil Residential Risks Only
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benz[a]anthracene
Benzo[b]fluoranthene
Dibenz[a,h]anthracene
Indeno
l,2,3-c,d]pyrene
Soil to Groundwater
PCE
TCE
Cis-1,2-DCE
Toluene
Vinyl chloride
Soil Gas Future Vapor Intrusion
Benzene
Carbon Tetrachloride
Chloroform
PCE
TCE
Vinyl Chloride
20
-------
Table 2. FORMER MA
AREA MAXIM
CONCENTRATIO
NU FACTORING
LJM SOIL
NS (MG/KG)
TCE
41
Lead
8,360
PCE (in DNAPL)
12,000
TCE (in DNAPL)
210
Cis-1,2-DCE
24
Vinyl Chloride
0.320
Toluene
3.1
Benzo(a)pyrene
39
Benz[a]anthracene
61
B enzo [b]fluoranthene
59
Dibenz[a,h]anthracene
9
Indeno[l,2,3-c,d]pyrene
20
OUl BFA
Arsenic was initially selected as the only COC identified at the OIJ1 BFA. Arsenic was detected at a
concentration of 81.5 mg/kg in one discrete location from one soil sample at 0.5 to 1 foot bgs (Figure 4).
This concentration would pose a risk to human health. Arsenic concentrations detected laterally and
vertically around this location were not identified as human health risk drivers for arsenic. The terrestrial
habitat in the BFA is of poor quality and there is no aquatic habitat present. Because of this, there is
limited exposure to the chemicals present and there is no unacceptable risk to ecological health. Given the
discrete location of this one arsenic exceedance, EPA returned to this location and collected confirmatory
soil samples in August 2020. Samples were collected from the former location of the arsenic exceedance
as well as from samples surrounding this location and EPA did not find arsenic at concentrations that
would pose a risk to human health. Since an identifiable area of contamination was not confirmed by
follow-up sampling, EPA has ultimately concluded that arsenic is not a COC.
OUl NDC/FL
Lead and zinc are the most prevalent COCs found throughout the NDC/FL. Lead is present in surface
soils, subsurface soils, sediments, and surface water and as a result poses an unacceptable ecological
and/or human health risk. Sediment samples were collected only from the OIJ 1 FL (not the OIJ 1 NDC). If
an analyte concentration at a specific location was notably higher than the concentrations in the rest of the
sample population, that location was evaluated separately as a potential hot spot. Therefore, a hot spot can
be classified by one sampling location. While lead concentrations are high throughout the NDC/FL, the
maximum soil concentrations of lead are found in the FL at a depth of 3 to 5 ft bgs (21,100 mg/kg). At
the same location, the lead concentration decreased to 26.5 mg/kg at 6 to 8 ft bgs, indicating the lead is
not migrating further down into the subsurface. The maximum concentration of lead found in sediment
and surface water was similarly high in the FL at 9,750 mg/kg (0.5 to 2 ft bgs) and 1,630 ug/L (0 to 0.5
ft), respectively (Figure 5). Lead is the only metal present in soils identified in the NDC/FL by EPA as a
current COC to potential human receptors.
Both lead and zinc pose a risk to ecological receptors in the surface soil and sediments. Similar to lead,
zinc is found throughout the NDC/FL with the highest concentrations found in the FL at 0.5 to 2 ft bgs
(385 mg/kg). There were also surface soil exceedances of arsenic and manganese in the NDC While
arsenic and manganese would not pose a risk to an industrial/commercial worker, EPA decided to retain
21
-------
arsenic and manganese as COCs in order to restrict residential use in the area (similar to PAHs for the
FMA). Manganese was also found to be a human health COC in surface water with concentrations in the
OIJ1 NDC/FL ranging from 372 to 9,600 ug/L, with the highest concentrations detected in the FL
(FLSW03) when combined with soil exposure (unrestricted use). The total area of the NDC and FL
requiring remediation for metals contamination is approximately 340,820 square feet.
Table 3. CONTAMINANTS OF CONCERN
IN THE NORTHERN DRAINAGE
CHANNEL/FORMER LAGOON
Lead
Zinc
Arsenic
Manganese
Table 4. NORTHERN DRAINAGE
CHANNEL/FORMER LAGOON
MAXIMUM SOIL, SEDIMENT, and
SURFACE WATER CONCENTRATIONS
Lead (surface soil)
321 mg/kg
Lead (subsurface soil)
21,100 mg/kg
Lead (sediment)
9,750 mg/kg
Lead (surface water)
1,630 ug/L
Zinc (surface soil)
517 mg/kg
Zinc (sediment)
385 mg/kg
Arsenic (surface soil)
174 mg/kg
Manganese (surface soil)
1,360 mg/kg
Manganese (surface water)
9,600 ug/L
EPA is currently conducting a treatability study at the Site. One of the major goals of the study is to
determine which amendments are most effective in binding lead and reducing its toxicity. Additionally,
the treatability study will evaluate the lead bioavailability. The lead bioavailability is the portion of lead
that is available for absorption or ingestion by humans and animals, and uptake via absorption by plants.
While the focus of the treatability study is on OU2, it will also inform the OIJ 1 NDC/FL, as the
treatability study will provide EP A with information to determine which amendments are most effective
to bind and reduce the bioavailability of lead in soils and sediments.
5.3.2 Conceptual Site Model
The Conceptual Site Model (CSM) is developed by EPA to integrate the different types of information
collected during the RI, including the physical setting, the nature and extent of contamination, and the
contaminant fate and transport. While OIJ 1 focuses on the soil, sediment, and surface water, the Selected
Remedy at the FMA will also address principal threat waste, eliminating a major source to groundwater
contamination (OU3).
In the FMA, the V OC contamination is present in the form of principal threat waste (DNAPL), soil
contamination, and as dissolved-phased groundwater contamination. The VOC area of contamination
22
-------
extends from the subsurface underlying the previous former manufacturing building extending to an area
east of the B&P Railroad. VOCs in the environment likely originated from a previous (or multiple) spills
of chemicals that were stored at the former china manufacturing facility. The DNAPL is a continuing
source of VOC contamination to the groundwater. When VOC contamination is present in the dissolved
phase in groundwater, it will flow with the direction of groundwater. The groundwater flow direction
under OIJ1 is generally to the east and east-southeasterly direction and veers southeasterly beneath the
B&P Railroad property. The extent of groundwater contamination has been delineated as shown on
Figure 7.
Underlying the soil cap at the FMA, the subsurface soil shows exceedances of VOCs, lead, and PAHs
(Figure 3). VOCs were used in paint pigments and in cleaning processes related to the manufacturing of
china. The source of the lead is from the china manufacturing process, specifically when the lead-based
glazing compound known as frit was sprayed onto the china blanks. PAHs are commonly associated with
combustion products, and in the case of the Site, could be from incomplete combustion of fuels used to
fire ceramic kilns at the former china manufacturing facility; the PAH hot spot at the FMA is fairly
localized (see MIP-04 on Figure 3). Lead tends to bind strongly to soils but can still leach into
groundwater. PAHs are hydrophobic and tend to sorb to soil particles as well. The principal mode of
transport for lead and PAHs is via soil erosion and sediment movement. Since these contaminants at the
FMA are underlying the soil cap, they are not expected to migrate especially since the soil cap will be
repaired under the Selected Remedy.
In the BFA, arsenic was initially identified in surface soil, but follow-up sampling conducted in August
2020 by EP A could not confirm the presence of the small localized area of contamination. The exact
source of the arsenic is unclear. Arsenic has historically been used in a variety of products, including
pigments, pesticides, antimicrobials, and ceramic glazes.
In the NDC/FL, the main COCs are lead and zinc and they are present in the soil, sediment, and surface
water. The origin of contamination in the OIJ 1 FL is related to the discharge of process wastewater and
other wastewater from the china manufacturing process while the origin of contamination in the NDC
may have been from the stockpiling of off-specification and broken china debris. Metals adsorbed to soil
can be transported to surface water and sediment via overland flow. Eroded soil can remain suspended in
solution and be transported downstream until the flow has slowed enough to allow the particles to settle.
Surface topography dictates the magnitude and direction of surface runoff and overland flow relative to
receiving surface water bodies.
A graphical Conceptual Site Model (CSM) is presented on Figure 6.
6.0 Current and Future Potential Land Use and Water Use
The groundwater underlying the Site property is not used for drinking water purposes, although several
groundwater potable wells are present within a one-mile radius of the eastern Site boundary. The Borough
of Falls Creek draws its water from two Dubois reservoirs, the Anderson Creek Reservoir and the Munic
Reservoir. The Anderson Creek Reservoir is located downgradient of the Site and 5 miles east of the city
of Dubois. The Munic Reservoir is located 0.25 miles northwest and upstream of the Site.
Less than 20 private wells are located 0.9 to 1 mile from the eastern Jackson Ceramix Site boundary
(Sandy Lick Creek). Several of the homeowners have connected to public water, but still use their private
well for outdoor use (e.g. watering lawn, washing cars). Based on estimated property elevations and well
depths provided by the property owners/representatives, the bottom elevations of the drinking water wells
appear to be higher in elevation than the water bearing zones identified in the bedrock at the Site during
23
-------
geophysical surveying and packer testing. Based upon the regional grade of the underlying bedrock as
mapped in the area of DuBois, the difference in elevations between the potable water wells and the Site
bedrock water bearing zones suggests OU3 bedrock groundwater is not being utilized by the local
population.
FMA
The FMA is located in the southern section of the Borough. The Borough is seeking to redevelop
the 15.12-acre portion of the FMA that it owns for industrial and/or commercial activities. During RI
field events, residents were observed using the FMA for recreational activities, including four-wheeling,
hunting, and target practice. Loitering and late-night mischief are also known to occur at the FMA. One
structure, the former china shop, remains on the FMA and was recently purchased. The new owner of the
property intends to use the building as an auto repair shop. All other former FMA structures were razed;
the basement, catch basins, and septic tank were filled in with debris and stabilized wastes and buried
beneath the soil cover. No utilities service the FMA; however, a Borough storm drain crosses the northern
portion of the Site near the NDC and other utilities parallel Third Street.
Since the FMA is not expected to be cleaned to residential standards, the land use designation would
remain as commercial/industrial following remedy implementation.
BFA
The BFA is a park and it has been in existence since 1939. The well-maintained park includes manicured
grass playing fields, a clay-packed baseball field diamond, an asphalt basketball court, a concrete pavilion
and a playground. Sporting and recreational activities in the BFA include, but are not limited to, soccer,
baseball, football, and basketball. The sports fields and playground compri se approximately 2/3 rds of the
BFA. The southern portion of the BFA is a former storage lot situated between the park to the north, the
FMA to the south, residential properties to the west, and the NDC to the east. The Borough has expressed
a desire to incorporate the area south of the park and north of the FMA into the park. This area is
currently used for aggregate and brush pile storage. Types of aggregate stored in the pavilion area include
cinder blocks, concrete rubble, asphalt, soil mixed with rubble, and road aggregate. An abandoned truck
trailer and scrap metal have also been observed in this area. The aggregate and brush pile storage area
comprise approximately one third of the BFA. If the aggregate and brush pile storage area is developed,
as intended by the Borough, the storage area will also be used for recreation and sporting activities in the
future. The land use designation in the BFA is currently divided between residential, in the north part of
the property, and i ndustri al/com m erci al in the south part of the property.
NDC/FL
The NDC was formerly used commercially, housing three radio towers and a service shed. Two
of the radio towers were removed and the third has toppled over. The NDC provides wetland habitat for
amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals and is occasionally used for hunting and hiking. A former
railroad spur divides the NDC. The OIJ1 FL serves as a drainage basin for the FMA, the BFA, the NDC,
and receives surface water runoff from the Borough via outfalls within the NDC. Per a local TV news
report, the OIJ 1 FL has been used as a swimming hole by local residents. Since the NDC/FL is not
expected to be cleaned to residential standards, the land use designation would remain as
commercial/industrial even after the remedy has been implemented.
24
-------
7.0 Summary of Site Risks
As part of the Final RI, a baseline Human Health Risk Assessment (HHRA) and Ecological Risk
Assessment (ERA) were conducted by EPA to determine the current and potential future effects of
contaminated media on human health and the environment in the absence of any cleanup actions at the
Site. These baseline risk assessments (before any cleanup) provide the basis for taking a remedial action
and indicate the exposure pathvvay(s) that need to be addressed by the remedial action. This section
summarizes the results of the HHRA and ERA.
Chemicals of potential concern (COPCs) were identified for each exposure area and each medium based
on a comparison of maximum detected concentrations from the RI to health-based screening
values. These health-based screening values are the Regional Screening Levels (RSLs) developed by
EPA, representing a hazard quotient (HQ) of 0.1 and cancer risk of 10"6. If the maximum detected
concentration was greater than the appropriate RSL, the chemical was identified by EPA as a COPC for
that medium for the exposure area and received a more detailed site-specific evaluation. Ecological risk
was determined using toxicity benchmarks and food chain modeling.
WHAT IS RISK AND HOW IS IT CALCULATED?
A Superfund human health risk assessment estimates the baseline risk. The baseline risk is an estimate
of the likelihood of health problems occurring if no cleanup action were taken at a site. To estimate the
baseline risk at a Superfund site, EPA undertakes a four-step process:
Step 1: Analyze Contamination
Step 2: Estimate Exposure
Step 3: Assess Potential Health Dangers
Step 4: Characterize Site Risk
In Step 1, EPA looks at the concentrations of contaminants found at a site as well as past scientific
studies on the effects these contaminants have had on people (or animals, when human studies are
unavailable). Comparisons between site-specific concentrations and concentrations reported in past
studies help EPA to determine which contaminants are most likely to pose the greatest threat to human
health.
In Step 2, EPA considers the different ways that people might be exposed to the contaminants
identified in Step 1, the concentrations that people might be exposed to, and the potential frequency and
duration of exposure. Using this information, EPA calculates a "reasonable maximum exposure"
scenario, which portrays the highest level of human exposure that could reasonably be expected to
occur.
In Step 3, EPA uses the information from Step 2 combined with information on the toxicity of each
chemical to assess potential risks. EPA considers two types of risk: cancer and non-cancer risk. The
likelihood of any kind of cancer resulting from a Superfund site is generally expressed as an upper
bound probability; for example, a " 1 in 10,000 chance." In other words, for every 10,000 people that
could be exposed, one extra cancer may occur as a result of exposure to site contaminants. An extra
cancer case means that one more person could get cancer than would normally be expected to from all
25
-------
other causes. For non-cancer health effects, EPA calculates a "hazard index" (HI). The key concept
here is that a "threshold level" (measured as a HI of equal to or less than 1) exists below which non-
cancer health effects would not be expected. For lead, the non-cancer hazard is not represented by an
HI because no threshold has been identified; rather, blood-lead models are used with the goal of
minimizing lead exposure.
In Step 4, EPA determines whether site risks are great enough to cause health problems for people at or
near the Superfund site. The results of the three previous steps are combined, evaluated, and
summarized. EPA adds up the potential risks from the individual contaminants and exposure pathways
and calculates a total site risk. Generally, cancer risks between 10"4 and 10"6, and a non-cancer HI of 1
or less are considered acceptable for EPA Superfund sites. For lead at this Site, the goal was for no
more than 5% of a modeled population to have a blood lead of 5 micrograms per deciliter (ug/dL).
7.1 Human Health Risk Assessment
Exposure to lead was evaluated in terms of blood-lead levels (BLLs) using a physiologically based
pharmacokinetic model called the Integrated Exposure Uptake Biokinetic (IEIJBK) model, per EPA
guidance. The IEIJBK model predicts the probability of elevated BLLs for children ages 0 to 7 years from
potential exposure to lead in various media. The IEIJBK model was used to evaluate potential risks
associated with child exposures to lead in soil, sediment, surface water, groundwater, venison, and fish.
The lead exposure risks are expressed as the predicted geometric mean BLLs for children and the percent
of the population potentially having concentrations greater than a target value. The current scientific
literature on lead toxicology and epidemiology suggests that adverse health effects are associated with
BLLs of less than 10 micrograms of lead per deciliter of blood (|ig/dL). For this reason, EPA considered
a BLL of 5 ug/dL for no more than 5 percent of the modeled population. Risks to future workers from
lead were evaluated using the Adult Lead Model (ALM), which is based on potential risks to a fetus
through worker exposure.
The contaminants of concern (COCs) were identified as the CO PCs that exceeded BLL goals
or contribute substantially to a cancer risk greater than 10"4 or a target organ-specific hazard index
(HI) greater than 1.
• Current/Future Site Worker and Future Construction Worker:
o FMA - Specific subsurface soil hot spots associated with TCE and lead; future vapor
intrusion (VI) from soil gas VOCs
o BFA - None
o NDC and FL - Specific subsurface soil hot spot associated with lead
• Future Residents (Child, Adult, and/or Age-Adjusted):
o FMA - Specific subsurface soil hotspots associated with TCE, PAHs, and lead; future VI
from soil gas VOCs
o BFA - Specific surface soil hotspot associated with arsenic
o NDC and FL - Manganese and specific hot spots associated with arsenic, and lead in
multiple media
• Current/Future Recreational Site User:
o FMA - Specific subsurface soil hot spot associated with lead
o BFA - None
o NDC and FL - Specific subsurface soil hot spot associated with lead and lead in sediment
and surface water
• Soil to Groundwater
26
-------
o FMA - VOCs
o BFA - none
o NDC and FL - none
7.2 Ecological Risk Assessment
EPA prepared an Ecological Risk Assessment (ERA) in support of the R1 to evaluate the exposure of
ecological receptors to contaminants. Analytical data for the ecologically active zone in each habitat were
either compared to benchmark values (chemical concentrations that are thresholds for adverse effects) for
the target community (such as benthic invertebrates) or were used to estimate contaminant concentrations
in prey to evaluate exposure via the food chain. Benchmarks values were obtained from EPA's ecological
soil screening levels. Region 3 Biological Technical Assistance Group values for soil, sediment, and
surface water, and other published sources. Chemicals with exposure point concentrations greater than the
benchmark values were further evaluated considering toxicity information from the literature,
contaminant distribution, and habitat quality. For wildlife receptors, exposure was estimated based on the
95 percent upper confidence limit of the mean and the mean concentration. Exposure estimates were then
compared to both lowest observed adverse effect levels (LOAELs) and to no observed adverse effect
levels (NOAELs) and other toxicological data. Chemicals, that resulted in LOAEL ecological hazard
quotients equal to or greater than one, were retained as chemicals of potential ecological concern
(COPECs). Chemicals with maximum detections greater than the screening values or that lack screening
values were identified as COPECs. Based on a detailed evaluation of ecological exposure potential and
contaminant distribution, only lead and zinc were identified as ecological COCs. Table 5 provides a
summary of the ecological COCs and the affected receptors for the Site. Lead is the most widespread
ecological risk driver and impacts all ecological communities at the Site. A detailed discussion of the
ERA is provided in the Final R1 as Appendix H.
EP A conducted a habitat assessment as part of the ERA and determined that the Site included
three ecological habitats: terrestrial open field; forested wetland; and floodplain. The OIJ1
AOCs encompass the terrestrial open field and forested wetland habitats. The ERA determined that
the terrestrial open field habitat within the FMA is of sufficient quality to support terrestrial ecological
communities. However, since the FMA is covered by a 2-foot thick soil cover, no surface soil samples
were collected from the FMA. The terrestrial open field habitat located in the Taylor Municipal
Park portion of the BFA has limited potential to support significant ecological communities given the
recreational uses of the park and regular mowing activities. The NDC consists of a forested wetland
habitat like the forested wetlands identified within the OU2 Sandy Lick Creek Floodplain. Given the
proximity of the OU2 Sandy Lick Creek Floodplain forested wetlands to the NDC/FL, the
ERA determined that similar species noted within the OU2 floodplain are likely present within the
NDC/FL. It was also determined that the background chemical concentrations established for the wetland
or hydric soils/sediment of the of OU2 floodplain forested wetlands were also representative of the
soils/sediments of the NDC/FL.
Table 5. Oi l ECOLOGICAL CONTAMINANTS OF CONCERN
Ecological COC
Affected Receptor
Forested Wetland Habitat
Lead
Plants, terrestrial invertebrates, benthic invertebrates,
insectivores, piscivores, aquatic community, and
transition zone community
Zinc
Plants, terrestrial invertebrates, avian insectivores,
benthic invertebrates, piscivores, and aquatic
community
27
-------
7.3 Basis for Remedial Action
In summary, the HHRA and ERA for OIJ1 demonstrated the presence of unacceptable risks to human
health and the environment, and that remedial actions are necessary to reduce the risks to within or below
EPA's acceptable risk range. Therefore, EPA has determined that the Selected Remedies identified in this
ROD are necessary to protect the public health or welfare or the environment from actual or threatened
releases of hazardous substances into the environment.
8.0 Remedial Action Objectives
Remedial Action Objectives (RAOs) are specific goals to protect human health and the environment.
These objectives are based on available information and standards, such as applicable or relevant and
appropriate requirements (ARARs), to-be-considered (TBC) guidance, and site-specific risk-based levels.
RAOs were identified for each AOC. Additionally, Performance Standards were developed for each COC
and represent acceptable contaminant levels for each exposure route of concern. It should also be noted
that for all media, when background concentrations exceed a risk-based level, the background
concentration will be used as the Performance Standard.
8.1 FMA RAOs
The following RAOs were established for the OIJ 1 FMA:
• Prevent exposure via incidental ingestion, dermal contact, or inhalation to subsurface soils
contaminated with TCE at concentrations that pose an unacceptable noncancer risk (HI greater than 1)
for industrial/commercial exposure.
• Prevent exposure via incidental ingestion, dermal contact, or inhalation to subsurface soil
contaminated with lead at concentrations that result in a BLL exceeding 5 (.ig/dL.
• Prevent continued migration of contaminants in soil to the underlying groundwater that would result
in groundwater contamination in excess of the applicable federal Maximum Contaminant Level
(MCL).
• Treat principal threat waste (DNAPL) in the VOC Source Area, to the maximum extent practicable, to
minimize the continuing source of contamination to groundwater.
• Prevent residential use of the FMA.
• Prevent future human inhalation exposure due to intrusion of soil vapor COC concentrations that
would result in an unacceptable risk to human health.
The first three RAOs identified above are addressed by soil Performance Standards. The Performance
Standard for TCE is the lower of the values calculated to be protective of human health through direct
contact and the quality of the underlying groundwater through leaching from soil. The other V OC
Performance Standards are based on soi 1 -to-groundwater migration. Although final groundwater cleanup
standards have not yet been selected, for the purposes of this ROD, MCLs were used as the target
groundwater concentration to derive the soi 1 -to-groundwater Performance Standards. The human health
lead Performance Standard is protective of potential residents as well as workers in the FMA.
28
-------
The last three RAOs listed above for the FMA are not associated with chemical-specific numeric
standards (i.e.. Performance Standards), but rather are addressed by ICs or eliminating principal threat
waste (i.e., DNAPL). The Site is not expected to be cleaned to residential standards; therefore, residential
use will be restricted with ICs. There is uncertainty concerning vapor intrusion (VI), which depends in
part on the structure of future buildings, and therefore ICs will address the potential for VI from COCs
into any buildings that might be constructed on the Site in the future.
8.2 FMA Remediation Goals
The Performance Standards established for the OIJ1 FMA are identified in Table 6 below.
Table 6. FORMER MANUFACTURING AREA Performance Standards
COC
Basis
Performance
Standard
(milligram per
kilogram
[mg/kg])
TCE
Impact to Groundwater
0.22
Lead
Human Health direct contact
153
PCE
Impact to Groundwater
0.33
Cis-1,2-DCE
Impact to Groundwater
0.875
Vinyl chloride
Impact to Groundwater
0.02
Toluene
Impact to Groundwater
36.8
8.3 BFA RAO
The following RAO was established for the OIJ 1 BFA:
• Prevent exposure of residents via incidental ingestion, dermal contact, or inhalation to surface soil
in the BFA with arsenic at concentrations that pose an unacceptable noncancer risk (HI greater
than 1).
8.4 BFA Remediation Goals
The Performance Standards established for the OIJ 1 BFA is identified in Table 9 below.
Table 7. BASEBALL FIELD AREA PERFORMANCE STANDARD
COC
Basis
Performance
Standard
(mg/kg)
Arsenic
Human health direct contact
35
29
-------
8.5 NDC/FL RAOs:
The following RAOs were established for the OIJ1 NDC/FL:
• Prevent exposure via incidental ingestion and dermal contact to soil, sediment, and surface water
contaminated with lead at concentrations that result in a BLL exceeding 5 (.ig/dL.
• Prevent exposure of insect-eating birds and mammals to lead and zinc in soil/sediment at
concentrations above background levels.
• Prevent exposure of benthic invertebrates to lead in soil/sediment at concentrations above the lead
background level.
• Prevent exposure of piscivorous birds to lead and zinc in soil/sediment at concentrations above
background level.
• Prevent exposure of residents to COCs in soil, sediment, and surface water.
8.6 NDC/FL Remediation Goals
The Performance Standards established for the OIJ 1 NDC/FL are identified in Table 8 below.
Tabic 8. NORTHERN
PEF
DRAINAGE CHANNEL/FORMER LAGOON
tFORMANCESTANDARDS
COC
Basis
Performance
Standards (mg/kg)
Lead
Human Health direct contact
127
Lead
Ecological protection-
background
99.4
Zinc
Ecological protection-
background
137
EPA notes that the human health lead Performance Standard of 127 mg/kg in the NDC/FL differs from
the human health lead Performance Standard of 153 mg/kg in the FMA. This difference is based on
different assumptions about bioavailability in each area due to differences in lead bioavailability and soil
type.
While the lead bioavailability number may change based on the results obtained during the treatability
study, the human health and ecological-based lead Performance Standards will remain the same for the
OIJ 1 NDC/FL (as shown in Table 8). EPA ran several scenarios evaluating different lead bioavailability
numbers and did not find a significant difference in terms of the area that would need to be addressed by
remediation at the NDC/FL. An updated bioavailability-based Performance Standard would likely have
much larger implications on the 200-acre OU2 Sandy Lick Creek Floodplain area, and thus potential
changes to human health- and ecological-based Performance Standards values will be updated for OU2.
30
-------
9.0 Description of Alternatives
CERCLA Section 121, 42 U.S.C. § 9621, requires that any remedial action to address contamination at a
Superfund site be protective of human health and the environment, cost effective, in compliance with
regulatory and statutory provisions that are ARARs, and compliant with the NCP, to the extent
practicable. Permanent solutions to contamination, which reduce the volume, toxicity, or mobility of the
contaminants, should be developed whenever possible. Emphasis is also placed on treating the wastes at a
site whenever possible, and on applying innovative technologies to clean up the contaminant.
Detailed descriptions of the remedial alternatives for addressing the contamination associated with the
Site can be found in the OIJ1 Feasibility Study (FS) report. To facilitate the presentation and evaluation
of the alternatives, the FS report alternatives were reorganized in this ROD to formulate the remedial
alternatives discussed below. Similar to the sections above, the remedial alternatives are organized by the
AOCs: the FMA, the BFA, and the NDC/FL.
9.1 Remedial Alternatives
FM A Remedial Alternatives
The following Remedial Alternatives were evaluated to address the FMA:
• FM A Alternative 1: No Action
• FM A Alternative 2: Repair existing soil cover. In Situ Thermal Remediation, ICs
• FM A Alternative 3: Repair existing soil cover. In Situ Chemical Treatment, ICs
FMA Alternative 1: No Action
Estimated Capital Cost: $0
Estimated Annual Operation and Maintenance (O&M) Cost: $0
Estimated Present Worth Cost: $0
Estimated Construction Timeframe: N/A
The NCP, 40 C.F.R. Part 300, which governs Superfund response actions, requires that the "No-Action"
alternative be considered as a baseline for comparison with the other alternatives. The No-Action
remedial alternative involves no additional remedial activities to be conducted at the FMA and provides
an environmental baseline against which impacts of the various remedial alternatives can be compared.
There would be no change in the subsurface soil contamination concentrations because no treatment,
containment, or removal of subsurface soil would occur. This alternative does not meet the threshold
criteria of protectiveness and compliance with ARARs and therefore will not be considered further.
FMA Alternative 2: Repair Existing Soil Cover, In Situ Thermal Remediation, ICs
Estimated Capital Cost: $7.34 M
Estimated Annual Operation and Maintenance (O&M) Cost: $27,799
Estimated Present Worth Cost: $7.66 M
Estimated Construction Timeframe: 17 months
The components of this alternative would include the following:
31
-------
• Repairing the existing soil cover over the FMA;
• Treating the VOC Source Area using In Situ Thermal Remediation; and
• Implementing ICs to restrict residential development, ensure the integrity of the soil cover, and
limit exposure to indoor air in the event of new construction.
Repair the Existing Soil Cover over the FM A
A majority of the existing soil cover over the FMA is of sufficient construction to mitigate the infiltration
of precipitation. Specific areas of the soil cover that show settlement would be inspected and repaired to
limit infiltration. A topographical survey by a state licensed surveyor would be conducted to identify the
potential low spots or depressions requiring repair. The depressions in the existing FMA soil cover would
be repaired with soil of low permeability and graded to limit infiltration and ponding of surface water on
the cover.
Any disturbed areas would be revegetated to stabilize the soil surface from erosion. Regular maintenance
activities would include annual inspections and mowing to maintain the soil cover area. Because this
alternative would result in contaminants remaining in place above levels that allow for unrestricted use
and unlimited exposure, CERCLA requires that the Site be reviewed at least once every five years to
ensure that the remedy remains protective of human health and the environment.
In Situ Thermal Remediation
The VOC Source Area would be treated using In Situ Thermal Remediation. Thermal treatment rapidly
heats the subsurface to the boiling point of water by passing electrical current or direct heat through
contaminated soil and groundwater using electrodes or heater wells. This heating evaporates VOCs in situ
and steam strips VOCs from the subsurface. Vapors and steam are then extracted, cooled, and treated.
Once subsurface heating starts, the boiling point of various VOC/water mixtures is reached in the
following order: DNAPL in contact with water or moist soil, groundwater containing dissolved VOCs,
and then groundwater. DN APL and VOC-impacted groundwater will boil before uncontaminated water,
reducing the time and energy required to complete treatment. The technology has been demonstrated as
an effective method for the removal of VOCs from both unsaturated and saturated zones and is not
significantly affected by soil permeability and heterogeneity.
Electrodes or heater wells would be installed using standard drilling methods to apply heat to the 5 to 23
ft bgs interval. The thermal system would be connected to a power delivery system unit that uses standard
3-phase power and 480-volt alternating current to heat the subsurface area. A control system would be
used to regulate and optimize the thermal response of the target formation and target contaminants. Close
coordination with various utility companies would be required to ensure that the power demand can be
met. Since no utilities currently service the Site, a utility drop would be required to extend 3-phase power
approximately 800 feet. Horizontal drilling could be performed under the railroad via the jack-and-bore
drilling technique to bring electricity from the north side of the railroad (where the power drop and
control unit would be located) to the south side of the railroad (where the subsurface electrodes in the
treatment area would be installed).
EPA will coordinate with the B&P Railroad prior to and during implementation of In Situ
Thermal Remediation in order to obtain the Railroad's Consent to Enter the property to implement
treatment within the right-of-way and to extend utilities beneath the railroad. All treatment infrastructure
within the railroad right-of-way would require subsurface installation.
32
-------
Vapor recovery wells would be co-located with the electrodes or heater wells. Recovered vapor and
condensate would be treated in a skid-mounted Granular Activated Carbon (GAC) system located on the
FMA soil cover. The GAC system would act as an absorbent to capture the VOCs in vapor and
condensate. Treated liquid would be placed into large poly tanks and sampled to ensure that
concentrations were within the substantive requirements of applicable NPDES discharge limits. After
concentrations of the treated water are verified to be below the NPDES discharge limits, the treated water
then would be discharged to nearby surface water. Subsurface equipment would be abandoned in place
after thermal treatment is completed.
It is estimated that it will require 17 months to remediate the VOC Source Area to treat DNAPL to the
maximum extent practicable. This timeframe includes system installation, construction, operation, and
demobilization as well as Site restoration. Continued reductions in dissolved phase VOC concentrations
are typically observed after thermal treatment shutdown due to multiple factors, including thermally
enhanced biodegradation rates.
Operational and performance monitoring would be conducted by EPA while In Situ Thermal Remediation
is occurring and for at least one year after the remedy is completed. Groundwater and air monitoring
would occur during and after the thermal treatment to ensure the effectiveness of the remedy. Operational
monitoring would include temperature, pressure, and energy input of the target treatment zone.
Performance monitoring would include subsurface soil temperatures, contaminant extraction rates,
groundwater concentrations, and ambient air concentrations within the treatment zone and in the
surrounding areas to a specified boundary. After the remedy is complete, soil borings would be advanced
into specific areas of the treated VOC Source Area, and groundwater and soil samples would be collected
and analyzed for VOCs to confirm that the remedy was effective. There is no O&M component to the In
Situ Thermal Remediation component of FM A Alternative 2.
ICs may include adoption and extension of the existing environmental covenant (EC), local ordinances,
and/or other information devices and notices to prohibit residential development, ensure the integrity of
the soil cover and protect human health and the environment. Additionally, for nonresidential buildings
potentially constructed in the future, ICs would also include implementing VI mitigation to limit receptor
exposure to contaminants in indoor air. Annual maintenance activities for Land Use Controls (LlJCs)
involve inspections and evaluating the integrity of the soil cover (vegetation, depressions, erosional
features, etc.).
FMA Alternative 3: Repair Existing Soil Cover, In Situ Chemical Treatment; ICs
Estimated Capital Cost: $8.57 M
Estimated Annual Operation and Maintenance (O&M) Cost: $27,799
Estimated Present Worth Cost: $8.89 M
Estimated Construction Timeframe: 17 months
The components of this alternative would include the following:
• Repairing the existing surface cover over the FMA;
• Treating the VOC Source Area using in situ chemical treatment; and
• Implementing ICs to restrict residential development, ensure the integrity of the soil cover, and
limit exposure to indoor air in the event of new construction.
33
-------
Similar to FMA Alternative 2, under this alternative, specific areas of the soil cover that show settlement
issues would be inspected and repaired to limit infiltration.
The VOC Source Area would be treated using multiple injections of in situ chemical treatment. The
specific amendments would be selected following a laboratory bench-scale study. Amendments would be
injected from 5 to 23 feet bgs using direct push drilling rods to provide an even distribution throughout
the treatment zone. Injections would not occur within 25 feet of the B&P Railroad to prevent changes in
soil conditions or daylighting near the active railroad. Therefore, in situ chemical treatments would only
address the portion of the plume that is outside of the B&P Railroad right-of-way, which is approximately
6,500 square feet or 54 percent of the V OC Source Area. It is assumed that injections would occur both
upgradient and downgradient of the B&P Railroad right-of-way. Since a large portion of the V OC Source
Area is unable to be treated directly based on the proximity to the railroad tracks, multiple injections will
allow the contamination to travel with the natural groundwater flow through the treatment zone. Pump
tests would be performed during the design phase to obtain a better understanding of the seepage velocity
and hydraulic conductivity along the V OC Source Area of the Site to ensure effective implementation of
in situ chemical treatment.
Operational and performance groundwater monitoring would be conducted by EPA during and after the
injections to ensure treatment effectiveness.
ICs may include adoption and extension of the existing EC, local ordinances, and/or other information
devices and notices to restrict intrusive activities and prohibit residential development, ensuring the
integrity of the soil cover and protecting human health and the environment. Additionally, for
nonresidential buildings potentially constructed in the future, ICs would also include implementing VI
mitigation to limit receptor exposure to contaminants in indoor air. Annual maintenance involves an
inspection of LlJCs (fencing or barriers, signage, etc.) and evaluation of the integrity of the soil cover
(vegetation, depressions, erosional features, etc.).
BFA Remedial Alternatives
The following Remedial Alternatives were evaluated to address the BFA:
• BFA Alternative 1: No Action
• BFA Alternative 2: Excavation with Off-Site Disposal
BFA Alternative 1: No Action
Estimated Capital Cost: $0
Estimated Annual Operation and Maintenance (O&M) Cost: $0
Estimated Present Worth Cost: $0
Estimated Construction Timeframe: N/A
The NCP, 40 C.F.R. Part 300, which governs Superfund response actions, requires that the "No-Action"
alternative be considered as a baseline for comparison with the other alternatives. The No Action
alternative involves no additional remedial activities to be conducted at the BFA and provides an
environmental baseline against which impacts of the various remedial alternatives can be compared. In
instances where no unacceptable risks to human health or the environment are identified, the No Action
alternative is appropriate.
34
-------
UFA Alternative 2: Excavation with Off-Site Disposal
Estimated Capital Cost: $0
Estimated Annual Operation and Maintenance (O&M) Cost: $0
Estimated Present Worth Cost: $39,000
Estimated Construction Timeframe: I week
Based on sampling conducted during the Remedial Investigation, a potential hot spot was identified at the
BFA. One discrete soil sample showed the presence of arsenic detected in the 0.5 to 1 foot bgs soil
interval. Arsenic was not detected in soil samples collected surrounding this location. Due to the discrete
nature of this one soil exceedance, EP A conducted confirmation sampling in August 2020. If the arsenic
hot spot was located during the August 2020 sampling event, the components of this alternative would
have included the following:
• Collecting samples from the former hot spot area at 0.5-1 foot bgs to confirm the presence of
arsenic above the Performance Standard. If hot spot (arsenic greater than 35 mg/kg) cannot be
confirmed, the following two steps are not necessary;
• Excavating the arsenic-contaminated surface soil using conventional excavation
equipment; and
• Disposing of the material at an appropriate off-Site disposal facility.
• ICs would not be required since waste would not be left in place.
Confirmation soil sampling conducted in August 2020 did not find the presence of arsenic and thus there
is no longer an identified hot spot present in the BFA.
NDC/FL Remedial Alternatives
The following Remedial Alternatives were evaluated to address the NDC/FL:
• NDC/FL Alternative 1 - No Action
• NDC/FL Alternative 2 - Excavation with Ex Situ Stabilization and Off-Site Disposal for NDC
Surface Soils, FL Sediments, and FL Subsurface Soil Hotspot; In Situ Stabilization for NDC
Surface Soils; ICs
• NDC/FL Alternative 3 - In Situ Stabilization for NDC Surface Soils; Wet Excavation and Off-Site
Disposal for NDC Sediments; In Situ Soil Cover for FL Sediments and FL Subsurface Soil
Hotspot; ICs
• NDC/FL Alternative 4 - In Situ Stabilization for NDC Surface Soils; Excavation with Ex Situ
Stabilization and Off-Site Disposal for FL Sediments and FL Subsurface Soil Hotspot; ICs
NDC/FL Alternative 1: No Action
Estimated Capital Cost: $0
Estimated Annual Operation and Maintenance (O&M) Cost: $0
Estimated Present Worth Cost: $0
Estimated Construction Timeframe: N/A
The NCP, 40 C.F.R. Part 300, which governs Superfund response actions, requires that the "No-Action"
alternative be considered as a baseline for comparison with the other alternatives. The No Action
remedial alternative involves no additional remedial activities to be conducted at the NDC and FL,
providing an environmental baseline against which impacts of the various remedial alternatives can be
35
-------
compared. There would be no change in the concentrations of COCs in the media because no treatment,
containment, or removal would occur. This alternative does not meet the threshold criteria of
protectiveness and compliance with ARARs and therefore will not be further evaluated.
NDC/FL Alternative 2: Excavation with Ex Situ Stabilization and Off-Site Disposal for NDC
Surface Soils, FL Sediments, and FL Subsurface Soil Hotspot; In Situ Stabilization for NDC
Surface Soils; ICs
Estimated Capital Cost: $5.37 M
Estimated Annual Operation and Maintenance (O&M) Cost: $45,680
Estimated Present Worth Cost: $7.82 M
Estimated Construction Timeframe: 4.2 months
The components of this alternative would include:
• Excavating NDC surface soils contaminated with lead and zinc located in the areas with
herbaceous vegetation in the NDC;
• Low-impact vacuum dredging to surgically remove contaminated sediments from surface water
drainage channels and shallow impoundments;
• Performing in situ stabilization on NDC surface soils contaminated with lead and zinc located in
the portions of the NDC with forested wetland vegetation; the specific amendment(s) will be
determined following completion of the treatability study;
• Excavating (wet or dry) all FL sediments and subsurface soil contaminated with lead;
• Performing ex situ stabilization on FL soil characterized as hazardous waste;
• Disposing of all excavated material at an appropriate disposal facility; and
• Implementing ICs for the NDC to restrict residential development and ensure the protectiveness of
human health and the environment.
Excavating the forested wetland area of the NDC would create ecological impacts through loss of habitat,
which could be permanent given the complexity of restoring forested wetlands. Therefore, only the
portion of the NDC with surface soil containing COCs exceeding their respective Performance Standards
and situated within herbaceous vegetation would be excavated. Low-impact vacuum dredging would also
be used to remove contaminated sediments from surface water drainage channels and shallow
impoundments while avoiding impacts to wetland vegetation communities and soils. Prior to
implementing the remedial action, a wetland vegetation survey would be conducted to determine which
areas contain herbaceous vegetation and are suitable to be excavated. The survey would also identify the
location and extent of surface water drainage channels and shallow impoundments where vacuum
dredging would be applied. It is assumed that 30 percent of the COC-contaminated area at the NDC
contains herbaceous vegetation (2.3 acres) and the other 70 percent of the NDC contains forested wetland
vegetation (5.4 acres).
Removal using low-impact vacuum dredging would be limited to contaminated sediments residing within
surface water drainage channels and shallow impoundments on-Site. Vacuum dredging would be
performed under wet conditions and would be accomplished using a small dredge that is light enough to
be operated by one or two workers. The dredge unit would be powered by a hose attached to suction
equipment that would remain outside the forested wetland to avoid the need to operate a vehicle or heavy
equipment within the wetland. This approach would minimize impacts to the wetland plant community
and wetland soils while surgically removing contaminated sediments accumulated within surface water
drainage channels and shallow impoundments. Dredged sediments would be collected in a storage tank
on a vehicle or trailer, transported to a constructed dewatering containment area, and allowed to dewater.
36
-------
For costing purposes, the dewatering containment area was assumed to be a temporary berm of 2,500
square ft with a 3-foot depth capacity. The containment area would be sloped away from the location
where the dredged spoils are introduced. The water (from dewatering) would be collected and transported
to a treatment facility for disposal. Dewatered sediment would be excavated from the temporary berm and
would be transported to a designated processing and disposal location.
Dry excavation activities would be conducted under drier conditions. Therefore, the NDC and FL areas
would first need to be properly drained. The existing surface water and the water that collects behind the
cofferdam, or an enclosed structure within a body of water, would be treated through a skid-mounted
treatment system (such as GAC) and discharged downgradient of the excavation. A benching plan to
ensure protection of the railroad lines, would be required for the lead hotspot at FL location FLSB01 (3 to
5 ft bgs), which is adjacent to the B&P Railroad property. Special measures or equipment may be needed
to access saturated soils and sediments and allow excavation equipment to maneuver efficiently without
becoming stuck.
Assuming a 20 percent swelling factor to account for the increase in soil volume during excavation and
stockpiling, the total volume of NDC surface soils and FL sediment/subsurface soils that would be
excavated through wet and dry methods is estimated to be 8,750 loose cubic yards (LCY). The excavated
contaminated material would be loaded into roll-off dumpsters for staging prior to off-Site disposal.
Waste characterization samples would be collected from the excavated soil in the roll-off dumpsters and
analyzed to determine the appropriate disposal facility. Soils that are confirmed to be nonhazardous
would be transported to a RCRA Subtitle D landfill for disposal. Soils that exceeds the Toxicity
Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) threshold limit of 5 mg/L would be considered hazardous and
require treatment on Site prior to transport and disposal to meet Land Disposal Requirements (LDRs).
Based on the lead concentrations present in the sediment and subsurface soil in the FL, it is likely that
approximately 1,170 LCY would be characterized as hazardous waste. The hazardous material would be
treated via ex situ stabilization with an amendment to reduce the mobility, toxicity, and bioavailability of
the lead. Confirmation samples would be collected from the stabilized material to verify that treatment
has rendered the material nonhazardous. The treated material would meet LDRs and would be transported
to a RCRA Subtitle D landfill for disposal. Confirmation samples would be collected from the excavation
area to confirm lead at concentrations exceeding ecological based-Performance Standards (background
levels) has been removed. The excavated areas would be backfilled with approved backfill material,
compacted, and revegetated. The disturbed areas would be revegetated and restored with appropriate
wetland vegetation.
The portion of the NDC that would not be excavated or vacuum dredged would be treated via in situ
stabilization (or binding) using amendments, such as biochar or MetaFix™. Determination of the specific
amendment is a component of the treatability study. Low impact methods would be used to preserve
the forested wetland vegetation while immobilizing heavy metals contamination to reduce the
bioavailability of lead and zinc. A pilot study will be necessary to determine appropriate dosage and
application methods to ensure effective distribution within the upper 2 feet of soil. Confirmation soil
samples would be collected following in situ stabilization to verify that concentrations of COCs are at or
below remedial goals. It is anticipated that an additional amendment application may be required
depending on the selected amendment. For cost estimating purposes, it is assumed that one reapplication
of the amendment would occur. Since the contaminated soils and sediments serve as a direct source of
contamination to the surface water, surface water concentrations are expected to be reduced as a result of
actions addressing the soil and sediments.
37
-------
For the NDC, since contaminants would be bound to the amendments and remain in the NDC, and
because arsenic and manganese also pose residential risks, ICs would be implemented to prohibit
residential development and ensure the protectiveness of human health and the environment. Annual
maintenance would be limited to inspections of ICs and performing environmental monitoring (such as
collecting surface water and soil/sediment samples) to ensure long-term protectiveness. Additional O&M
costs include management and disposal of IDW, one reappli cation of the selected amendment, data
validation, and annual data reporting. The FL would not require ICs since all the material would be
excavated and disposed of off-Site.
NDC/FL Alternative 3: In Situ Stabilization for NDC Surface Soils; Wet Excavation and Off-Site
Disposal for N DC Sediments; In Situ Soil Cover for FL Sediments and FL Subsurface Soil
Hotspot; ICs
Estimated Capital Cost: $2.26M
Estimated Annual Operation and Maintenance (O&M) Cost: $7,000-72,788
Estimated Present Worth Cost: $3.49 M
Estimated Construction Timeframe: 2 months
The components of this alternative would include the following:
• Performing in situ stabilization of all COC-contaminated surface soils in the NDC;
• Low-impact vacuum dredging to surgically remove contaminated sediments from surface water
channels and shallow impoundments;
• Installing an in situ soil cover over the contaminated sediment in the FL; and
• Implementing ICs to restrict intrusive activities and residential development.
This alternative would include using low-impact vacuum dredging of contaminated sediments residing
within surface water drainage channels and shallow impoundments in the NDC and in situ stabilization
(or binding) of remaining COC-contaminated surface soils in the NDC, using the same
approaches specified in NDC/FL Alternative 2.
The distinction with Alternative 3 is the plan for the FL sediments and subsurface soils. For sediments
and subsurface soil exceeding Performance Standards in the FL, an in situ soil cover, such as a low
permeability bentonite-based chemical sequestration material, would be implemented. An in situ soil
cover is typically comprised of a dense aggregate core, clay-minerals, and polymers that expand when
hydrated, acting as an effective physical, hydraulic, and chemical barrier. Bentonite-based surface covers
can be installed in wetland environments using commonly available equipment and technologies, such as
excavators or broadcasting. The in situ surface cover would be placed over the FL (approximately
9,000 sq ft). Typical applications would result in a hydrated thickness of approximately 6 inches. Based
on a product application of 30 pounds per square foot, it is assumed that approximately 135 tons of
material would be required. However, bench scale and/or field testing would be needed to determine the
appropriate formulation and quantity of material. Material packaging and delivery methods are
available in 1.5-ton supersacks or 20-ton bladder bags. Following placement of the in situ surface
cover, the area would require revegetation and restoration, possibly with a clay-based composite
technology that is amended with various species of emergent wetland plant seeds. Since the contaminated
soils and sediments serve as a direct source of contamination to the surface water, surface water
concentrations are expected to be reduced as a result of actions addressing the soil and sediments.
ICs would be implemented for the NDC and the FL to restrict intrusive activities and prohibit residential
development to ensure the integrity of the soil cover and protectiveness for human health and the
38
-------
environment. Annual maintenance would involve inspecting LlJCs (fencing or barriers, signage, etc.),
inspecting the integrity of the soil cover (vegetation, depressions, erosional features, etc.), and performing
environmental monitoring (such as collecting surface water and soil/sediment samples) to ensure long-
term protectiveness. Additional O&M costs include one reappli cation of the selected amendment
management and disposal of investigation derived waste (IDW), data validation, and annual data
reporting.
NDC/FL Alternative 4: In Situ Stabilization for NDC Surface Soils; Excavation with Ex Situ
Stabilization and Off-Site Disposal for FL Sediments and FL Subsurface Soil Hotspot; ICs
Estimated Capital Cost: $2.46 M
Estimated Annual Operation and Maintenance (O&M) Cost: $4,090 -69,877
Estimated Present Worth Cost: $3.62 M
Estimated Construction Timeframe: 3.2 months
The components of this alternative would include the following:
• Performing in situ stabilization on all NDC surface soils contaminated with lead and zinc;
selection of the specific amendment(s) is a component of the treatability study;
• Low-impact vacuum dredging to surgically remove contaminated sediments from surface water
drainage channels and shallow impoundments;
• Excavating (wet or dry) all FL sediments and subsurface soil contaminated with lead;
• Performing ex situ stabilization on soil characterized as hazardous waste;
• Disposing of excavated material at an appropriate disposal facility; and
• Implementing ICs for the NDC to restrict residential development and ensure the protectiveness
of human health and the environment.
NDC/FL Alternative 4 is similar to NDC/FL Alternative 2 in that it includes excavating lead-
contaminated sediment and subsurface soil hot spots in the FL. This material would be treated ex-situ and
disposed at an appropriate disposal facility. Additionally, NDC/FL Alternative 4 is similar to NDC/FL
Alternative 2 in that in situ stabilization (or binding) would be performed on the NDC surface
soils; however, in situ stabilization (or binding) would be applied to surface soils exceeding Performance
Standards in all of the NDC and no material in the NDC would be excavated. Determination of the
specific amendment would be a component of a treatability study. Low impact methods would be used to
preserve the forested wetland vegetation while immobilizing heavy metals contamination to reduce the
bioavailability of lead and zinc. A pilot study will be necessary to determine appropriate dosage and
application methods to ensure effective distribution within the upper 2 feet of soil. Confirmation soil
samples would be collected following in situ stabilization to verify that bioavailable concentrations of
COCs are at or below remedial goals. A full-scale application of the amendment would be done following
confirmation that the pilot study was effective. For contaminated sediments in NDC surface water
drainage channels and shallow impoundments, low-impact vacuum dredging would be applied to avoid
impacts to wetland vegetation communities and soils. Since the contaminated soils and sediments serve as
a direct source of contamination to the surface water, surface water concentrations are expected to be
reduced as a result of actions addressing the soil and sediments.
Since contaminants would be bound by the amendments on-Site and remain in the NDC, and because
arsenic and manganese also pose residential risks, ICs would be implemented for the NDC to prohibit
residential development and ensure the protectiveness of human health and the environment. Annual
maintenance would be limited to inspecting ICs and performing environmental monitoring (such as
collecting surface water and soil/sediment samples). Additional O&M costs include one reappli cation of
39
-------
the selected amendment, if necessary, until performance objectives are met, management and disposal of
IDW, data validation, and annual data reporting. The FL would not require ICs because all of the material
would be excavated and disposed of off-Site.
Five-Year Reviews
Because the Remedial Alternatives evaluated for the FMA and NDC/FL would result in hazardous
substances remaining on-Site above levels that allow for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure, EPA
will conduct a statutory review no less often than every five years to ensure that the Selected Remedy is,
or will be, protective of human health and the environment pursuant to Section 121(c) of CERCLA, 42
U.S.C. § 9621(c), and 40 C.F.R § 300.430(f)(4)(ii) of the NCP. The first five-year review (FYR) will be
completed after the start of on-Site construction at OIJ1 and will be conducted every five years thereafter.
FYRs will continue until hazardous substances are no longer present above levels that allow for unlimited
use and unrestricted exposure.
9.2 Expected Outcomes of the Selected Remedies
The Selected Remedies presented herein will prevent current and potential future exposure to DNAPL,
contaminated soils, sediments, and surface waters and prevent potential exposure to soil vapor through a
combination of treatment and institutional controls. Through the use of treatment technologies, the
Selected Remedies will permanently reduce the toxicity, mobility, and volume of contaminants in Site
media and treat principal threat waste (i.e., DNAPL) to the maximum extent practicable.
10.0 Comparative Analysis of Alternatives
The alternatives discussed above were compared to each other with the nine criteria set forth in 40 C.F.R.
§ 300.430(e)(9)(iii) of the NCP in order to select a remedy for the Site. These nine criteria are categorized
according to three groups: threshold criteria; primary balancing criteria; and modifying criteria. These
evaluation criteria relate directly to the requirements of Section 121 of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. § 9621,
which determine the overall feasibility and acceptability of the remedy.
Threshold criteria must be satisfied in order for a remedy to be eligible for selection. Primary balancing
criteria are used to weigh major trade-offs among remedies. State and community acceptance are
modifying criteria formally taken into consideration after public comment is received on the Proposed
Plan. A summary of each of the criteria is presented below, followed by a summary of the relative
performance of the alternatives with respect to each of the nine criteria. These summaries provide the
basis for determining which alternative provides the "best balance" of trade-offs with respect to the nine
criteria.
40
-------
Evaluation Criteria for Superfund Remedial Alternatives
Threshold criteria: Must be satisfied in order for a remedy to be eligible for selection.
1. Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment determines whether an
alternative eliminates, reduces, or controls threats to public health and the environment
through ICs, engineering controls, or treatment.
2. Compliance with ARARs evaluates whether the alternative will meet all applicable or
relevant and appropriate requirements ( ARARs) of Federal and State environmental statutes,
regulations, and other requirements that pertain to the site, and/or justifies a waiver.
Primary balancing criteria: Used to weigh major tradeoff between remedial
alternatives.
3. Long-term Effectiveness and Permanence considers the expected residual risk and the
ability of an alternative to maintain protection of human health and the environment over
time.
4. Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume of Contaminants through Treatment
evaluates the anticipated performance of an alternative's use of treatment to reduce the
harmful effects of principal contaminants, their ability to move in the environment, and the
amount of contamination present.
5. Short-term Effectiveness considers the length of time needed to implement an alternative
and the risks the alternative poses to workers, residents, and the environment during the
construction and implementation period, until the cleanup goals are achieved.
6. Implementability considers the technical and administrative feasibility of implementing
an alternative, including the availability of goods and services needed to implement a
particular option.
7. Cost includes estimated capital and annual operations and maintenance costs; compared as
present worth cost.
Modifying criteria: Considered by EPA after public comment is received on the
Proposed Plan.
8. State/ Support Agency Acceptance addresses whether the State concurs or has comments
on the preferred alternative, as described in the Proposed Plan.
9. Community Acceptance considers whether the local community agrees with EPA's
analysis of the preferred alternative, as described in the Proposed Plan.
10.1 Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment
No action alternatives (FMA Alternative 1, NDC/FL Alternative 1) must be evaluated in accordance with
CERCLA and the NCP to serve as a basis for comparison with the other alternatives. FMA Alternative 1
and NDC/FL Alternative 1 are not protective of human health and the environment because they do not
41
-------
address the unacceptable exposures to contaminated media. FMA Alternative 1 and NDC/FL Alternative
1 fail to meet the threshold criterion of protectiveness and will, therefore, not be considered further.
FMA Alternatives Evaluation
Overall protection of human health and the environment is addressed to varying degrees by the evaluated
alternatives. FMA Alternatives 2 and 3 include repairing the existing cover and implementing ICs to
restrict intrusive activities through adoption and extension of the existing EC and prohibit residential
development. FMA Alternatives 2 and 3 provide additional protection of underlying groundwater by
treating the VOC Source Area and preventing the migration of contamination from soil to groundwater.
FMA Alternatives 2 and 3 meet RAOs; however, FMA Alternative 2 would achieve RAOs in a shorter
timeframe compared to FMA Alternative 3.
BFA Alternative Evaluation
Data collected from the August 2020 follow-up sampling event by EPA could not confirm the presence of
arsenic in surface soil. The historic arsenic exceedance was likely an isolated anomaly. Therefore, BFA
Alternative 1 (No Action) is protective of human health. A No Further Action alternative meets the RAO
because residents would not be exposed to arsenic at concentrations that pose an unacceptable noncancer
risk (HI greater than 1).
NDC/FL Alternatives Evaluation
Overall protection of human health and the environment is addressed to varying degrees by the
alternatives. NDC/FL Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 all provide protection of human health and the
environment. Alternative 3 would leave waste in place under the soil cover in FL and could serve as an
ongoing source to groundwater contamination whereas contaminated soils and sediments in the FL would
be excavated, treated, and disposed off-Site with Alternatives 2 and 4.
10.2 Compliance with ARARs
Any cleanup alternative selected by EPA must comply with all applicable or relevant and appropriate
federal and state environmental requirements or provide the basis upon which such requirement(s) can be
waived. Applicable requirements are those environmental standards, requirements, criteria, or limitations
promulgated under federal or state law that are legally applicable to the remedial action to be
implemented at the Site. Relevant and appropriate requirements, while not being directly applicable,
address problems or situations sufficiently similar to those encountered at the Site that their application is
well-suited to the particular circumstance. The ARARs are described in detail in Appendix D.
FMA Alternatives Evaluation
FMA Alternative 2 would comply with chemical-specific ARARs, as it would treat recovered condensate
to meet the substantive requirements of the NPDES permit before being discharged to surface water.
FMA Alternative 2 would comply with both location-specific and action-specific ARARs. FMA
Alternative 3 would not trigger any chemical-specific ARARs as the alternative would not discharge any
treated water. FMA Alternative 3 would comply with action specific and location-specific ARARs.
BFA Alternative Evaluation
42
-------
BFA Alternative 1 would not trigger chemical-specific, action-specific or location-specific ARARs since
no action would be taken.
NDC/FL Alternative Evaluation
NDC/FL Alternative 2 would trigger location-specific ARARs by performing excavation activities in a
wetland. Alternative 3 would trigger location-specific ARARs by installing a soil cover over the FL. With
respect to complying with action-specific ARARs, NDC/FL Alternatives 2 and 4 would require
stabilization of potentially hazardous soil excavated from the FL to render it nonhazardous before
transporting and disposing of it at an approved landfill.
10.3 Long Term Effectiveness and Permanence
FMA Alternatives Evaluation
FMA Alternative 2 would most effectively remediate the VOC Source Area to meet remedial goals.
Alternative 2 is an effective and permanent treatment since it will treat the entire VOC source area,
eliminate the migration of contamination from soil to groundwater in the treatment zone, and will directly
treat the principal threat waste (DNAPL). FMA Alternative 3 would likely be less effective and less
permanent than FMA Alternative 2 because injections of chemical amendments require multiple
injection events to achieve distribution in the subsurface and would only be able to treat a portion of the
VOC source area. This technology also is susceptible to back diffusion of sorbed contamination for high-
contaminant source areas and it is not likely that it would be able to effectively address DNAPL.
FMA Alternative 2 would be the most effective since In Situ Thermal Remediation would be applied
throughout the entire VOC Source Area, including the subsurface underlying the B&P Railroad property
and the right-of-way. FMA Alternative 2 would address VOCs in soils, groundwater, and the DNAPL. In
Situ Thermal Remediation would heat the subsurface soil to the boiling point of water by passing
electrical current or direct heat through contaminated soil and groundwater using electrodes or heater
wells. This heating evaporates VOCs in situ and steam strips VOCs from the subsurface. Vapors and
steam are then extracted, cooled, and treated. Once subsurface heating starts, the boiling point of various
VOC/water mixtures is reached in the following order: DNAPL in contact with water or moist soil,
groundwater containing dissolved VOCs, and then groundwater. DNAPL and VOC-impacted
groundwater will boil before uncontaminated water, reducing the time and energy required to complete
treatment. The technology has been demonstrated as an effective method for the permanent removal of
VOCs from both unsaturated and saturated zones and is not significantly affected by soil permeability and
heterogeneity. On the contrary, FMA Alternative 3, in situ chemical treatment, would be less effective
than FMA Alternative 2, because injections of chemical amendments require multiple injection events to
achieve distribution in the subsurface and would only be able to treat a portion of the VOC Source Area.
The injections would not be addressing the portion of the subsurface underlying the railroad and the right-
of-way, instead relying on groundwater in a low conductivity soil to distribute the amendment
downgradient. Based on the high level of V OC concentrations in the vicinity of the railroad, DNAPL is
most likely present under the railroad and the right-of-way. Since in situ injections would not be able to
occur within 25 ft of the B&P Railroad due to the risk associated with changing soil conditions under a
rail line. Alternative 3 would not be able to directly address the principal threat waste (DNAPL).
Following implementation of Alternative 3, the DN APL source to groundwater contamination would
remain in the subsurface. Alternative 2 represents a permanent solution, because it would directly address
and eliminate the DNAPL source to groundwater. In addition to the mass left in place under the railroad
and the right-of-way following the implementation of Alternative 3, rebound could occur through back
43
-------
diffusion processes of sorbed contamination to lower permeability soils. FMA Alternative 2 is more
effective than FMA Alternative 3 since it has the capability to address the most amount of mass in the
subsurface in the shortest period of time. While FMA Alternative 3 is limited by the low permeability and
heterogeneity of soils, FMA Alternative 2 preferentially targets contamination that is bound in these low
permeability heterogenous soils since they typically have higher electrical conductivity and the
contaminants will vaporize in higher temperatures. This allows diffusion sources and DNAPL to be
targeted when in situ thermal is applied. Therefore, FMA Alternative 2 provides the greatest long-term
effectiveness and permanence.
BFA Alternative Evaluation
Since follow-up sampling could not confirm the presence of arsenic, BFA Alternative 1 can be considered
a long-term and permanent solution.
NDC/FL Alternatives Evaluation
Because lead-contaminated sediment/subsurface soil would remain in place in the FL beneath a cover
under NDC/FL Alternative 3, the contaminated soil would potentially serve as an ongoing source of
groundwater contamination reducing the long-term effectiveness. NDC/FL Alternatives 2 and 4 provide
similar levels of permanent and effective solutions for lead-contaminated soil in the FL by excavating all
contaminated sediments and subsurface soil from the FL, properly stabilizing the potentially hazardous
soils, and transporting the excavated material to an approved disposal facility. With respect to COC-
contaminated surface soils in the NDC, NDC/FL Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 include performing in situ
stabilization via low-impact methods. The long-term effectiveness and permanence of in situ stabilization
(or binding) is dependent on the type of amendment used, the type of application used, and the
distribution/contact of the amendment with contaminated material. It is anticipated that one reappli cation
may be required to effectively immobilize metals. For cost estimating purposes, it is assumed that one
reappli cation may be needed to achieve Performance Standards.
10.4 Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume through Treatment
FMA Alternatives Evaluation
Both FMA Alternatives 2 and 3 would reduce the toxicity, mobility, and volume of the V OC Source
Area through active treatment. However, FMA Alternative 2 would be more effective in eliminating the
source of contamination, present in both soil and groundwater because Alternative 2 would treat the entire
VOC source area. Treating the source eliminates the potential for contamination in soil to migrate to
groundwater and prevents the migration of contamination from the VOC Source Area to downgradient
areas. Additionally, since in situ injections cannot be performed within 25 ft of the B&P Railroad due to
the risk associated with changing soil conditions under a rail line, a larger volume of mass will be directly
treated under Alternative 2. The estimated treatment area under Alternative 2 is 12,000 sq ft (100% of the
V OC Source Area) whereas the treatment area under Alternative 3 is 6500 sq ft (54% of the V OC Source
Area).
BFA Alternative Evaluation
There is no treatment associated with BFA Alternative 1 nor would there be a reduction in toxicity or
volume since arsenic contamination could not be confirmed.
44
-------
NDC/FL Alternatives Evaluation
The mobility and toxicity of COCs in contaminated soils in the NDC would be reduced via in situ
stabilization (or binding) for NDC/FL Alternatives 2, 3, and 4. Reappli cation of the in situ stabilization
amendment may be required to effectively immobilize metals. For NDC/FL Alternatives 2 and 4,
the mobility and toxicity of COCs in excavated FL sediments and excavated FL subsurface soils would
be reduced through ex situ treatment. For NDC/FL Alternative 3, the in situ soil cover would mitigate
COCs in sediment remobilizing into surface water, but it would not necessarily limit mobility into
underlying groundwater as the toxicity and volume would not be reduced.
10.5 Short-term Effectiveness
FMA Alternatives Evaluation
Alternatives 2 and 3 present similar short-term risks to workers and the community but given the more
robust infrastructure associated with Alternative 2, the short-term risks to workers may be slightly more
for Alternative 2. Although the estimated time to implement Alternatives 2 and 3 would be nearly the
same (about 17 months), it is likely that Alternative 2 would meet the RAOs in this timeframe, while
Alternative 3 would not meet the RAOs in the same timeframe since contaminant mass would be left in
place. While the implementation timeframes are equivalent for Alternatives 2 and 3, the field work
associated with Alternative 2 {In Situ Thermal Remediation) would be more constant for 17 months
compared to Alternative 3 (in situ chemical treatment). In between injection events and performance
monitoring, there would be periods of no work associated with Alternative 3; therefore. Alternative 3
would likely have less short-term impacts to workers compared to Alterative 2. While FMA Alternatives
2 and 3 would have short-term risks to construction workers and the community during remedy
implementation, precautions would be taken to reduce these risks. FMA Alternative 2 would include air
monitoring to ensure that human health hazards were mitigated through vapor recovery and potential off-
gas treatment. A security fence would be constructed around any aboveground thermal treatment
infrastructure to limit access. Thermal treatment infrastructure associated with FMA Alternative 2 within
the railroad right-of-way would be placed in the subsurface to protect the railroad and public from
hazardous voltages and high temperatures, eliminating the need for a fence on railroad property. Elevated
temperatures above ambient conditions will likely be present at grade surface. It is possible that
some vegetation would be impacted by the temperature increase. However, no adverse impacts to
established trees with a diameter greater than 12 inches would be expected. Signs would be used to
clearly mark restricted areas and specific work zones. During operations, hot surfaces and high voltage
areas would clearly be identified, and high voltage/no dig signs would be posted around the perimeter of
the Restricted Zone. For both FMA Alternatives 2 and 3, a flag person would be required to support
implementing the remedial actions within the railroad right-of-way. FMA Alternative 3 would require
mixing equipment and large quantities of amendment to be shipped, moved, and stored on-Site.
Therefore, the short-term risks presented by Alternatives 2 and 3 would be addressed through health and
safety procedures and engineering controls.
BFA Alternative Evaluation
Under BFA Alternative 1, there would not be increased risks to construction workers nor the community
since no action would be taken.
45
-------
NDC/FL Alternatives Evaluation
The estimated construction timeframes for Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 are 4.2 months, 2 months, and 3.2
months, respectively. Thus, Alternative 3 would have the least short-term risk to construction workers
due to the shortest time period required for construction. NDC/FL Alternative 2 requires the longest
overall construction time since it includes excavation of the herbaceous vegetation in the NDC (30% of
the NDC). This action would have detrimental effects on the wetland habitat, as it would destroy all of
the herbaceous vegetation in the NDC making it difficult for the wetland to recover following remedial
action. Low-impact vacuum dredging, a component of all the Alternatives being considered, would
surgically remove contaminated sediments from surface water drainage channels and shallow
impoundments while minimizing impacts to wetland plant communities and wetland soils. In situ
amendment application is a component of all active Alternatives, with an estimated timeframe of 1 month
for Alternative 2 and 1.5 months for Alternatives 3 and 4. Alternative 2 has a shorter timeframe for in situ
amendment application since this Alternative includes excavating a portion of the NDC that would be
treated with in situ amendment application in Alternatives 3 and 4. In situ amendment application could
have short term detrimental impacts to the ground layer of the forested wetland. Alternative 3 has a
shorter overall construction timeframe compared to Alternative 4 since the construction timeframe of a
soil cover over the lagoon in Alternative 3 is less than the timeframe associated with removing the
contaminated material from the lagoon in Alternative 4. Appropriate measures would be taken during
excavation activities and application of the soil cover to prevent transport of fugitive dust and exposure to
workers. Alternatives 2 and 4 would require off-Site transport of contaminated soils, which could
potentially adversely affect local traffic and may pose the potential for traffic accidents if congestion is an
issue. Since the volume associated with Alternative 2 is much greater than the volume of material
associated with Alternative 4, there is a lower risk of traffic accidents associated with Alternative 4
compared to Alternative 2. Overall, Alternative 2 has the greatest short-term risks to construction
workers, the environment, and the surrounding community since it has the longest construction time,
causes the most amount of destruction to the wetland, and causes an increase in traffic due to material
being removed from the Site. Short-term risks associated with Alternatives 3 and 4 are similar, with
Alternative 3 posing slightly less risk to construction workers since the construction period for
Alternative 3 is less than Alternative 4.
10.6 Implementability
FMA Alternative Evaluation
Both FMA Alternatives 2 and 3 would be implementable and would require coordinated
logistics. FMA Alternative 2 would require a utility drop, horizontal drilling to connect the thermal
treatment system to the power drop, and management of groundwater and therefore be more complicated
to implement. Both FMA Alternatives 2 and 3 would require continual coordination with the
B&P Railroad prior to and during implementation of the remedial actions. FMA Alternative 3
would require accessing the Site multiple times to perform multiple injections of in situ chemical
treatment in difficult and tight soils, potentially causing amendments to reach the surface in sensitive
areas. For FMA Alternative 2, the In Situ Thermal Remediation infrastructure placed within the railroad
right-of-way would require subsurface installation, but after installation, limited access would be
required for performance monitoring until equipment is removed/demobilized. There also is no access
road to the V OC Source Area located on the south side of the railroad right-of-way. A temporary railroad
crossing platform would need to be constructed to mobilize equipment from the north side of the
rail line to the south side for both FMA Alternatives 2 and 3.
46
-------
BFA Alternative Evaluation
BFA Alternative 1 would be easily implemented since no action is required.
NDC/FL Alternative Evaluation
NDC/FL Alternatives 3 and 4 would cause less of an impact on forested wetlands than NDC/FL
Alternative 2, since no dry excavation would occur, and less waste would require transport and
disposal from the NDC.
With respect to the lead-contaminated sediment/subsurface soil in the FL, NDC/FL Alternatives
2 and 4 have similar levels of implementability since both of these alternatives would require
excavation, ex situ stabilization, and disposal of this media. Whereas, NDC/FL Alternative 3
would be more difficult to implement than NDC/FL Alternatives 2 and 4, requiring large amounts
of materials to be delivered, stored, and staged at the Site to install the cover over the FL. With respect
to construction time, NDC/FL Alternative 2 would require the most time to implement compared to
NDC/FL Alternatives 3 and 4. NDC/FL Alternative 4 is the most implementable compared to NDC/FL
Alternatives 2 and 3 because it would not require deforesting 30% of the NDC as included in Alternative
2 and it would not require the construction of a cap in the FL as included in Alternative 3.
10.7 Cost
The EPA RI/FS guidance specifies that a +50 percent to a -30 percent range of cost be used for evaluating
cost estimates. The following table summarizes the +50 percent to -30 percent range of estimated present-
value costs of the viable alternative. This applies to each AOC.
The alternatives were evaluated in terms of total present-value costs (total of capital costs, annual costs,
and periodic costs), and developed at a discount rate of 7 percent for each alternative to provide a common
basis for comparing alternatives. The estimates for present-value costs, rounded to the nearest $1,000 for
each remedial component for the remaining alternatives, are shown in the tables below for each AOC.
FMA Alternatives Evaluation
The present worth cost of the FMA Alternatives is presented as follows:
Alternative Cost Comparison
FMA Alternative
Present-
Present-Value
Present-
Value Periodic
Cost
Total Present-
Value Capital Cost
Annual Cost
Value Cost
Alternative 1
$0
$0
$0
$0
Alternative 2
$7,343,204
$27,799
$9,485
$7,663,488
Alternative 3
$8,570,873
$27,799
$9,485
$8,891,157
Capital costs associated with repairing the existing soil cover and associated O&M costs for the life of the
existing soil cover are equal for FMA Alternatives 2 and 3. The difference between the present-value
capital costs for FMA Alternatives 2 and 3 is the active remedy for the VOC Source Area, that is. In Situ
Thermal Remediation (FMA Alternative 2) compared to in situ chemical treatment (FMA Alternative
3).
47
-------
Present-Value Cost Summary
Cost Basis
FMA Alternative 2
FMA Alternative 3
+50 percent
$11,495,232
$13,336,736
Base Cost
$7,663,488
$8,891,157
-30 percent
$5,364,442
$6,223,810
Based on the present-value cost comparison, FMA Alternative 2 is the least expensive alternative relative
to FM A Alternative 3. FMA Alternative 3 was approximately 13 percent higher than FMA Alternative 2.
BFA Alternative Evaluation
The present worth cost of the BFA Alternatives is presented as follows:
Alternative Cost Comparison
BFA Alternative
Present-Value
Present-Value
Present-Value
Total Present-
Capital Cost
Annual Costs
Periodic Cost
Value Cost
Alternative 1
$0
$0
$0
$0
Alternative 2
$39,000
$0
$0
$39,000
Present-Value Cost Summary
Cost Basis
BFA Alternative 2
+50 percent
$59,000
Base Cost
$39,000
-30 percent
$27,000
NDC/FL Alternatives Evaluation
The present worth cost of the NDC/FL Alternatives is presented as follows:
Alternative Cost Comparison
NDC/FL Alternative
Present-Value
Present-Value
Present-Value
Total Present-
Capital Cost
Annual Costs
Periodic Cost
Value Cost
Alternative 1
$0
$0
$0
$0
Alternative 2
$5,365,636
$45,680
$1,887,000
$7,819,594
Alternative 3
$2,257,339
$7,000-72,788
$712,588
$3,486,817
Alternative 4
$2,463, 626
$4,090-69,877
$71 1,604
$3,615,035
Present-Value Cost Summary
Cost Basis
NDC/FL Alternative 2
NDC/FL Alternative 3
NDC/FL Alternative 4
+50 percent
$1 1,729,392
$5,230,226
$5,422,552
Base Cost
$7,819,594
$3,486,817
$3,615,035
-30 percent
$5,473,716
$2,440,9772
$2,530,524
48
-------
Based on the present-value cost comparison, NDC/FL Alternatives 3 and 4 are the least expensive
alternatives relative to NDC/FL Alternative 2. The present-value costs of NDC/FL Alternatives 3 and
4 are less than 0.5 percent different. The present-value costs associated with NDC/FL Alternative 2
is approximately 25 percent higher than NDC/FL Alternatives 3 and 4.
10.8 State Acceptance
FMA. BFA. and NDC/FL Alternatives Evaluation
PADEP concurred with the selection of FMA Alternative 2, BFA Alternative 1, and NDC/FL Alternative
4 in a letter dated March 3, 2021 (Appendix A).
10.9 Community Acceptance
FMA. BFA. and NDC/FL Alternatives Evaluation
EPA published a recorded video presentation in place of a public meeting to present the conclusions of
the RI/FS and to elaborate further on the reasons for recommending the Preferred Alternatives. The video
presentation was made available to local officials, citizens and stakeholders with a link provided on the
fact-sheet and the Site profile page. EPA held a 30-day public comment period from August 3 1, 2020 to
September 30, 2020, to accept public comments on the remedial alternatives presented in the Proposed
Plan, as well as other documents contained within the Administrative Record File. EPA received written
comments from the Falls Creek Borough Council in response to the Proposed Remedial Action Plan and
responses to these comments can be found in the Responsiveness Summary of this ROD. EPA has
followed-up with the Borough to discuss concerns particularly with respect to redevelopment. EPA has
provided a consistent message to the Borough of Falls Creek that redevelopment can occur during any
stage of the Superfund process and EP A has and will continue to support efforts to redevelop the Jackson
Ceramix Site for beneficial reuse. EPA will continue to maintain open communication with the Borough
as progress is made on the Site.
11.0 Principal Threat Waste
The NCP, 40 C.F.R. § 300.430(a)(l)(iii)(A), establishes an expectation that EPA will use treatment to
address the principal threats posed by a site wherever practicable. The principal threat concept is applied
to the characterization of source materials at a Superfund site. A source material is material that includes
or contains hazardous substances, pollutants or contaminants that act as a reservoir for migration of
contamination, for example, to groundwater. Principal threat wastes are those source materials considered
to be highly toxic or highly mobile, which would present a significant risk to human health or the
environment should exposure occur.
The high concentrations of PCE and TCE indicative of DNAPL are considered to be principal threat
waste at the Site. In this case, the DNAPL is considered a principal threat waste that is a source to
groundwater contamination. DNAPL present in the OIJ1 FMA, whether in residual or free-flowing form,
is considered principal threat waste because it acts as a reservoir for continued groundwater
contamination. Treatment of principal threat waste to the maximum extent practicable is therefore a
component of the OIJ 1 FMA ROD. By addressing the DNAPL, a major source to groundwater
contamination will be eliminated. A final remedy for groundwater will be addressed as OU3 in a future
ROD.
49
-------
12.0 Selected Remedy
Following review and consideration of the information in the Administrative Record, the requirements of
CERCLA and the NCP, and public comments, EPA has selected the following alternatives as the Selected
Remedy for the Site:
OIJ1 FMA Alternative 2: Repair of the existing soil cover. In Situ Thermal Remediation, ICs;
OIJ1 BFA Alternative 1: No Further Action; and
OIJ 1 NDC/FL Alternative 4: In Situ Stabilization for NDC Surface Soils; Excavation with Ex Situ
Stabilization and off-Site Disposal for FL Sediments and FL Subsurface Soil Hotspot; ICs.
12.1 Summary of the Rationale for Selected Remedy
EPA's Selected Remedy meets the threshold criteria for overall protection of human health and the
environment and compliance with ARARs. Based on the information currently available, EPA has
determined that the Selected Remedy provides the best balance of advantages and disadvantages among
the alternatives when evaluating them using the balancing criteria. EPA's Selected Remedy for OIJ 1
satisfies the following statutory requirements of Section 121 of CERCL A, 42 U.S.C. § 9621:
1) be protective of human health and the environment;
2) comply with ARARs (or justify a waiver);
3) be cost-effective;
4) provide short- and long-term reduction of risk;
5) utilize permanent solutions and alternative treatment technologies or resource recovery
technologies to the maximum extent practicable; and
6) satisfy the preference for treatment as a principal element.
FMA
The Selected Remedy for the FM A will meet the following RAOs:
• Prevent exposure via incidental ingestion, dermal contact, or inhalation to subsurface soils
contaminated with TCE at concentrations that pose an unacceptable n on cancer risk (HI
greater than 1) for industrial/commercial exposure;
• Prevent exposure via incidental ingestion, dermal contact, or inhalation to subsurface soil
contaminated with lead at concentrations that result in a BLL for 5% of a population
exceeding 5 (.ig/dL;
• Prevent continued migration of contaminants in soil to the underlying groundwater that would
result in groundwater contamination in excess of the applicable federal MCL;
• Treat principal threat waste (DNAPL) in the VOC Source Area, to the maximum extent
practicable, to minimize the continuing source of contamination to groundwater;
• Prevent residential use of the FMA; and
• Prevent future human inhalation exposure due to intrusion of soil vapor COC concentrations
that would result in an unacceptable risk to human health.
The Selected Remedy for the FM A is readily implementable. It will address principal threat waste and
eliminate a major source to groundwater contamination (OU3).
50
-------
BFA
Since follow-up soil sampling conducted in August 2020 did not find the presence of arsenic
contamination in the ball field, the Selected Remedy for the BFA is No Further Action and it will meet the
following RAO since residents would not be exposed to arsenic.
• Prevent exposure of residents via incidental ingestion, dermal contact, or inhalation to surface soil
in the BFA with arsenic at concentrations that pose an unacceptable n on cancer risk (HI greater
than 1).
NDC/FL
The Selected Remedy for the NDC/FL will meet the following RAOs:
• Prevent exposure via incidental ingestion and dermal contact to soil, sediment, and surface water
contaminated with lead at concentrations that result in a BLL for 5% of a population exceeding 5
(.ig/dL;
• Prevent exposure of insect-eating birds and mammals to lead and zinc in soil/sediment at
concentrations above background levels, preventing exposure of benthic invertebrates to lead in
soil/sediment at concentrations above the lead background level;
• Prevent exposure of piscivorous birds to lead and zinc in soil/sediment at concentrations above
background level; and
• Prevent exposure of residents to COCs in soil, sediment, and surface water.
The Selected Remedy for the NDC/FL is readily implementable.
12.2 Description of the Selected Remedy
FMA
Based on the comparison of the nine criteria, EPA's Selected Remedy for the FMA is Alternative 2 -
Repair the existing soil cover, In Situ Thermal Remediation, and It s. EP A has determined that the
Selected Remedy for the FMA will be the most effective in addressing contaminated groundwater at the
Site. A conceptual layout of the FMA Selected Remedy is shown on Figure 7.
Remedy Components of FMA Alternative 2
The existing soil cover over the FMA will be repaired. Where low spots and depressions are identified,
the cover will be repaired with low permeability soil and graded to limit infiltration and ponding of
surface water on the cover. The VOC Source Area shown in Figure 7 will be treated using In Situ
Thermal Remediation. This treatment will address the VOC contaminated soil in the FMA and this action
will also address the principal threat waste (DN APL), eliminating a major source to groundwater
contamination. The final component of the OIJ1 FMA remedy is to implement ICs to restrict residential
development, ensure the integrity of the soil cover, and limit exposure to indoor air in the event of new
construction.
O&M Components of FMA Alternative 2
51
-------
O&M of this remedy would strictly be related to annual cover inspection and maintenance. Annual
inspections would include evaluation of the integrity of the cap to ensure there are no depressions. Cover
maintenance may include repair of the cover if its integrity has been impacted. Cover maintenance also
includes mowing the grass on the vegetative cover once per year as determined by annual inspections.
There is no O&M associated with the In Situ Thermal Remediation component of the remedy since the
principal threat waste will be treated.
Design Considerations of FMA Alternative 2
Repair the existing soil cover
A topographical survey would be conducted to identify depressions in the existing soil cover.
Approximately 19 cubic yards of low permeability soil would be added to depressions found in the soil
cover and compacted. Repaired areas of landfill cover would be revegetated with native seed mix.
In Situ Thermal Remediation
A surface liner would be installed over the target treatment area, with exception to the railroad and its
ballast. The purpose of this liner would be to prevent fugitive vapors from being released to the
atmosphere during heating. Electrodes or heater wells would be installed through the cap using standard
drilling methods to apply heat to the 5 to 23 ft bgs interval. Vapor recovery wells would be co-located
with the electrodes or heater wells. The thermal system would be connected to a power delivery system
unit that uses standard 3-phase power and 480-volt alternating current to heat the subsurface area. A
control system would be used to regulate and optimize the thermal response of the target formation and
target contaminants. Close coordination with various utility companies would be required to ensure that
the power demand can be met during the duration of the In Situ Thermal Remediation. Since no utilities
currently service the Site, a utility drop would be required to extend 3-phase power approximately 800
feet. Horizontal drilling could be performed under the railroad via the jack-and-bore drilling technique to
bring electricity from the north side of the railroad (where the power drop and control unit would be
located) to the south side of the railroad (where the subsurface electrodes in the treatment area would be
installed).
During Remedial Design, laboratory bench scale testing shall be conducted to identify and refine the
energy input and time requirements to meet required treatment temperatures. Implementation of thermal
treatment at similar sites has indicated that a flexible approach using multiple lines of evidence to
evaluate performance of the system yields more effective results than establishing numeric performance
standards prior to system operation. Therefore, the temperature in the vadose and saturated zones; vapor,
steam, groundwater, and DNAPL extraction rates; and air monitoring and groundwater contaminant
concentrations shall be monitored and reported in near-real time so that the system can be operated with
maximum efficiency. It is estimated that it will require 17 months to remediate the VOC Source Area to
treat DNAPL to the maximum extent practicable. This timeframe includes system installation,
construction, operation, and demobilization as well as Site restoration.
BFA
Based on the comparison of the nine criteria, EPA's Selected Remedy for the BFA is BFA Alternative 1
-No Further Action. Since follow-up sampling conducted in August 2020 did not find the presence of
arsenic, EPA has determined that the Selected Remedy for the BFA is appropriate.
52
-------
Remedy Components of UFA Alternative 1
There will be no remedy components since this is a No Further Action remedy.
Design Considerations of UFA Alternative 1
There are no design considerations since this is a No Further Action remedy.
NDC/FL
Based on the comparison of the nine criteria, EPA's Selected Remedy for the NDC/FL is Alternative 4 -
In Situ Stabilization for NDC Surface soils, Excavation with Ex Situ Stabilization and Off-Site
Disposal for FL Sediments and FL Subsurface Soil Hotspot, and Its. EPA has determined that the
Selected Remedy for the NDC/FL will be the most effective in addressing contaminated soil, sediment
and surface water at the Site. A conceptual layout of the NDC/FL Selected Remedy is shown on Figure 8.
Remedy Components of NDC/FL Alternative 4
The components of this alternative would include the following:
• Performing in situ stabilization on all NDC surface soils contaminated with lead and zinc above
Performance Standards; the specific amendment(s) will be determined following completion of
the treatability study, which is expected to be completed by Spring 2021;
• Low-impact vacuum dredging to surgically remove contaminated sediments from surface water
drainage channels and shallow impoundments above Performance Standards;
• Excavating (wet or dry) all FL sediments and subsurface soil with lead above Performance
Standards;
• Performing ex situ stabilization on soil that is removed from the FL and characterized as hazardous
waste;
• Disposing of excavated material at an appropriate disposal facility; and
• Implementing ICs for the NDC to restrict residential development and ensure the protectiveness
of human health and the environment.
(MM Components of NDC/FL Alternative 4
The Selected Remedy includes reapplication of the selected amendment (e.g. Biochar, Metafix, and/or
humic/fulvic acid) in the NDC, if necessary, until bioavailable concentrations of COCs are below
Performance Standards. For cost estimating purposes, one reapplication is currently assumed, but once
Performance Standards are met reapplication of the amendment would not be necessary. O&M would
also include long-term performance monitoring of soil, sediment, and surface water on an annual basis
until bioavailable concentrations of COCs are below performance standards. Once performance standards
are met, the need for performance sampling will be evaluated every 5 years or following any evidence of
significant changes to the area which may impact soil conditions. For cost estimating purposes,
performance sampling is assumed to occur annually for seven years, then once every five years.
Design Considerations of NDC/FL Alternative 4
In order to excavate soils and sediments from the FL, it is assumed that a cofferdam will be installed to
divert water from the FL. Soil and sediments will be excavated and mixed with an amendment to reduce
53
-------
lead concentrations. Confirmation samples will be collected from treated material to verify the material is
rendered nonhazardous. The material will be transported and disposed at a nearby landfill. Confirmation
sampling will be conducted in the area that has been excavated to ensure high levels of lead and zinc have
been removed from the FL. The area will be backfilled with clean material and revegetated with native
wetland vegetation.
It is assumed that the amendment(s) selected following the treatability study (such as Biochar, Metafix
and/or humic/fulvic acid) will be applied manually to the NDC as part of a pilot study. Application will
target the surface soil areas where lead and zinc exceed their respective Performance Standards (see
treatment area in Figure 8). Following implementation of in situ stabilization on the NDC surface soils,
performance sampling will be conducted. It is also expected that vegetative regrowth will assist in the
reduction of metal bioavailability in soils. For cost estimating purposes, one reapplication is currently
assumed, but once Performance Standards are met reappli cation of the amendment would not be
necessary.
12.3 Cost Estimate for the Selected Remedy
FMA
The estimated present worth cost for the FMA Selected Remedy is $7,663,488. Appendix C includes
details of the estimated costs to construct and implement the Selected Remedy. The information in this
cost estimate is based upon the best available information regarding the anticipated scope of the Remedial
Action.
Changes to the cost estimates may occur during implementation as a result of new information and data
collected during the engineering design of the Selected Remedy. Major changes to the Selected Remedy
may be documented in the form of a memorandum to the Administrative Record File, an Explanation of
Significant Differences (ESD), or a ROD Amendment, as appropriate. This is an order-of-magnitude
engineering cost estimate that is expected to be within +50 to -30 percent of the actual project cost.
BFA
The estimated present worth cost for the BFA Selected Remedy is $0.
NDC/FL
The estimated present worth cost for the NDC/FL Selected Remedy is $3,615,035. Appendix C includes
details of the estimated costs to construct and implement the Selected Remedy. The information in this
cost estimate is based upon the best available information regarding the anticipated scope of the Remedial
Action.
Changes to the cost estimates may occur during implementation as a result of new information and data
collected during the engineering design of the Selected Remedy. Major changes to the Selected Remedy
may be documented in the form of a memorandum to the Administrative Record File, an ESD, or a ROD
Amendment, as appropriate. This is an order-of-magnitude engineering cost estimate that is expected to
be within +50 to -30 percent of the actual project cost.
54
-------
12.4 Expected Outcomes of the Selected Remedy
FMA
Implementation of the Selected Remedy in the FMA is expected to eliminate principal threat waste
(DNAPL) and significantly reduce VOC concentrations in the thermal treatment zone in both the soil and
groundwater. Additionally, the Selected Remedy is expected to reduce the potential for contamination
present in soil to migrate to groundwater at concentrations exceeding the groundwater MCL. Supported
by the implementation of the ICs, the land use will remain as commercial and industrial. While
redevelopment of the FMA is possible at any stage of the Superfund process, the significant reduction in
contamination resulting from the implementation of the Selected Remedy may encourage potential
redevelopment in the FMA.
BFA
Since the August 2020 follow-up sampling could not confirm the presence of arsenic, which was
originally found in one discrete surface soil location, EPA has decided to take no further action at this
AOC.
NDC/FL
Implementation of the Selected Remedy in the NDC/FL is expected to eliminate the potential exposure to
lead and zinc at concentrations exceeding the ecological- and human-health based remedial goals. Since
the ecological-health based remedial goals are more conservative compared to the human-health based
remedial goals, the cleanup objectives default to the ecological-health based remedial goals. For lead the
ecological-based health standard is a background value of 99.4 mg/kg and for zinc the ecological-based
health standard is a background value of 137 mg/kg. Addressing the contamination in soils is expected to
reduce the contamination in sediments and surface water, since the metals sorbed to soil can be
transported to surface water and sediment via overland flow. Through the implementation of the ICs, the
land use will remain as commercial and industrial.
13.0 Statutory Determinations
Under Section 121 of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. § 9621, and 40 C.F.R. § 300.430(f)(5)(ii) of the NCP, EPA
must select remedies that are protective of human health and the environment, comply with ARARs, are
cost effective, and utilize permanent solutions and alternative treatment technologies or resource recovery
to the maximum extent possible. There is also a preference for remedies that use treatment that
permanently and significantly reduce the volume, toxicity, or mobility of hazardous wastes as a principal
element. The following sections discuss how the remedy meets these statutory requirements.
13.1 Protection of Human Health and the Environment
FMA
Based on the information currently available, EPA has determined that the Selected Remedy for the FMA
is protective of human health and the environment as it would achieve RAOs in a relatively quick
timeframe. The Selected Remedy would protect underlying groundwater by treating the VOC Source
Area and prevent the migration of contamination from soil to groundwater. Additionally, it provides
protection via ICs that restrict residential development, ensure the integrity of the soil cover, and limit
exposure to indoor air in the event of new construction.
55
-------
BFA
Based on the information currently available, EPA has determined that the Selected Remedy for the BFA
is protective of human health and the environment because arsenic contamination is not present in soils.
NDC/FL
Based on the information currently available, EPA has determined that the Selected Remedy for the
NDC/FL is protective of human health and the environment as it removes the high concentration lead
material from the Site, and addresses the remaining metals exceedances via in situ stabilization, regrowth
of the wetland vegetation, and ICs for the NDC to restrict residential development and ensure the
protectiveness of human health and the environment.
13.2 Compliance with Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements
The NCP, 40 C.F.R. §§ 300.430(f)(5)(ii)(B) and (C), requires that a ROD describe Federal and State
ARARs that the remedial action will attain or provide a justification for any waivers. Applicable
requirements are those cleanup standards, standards of control, and other substantive requirements,
criteria, or limitations promulgated under federal environmental or state environmental of facility siting
laws that specifically address a hazardous substance, pollutant, contaminant, remedial action, location, or
other circumstance found at a CERCLA site. Relevant and appropriate requirements are those cleanup
standards, standards of control, and other substantive requirements, criteria, or limitations promulgated
under federal environmental or state environmental or facility siting laws that, while not "applicable" to a
hazardous substance, pollutant, contaminant, remedial action, location, or other circumstance at a
CERCLA site, address problems or situations sufficiently similar to those encountered at the CERCLA
site that their use is well suited to the particular site.
The Selected Remedies for the FMA, the BFA and the NDC/FL will comply with all the ARARS listed in
Appendix D.
13.3 Cost Effectiveness
The Selected Remedies are cost-effective in providing overall protection of human health and the
environment by limiting the risk posed by Site COCs and meeting all other requirements of CERCL A and
the NCP at a cost that is proportional to the other alternatives that were evaluated. Further, the Selected
Remedies are readily implementable and provide a high degree of both short- and long-term
effectiveness. The estimated present worth cost of the Selected Remedy for the FMA is $7,663,488 The
estimated present worth cost of the Selected Remedy for the BFA is $0. The estimated present worth cost
of the Selected Remedy for the NDC/FL is $3,615,035.
13.4 Utilization of Permanent Solutions to the Maximum Extent Practicable
The Selected Remedies represent the maximum extent to which permanent solutions and treatment are
practicable at the Site through the treatment of contaminants in soils, sediments, and surface water. EPA
has determined that the Selected Remedies provide the best balance of tradeoffs in terms of long-term
effectiveness and permanence, reduction in toxicity, mobility, or volume through treatment, short-term
effectiveness, implementability, and costs while also considering the statutory preference for treatment as
a principal element and state and community acceptance.
56
-------
The Selected Remedy specifically for the FMA will meet the statutory preference for treatment as a
principal element by addressing principle threat waste (i.e., DNAPL) via In Situ Thermal Remediation.
13.5 Five-Year Revi ew Requi rements
Because the Selected Remedies will result in hazardous substances remaining on-Site above levels that
allow for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure, a statutory review will be conducted no less often than
every five years to ensure that the Selected Remedy is, or will be, protective of human health and the
environment pursuant to Section 121(c) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. § 9621(c), and 40 C.F.R. §
300.430(f)(4)(ii) of the NCP. The first FYR will be completed five years after the start of on-Site
construction for OIJ1, and subsequent FYRs will be conducted every five years thereafter. FYRs will
continue until hazardous substances are no longer present above levels that allow for unlimited use and
unrestricted exposure.
14.0 Documentation of Significant Changes
The Proposed Plan was released for public comment on August 31, 2020. EPA has reviewed all
comments submitted during the public comment period. EPA has determined that no significant changes
to the remedy, as originally identified in the PRAP, were necessary or appropriate. However, based on
discussion with PADEP regarding appropriate O&M requirements for the NDC/FL Selected Remedy,
minor changes in monitoring frequency and the number of anticipated reapplications to achieve
Performance Standards are reflected in the above text and cost estimate in Appendix C.
15. State Role
PADEP, on behalf of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, has reviewed the remedial alternatives
presented in the ROD and has indicated its concurrence with the Selected Remedies. PADEP has also
reviewed the list of ARARs to determine if the Selected Remedies are in compliance with appropriate
State environmental laws and regulations.
57
-------
RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
JACKSON CERAMIX SUPERFUND SITE
OPERABLE UNIT 1
CREEK, JEFFERSON COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
-------
Introduction
This Responsiveness Summary summarizes the significant comments and concerns received during the
public comment period for the Proposed Plan for the Jackson Ceramix Superfund Site (Site) and provides
United States Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) responses to those comments. After reviewing
and considering all public comments received during the public comment period, EPA's Selected
Remedial Actions are the following:
FMA Alternative 2 - Repair the existing soil cover, In Situ Thermal Remediation, and It s;
UFA Alternative 1 — No Further Action; and
NDC/FL Alternative 4 - In Situ Stabilization for NDC Surface soils, Excavation with Ex Situ
Stabilization and Off-Site Disposal for FL Sediments and FL Subsurface Soil Hotspot, and Its.
The Proposed Remedial Action Plan (Proposed Plan) and supporting documents were made available to
the public in the Administrative Record File, which was compiled to support selection of this Remedial
Action. EPA provided notice to the public that the Administrative Record File could be viewed online at
https://semspub.epa.gov/src/col 1 ectioii/03/AR61810. or at the following locations:
DuBois Public Library
31 S Brady St.
DuBois, PA 16801
(814)371-5930
U.S. EPA-Region 111
Records Room
1650 Arch Street - 6th Floor
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Phone: (215) 814-3157
The notice of availability of these documents was published in the Courier-Express, a local newspaper,
on August 3 1, 2020. In addition, EPA sent a fact-sheet summarizing EPA's preferred remedial action
alternatives to residences near the Site on August 3 1, 2020.
A recorded video presentation was published in place of a public meeting to present the conclusions of
the Rl/FS and to elaborate further on the reasons for recommending the Preferred Alternatives. The video
presentation was made available to local officials, citizens and stakeholders with a link provided on the
fact-sheet. EPA held a 30-day public comment period from August 3 1, 2020 to September 30, 2020, to
accept public comments on the remedial alternatives presented in the Proposed Plan, as well as other
documents contained within the Administrative Record File. During the public comment period,
comments could be made through voicemail or in writing via email. Responses to comments received
during the public comment period are included in this Responsiveness Summary.
Responses to Falls Creek Borough Council Comments
The Falls Creek Borough (Borough) Council submitted the following comments by email dated
September 30, 2020. The comments refer to the August 3 1, 2020 Proposed Plan and the prerecorded
public meeting. No other comments were received during the public comment period.
59
-------
1. All action at the site should cease. Except for testing of the wells.
EPA Response: EPA disagrees with this comment. It would not be appropriate to cease work at the
Jackson Cera mix Superfund Site. EPA is conducting a cleanup of the Site pursuant to authority granted to
EPA by the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), as
amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 9601, et sea., also known as Superfund. The goal of Superfund is to enable EPA
to respond to releases and threatened release of hazardous substances that may endanger public health or
the environment, in accordance with the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency
Plan, which appears at Title 40, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 300 (40 C.F.R. Part 300).
Pursuant to its authority under Superfund, EPA conducted a thorough Remedial Investigation/Feasibility
Study (Rl/FS) at the Site and issued a Proposed Plan in which it recommended its preferred remedial
actions to address the contamination and risks present at the Site. Following notice of the Proposed Plan
and a 30-day public comment period, EPA has selected the remedy for the Site, as set forth in the Record
of Decision (ROD). EPA has determined that the Selected Remedy will be protective of human health
and the environment, cost effective, and will utilize permanent solutions for treatment of principal threat
waste. Following issuance of the ROD, EPA will then proceed with designing and constructing the
remedy.
Generally, EPA determines that no remedial action is necessary at a site when a risk assessment
concludes there is no risk. In the case when there is no risk, EPA can issue a no action ROD and cease
work. However, a no action ROD is not appropriate at this Site. While EPA and the Pennsylvania
Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) performed extensive work to clean up the soils and
sediments at the Site prior to the Site being listed on the National Priorities List (NPL), the Site was
added to the NPL in 2005 in order to continue the cleanup and address long-term risks to human and
ecological health posed by the Site. The selected remedial action should address the contamination and
risks present at the Site and must be protective of human health and the environment, as well as maintain
protection over time. Superfund law additionally includes a provision to address principal threat waste
wherever practicable (40 C.F.R. § 300.430(a)(l)(iii)(A)). Principal threat waste is present in the area of
the Site where EPA is planning to conduct in situ thermal remediation adjacent to and underlying the
B&P Railroad.
As a result of its investigation of the Site, EP A has determined that remedial actions for the Former
Manufacturing Area (FMA) and the Northern Drainage Channel/Former Lagoon (NDC/FL), as described
in the Proposed Plan and in the ROD, are necessary and appropriate. With regard to the Baseball Field
Area (BFA), EPA has determined that no remedial action will be required. To the extent there may be an
interest in redevelopment of portions of the Site, in particular the FMA, while redevelopment can occur at
any stage of the Superfund process, it is important that EPA can address the contamination present at
those areas to eliminate potential threats to human health. Eliminating this source of contamination may
make the FMA more desirable to a future developer. EPA has made addressing contamination at the
FMA a priority for this reason.
2. Ball park area should be moved to no further action is required.
EPA Response: EPA agrees with this comment. As discussed in the Proposed Plan, EPA returned to the
BFA in August 2020 and collected soil samples to confirm the presence of arsenic. Sampling results,
which EPA received after the issuance of the Proposed Plan, did not detect arsenic levels indicative of a
human health concern and, as a result, a remedial alternative to address arsenic is not required. Therefore,
EPA has selected no further action for the BFA in the ROD.
60
-------
3. No additional fill is needed to the entire grounds.
EPA Response: EPA disagrees with this comment because additional fill may be necessary at areas of the
Former Manufacturing Area (FMA). Between 1998 and 1999, PADEP conducted a Prompt Interim
Response Remedial Action that included the removal and off-Site disposal of hazardous substances and
materials from the Site, on-Site stabilization of contaminated sludge and sediment, asbestos removal,
building demolition, and installation of a 2-foot thick Class 111 Residual Waste Landfill Cover. While the
current vegetative soil cover in the FMA is in relatively good condition, some depressions were found
during the Remedial Investigation and therefore the concern is that precipitation could cause
contaminants present below the cap to leach into groundwater. During the Feasibility Study, EPA
evaluated alternatives that would provide long-term protection from exposure to contaminated soil. The
alternative in the Proposed Plan was to enhance the soil cover. EPA does not anticipate that the remedial
action selected for the FMA will require additional fill to the entire grounds. A majority of the existing
soil cover over the FMA is of sufficient construction to mitigate the infiltration of precipitation. However,
specific areas of the soil cover that show settlement, such as low spots or depressions, would be inspected
and repaired with soil of low permeability and graded to limit infiltration and ponding of surface water on
the cover. EPA is selecting repair of the existing soil cover as a component of the alternative to address
the FMA in the ROD to contain the contamination, prevent exposure, and to provide for long-term
protection. EPA will work with the Borough and consider factors such as potential reuse and ensuring
that construction plans are coordinated with any potential future redevelopment of the property.
4. More dollars should be put toward addressing bringing new business on the property with
self-sustaining jobs.
EPA Response: EPA has been working, and will continue to work, with Falls Creek Borough and PADEP
on the cleanup and redevelopment of the Site with the goal of returning the Site to productive use and
bringing job opportunities to the Borough. EPA has prioritized the cleanup of Operable Unit 1, the focus
of this Proposed Remedial Action Plan, due to its redevelopment potential.
While EPA is not the owner of the Site, the Agency has promoted redevelopment of the Site by initiating
the stakeholder process to develop a Reuse Assessment and by engaging prospective purchasers.
Specifically, in October 2019, EPA met with prominent local stakeholders, including Borough council
members, PA State Representative Cris Dush, Jamie LeFever of the Economic Development Council of
Jefferson County, Mark Adams - representing Senator Joe Scarnati, Brad Lashinksy - the Director of
Continuing and Communication Education at Penn State DuBois, John Brennan - the Program Director of
North Central PA, and PADEP to develop a "Reuse Assessment" for the Site. Following this meeting,
EPA developed a detailed Reuse Assessment that is displayed on EPA's national Superfund
Redevelopment Program website (https://semspub.epa.gov/work/03/2295377.pdf) and is available for
potential developers and other interested parties.
The EPA Region 111 Land Revitalization Action Team (LRAT) has worked with, and will continue
working with, any prospective purchasers interested in developing the Site. In fact, the LRAT had
discussions with a potential developer based in Los Angeles. While that redevelopment did not take
place, it does reflect the widespread distribution and effectiveness of the Reuse Assessment for the Site.
Additionally, the 2-acre property adjacent to the land owned by the Borough was recently purchased.
Both EPA and PADEP were proactive in working with this purchaser, and another interested party, in
coordinating additional sampling to ensure the building conditions are safe and provided a reasonable
steps letter to the owner to make sure he is fully aware of the conditions of the property.
61
-------
5. Stop using the term "contamination" when addressing the property.
EPA Response: A goal of the Superfund Program is to protect human health and the environment by
cleaning up contaminated sites. In order to do so, EPA performs a Remedial Investigation, a critical
component of the Superfund process, to determine the nature and extent of contamination at a site. EP A
uses the term 'contamination" typically when we have sampled and detected contaminants above a risk-
based standard. For the Jackson Ceramix Site, the following contaminants were found to be above their
risk-based standard and, therefore, identified as chemicals of concern (COCs): trichloroethene, lead,
benzo(a)pyrene, benz[a]anthracene, benzo[b]fluoranthene, dibenz[a,h]anthracene, indeno[ 1,2,3-
c,d]pyrene, tetrachlorethene, cis-1,2-dichloroethene, toluene, vinyl chloride, benzene, chloroform, carbon
tetrachloride, and vinyl chloride.
Another critical component of the Superfund process is informing the public about the nature and extent
of COCs at a site. In addition, when working to place properties back into productive re-use, the nature
and extent of COCs at a site is critical information in assisting property owners in determining a safe and
appropriate re-use of a property. Therefore, it is important to address the contamination clearly and with
transparency to determine the best way to clean up the Site that is protective for future use of the
property.
6. There is an agreement in place signed by all parties involved. Let's make things happen based
on the agreement we have in place. No need to do or go any further on the property until we
have a potential buyer. At that time, we can help make the property available to the
potential buyer together.
EPA Response: EPA is aware of a Consent Order and Agreement (COA) that was entered into on August
15, 2016 by PADEP and the property owners located within Operable Unit 1. The COA does not address
the remedial actions necessary to be performed at the Site to protect human health and the environment.
The COA requires compliance by the owners of certain properties (Properties) with activity and use
restrictions with regard to those Properties, the recording of environmental covenants pursuant to the
Pennsylvania Uniform Environmental Covenants Action, 27 Pa. Code §§ 6501 - 65 17 (UECA) setting
forth activity and use restrictions required of current and future owners of the Properties, and the granting
of access by the owners to PADEP and EPA in order to monitor groundwater and/or any other necessary
response actions at the Site, including the Properties.
Environmental covenants were recorded for the Properties in January 2017. Activity and use restrictions
identified in the environmental covenants include: limiting use of the Properties to industrial activities,
restricting groundwater use at the Properties, restricting use of the Properties in a manner that would
disturb response actions at the Site; and requiring pre-approval by PADEP of plans to engage in certain
redevelopment, construction, demolition or earth moving activities at the Properties.
The use restrictions required by the COA and the environmental covenants are not meant to serve as a
final action with regard to Site cleanup. Such restrictions do not provide for necessary remediation of
hazardous substances present at the Site nor will they adequately address the risks to human health and
the environment posed by these hazardous substances and current Site conditions. Rather, use restrictions
support the remedial actions selected for the Site, allowing for use of the Properties in such a manner as
to not interfere with or adversely affect the integrity of the response actions implemented at the Site, and
to help minimize the potential for exposure to contamination.
62
-------
FIGURE S
63
-------
Taylor Avenue
^Northern £
NDC Drainage cj rjS
Ridge Avenue
Former
Lagoon
OU2
Northeast
Drainage
' Beaver,Rondi
NDC Drainage
inch Diameter
Culvert
OU1 Eastern
Drainage Ditch
OU2 Centra!
Drainage Area
FjormertO.U.l|Easte rn
M Drainage Ditcin M
•Culvert
Drainage]
Bouleti
Legend
Culvert (dashed where inferred)
Surface Water Drainage
(dashed where inferred)
Intermittent Surface Water Drainage
Railroad
Abandoned Railroad
Railroad Embankment
County Line
OU1 (West Side of Railroad Tracks)
OU2 (Sandy Lick Creek Floodplain)
Baseball Field Area
Northern Drainage Channel/
Former Lagoon
Former Manufacturing Area
Vernal Pool
Wetlands Coverage (AMEC, 2002)
Perennial Surface Water Body
Notes:
B&P=Buffalo and Pittsburgh
OU=Operable Unit
NDC=Northern Drainage Channel
Statewide Location
^
PENNSYLVANIA
A
Jackson Ceramix
Superfund Site
» :
Osborne Avenue
Deemer Avenue
Southern
Madison Avenue
OU2 Main
u.
I a -
fMSt
vQsSsiA
Drainage Channel ~
¦9
OU2
Oxbow Lake 1
MR
Slab Run Road
Jackson Ceramix
Superfund Site
Figure 1
Site Layout
us EPA
Region III
1650 Arch Street
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 191003
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
-------
-------
Notes:
Contour Interval: 1 foot
< = less than or equal to
> = greater than
B&P=Buffalo and Pittsburgh
COC=contaminant of concern
DCE=dichloroethene
ft amsl=feet above mean sea level
mg/kg=milligrams per kilogram
OU=Operable Unit
PCE=tetrachloroethene
PRG=preliminary remediation goal
T CE=trichloroethene
VOC=volatile organic compound
Legend
# Subsurface Soil Boring with COC > PRGs
® Subsurface Soil Boring with COC < PRGs
# Subsurface Soil Boring Not Sampled
® Overburden Monitoring Well
® Bedrock Monitoring Well
OU1MW2S Sample Identification
1,397.46 Groundwater Elevation (ft amsl)
Groundwater Elevation Contour
1,398 — ^ amsl, dashed where inferred)
Surface Water Drainage
(dashed where inferred)
Reconstructed OU1 Eastern Drainage Ditch H
1998-1999 Prompt Interim Response
Soil Cover (Tt, 2000)
Former Jackson Ceramix
Manufacturing Facility
Culvert (dashed where inferred)
Northern Drainage Channel/
Former Lagoon
Extent of Lead > PRG (153 mg/kg)
Extent of Chlorinated VOCs > PRG ([1])
OU1 (West Side of Railroad Tracks)
OU2 (Sandy Lick Creek Floodplain)
Former Manufacturing Area
Perennial Surface Water Body
Figure 3
Nature and Extent of Contamination
in the Former Manufacturing Area
US EPA
Region III
1650 Arch Street
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 191003
v>EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
-------
-------
Notes:
< = less than or equal to
> = greater than
B&P=Buffalo and Pittsburgh
COC=contaminant of concern
mg/kg=milligrams per kilogram
na=not applicable
NDC and FL=Northern Drainage Channel
and OU1 Former Lagoon
OU=Operable Unit
PRG=preliminary remediation goal
1
ft
coc
Surface
Sediment
PRG
Surface
Soil PRG
Subsurface
Soil PRG
1
Lead
99.4 mg/kg
127 mg/kg
Zinc
137 mg/kg
na
1
90
180
360
Feet
-------
Northwest
Southeast
1650-
1600-
1550-
1500-
CD
>
_oj
03
CD
(fi
c
CO
CD
E
CD
>
O
_Q
03
•*—>
a>
0
1450-
1400-
cc
>
LU
1350-
1300-
1200-
1150 -
Legend
oui mwi dr Monitoring Well
PZ12D Piezometer
m Well and Screen
—j.,..
~
QAL
IPms
Feet
Groundwater Table
Groundwater Flow Direction
Surface Water
China Waste Debris
China Waste Sludge and/or
Lead-Impacted Sediment/Soils
VOC Contamination Source
VOC Groundwater Plume (April 2014,
extent extrapolated from surrounding wells)
Lead Groundwater Plume (April 2014,
extent extrapolated from surrounding wells)
Silt/Clay
Fill
Saprolite
Alluvium
Pennsylvanian Millstone Run Formation
Pennsylvania!! Mineral Springs Formation
Jackson Ceramix
Superfund Site
Figure 6
Site Conceptual Model
US EPA Region III
1650 Arch Street
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 191003
oEPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
-------
-------
Figure 8
Selected Remedy for the
Northern Drainage Channel/Former
Lagoon: In Situ Stabilization for NDC
Surface Soils; Excavation with Ex Situ
Stabilization and Off-Site Disposal for
FL Sediments and FL Subsurface Soil
Hotspot; Institutional Controls
US EPA Region III
1650 Arch Street
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 191003
vvEPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
-------
APPENDIX A
PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
CORRESPONDENCE
-------
Pennsylvania
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
March 3, 2021
Linda Dietz
Acting Director
Superfund and Emergency Management Division
US EPA Region 111
1650 Arch Street (3HS00)
Philadelphia, PA 19103-2029
Re: Record of Decision
Jackson Ceramix Superfund Site
Falls Creek, Jefferson County
Dear Ms. Dietz:
The Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) has received and reviewed the Record of
Decision (ROD) for Operable Unit 1 of the Jackson Ceramix Superfund Site (Site) in Falls
Creek, Jefferson County. This ROD presents the selected remedial actions for Operable Unit 1,
which address the following areas of contamination:
¦ Former Manufacturing Area (FMA): PCE, TCE, Vinyl Chloride, Cis-1,2-DCE,
Toluene, and Lead are present beneath the soil cover in the OU1 FMA and act as a
reservoir for continued groundwater contamination. By addressing these
contaminants, a major source to groundwater contamination will be eliminated. The
source of these contaminants is beneath the soil cover that was installed during
PADEP's interim response in 1999 and 2000.
¦ Baseball Field Area: No areas of contamination.
¦ Northern Drainage Channel/Former Lagoon (NDC/FL): Lead and Zinc are present in
soils, sediment, and surface water within the NDC/FL in concentrations that pose risk
to human health and the environment. The source of these contaminants is a result of
waste processing and disposal from manufacturing operations at the Site.
EPA's selected remedial actions at OlJ 1 include:
¦ Former Manufacturing Area - Alternative 2:
o Repair of the existing soil cover;
o In Situ Thermal Remediation of the volatile organic compounds (VOC)-
contaminated soil, and dense non-aqueous phase liquid (DNAPL); and
o Institutional Controls (ICs).
¦ Baseball Field Area: No Further Action
¦ Northern Drainage Channel/Former Lagoon - Alternative 4:
o In Situ Stabilization for NDC Surface Soils;
Northwest Regional Office
230 Chestnut Street | Meadville, PA 16335 | 814.332.6648 | Fax 814.332.6121 | www.dep.pa.gov
-------
- 2 -
o Excavation with Ex Situ Stabilization and Off-Site Disposal for FL
Sediments and FL Subsurface Soil Hotspot; and
o ICs.
DEP hereby concurs with EPA's proposed remedy with the following conditions:
¦ DEP will be given the opportunity to review and comment on documents and concur
with decisions related to the design and implementation of the remedial action, to
assure compliance with Pennsylvania's Applicable, Relevant and Appropriate
Requirements (ARARs) and to be considered requirements.
¦ DEP will have the opportunity to review and comment before any modification to the
ROD and the issuance of an Explanation of Significant Difference (ESD).
¦ This concurrence with the selected remedial action is not intended to provide any
assurances pursuant to CERCLA Section 104(c)(3), 42 U.S.C. 9604(c)(3).
¦ Concurrence with the remedy should not be interpreted as acceptance of on-
site Operation and Maintenance (O&M) by DEP. State O&M obligations will
be determined during the completion of a Superfund State Contract.
¦ EPA will assure that DEP is provided an opportunity to fully participate in
any negotiations with responsible parties.
¦ DEP reserves the right and responsibility to take independent enforcement
actions pursuant to state law.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment and concur on this EPA Record of Decision. If you
have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
John A.
out*-, xoi mm -mm
John Holden
Acting Regional Director
Northwest Regional Office
PA Dept. of Environmental Protection
cc: Katie Mishkin, EPA Region III
Noreen Wagner, Storage Tanks and Hazardous Sites Cleanup Section
Jacob Moore, NWRO
Chuck Byhatn, NWRO
Anita Stainbrook, NWRO
File
-------
APPENDIX B
RISK ASSESSMENT TABLES
-------
TABLE 3.1
MEDIUM-SPECIFIC EXPOSURE POINT CONCENTRATION SUMMARY
Scenario Timeframe: Future
Medium: Soil
Exposure Medium: Subsurface Soil
Exposure Point
Chemical
of
Potential
Concern
Units
Arithmetic
Mean
95% UCL
(Distribution)
Maximum
Concentration
(Qualifier)
Exposure Point Concentration
Value
Units
Statistic
Rationale
Former
Manufacturing Area
CIS-1,2-DICHLOROETHENE (a)
MG/KG
6.0E-01
3.3E+00 (NP)
9.9E+00
3.3E+00
MG/KG
99% KM (Chebyshev) UCL, excluding OU1SB23-0809 and EBSB-05-10
1, excluding hot spots
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE (a)
MG/KG
1.4E-01
8.1E-01 (NP)
3.1E+00
8.1E-01
MG/KG
99% KM (Chebyshev) UCL, excluding OU1SB23-0809 and EBSB-05-10
1, excluding hot spots
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (a)
MG/KG
3.3E-02
1.6E-01 (NP)
4.9E-01
1.6E-01
MG/KG
99% KM (Chebyshev) UCL, excluding OU1SB23-0809 and EBSB-05-10
1, excluding hot spots
VINYL CHLORIDE
MG/KG
2.0E-02
5.7E-02 (NP)
3.2E-01 J
5.7E-02
MG/KG
95% KM (Chebyshev) UCL, all of FMA
1
BENZO[A]ANTHRACENE (b)
MG/KG
3.8E-01
8.6E-01 (NP)
3.0E+00
8.6E-01
MG/KG
95% KM (t) UCL, excluding MIPSO-SB04-08-10
1, 2, 3, excluding hot spot
BENZO[A]PYRENE (b)
MG/KG
3.5E-01
7.8E-01 (NP)
2.7E+00
7.8E-01
MG/KG
95% KM (t) UCL, excluding MIPSO-SB04-08-10
1, 2, 3, excluding hot spot
BENZO[B]FLUORANTHENE (b)
MG/KG
5.4E-01
1.3E+00 (NP)
4.7E+00
1.3E+00
MG/KG
95% KM (t) UCL, excluding MIPSO-SB04-08-10
1, 2, 3, excluding hot spot
BENZO[K]FLUORANTHENE (b)
MG/KG
1.9E-01
4.1E-01 (NP)
1.4E+00
4.1E-01
MG/KG
95% KM (t) UCL, excluding MIPSO-SB04-08-10
1, 2, 3, excluding hot spot
CHRYSENE (b)
MG/KG
3.2E-01
7.0E-01 (NP)
2.4E+00
7.0E-01
MG/KG
95% KM (t) UCL, excluding MIPSO-SB04-08-10
1, 2, 3, excluding hot spot
DIBENZ[A,H]ANTHRACENE (b)
MG/KG
1.3E-01
6.2E-01 (NP)
7.7E-01
6.2E-01
MG/KG
97.5% KM (t) UCL, excluding MIPSO-SB04-08-10
6, excluding hot spot
DIBENZOFURAN (b)
MG/KG
N/A
N/A
4.4E-01
4.4E-01
MG/KG
Maximum, excluding MIPSO-SB04-08-10
6, 7, excluding hot spot
INDENO[1,2,3-CD]PYRENE (b)
MG/KG
2.6E-01
5.8E-01 (NP)
2.0E+00
5.8E-01
MG/KG
95% KM (t) UCL, excluding MIPSO-SB04-08-10
1, 2, 3, excluding hot spot
NAPHTHALENE (b)
MG/KG
2.0E-01
2.2E-01 (NP)
2.9E-01
2.2E-01
MG/KG
95% KM (t) UCL, excluding MIPSO-SB04-08-10
6, excluding hot spot
AROCLOR-1254
MG/KG
N/A
N/A
1.4E-01
1.4E-01
MG/KG
Maximum, all of FMA
5
ALUMINUM (FUME OR DUST)
MG/KG
8.0E+03
8.6E+03 (N)
9.6E+03 J
8.6E+03
MG/KG
95% Student's-t UCL, all of FMA
1, 2, 3
ARSENIC
MG/KG
2.2E+01
3.8E+01 (G)
1.2E+02
3.8E+01
MG/KG
95% Adjusted Gamma UCL, all of FMA
1,3
CHROMIUM
MG/KG
1.6E+01
1.8E+01 (N)
2.4E+01
1.8E+01
MG/KG
95% Student's-t UCL, all of FMA
1, 2, 3
COBALT
MG/KG
1.2E+01
1.5E+01 (N)
2.8E+01
1.5E+01
MG/KG
95% Student's-t UCL, all of FMA
1, 2, 3
CYANIDE
MG/KG
N/A
N/A
3.5E+01 D
3.5E+01
MG/KG
Maximum, all of FMA
5
IRON
MG/KG
3.5E+04
4.5E+04 (N)
8.4E+04 J
4.5E+04
MG/KG
95% Student's-t UCL, all of FMA
1, 2, 3
LEAD (c)
MG/KG
4.9E+01
1.1E+02 (NP)
1.5E+02
4.9E+01
MG/KG
Mean, excluding MIPSO-SB07-03-05
4, 8, excluding hot spot
MANGANESE
MG/KG
3.9E+02
4.6E+02 (N)
6.2E+02 J
4.6E+02
MG/KG
95% Student's-t UCL, all of FMA
1, 2, 3
Page 1 of 2
-------
TABLE 3.1
MEDIUM-SPECIFIC EXPOSURE POINT CONCENTRATION SUMMARY
Notes:
a. Data shown here excludes samples OU1SB23-0809 and EBSB-05-10, which were evaluated as separate hot spots.
at OU1SB23-0809, cis-1,2-Dichloroethene = 24 MG/KG, Tetrachloroethene = 26 MG/KG, Trichloroethene = 41 MG/KG
at EBSB-05-10, cis-1,2-Dichloroethene = 7.4 MG/KG, Tetrachloroethene = 33 MG/KG, Trichloroethene = 19 MG/KG
b. Data shown here excludes sample MlPSO-SB04-08-10, which was evaluated as a separate hot spot.
at MlPSO-SB04-08-10, Benzo(a)anthracene = 61 MG/KG, Benzo(a)pyrene = 39 MG/KG, Benzo(b)fluoranthene = 59 MG/KG, Benzo(k)fluoranthene = 13 MG/KG, Chrysene = 61 MG/KG, Dibenz(a,h)anthracene = 9 MG/KG, Dibenzofuran = 21 MG/KG,
lndeno(1,2,3-c)pyrene = 20 MG/KG, Naphthalene = 4 MG/KG
c. Data shown here excludes sample MIPSO-SB07-03-05, which was evaluated as a separate hot spot,
at MIPSO-SB07-03-05, Lead = 8360 MG/KG
ProllCL, Version 5.0.00 used to determine distribution of data and calculate 95% UCL, following recommendations
in users guide (USEPA. September 2013. Prepared by Lockheed Martin Environmental Services).
UCL Rationale:
(1) ProllCL indicates data are log-normally distributed.
(2) ProUCL indicates data are normally distributed.
(3) ProUCL indicates data are gamma distributed.
(4) Distribution tests are inconclusive (data are not normal, log-normal, or gamma-distributed).
(5) Only detected in one sample, maximum detected concentration used as exposure point concentration.
(6) ProUCL indicated not enough detected concentrations to perform goodness of fit tests.
(7) Only detected in two samples, ProUCL indicated not enough data to calculate statistics.
(8) Arithmetic mean of detected lead concentrations used as exposure point concentration in lead models.
G = Gamma, NP = Non-Parametric, N = Normal FMA = Former Manufacturing Area
J = Estimated Value
D = The analyte was quantitated from a diluted analysis
MG/KG = milligram per kilogram
N/A = not available
Page 2 of 2
-------
TABLE 3.1 A
MEDIUM-SPECIFIC EXPOSURE POINT CONCENTRATION SUMMARY
Scenario Timeframe: Future
Medium: Soil
Exposure Medium: Ambient Air (Subsurface Soil)
Exposure Point
Chemical
Units
Arithmetic
95% UCL
Maximum
Exposure Point Concentration
of
Mean
(Distribution)
Concentration
Potential
(Qualifier)
Concern
Value
Units
Statistic
Rationale
Former Manufacturing Area
(Receptors other than
CIS-1,2-DICHLOROETHENE (a)
ug/m3
1.9E-01
1.0E+00 (NP)
3.1E+00
1.0E+00
ug/m3
99% KM (Chebyshev) UCL, excluding OU1SB23 and EBSB-05-10
1, excluding hot spots
Construction Worker)
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE (a)
ug/m3
4.5E-02
2.7E-01 (NP)
1.0E+00
2.7E-01
ug/m3
99% KM (Chebyshev) UCL, excluding OU1SB23 and EBSB-05-10
1, excluding hot spots
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (a)
ug/m3
1.1E-02
5.7E-02 (NP)
1.7E-01
5.7E-02
ug/m3
99% KM (Chebyshev) UCL, excluding OU1SB23 and EBSB-05-10
1, excluding hot spots
VINYL CHLORIDE
ug/m3
1.6E-02
4.6E-02 (NP)
2.6E-01 J
4.6E-02
ug/m3
95% KM (Chebyshev) UCL, all of FMA
1
BENZO[A]ANTHRACENE (b)
ug/m3
3.0E-07
6.8E-07 (NP)
2.4E-06
6.8E-07
ug/m3
95% KM (t) UCL, excluding MIP04
1, 2, 3, excluding hot spot
BENZO[A]PYRENE (b)
ug/m3
2.7E-07
6.1E-07 (NP)
2.1E-06
6.1E-07
ug/m3
95% KM (t) UCL, excluding MIP04
1, 2, 3, excluding hot spot
BENZO[B]FLUORANTHENE (b)
ug/m3
4.3E-07
1.0E-06 (NP)
3.7E-06
1.0E-06
ug/m3
95% KM (t) UCL, excluding MIP04
1, 2, 3, excluding hot spot
BENZO[K]FLUORANTHENE (b)
ug/m3
1.5E-07
3.3E-07 (NP)
1.1E-06
3.3E-07
ug/m3
95% KM (t) UCL, excluding MIP04
1, 2, 3, excluding hot spot
CHRYSENE (b)
ug/m3
2.5E-07
5.5E-07 (NP)
1.9E-06
5.5E-07
ug/m3
95% KM (t) UCL, excluding MIP04
1, 2, 3, excluding hot spot
DIBENZ[A,H]ANTHRACENE (b)
ug/m3
N/A
N/A (NP)
6.1E-07
6.1E-07
ug/m3
97.5% KM (t) UCL, excluding MIP04
6, excluding hot spot
DIBENZOFURAN (b)
ug/m3
N/A
N/A
1.7E-03 J
1.7E-03
ug/m3
Maximum, excluding MIP04
6, 7, excluding hot spot
INDENO[1,2,3-CD]PYRENE (b)
ug/m3
2.1E-07
4.6E-07 (NP)
1.6E-06 J
4.6E-07
ug/m3
95% KM (t) UCL, excluding MIP04
1, 2, 3, excluding hot spot
NAPHTHALENE (b)
ug/m3
N/A
N/A (NP)
4.8E-03
4.8E-03
ug/m3
95% KM (t) UCL, excluding MIP04
6, excluding hot spot
AROCLOR-1254
ug/m3
N/A
N/A
1.1E-07
1.1E-07
ug/m3
Maximum, all of FMA
5
ALUMINUM (FUME OR DUST)
ug/m3
6.3E-03
6.8E-03 (N)
7.6E-03 J
6.8E-03
ug/m3
95% Student's-t UCL, all of FMA
1, 2, 3
ARSENIC
ug/m3
1.7E-05
3.0E-05 (G)
9.2E-05
3.0E-05
ug/m3
95% Adjusted Gamma UCL, all of FMA
1,3
CHROMIUM
ug/m3
1.3E-05
1.4E-05 (N)
1.9E-05
1.4E-05
ug/m3
95% Student's-t UCL, all of FMA
1, 2, 3
COBALT
ug/m3
9.5E-06
1.2E-05 (N)
2.2E-05
1.2E-05
ug/m3
95% Student's-t UCL, all of FMA
1, 2, 3
CYANIDE
ug/m3
N/A
N/A
2.7E-05 D
2.7E-05
ug/m3
Maximum, all of FMA
5
IRON
ug/m3
2.8E-02
3.5E-02 (N)
6.7E-02 J
3.5E-02
ug/m3
95% Student's-t UCL, all of FMA
1, 2, 3
LEAD (c)
ug/m3
3.9E-05
8.6E-05 (NP)
1.2E-04
3.9E-05
ug/m3
Mean, excluding MIP07
4, 8, excluding hot spot
MANGANESE
ug/m3
3.1E-04
3.6E-04 (N)
4.9E-04 J
3.6E-04
ug/m3
95% Student's-t UCL, all of FMA
1, 2, 3
Former Manufacturing Area
TRICHLOROETHYLENE (a)
ug/m3
1.1E-02
5.7E-02 (NP)
1.7E-01
5.7E-02
ug/m3
99% KM (Chebyshev) UCL, excluding OU1SB23 and EBSB-05-10
1, excluding hot spots
(Construction Worker)
ARSENIC
ug/m3
1.9E-03
3.4E-03 (G)
1.0E-02
3.4E-03
ug/m3
95% Adjusted Gamma UCL, all of FMA
1,3
CHROMIUM
ug/m3
1.4E-03
1.6E-03 (N)
2.2E-03
1.6E-03
ug/m3
95% Student's-t UCL, all of FMA
1, 2, 3
COBALT
ug/m3
1.1E-03
1.3E-03 (N)
2.5E-03
1.3E-03
ug/m3
95% Student's-t UCL, all of FMA
1, 2, 3
MANGANESE
ug/m3
3.4E-02
4.1E-02 (N)
5.5E-02
4.1E-02
ug/m3
95% Student's-t UCL, all of FMA
1, 2, 3
Page 1 of 2
-------
TABLE 3.1 A
MEDIUM-SPECIFIC EXPOSURE POINT CONCENTRATION SUMMARY
Notes:
a. Data shown here excludes samples OU1SB23-0809 and EBSB-05-10, which were evaluated as separate hot spots.
at OU1SB23-0809, cis-1,2-Dichloroethene = 24 MG/KG, Tetrachloroethene = 26 MG/KG, Trichloroethene = 41 MG/KG
at EBSB-05-10, cis-1,2-Dichloroethene = 7.4 MG/KG, Tetrachloroethene = 33 MG/KG, Trichloroethene = 19 MG/KG
b. Data shown here excludes sample MIP04, which was evaluated as a separate hot spot.
at MlPSO-SB04-08-10, Benzo(a)anthracene = 61 MG/KG, Benzo(a)pyrene = 39 MG/KG, Benzo(b)fluoranthene = 59 MG/KG, Benzo(k)fluoranthene = 13 MG/KG, Chrysene = 61 MG/KG, Dibenz(a,h)anthracene = 9 MG/KG, Dibenzofuran = 21 MG/KG,
lndeno(1,2,3-c)pyrene = 20 MG/KG, Naphthalene = 4 MG/KG
c. Data shown here excludes sample MIPSO-SB07-03-05, which was evaluated as a separate hot spot
at MIPSO-SB07-03-05, Lead = 8360 MG/KG
Air Concentration = CS*1000 ug/mg *(1/PEF + 1/VF)
CS (soil concentration) presented on Table 3.1
VF calculated on Table 3 Supplement A (VF only included for VOCs)
PEF calculated on Table 3 Supplement B (receptors other than construction worker) or C (construction worker)
ProllCL, Version 5.0.00 used to determine distribution of data and calculate 95% UCL, following recommendations
in users guide (USEPA. September 2013. Prepared by Lockheed Martin Environmental Services).
UCL Rationale:
(1) ProllCL indicates data are log-normally distributed.
(2) ProUCL indicates data are normally distributed.
(3) ProUCL indicates data are gamma distributed.
(4) Distribution tests are inconclusive (data are not normal, log-normal, or gamma-distributed).
(5) Only detected in one sample, maximum detected concentration used as exposure point concentration.
(6) ProUCL indicated not enough detected concentrations to perform goodness of fit tests.
(7) Only detected in two samples, ProUCL indicated not enough data to calculate statistics.
(8) Arithmetic mean of detected lead concentrations used as exposure point concentration in lead models.
G = Gamma, NP = Non-Parametric, N = Normal FMA = Former Manufacturing Area
J = Estimated Value
D = The analyte was quantitated from a diluted analysis
ug/mJ = micrograms per cubic meters
N/A = not available
Page 2 of 2
-------
TABLE 3.2
MEDIUM-SPECIFIC EXPOSURE POINT CONCENTRATION SUMMARY
Scenario Timeframe: Current/Future
Medium: Soil
Exposure Medium: Surface Soil
Exposure Point
Chemical
of
Potential
Concern
Units
Arithmetic
Mean
95% UCL
(Distribution)
Maximum
Concentration
(Qualifier)
Exposure Point Concentration
Value
Units
Statistic
Rationale
Baseball Field
BENZO[A]ANTHRACENE
MG/KG
1.2E-01
2.1E-01 (NP)
7.8E-01
2.1E-01
MG/KG
95% KM (Chebyshev) UCL, all BFA
1
BENZO[A]PYRENE
MG/KG
1.2E-01
2.1E-01 (NP)
8.2E-01
2.1E-01
MG/KG
95% KM (Chebyshev) UCL, all BFA
1
BENZO[B]FLUORANTHENE
MG/KG
1.7E-01
2.9E-01 (NP)
1.1E+00
2.9E-01
MG/KG
95% KM (Chebyshev) UCL, all BFA
1
DIBENZ[A,H]ANTHRACENE
MG/KG
5.7E-02
7.2E-02 (NP)
2.7E-01
7.2E-02
MG/KG
95% KM (t) UCL, all BFA
1,3
INDENO[1,2,3-CD]PYRENE
MG/KG
1.4E-01
1.4E-01 (G)
6.4E-01
1.4E-01
MG/KG
95% Approximate Gamma KM-UCL, all BFA
1,3
ALUMINUM (FUME OR DUST)
MG/KG
8.4E+03
8.8E+03 (N)
1.4E+04
8.8E+03
MG/KG
95% Student's-t UCL, all BFA
1, 2, 3
ANTIMONY
MG/KG
1.3E+00
1.6E+00 (NP)
1.4E+01
1.6E+00
MG/KG
95% KM (Percentile Bootstrap) UCL, all BFA
4
ARSENIC (a)
MG/KG
9.2E+00
1.0E+01 (N)
2.9E+01
1.0E+01
MG/KG
95% Modified-t UCL, excluding BFASS10
4, excluding hot spot
CHROMIUM
MG/KG
1.5E+01
1.6E+01 (N)
2.2E+01
1.6E+01
MG/KG
95% Student's-t UCL, all BFA
1, 2, 3
COBALT
MG/KG
1.4E+01
1.5E+01 (G)
2.9E+01
1.5E+01
MG/KG
95% Approximate Gamma UCL, all BFA
1,3
CYANIDE
MG/KG
2.4E-01
3.0E-01 (NP)
4.9E-01 J
3.0E-01
MG/KG
95% KM (t) UCL, all BFA
1, 2, 3
IRON
MG/KG
3.0E+04
3.1E+04 (N)
4.6E+04 D
3.1E+04
MG/KG
95% Student's-t UCL, all BFA
2
MAGNESIUM
MG/KG
3.0E+03
6.9E+03 (NP)
6.9E+04 J
6.9E+03
MG/KG
95% Chebyshev (Mean, Sd) UCL, all BFA
1
MANGANESE
MG/KG
7.7E+02
8.7E+02 (LN)
5.0E+03 J
8.7E+02
MG/KG
95% H-UCL, all BFA
1
THALLIUM
MG/KG
3.2E+00
3.6E+00 (NP)
7.8E+00
3.6E+00
MG/KG
95% KM (Percentile Bootstrap) UCL, all BFA
1,2,3
Notes:
a. Data shown here excludes sample BFSO-SS1Q-Q_5-1, which was evaluated as a separate hot spot,
at BFSO-SS1Q-Q_5-1, Arsenic = 81.5 MG/KG
ProUCL, Version 5.0.00 used to determine distribution of data and calculate 95% UCL, following recommendations
in users guide (USEPA. September 2013. Prepared by Lockheed Martin Environmental Services).
UCL Rationale:
(1) ProUCL indicates data are log-normally distributed.
(2) ProUCL indicates data are normally distributed.
(3) ProUCL indicates data are gamma distributed.
(4) Distribution tests are inconclusive (data are not normal, log-normal, or gamma-distributed).
G = Gamma, LN = Log-Normal, NP = Non-Parametric, N = Normal BFA = Baseball Field Area
J = Estimated Value
D = The analyte was quantitated from a diluted analysis
MG/KG = milligram per kilogram
Page 1 of 1
-------
TABLE 3.2A
MEDIUM-SPECIFIC EXPOSURE POINT CONCENTRATION SUMMARY
Scenario Timeframe: Current/Future
Medium: Soil
Exposure Medium: Ambient Air (Surface Soil)
Exposure Point
Chemical
Units
Arithmetic
95% UCL
Maximum
Exposure Point Concentration
of
Mean
(Distribution)
Concentration
Potential
(Qualifier)
Concern
Value
Units
Statistic
Rationale
Baseball Field Area
(Receptors other than
BENZO[A]ANTHRACENE
ug/m3
9.5E-08
1.7E-07 (NP)
6.2E-07
1.7E-07
ug/m3
95% KM (Chebyshev) UCL, all BFA
1
Construction Worker)
BENZO[A]PYRENE
ug/m3
9.5E-08
1.7E-07 (NP)
6.5E-07
1.7E-07
ug/m3
95% KM (Chebyshev) UCL, all BFA
1
BENZO[B]FLUORANTHENE
ug/m3
1.3E-07
2.3E-07 (NP)
8.7E-07
2.3E-07
ug/m3
95% KM (Chebyshev) UCL, all BFA
1
DIBENZ[A,H]ANTHRACENE
ug/m3
4.5E-08
5.7E-08 (NP)
2.1E-07
5.7E-08
ug/m3
95% KM (t) UCL, all BFA
1,3
INDENO[1,2,3-CD]PYRENE
ug/m3
1.1E-07
1.1E-07 (G)
5.1E-07
1.1E-07
ug/m3
95% Approximate Gamma KM-UCL, all BFA
1,3
ALUMINUM (FUME OR DUST)
ug/m3
6.7E-03
7.0E-03 (N)
1.1E-02
7.0E-03
ug/m3
95% Student's-t UCL, all BFA
1, 2, 3
ANTIMONY
ug/m3
1.0E-06
1.3E-06 (NP)
1.1E-05
1.3E-06
ug/m3
95% KM (Percentile Bootstrap) UCL, all BFA
4
ARSENIC (a)
ug/m3
7.3E-06
7.9E-06 (N)
2.3E-05
7.9E-06
ug/m3
95% Modified-t UCL, excluding BFASS10
4, excluding hot spot
CHROMIUM
ug/m3
1.2E-05
1.2E-05 (N)
1.8E-05
1.2E-05
ug/m3
95% Student's-t UCL, all BFA
1, 2, 3
COBALT
ug/m3
1.1E-05
1.2E-05 (G)
2.3E-05
1.2E-05
ug/m3
95% Approximate Gamma UCL, all BFA
1,3
CYANIDE
ug/m3
1.9E-07
2.3E-07 (NP)
3.9E-07
2.3E-07
ug/m3
95% KM (t) UCL, all BFA
1, 2, 3
IRON
ug/m3
2.4E-02
2.5E-02 (N)
3.6E-02 D
2.5E-02
ug/m3
95% Student's-t UCL, all BFA
2
MAGNESIUM
ug/m3
2.4E-03
5.5E-03 (NP)
5.5E-02 J
5.5E-03
ug/m3
95% Chebyshev (Mean, Sd) UCL, all BFA
1
MANGANESE
ug/m3
6.1E-04
6.9E-04 (LN)
4.0E-03 J
6.9E-04
ug/m3
95% H-UCL, all BFA
1
THALLIUM
ug/m3
2.5E-06
2.8E-06 (NP)
6.2E-06
2.8E-06
ug/m3
95% KM (Percentile Bootstrap) UCL, all BFA
1, 2, 3
Baseball Field Area
ARSENIC (a)
ug/m3
8.2E-04
8.8E-04 (N)
2.6E-03
8.8E-04
ug/m3
95% Modified-t UCL, excluding BFASS10
4, excluding hot spot
(Construction Worker)
CHROMIUM
ug/m3
1.3E-03
1.4E-03 (N)
2.0E-03
1.4E-03
ug/m3
95% Student's-t UCL, all BFA
1, 2, 3
COBALT
ug/m3
1.2E-03
1.3E-03 (G)
2.5E-03
1.3E-03
ug/m3
95% Approximate Gamma UCL, all BFA
1,3
MANGANESE
ug/m3
6.9E-02
7.7E-02 (LN)
4.4E-01
7.7E-02
ug/m3
95% H-UCL, all BFA
1
Notes:
a. Data shown here excludes sample BFSO-SS10-0_5-1, which was evaluated as a separate hot spot,
at BFSO-SS1 Q-Q_5-1, Arsenic = 81.5 MG/KG
Air Concentration = CS*1000 ug/mg *(1/PEF + 1/VF)
CS (soil concentration) presented on Table 3.2
VF calculated on Table 3 Supplement A (VF only included for VOCs)
PEF calculated on Table 3 Supplement B (receptors other than construction worker) or C (construction worker)
ProUCL, Version 5.0.00 used to determine distribution of data and calculate 95% UCL, following recommendations
in users guide (USEPA. September 2013. Prepared by Lockheed Martin Environmental Services).
UCL Rationale:
(1) ProUCL indicates data are log-normally distributed.
(2) ProUCL indicates data are normally distributed.
(3) ProUCL indicates data are gamma distributed.
(4) Distribution tests are inconclusive (data are not normal, log-normal, or gamma-distributed).
G = Gamma, LN = Log-Normal, NP = Non-Para metric, N = Normal BFA = Baseball Field Area
J = Estimated Value
D = The analyte was quantitated from a diluted analysis
ug/mJ = micrograms per cubic meters
Page 1 of 1
-------
TABLE 3.3
MEDIUM-SPECIFIC EXPOSURE POINT CONCENTRATION SUMMARY
Scenario Timeframe: Future
Medium: Soil
Exposure Medium: Subsurface Soil
Exposure Point
Chemical
of
Potential
Concern
Units
Arithmetic
Mean
95% UCL
(Distribution)
Maximum
Concentration
(Qualifier)
Exposure Point Concentration
Value
Units
Statistic
Rationale
Baseball Field
BENZO[A]ANTHRACENE
MG/KG
1.4E-01
2.8E-01 (NP)
1.1E+00
2.8E-01
MG/KG
95% KM (t) UCL
1,2
BENZO[A]PYRENE
MG/KG
1.2E-01
2.0E-01 (NP)
6.3E-01 J
2.0E-01
MG/KG
95% KM (t) UCL
1,2
BENZO[B]FLUORANTHENE
MG/KG
1.8E-01
3.4E-01 (NP)
1.2E+00
3.4E-01
MG/KG
95% KM (t) UCL
1, 2, 3
DIBENZ[A,H]ANTHRACENE
MG/KG
N/A
N/A
1.0E-01 J
1.0E-01
MG/KG
Maximum
5
INDENO[1,2,3-CD]PYRENE
MG/KG
9.4E-02
1.7E-01 (NP)
5.8E-01 J
1.7E-01
MG/KG
95% KM (t) UCL
1,2
ALUMINUM (FUME OR DUST)
MG/KG
6.9E+03
7.9E+03 (N)
1.3E+04
7.9E+03
MG/KG
95% Student's-t UCL
1, 2, 3
ARSENIC
MG/KG
8.0E+00
9.5E+00 (NP)
1.7E+01
9.5E+00
MG/KG
95% KM (t) UCL
1, 2, 3
CHROMIUM
MG/KG
1.0E+01
1.2E+01 (N)
1.7E+01
1.2E+01
MG/KG
95% Student's-t UCL
1, 2, 3
COBALT
MG/KG
1.5E+01
1.8E+01 (N)
3.6E+01 J
1.8E+01
MG/KG
95% Student's-t UCL
1, 2, 3
CYANIDE
MG/KG
N/A
N/A
8.5E-01 J
8.5E-01
MG/KG
Maximum
6
IRON
MG/KG
3.2E+04
3.6E+04 (N)
5.1E+04 J
3.6E+04
MG/KG
95% Student's-t UCL
1, 2, 3
MANGANESE
MG/KG
5.0E+02
6.2E+02 (N)
9.2E+02 J
6.2E+02
MG/KG
95% Student's-t UCL
1, 2, 3
THALLIUM
MG/KG
N/A
N/A
5.9E+00
5.9E+00
MG/KG
Maximum
5
ProUCL, Version 5.0.00 used to determine distribution of data and calculate 95% UCL, following recommendations
in users guide (USEPA. September 2013. Prepared by Lockheed Martin Environmental Services).
UCL Rationale:
(1) ProUCL indicates data are log-normally distributed.
(2) ProUCL indicates data are normally distributed.
(3) ProUCL indicates data are gamma distributed.
(4) Distribution tests are inconclusive (data are not normal, log-normal, or gamma-distributed).
(5) Only detected in one sample, maximum detected concentration used as exposure point concentration.
(6) Only detected in two samples, ProUCL indicated not enough data to concentrations to perform goodness of fit tests or compute meaningful or reliable statistics and estimates.
NP = Non-Parametric, N = Normal
J = Estimated Value
MG/KG = milligram per kilogram
N/A = not available
Page 1 of 1
-------
TABLE 3.3A
MEDIUM-SPECIFIC EXPOSURE POINT CONCENTRATION SUMMARY
Scenario Timeframe: Future
Medium: Soil
Exposure Medium: Ambient Air (Subsurface Soil)
Exposure Point
Chemical
Units
Arithmetic
95% UCL
Maximum
Exposure Point Concentration
of
Mean
(Distribution)
Concentration
Potential
(Qualifier)
Concern
Value
Units
Statistic
Rationale
Baseball Field Area
(Receptors other than
BENZO[A]ANTHRACENE
ug/m3
1.1E-07
2.2E-07 (NP)
8.7E-07
2.2E-07
ug/m3
95% KM (t) UCL
1,2
Construction Worker)
BENZO[A]PYRENE
ug/m3
9.2E-08
1.6E-07 (NP)
5.0E-07 J
1.6E-07
ug/m3
95% KM (t) UCL
1,2
BENZO[B]FLUORANTHENE
ug/m3
1.5E-07
2.7E-07 (NP)
9.5E-07
2.7E-07
ug/m3
95% KM (t) UCL
1, 2, 3
DIBENZ[A,H]ANTHRACENE
ug/m3
N/A
N/A
7.9E-08 J
7.9E-08
ug/m3
Maximum
5
INDENO[1,2,3-CD]PYRENE
ug/m3
7.4E-08
1.4E-07 (NP)
4.6E-07 J
1.4E-07
ug/m3
95% KM (t) UCL
1,2
ALUMINUM (FUME OR DUST)
ug/m3
5.5E-03
6.3E-03 (N)
1.0E-02
6.3E-03
ug/m3
95% Student's-t UCL
1, 2, 3
ARSENIC
ug/m3
6.3E-06
7.5E-06 (NP)
1.3E-05
7.5E-06
ug/m3
95% KM (t) UCL
1, 2, 3
CHROMIUM
ug/m3
8.2E-06
9.3E-06 (N)
1.3E-05
9.3E-06
ug/m3
95% Student's-t UCL
1, 2, 3
COBALT
ug/m3
1.2E-05
1.4E-05 (N)
2.9E-05 J
1.4E-05
ug/m3
95% Student's-t UCL
1, 2, 3
CYANIDE
ug/m3
N/A
N/A
6.7E-07 J
6.7E-07
ug/m3
Maximum
6
IRON
ug/m3
2.5E-02
2.8E-02 (N)
4.0E-02 J
2.8E-02
ug/m3
95% Student's-t UCL
1, 2, 3
MANGANESE
ug/m3
4.0E-04
4.9E-04 (N)
7.2E-04 J
4.9E-04
ug/m3
95% Student's-t UCL
1, 2, 3
THALLIUM
ug/m3
N/A
N/A
4.7E-06
4.7E-06
ug/m3
Maximum
5
Baseball Field Area
CHROMIUM
ug/m3
9.2E-04
1.0E-03 (N)
1.5E-03
1.0E-03
ug/m3
95% Student's-t UCL
1, 2, 3
(Construction Worker)
COBALT
ug/m3
1.3E-03
1.6E-03 (N)
3.2E-03 J
1.6E-03
ug/m3
95% Student's-t UCL
1, 2, 3
MANGANESE
ug/m3
4.0E-04
5.5E-02 (N)
7.2E-04 J
5.5E-02
ug/m3
95% Student's-t UCL
1, 2, 3
Air Concentration = CSMOOO ug/mg *(1/PEF + 1/VF)
CS (soil concentration) presented on Table 3 3
VF calculated on Table 3 Supplement A (VF only included for VOCs)
PEF calculated on Table 3 Supplement B (receptors other than construction worker) or C (construction worker)
ProUCL, Version 5.0.00 used to determine distribution of data and calculate 95% UCL, following recommendations
in users guide (USEPA. September 2013. Prepared by Lockheed Martin Environmental Services).
UCL Rationale:
(1) ProUCL indicates data are log-normally distributed.
(2) ProUCL indicates data are normally distributed.
(3) ProUCL indicates data are gamma distributed.
(4) Distribution tests are inconclusive (data are not normal, log-normal, or gamma-distributed).
(5) Only detected in one sample, maximum detected concentration used as exposure point concentration.
(6) Only detected in two samples, ProUCL indicated not enough data to concentrations to perform goodness of fit tests or compute meaningful or reliable statistics and estimates.
NP = Non-Parametric, N = Normal
J = Estimated Value
ug/mJ = micrograms per cubic meters
N/A = not available
Page 1 of 1
-------
TABLE 3.4
MEDIUM-SPECIFIC EXPOSURE POINT CONCENTRATION SUMMARY
Scenario Timeframe: Current/Future
Medium: Soil
Exposure Medium: Surface Soil
Exposure Point
Chemical
of
Potential
Concern
Units
Arithmetic
Mean
95% UCL
(Distribution)
Maximum
Concentration
(Qualifier)
Exposure Point Concentration
Value
Units
Statistic
Rationale
Former Lagoon/Northern
Drainage Channel
BENZO[A]ANTHRACENE
MG/KG
6.5E-01
2.0E+00 (NP)
7.0E+00 J
2.0E+00
MG/KG
97.5% KM (Chebyshev) UCL, all FL/NDC
1
BENZO[A]PYRENE
MG/KG
6.2E-01
1.8E+00 (NP)
5.6E+00 J
1.8E+00
MG/KG
97.5% KM (Chebyshev) UCL, all FL/NDC
1
BENZO[B]FLUORANTHENE
MG/KG
9.0E-01
2.8E+00 (NP)
9.4E+00
2.8E+00
MG/KG
97.5% KM (Chebyshev) UCL, all FL/NDC
1
BENZO[K]FLUORANTHENE
MG/KG
3.8E-01
5.8E-01 (NP)
3.3E+00 J
5.8E-01
MG/KG
95% KM (BCA) UCL, all FL/NDC
1
DIBENZ[A,H]ANTHRACENE
MG/KG
1.4E-01
2.2E-01 (NP)
1.0E+00 J
2.2E-01
MG/KG
95% KM (t) UCL, all FL/NDC
1, 2, 3
INDENO[1,2,3-CD]PYRENE
MG/KG
5.0E-01
1.5E+00 (NP)
5.1E+00 J
1.5E+00
MG/KG
97.5% KM (Chebyshev) UCL, all FL/NDC
4
ALUMINUM (FUME OR DUST)
MG/KG
1.1E+04
1.4E+04 (NP)
2.3E+04
1.4E+04
MG/KG
95% KM (Chebyshev) UCL, all FL/NDC
4
ANTIMONY
MG/KG
1.8E+00
2.4E+00 (NP)
1.1E+01 J
2.4E+00
MG/KG
95% KM (Percentile Bootstrap) UCL, all FL/NDC
1
ARSENIC (a)
MG/KG
1.7E+01
1.9E+01 (G)
5.2E+01
1.9E+01
MG/KG
95% Adjusted Gamma KM-UCL, excluding NDCSD09A_121713
1, 3, excluding hot spot
CHROMIUM (b)
MG/KG
1.8E+01
2.0E+01 (NP)
3.6E+01
2.0E+01
MG/KG
95% KM (t) UCL, excluding NDCSD10B
1, 2, 3, excluding hot spot
COBALT
MG/KG
1.4E+01
1.6E+01 (G)
3.5E+01
1.6E+01
MG/KG
95% GROS Adjusted Gamma UCL, all FL/NDC
1,3
COPPER
MG/KG
6.2E+01
1.1E+02 (NP)
3.4E+02
1.1E+02
MG/KG
95% KM (Chebyshev) UCL, all FL/NDC
1,3
CYANIDE (c)
MG/KG
5.8E-01
8.1E-01 (NP)
4.1E+00
8.1E-01
MG/KG
95% KM (Percentile Bootstrap) UCL, excluding NDCSO-07-0-0.5
4, excluding hot spot
IRON
MG/KG
3.6E+04
4.0E+04 (NP)
7.2E+04
4.0E+04
MG/KG
95% KM (t) UCL, all FL/NDC
1, 2, 3
MANGANESE
MG/KG
6.5E+02
1.0E+03 (NP)
2.3E+03 J
1.0E+03
MG/KG
95% KM (Chebyshev) UCL, all FL/NDC
1,3
VANADIUM (FUME OR DUST)
MG/KG
2.7E+01
3.0E+01 (NP)
5.8E+01
3.0E+01
MG/KG
95% KM (t) UCL, all FL/NDC
1,2,3
Notes:
a. Data shown here excludes sample NDCSD09A_121713, which was evaluated as a separate hot spot. At NDCSD09A_121713, Arsenic = 174 MG/KG
b. Data shown here excludes sample NDCSD1 OB, which was evaluated as a separate hot spot. At NDCSD1 OB, chromium was detected at 17.4 mg/kg in the parent sample and 127 mg/kg in the duplicate sample
c. Data shown here excludes sample NDCSO-07-0-0.5, which was evaluated as a separate hot spot. At NDCSO-07-0-0.5, Cyanide = 22.2 MG/KG
ProUCL, Version 5.0.00 used to determine distribution of data and calculate 95% UCL, following recommendations
in users guide (USEPA. September 2013. Prepared by Lockheed Martin Environmental Services).
UCL Rationale:
(1) ProUCL indicates data are log-normally distributed.
(2) ProUCL indicates data are normally distributed.
(3) ProUCL indicates data are gamma distributed.
(4) Distribution tests are inconclusive (data are not normal, log-normal, or gamma-distributed).
G = Gamma, NP = Non-Parametric FL/NDC = Former Lagoon/Northern Drainage Channel
J = Estimated Value
MG/KG = milligram per kilogram
Page 1 of 1
-------
TABLE 3.4A
MEDIUM-SPECIFIC EXPOSURE POINT CONCENTRATION SUMMARY
Scenario Timeframe: Current/Future
Medium: Soil
Exposure Medium: Ambient Air (Surface Soil)
Exposure Point
Chemical
Units
Arithmetic
95% UCL
Maximum
Exposure Point Concentration
of
Mean
(Distribution)
Concentration
Potential
(Qualifier)
Concern
Value
Units
Statistic
Rationale
Former Lagoon/Northern
Drainage Channel
(Receptors other than
BENZO[A]ANTHRACENE
ug/m3
5.1E-07
1.6E-06 (NP)
5.5E-06 J
1.6E-06
ug/m3
97.5% KM (Chebyshev) UCL, all FL/NDC
1
Construction Worker)
BENZO[A]PYRENE
ug/m3
4.9E-07
1.4E-06 (NP)
4.4E-06 J
1.4E-06
ug/m3
97.5% KM (Chebyshev) UCL, all FL/NDC
1
BENZO[B]FLUORANTHENE
ug/m3
7.1E-07
2.2E-06 (NP)
7.4E-06
2.2E-06
ug/m3
97.5% KM (Chebyshev) UCL, all FL/NDC
1
BENZO[K]FLUORANTHENE
ug/m3
3.0E-07
4.6E-07 (NP)
2.6E-06 J
4.6E-07
ug/m3
95% KM (BCA) UCL, all FL/NDC
1
DIBENZ[A,H]ANTHRACENE
ug/m3
1.1E-07
1.7E-07 (NP)
7.9E-07 J
1.7E-07
ug/m3
95% KM (t) UCL, all FL/NDC
1, 2, 3
INDENO[1,2,3-CD]PYRENE
ug/m3
4.0E-07
1.2E-06 (NP)
4.0E-06 J
1.2E-06
ug/m3
97.5% KM (Chebyshev) UCL, all FL/NDC
4
ALUMINUM (FUME OR DUST)
ug/m3
8.6E-03
1.1E-02 (NP)
1.8E-02
1.1E-02
ug/m3
95% KM (Chebyshev) UCL, all FL/NDC
4
ANTIMONY
ug/m3
1.4E-06
1.9E-06 (NP)
8.7E-06 J
1.9E-06
ug/m3
95% KM (Percentile Bootstrap) UCL, all FL/NDC
1
ARSENIC (a)
ug/m3
1.3E-05
1.5E-05 (G)
4.1E-05
1.5E-05
ug/m3
95% Adjusted Gamma KM-UCL, excluding NDCSD09
1, 3, excluding hot spot
CHROMIUM (b)
ug/m3
1.4E-05
1.6E-05 (NP)
2.8E-05
1.6E-05
ug/m3
95% KM (t) UCL, excluding NDCSD10
1, 2, 3, excluding hot spot
COBALT
ug/m3
1.1E-05
1.3E-05 (G)
2.8E-05
1.3E-05
ug/m3
95% GROS Adjusted Gamma UCL, all FL/NDC
1, 3
COPPER
ug/m3
4.9E-05
8.7E-05 (NP)
2.7E-04
8.7E-05
ug/m3
95% KM (Chebyshev) UCL, all FL/NDC
1, 3
CYANIDE (c)
ug/m3
4.6E-07
6.4E-07 (NP)
3.2E-06
6.4E-07
ug/m3
95% KM (Percentile Bootstrap) UCL, excluding NDCSO07
4, excluding hot spot
IRON
ug/m3
2.8E-02
3.2E-02 (NP)
5.7E-02
3.2E-02
ug/m3
95% KM (t) UCL, all FL/NDC
1, 2, 3
MANGANESE
ug/m3
5.2E-04
8.3E-04 (NP)
1.8E-03 J
8.3E-04
ug/m3
95% KM (Chebyshev) UCL, all FL/NDC
1, 3
VANADIUM (FUME OR DUST)
ug/m3
2.1E-05
2.4E-05 (NP)
4.6E-05
2.4E-05
ug/m3
95% KM (t) UCL, all FL/NDC
1, 2, 3
Former Lagoon/Northern
Drainage Channel
(Construction Worker)
ARSENIC (a)
ug/m3
1.5E-03
1.7E-03 (G)
4.6E-03
1.7E-03
ug/m3
95% Adjusted Gamma KM-UCL, excluding NDCSD09
1, 3, excluding hot spot
CHROMIUM (b)
ug/m3
1.6E-03
1.8E-03 (NP)
3.1E-03
1.8E-03
ug/m3
95% KM (t) UCL, excluding NDCSD10
1, 2, 3, excluding hot spot
COBALT
ug/m3
1.2E-03
1.4E-03 (NP)
3.1E-03
1.4E-03
ug/m3
95% GROS Adjusted Gamma UCL, all FL/NDC
1, 3
MANGANESE
ug/m3
5.8E-02
9.2E-02 (NP)
2.0E-01
9.2E-02
ug/m3
95% KM (Chebyshev) UCL, all FL/NDC
1, 3
Notes:
a. Data shown here excludes sample NDCSD09A_121713, which was evaluated as a separate hot spot. At NDCSD09A_121713, Arsenic = 174 MG/KG
b. Data shown here excludes sample NDCSD10B, which was evaluated as a separate hot spot. At NDCSD108, chromium was detected at 17.4 mg/kg in the parent sample and 127 mg/kg in the duplicate sample
c. Data shown here excludes sample NDCSO-07-0-0.5, which was evaluated as a separate hot spot. At NDCSO-07-0-0.5, Cyanide = 22.2 MG/KG
ProUCL, Version 5.0.00 used to determine distribution of data and calculate 95% UCL, following recommendations
in users guide (USEPA. September 2013. Prepared by Lockheed Martin Environmental Services).
UCL Rationale:
(1) ProUCL indicates data are log-normally distributed.
(2) ProUCL indicates data are normally distributed.
(3) ProUCL indicates data are gamma distributed.
(4) Distribution tests are inconclusive (data are not normal, log-normal, or gamma-distributed).
G = Gamma, NP = Non-Parametric
J = Estimated Value FL/NDC = Former Lagoon/Northern Drainage Channel
D = The analyte was quantitated from a diluted analysis
ug/mJ = micrograms per cubic meters
Page 1 of 1
-------
TABLE 3.5
MEDIUM-SPECIFIC EXPOSURE POINT CONCENTRATION SUMMARY
Scenario Timeframe: Future
Medium: Soil
Exposure Medium: Subsurface Soil
Exposure Point
Chemical
of
Potential
Concern
Units
Arithmetic
Mean
95% UCL
(Distribution)
Maximum
Concentration
(Qualifier)
Exposure Point Concentration
Value
Units
Statistic
Rationale
Former Lagoon/Northern
Drainage Channel
BENZO[A]ANTHRACENE
MG/KG
N/A
N/A
1.4E+00 J
1.4E+00
MG/KG
Maximum, all FL/NDC
6
BENZO[A]PYRENE
MG/KG
N/A
N/A
1.2E+00 J
1.2E+00
MG/KG
Maximum, all FL/NDC
6
BENZO[B]FLUORANTHENE
MG/KG
N/A
N/A
1.7E+00 J
1.7E+00
MG/KG
Maximum, all FL/NDC
5
INDENO[1,2,3-CD]PYRENE
MG/KG
N/A
N/A
8.5E-01 J
8.5E-01
MG/KG
Maximum, all FL/NDC
6
ALUMINUM (FUME OR DUST)
MG/KG
1.3E+04
1.4E+04 (N)
2.0E+04
1.4E+04
MG/KG
95% Student's-t UCL, all FL/NDC
1, 2, 3
ARSENIC
MG/KG
1.2E+01
1.3E+01 (N)
1.8E+01
1.3E+01
MG/KG
95% Student's-t UCL, all FL/NDC
1, 2, 3
CHROMIUM
MG/KG
2.2E+01
2.3E+01 (N)
2.8E+01 J
2.3E+01
MG/KG
95% Student's-t UCL, all FL/NDC
4
COBALT
MG/KG
1.4E+01
1.7E+01 (N)
3.3E+01
1.7E+01
MG/KG
95% Student's-t UCL, all FL/NDC
1, 2, 3
CYANIDE
MG/KG
2.5E-01
4.0E-01 (NP)
5.0E-01 J
4.0E-01
MG/KG
95% KM (t) UCL, all FL/NDC
1, 2, 3
IRON
MG/KG
4.3E+04
5.1E+04 (N)
9.1E+04 D
5.1E+04
MG/KG
95% Student's-t UCL, all FL/NDC
1, 2, 3
LEAD (a)
MG/KG
2.7E+01
3.6E+01 (N)
1.1E+02
2.7E+01
MG/KG
Mean, excluding FLSB01-0305
1, 7, excluding hot spot
MANGANESE
MG/KG
5.0E+02
7.5E+02 (G)
1.7E+03 J
7.5E+02
MG/KG
95% Adjusted Gamma UCL, all FL/NDC
1,3
VANADIUM (FUME OR DUST)
MG/KG
3.3E+01
3.6E+01 (N)
4.7E+01
3.6E+01
MG/KG
95% Student's-t UCL, all FL/NDC
1, 2, 3
Notes:
a. Data shown here excludes sample FLSB01-0305, which was evaluated as a separate hot spot. At FLSB01, Lead = 21,100 MG/KG
ProUCL, Version 5.0.00 used to determine distribution of data and calculate 95% UCL, following recommendations
in users guide (USEPA. September 2013. Prepared by Lockheed Martin Environmental Services).
UCL Rationale:
(1) ProUCL indicates data are log-normally distributed.
(2) ProUCL indicates data are normally distributed.
(3) ProUCL indicates data are gamma distributed.
(4) Distribution tests are inconclusive (data are not normal, log-normal, or gamma-distributed).
(5) Only detected in one sample, maximum detected concentration used as exposure point concentration.
(6) Only detected in two samples. ProUCL indicated not enough detected concentrations to compute meaningful or reliable statistics and estimates and could not calculate a recommended UCL.
(7) Arithmetic mean of detected lead concentrations used as exposure point concentration in lead models.
G = Gamma, NP = Non-Parametric, N = Normal FL/NDC = Former Lagoon/Northern Drainage Channel
J = Estimated Value
D = The analyte was quantitated from a diluted analysis
MG/KG = milligram per kilogram
N/A = not available
Page 1 of 1
-------
TABLE 3.5A
MEDIUM-SPECIFIC EXPOSURE POINT CONCENTRATION SUMMARY
Scenario Timeframe: Future
Medium: Soil
Exposure Medium: Ambient Air (Subsurface Soil)
Exposure Point
Chemical
Units
Arithmetic
95% UCL
Maximum
Exposure Point Concentration
of
Mean
(Distribution)
Concentration
Potential
(Qualifier)
Concern
Value
Units
Statistic
Rationale
Former Lagoon/Northern
Drainage Channel
(Receptors other than
BENZO[A]ANTHRACENE
ug/m3
N/A
N/A
1.1E-06 J
1.1E-06
ug/m3
Maximum, all FL/NDC
6
Construction Worker)
BENZO[A]PYRENE
ug/m3
N/A
N/A
9.5E-07 J
9.5E-07
ug/m3
Maximum, all FL/NDC
6
BENZO[B]FLUORANTHENE
ug/m3
N/A
N/A
1.3E-06 J
1.3E-06
ug/m3
Maximum, all FL/NDC
5
INDENO[1,2,3-CD]PYRENE
ug/m3
N/A
N/A
6.7E-07 J
6.7E-07
ug/m3
Maximum, all FL/NDC
6
ALUMINUM (FUME OR DUST)
ug/m3
1.0E-02
1.1E-02 (N)
1.6E-02
1.1E-02
ug/m3
95% Student's-t UCL, all FL/NDC
1, 2, 3
ARSENIC
ug/m3
9.3E-06
1.0E-05 (N)
1.4E-05
1.0E-05
ug/m3
95% Student's-t UCL, all FL/NDC
1, 2, 3
CHROMIUM
ug/m3
1.7E-05
1.9E-05 (N)
2.2E-05 J
1.9E-05
ug/m3
95% Student's-t UCL, all FL/NDC
4
COBALT
ug/m3
1.1E-05
1.4E-05 (N)
2.6E-05
1.4E-05
ug/m3
95% Student's-t UCL, all FL/NDC
1, 2, 3
CYANIDE
ug/m3
2.0E-07
3.1E-07 (NP)
4.0E-07 J
3.1E-07
ug/m3
95% KM (t) UCL, all FL/NDC
1, 2, 3
IRON
ug/m3
3.4E-02
4.1E-02 (N)
7.2E-02 D
4.1E-02
ug/m3
95% Student's-t UCL, all FL/NDC
1, 2, 3
LEAD (a)
ug/m3
2.1E-05
2.8E-05 (N)
8.8E-05
2.1E-05
ug/m3
Mean, excluding FLSB01-0305
1, 7, excluding hot spot
MANGANESE
ug/m3
3.9E-04
5.9E-04 (G)
1.3E-03 J
5.9E-04
ug/m3
95% Adjusted Gamma UCL, all FL/NDC
1, 3
VANADIUM (FUME OR DUST)
ug/m3
2.6E-05
2.8E-05 (N)
3.7E-05
2.8E-05
ug/m3
95% Student's-t UCL, all FL/NDC
1, 2, 3
Former Lagoon/Northern
Drainage Channel
(Construction Worker)
CHROMIUM
ug/m3
1.9E-03
2.1E-03 (N)
2.5E-03 J
2.1E-03
ug/m3
95% Student's-t UCL, all FL/NDC
4
COBALT
ug/m3
1.3E-03
1.5E-03 (N)
3.0E-03
1.5E-03
ug/m3
95% Student's-t UCL, all FL/NDC
1, 2, 3
MANGANESE
ug/m3
4.4E-02
6.7E-02 (G)
1.5E-01
6.7E-02
ug/m3
95% Adjusted Gamma UCL, all FL/NDC
1, 3
Notes:
a. Data shown here excludes sample FLSB01-0305, which was evaluated as a separate hot spot. At FLSB01, Lead = 21,100 MG/KG
Air Concentration = CS'1000 ug/rng *(1/PEF + 1/VF)
CS (soil concentration) presented on Table 3.5
VF calculated on Table 3 Supplement A (VF only included for VOCs)
PEF calculated on Table 3 Supplement B (receptors other than construction worker) or C (construction worker)
ProUCL, Version 5.0.00 used to determine distribution of data and calculate 95% UCL, following recommendations
in users guide (USEPA. September 2013. Prepared by Lockheed Martin Environmental Services).
UCL Rationale:
(1) ProUCL indicates data are log-normally distributed.
(2) ProUCL indicates data are normally distributed.
(3) ProUCL indicates data are gamma distributed.
(4) Distribution tests are inconclusive (data are not normal, log-normal, or gamma-distributed).
(5) Only detected in one sample, maximum detected concentration used as exposure point concentration.
(6) Only detected in two samples. ProUCL indicated not enough detected concentrations to compute meaningful or reliable statistics and estimates and could not calculate a recommended UCL.
(7) Arithmetic mean of detected lead concentrations used as exposure point concentration in lead models.
G = Gamma, NP = Non-Parametric, N = Normal N/A = not available
J = Estimated Value FL/NDC = Former Lagoon/Northern Drainage Channel
D = The analyte was quantitated from a diluted analysis
ug/mJ = micrograms per cubic meters
Page 1 of 1
-------
TABLE 3.6
MEDIUM-SPECIFIC EXPOSURE POINT CONCENTRATION SUMMARY
Scenario Timeframe: Current/Future
Medium: Sediment
Exposure Medium: Sediment
Exposure Point
Chemical
of
Potential
Concern
Units
Arithmetic
Mean
95% UCL
(Distribution)
Maximum
Concentration
(Qualifier)
Exposure Point Concentration
Value
Units
Statistic
Rationale
Former Lagoon/Northern
Drainage Channel
BENZO[A]ANTHRACENE
MG/KG
2.3E-01
4.7E-01 (NP)
1.2E+00
4.7E-01
MG/KG
95% KM (t) UCL
1,2
BENZO[A]PYRENE
MG/KG
2.0E-01
3.9E-01 (NP)
9.8E-01
3.9E-01
MG/KG
95% KM (t) UCL
1,2
BENZO[B]FLUORANTHENE
MG/KG
3.3E-01
6.9E-01 (NP)
2.0E+00
6.9E-01
MG/KG
95% KM (t) UCL
1,2
INDENO[1,2,3-CD]PYRENE
MG/KG
2.0E-01
3.1E-01 (NP)
6.0E-01 J
3.1E-01
MG/KG
95% KM (t) UCL
5
ALUMINUM (FUME OR DUST)
MG/KG
9.1E+03
1.1E+04 (N)
1.7E+04 J
1.1E+04
MG/KG
95% Student's-t UCL
1, 2, 3
ANTIMONY
MG/KG
5.1E+00
6.3E+00 (NP)
6.4E+00 J
6.3E+00
MG/KG
95% KM (t) UCL
1, 2, 3
ARSENIC
MG/KG
1.0E+01
1.7E+01 (G)
3.2E+01
1.7E+01
MG/KG
95% Adjusted Gamma UCL
1,3
CHROMIUM
MG/KG
1.3E+01
1.5E+01 (N)
1.9E+01
1.5E+01
MG/KG
95% Modified-t UCL
1
COBALT
MG/KG
2.3E+01
5.5E+01 (NP)
7.1E+01
5.5E+01
MG/KG
95% Chebyshev (Mean, Sd) UCL
4
CYANIDE
MG/KG
1.8E+00
3.7E+00 (NP)
1.1E+01 J
3.7E+00
MG/KG
95% KM (t) UCL
1,2
IRON
MG/KG
3.0E+04
4.7E+04 (G)
8.6E+04 J
4.7E+04
MG/KG
95% Adjusted Gamma UCL
1,3
LEAD
MG/KG
2.9E+03
1.5E+04 (NP)
9.8E+03
2.9E+03
MG/KG
Mean
1,6
MANGANESE
MG/KG
4.9E+02
7.0E+02 (N)
1.4E+03
7.0E+02
MG/KG
95% Student's-t UCL
1, 2, 3
ProUCL, Version 5.0.00 used to determine distribution of data and calculate 95% UCL, following recommendations
in users guide (USEPA. September 2013. Prepared by Lockheed Martin Environmental Services).
UCL Rationale:
(1) ProUCL indicates data are log-normally distributed.
(2) ProUCL indicates data are normally distributed.
(3) ProUCL indicates data are gamma distributed.
(4) Distribution tests are inconclusive (data are not normal, log-normal, or gamma-distributed).
(5) ProUCL indicated not enough detected concentrations to perform goodness of fit tests.
(6) Arithmetic mean of detected lead concentrations used as exposure point concentration in lead models.
G = Gamma, NP = Non-Parametric, N = Normal
J = Estimated Value
MG/KG = milligram per kilogram
Page 1 of 1
-------
TABLE 3.7
MEDIUM-SPECIFIC EXPOSURE POINT CONCENTRATION SUMMARY
Scenario Timeframe: Current/Future
Medium: Surface Water
Exposure Medium: Surface Water
Exposure Point
Chemical
of
Potential
Concern
Units
Arithmetic
Mean
95% UCL
(Distribution)
Maximum
Concentration
(Qualifier)
Exposure Point Concentration
Value
Units
Statistic
Rationale
Former Lagoon/Northern
Drainage Channel
CIS-1,2-DICHLOROETHENE
UG/L
N/A
N/A
4.8E+01 L
4.8E+01
UG/L
Maximum
1
VINYL CHLORIDE
UG/L
N/A
N/A
6.0E+00 L
6.0E+00
UG/L
Maximum
1
BENZO[A]ANTHRACENE
UG/L
N/A
N/A
1.7E-01 J
1.7E-01
UG/L
Maximum
1
ARSENIC
UG/L
N/A
N/A
4.7E+00
4.7E+00
UG/L
Maximum
1
CHROMIUM
UG/L
N/A
N/A
3.0E+00
3.0E+00
UG/L
Maximum
1
COBALT
UG/L
N/A
N/A
3.1E+01
3.1E+01
UG/L
Maximum
1
IRON
UG/L
N/A
N/A
5.0E+04
5.0E+04
UG/L
Maximum
1
LEAD
UG/L
1.3E+03
N/A
2.5E+03
1.3E+03
UG/L
Mean
2
MANGANESE
UG/L
N/A
N/A
9.6E+03
9.6E+03
UG/L
Maximum
1
UCL Rationale:
(1) Less than 6 samples in data set: therefore, maximum detected concentration used as exposure point concentration.
(2) Arithmetic mean of detected lead concentrations used as exposure point concentration in lead models.
J = Estimated Value
L = Estimated value, result may be biased low
UG/L = micrograms per liter
N/A = not available
Page 1 of 1
-------
TABLE 10.1a.RME
RISK SUMMARY
REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE
Scenario Timeframe: Future
Receptor Population: Site Worker
Receptor Age: Adult
Medium
Exposure
Medium
Exposure
Point
Chemical
of Potential
Concern
Carcinogenic Risk
Non-Carcinogenic Hazard Quotient
Ingestion
Inhalation
Dermal
Exposure
Routes Total
Primary \ Ingestion
Target Organ(s) |
Inhalation
Dermal
Exposure
Routes Total
Soil
Subsurface Soil
Former Manufacturing Area
Hot Spot - OU1SB23-0809
TRICHLOROETHYLENE
5E-07
N/A
7E-08
6E-07
Immune System, 6E-02
Developmental, Heart |
N/A
8E-03
7E-02
Chemical Total
5E-07
N/A
7E-08
6E-07
f 6E-02
N/A
8E-03
7E-02
Exposure Point Total
6E-07
7E-02
Exposure Medium Total
6E-07
7E-02
Ambient Air
(Subsurface Soil)
Former Manufacturing Area
Hot Spot - OU1SB23-0809
TRICHLOROETHYLENE
N/A
4E-06
N/A
4E-06
Immune System, N/A
Developmental, Heart |
1E+00
N/A
1E+00
Chemical Total
N/A
4E-06
N/A
4E-06
| N/A
1E+00
N/A
1E+00
Exposure Point Total
4E-06
1E+00
Exposure Medium Total
4E-06
1E+00
Former Manufacturing Area Subsurface Soil Hot Spot - OU1SB23-0809 Total
5E-06
2E+00
Notes:
N/A = Not applicable
HI = Hazard Index
Hot Spot-OU1SB23-0809
Total Immune System HI Across All Media =
Total Developmental HI Across All Media =
Total Heart HI Across All Media =
2E+00
2E+00
2E+00
Page 1 of 1
-------
TABLE 10.3a.RME
RISK SUMMARY
REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE
Scenario Timeframe: Future
Receptor Population: Construction Worker
Receptor Age: Adult
Medium
Exposure
Medium
Exposure
Point
Chemical
of Potential
Concern
Carcinogenic Risk
Non-Carcinogenic Hazard Quotient
Ingestion
Inhalation
Dermal
Exposure
Routes Total
Primary 1 Ingestion
Target Organ(s) |
Inhalation
Dermal
Exposure
Routes Total
Soil
Subsurface Soil
Former Manufacturing Area
Hot Spot - OU1SB23-08093
TRICHLOROETHYLENE
8E-08
N/A
7E-09
8E-08
Immune System, Developmental, 2E-01
Heart |
N/A
2E-02
3E-01
Chemical Total
8E-08
N/A
7E-09
8E-08
f 2E-01
N/A
2E-02
3E-01
Exposure Point Total
8E-08
3E-01
Exposure Medium Total
8E-08
3E-01
Ambient Air
(Subsurface Soil)
Former Manufacturing Area
Hot Spot - OU1SB23-0809
TRICHLOROETHYLENE
N/A
2E-07
N/A
2E-07
Immune System, Developmental, N/A
Heart |
1E+00
N/A
1E+00
Chemical Total
N/A
2E-07
N/A
2E-07
| N/A
1E+00
N/A
1E+00
Exposure Point Total
2E-07
1E+00
Exposure Medium Total
2E-07
1E+00
Former Manufacturing Area Subsurface Soil Hot Spot - OU1SB23-0809 Total
3E-07
2E+00
Notes:
N/A = Not applicable
HI = Hazard Index
Hot Spot-OU1SB23-0809
Total Immune System HI Across All Media =
Total Developmental HI Across All Media =
Total Heart HI Across All Media =
2E+00
2E+00
2E+00
Page 1 of 1
-------
TABLE 10.5a.RME
RISK SUMMARY
REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE
Scenario Timeframe: Future
Receptor Population: Resident
Receptor Age: Child
Medium
Exposure
Medium
Exposure
Point
Chemical
of Potential
Concern
Carcinogenic Risk
Non-Carcinogenic Hazard Quotient
Ingestion
Inhalation
Dermal
Exposure
Routes Total
Primary 1 Ingestion
Target Organ(s) |
Inhalation
Dermal
Exposure
Routes Total
Soil
Subsurface Soil
Former Manufacturing Area
Hot Spot - OU1SB23-0809
TRICHLOROETHYLENE
Immune System, Developmental, Heart | 1E+00
N/A
7E-02
1 E+00
Chemical Total
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
| 1E+00
N/A
7E-02
1 E+00
Exposure Point Total
N/A
1 E+00
Exposure Medium Total
N/A
1 E+00
Ambient Air
(Subsurface Soil)
Former Manufacturing Area
Hot Spot - OU1SB23-0809
TRICHLOROETHYLENE
Immune System, Developmental, Heart | N/A
7E+00
N/A
7E+00
Chemical Total
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
| N/A
7E+00
N/A
7E+00
Exposure Point Total
N/A
7E+00
Exposure Medium Total
N/A
7E+00
Former Manufacturing Area Subsurface Soil Hot Spot - OU1SB23-0809 Total
N/A
8E+00
Soil
Subsurface Soil
Former Manufacturing Area
Hot Spot - EBSB-05-10
TRICHLOROETHYLENE
Immune System, Developmental, Heart | 5E-01
N/A
3E-02
5E-01
Chemical Total
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
| 5E-01
N/A
3E-02
5E-01
Exposure Point Total
N/A
5E-01
Exposure Medium Total
N/A
5E-01
Ambient Air
(Subsurface Soil)
Former Manufacturing Area
Hot Spot - EBSB-05-10
TRICHLOROETHYLENE
Immune System, Developmental, Heart | N/A
3E+00
N/A
3E+00
Chemical Total
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
| N/A
3E+00
N/A
3E+00
Exposure Point Total
N/A
3E+00
Exposure Medium Total
N/A
3E+00
Former Manufacturing Area Subsurface Soil Hot Spot - EBSB-05-10 Total
N/A
4E+00
Soil
Subsurface Soil
Former Manufacturing Area
Hot Spot - MIPSO SB04-08-10
BENZO(A)PYRENE
Neurological | 2E+00
N/A
5E-01
2E+00
Chemical Total
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
| 2E+00
N/A
5E-01
2E+00
Exposure Point Total
N/A
2E+00
Exposure Medium Total
N/A
2E+00
Former Manufacturing Area Subsurface Soil Hot Spot - MIPSO SB04-08-10 Total
2E+00
Hot Spot - OU1SB23-0809
Notes: Total Immune System HI Across All Media = | 8E+00
Page 1 of 2
-------
TABLE 10.5a.RME
RISK SUMMARY
REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE
Scenario Timeframe: Future
Receptor Population: Resident
Receptor Age: Child
Medium
Exposure
Medium
Exposure
Point
Chemical
of Potential
Carcinogenic Risk
Non-Carcinogenic Hazard Quotient
Concern
Ingestion
Inhalation
Dermal
Exposure
Routes Total
Primary
Target Organ(s)
Ingestion
Inhalation
Dermal
Exposure
Routes Total
N/A = Not applicable
HI = Hazard Index
Total Developmental HI Across All Media
Total Heart HI Across All Media
8E+00
8E+00
Hot Spot - EBSB-05-10
Total Immune System HI Across All Media = 4E+00
Total Developmental HI Across All Media = 4E+00
Total Heart HI Across All Media = 4E+00
Hot Spot - MIPSO SB04-08-10
Total Neurological HI Across All Media = [ Z-E-t-OO
Page 2 of 2
-------
TABLE 10.6.RME
RISK SUMMARY
REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE
Scenario Timeframe: Future
Receptor Population: Resident
Receptor Age: Child
Medium
Exposure
Medium
Exposure
Point
Chemical
of Potential
Concern
Carcinogenic Risk
Non-Carcinogenic Hazard Quotient
Ingestion
Inhalation
Dermal
Exposure
Routes Total
Primary \ Ingestion
Target Organ(s) |
Inhalation
Dermal
Exposure
Routes Total
Soil
Surface Soil
Baseball Field Area
THALLIUM
Hair | 5E+00
N/A
1E-01
5E+00
Chemical Total
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
| 5E+00
N/A
1E-01
5E+00
Exposure Point Total
N/A
5E+00
Exposure Medium Total
N/A
5E+00
Baseball Field Area Surface Soil Total
N/A
5E+00
Soil
Subsurface Soil
Baseball Field Area
THALLIUM
Hair | 8E+00
N/A
2E-01
8E+00
Chemical Total
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
| 8E+00
N/A
2E-01
8E+00
Exposure Point Total
N/A
8E+00
Exposure Medium Total
N/A
8E+00
Baseball Field Area Subsurface Soil Total
N/A
8E+00
Receptor Total - Baseball Field Area Surface Soil
N/A
Receptor HI Total
5E+00
Receptor Total - Baseball Field Area Subsurface Soil
N/A
Receptor HI Total
8E+00
Notes: Surface Soil Subsurface Soil
N/A = Not applicable Total Hair HI Across All Media = | 5E+00 | Total Hair HI Across All Media = | 8E+00
HI = Hazard Index
Page 1 of 1
-------
TABLE 10.6a.RME
RISK SUMMARY
REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE
Scenario Timeframe: Future
Receptor Population: Resident
Receptor Age: Child
Medium
Exposure
Medium
Exposure
Point
Chemical
of Potential
Concern
Carcinogenic Risk
Non-Carcinogenic Hazard Quotient
Ingestion
Inhalation
Dermal
Exposure
Routes Total
Primary
Target Organ(s)
Ingestion
Inhalation
Dermal
Exposure
Routes Total
Soil
Surface Soil
Baseball Field Area
Hot Spot - BFSO-SS10-0 5-1
ARSENIC
Skin, Vascular
2E+00
N/A
2E-01
2E+00
Chemical Total
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
2E+00
N/A
2E-01
2E+00
Exposure Point Total
N/A
2E+00
Exposure Medium Total
N/A
2E+00
Baseball Field Area Surface Soil Hot Spot -BFSO-SS10-0_5-1 Total
N/A
2E+00
Notes:
N/A = Not applicable
HI = Hazard Index
Hot Spot - BFSO-SS10-0_5-1
Total Skin HI Across All Media =
Total Vascular/Cardiovascular HI Across All Media =
2E+00
2E+00
Page 1 of 1
-------
TABLE 10.7.RME
RISK SUMMARY
REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE
Scenario Timeframe: Future
Receptor Population: Resident
Receptor Age: Child
Medium
Exposure
Medium
Exposure
Point
Chemical
of Potential
Concern
Carcinogenic Risk
Non-Carcinogenic Hazard Quotient
Ingestion
Inhalation
Dermal
Exposure
Routes Total
Primary
Target Organ(s)
Ingestion
Inhalation
Dermal
Exposure
Routes Total
Soil
Surface Soil
Northern Drainage
Channel
MANGANESE
Central Nervous System
6E-01
N/A
3E-01
9E-01
Chemical Total
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
6E-01
N/A
3E-01
9E-01
Exposure Point Total
N/A
9E-01
Exposure Medium Total
N/A
9E-01
Former Lagoon / Northern Drainage Channel Surface Soil Total
N/A
9E-01
Surface
Water
Surface Water
Former Lagoon/
Northern Drainage
Channel
MANGANESE
Central Nervous System
2E-01
N/A
3E-01
5E-01
Chemical Total
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
2E-01
N/A
3E-01
5E-01
Exposure Point Total
N/A
5E-01
Exposure Medium Total
N/A
5E-01
Former Lagoon / Northern Drainage Channel Surface Water Total
N/A
5E-01
Receptor Total - Former Lagoon / Northern Drainage Channel Surface Soil, Sediment, Surface Water
N/A
Receptor HI Total
2E+00
Receptor Total - Former Lagoon / Northern Drainage Channel Subsurface Soil, Sediment, Surface Water
N/A
Receptor HI Total
5E-01
Notes: Surface Soil and Surface Water
n/a = Not applicable Total Neurotoxicity/Neurological/Nervous System HI Across All Media = | 1E+QQ
HI = Hazard Index
Page 1 of 1
-------
TABLE 10.7a.RME
RISK SUMMARY
REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE
Scenario Timeframe: Future
Receptor Population: Resident
Receptor Age: Child
| Medium
Exposure
Medium
Exposure
Point
Chemical
of Potential
Concern
Carcinogenic Risk
Non-Carcinogenic Hazard Quotient
Ingestion
Inhalation
Dermal
Exposure
Routes Total
Primary
Target Organ(s)
Ingestion
Inhalation
Dermal
Exposure
Routes Total
Soil
Surface Soil
Former Lagoon / Northern
Drainage Channel
Hot Spot - NDCSD09A 121713
ARSENIC
Skin, Vascular
4E+00
N/A
5E-01
5E+00
Chemical Total
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
4E+00
N/A
5E-01
5E+00
Exposure Point Total
N/A
5E+00
Exposure Medium Total
N/A
5E+00
Former Lagoon / Northern Drainage Channel Surface Soil Hot Spot - NDCSD09A_121713 Total
N/A
5E+00
Notes:
N/A = Not applicable
HI = Hazard Index
Hot Spot - NDCSD09A_121713
Total Skin HI Across All Media =
Total Vascular/Cardiovascular HI Across All Media =
5E+00
5E+00
Page 1 of 1
-------
TABLE 10.11a.RME
RISK SUMMARY
REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE
Scenario Timeframe:
Future
Receptor Population:
Resident
Receptor Age: Adult
Medium
Exposure
Medium
Exposure
Point
Chemical
of Potential
Concern
Carcinogenic Risk
Non-Carcinogenic Hazard Quotient
Ingestion
Inhalation
Dermal
Exposure
Routes Total
Primary
Target Organ(s)
Ingestion
Inhalation
Dermal
Exposure
Routes Total
Soil
Ambient Air
(Subsurface Soil)
Former Manufacturing Area
Hot Spot-OU1SB23-0809
TRICHLOROETHYLENE
Immune System, Developmental, Heart
N/A
7E+00
N/A
7E+00
Chemical Total
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
7E+00
N/A
7E+00
Exposure Point Total
N/A
7E+00
Exposure Medium Total
N/A
7E+00
Former Manufacturing Area Subsurface Soil Hot Spot - OU1SB23-0809 Total
N/A
7E+00
Soil
Ambient Air Former Manufacturing Area
(Subsurface Soil) Hot Spot - EBSB-05-10
TRICHLOROETHYLENE
Immune System, Developmental, Heart | N/A
3E+00
N/A
3E+00
Chemical Total
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
| N/A
3E+00
N/A
3E+00
Exposure Point Total
N/A
3E+00
Exposure Medium Total
N/A
3E+00
Former Manufacturing Area Subsurface Soil Hot Spot - EBSB-05-10 Total
N/A
3E+00
Notes:
N/A = Not applicable
HI = Hazard Index
Hot Spot-OU1SB23
Total Immune System HI Across All Media =
Total Developmental HI Across All Media =
Total Heart HI Across All Media =
7E+00
7E+00
7E+00
Hot Spot - EBSB-05-10
Total Immune System HI Across All Media = 3E+00
Total Developmental HI Across All Media = 3E+00
Total Heart HI Across All Media = 3E+00
Page 1 of 1
-------
TABLE 10.15.RME
RISK SUMMARY
REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE
Scenario Timeframe: Future
Receptor Population: Resident
Receptor Age: Lifetime, Age-Adjusted
Medium
Exposure
Medium
Exposure
Point
Chemical
of Potential
Concern
Carcinogenic Risk
Non-Carcinogenic Hazard Quotient
Ingestion
Inhalatiorj Dermal
Exposure
Routes Total
Primary
Target Organ(s)
Ingestion
Inhalation
Dermal
Exposure
Routes Total
Soil
Subsurface Soil
Former Manufacturing
Area
ARSENIC
CHROMIUM
5E-05
6E-05
N/A I 7E-06
N/A 6E-05
6E-05
1E-04
Chemical Total
1E-04
N/A f 7E-05
2E-04
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Exposure Point Total
2E-04
N/A
Exposure Medium Total
2E-04
N/A
Former Manufacturing Area Subsurface Soil Total
2E-04
N/A
|Receptor Total
2E-04 | Receptor HI Total
N/A |
Notes:
N/A = Not applicable
HI = Hazard Index
Page 1 of 1
-------
TABLE 10.15a.RME
RISK SUMMARY
REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE
Scenario Timeframe: Future
Receptor Population: Resident
Receptor Age: Lifetime, Age-Adjusted
Medium
Exposure
Exposure
Chemical
Carcinogenic Risk
Non-Carcinogenic Hazard Quotient
Medium
Point
of Potential
Concern
Ingestion
Inhalation
Dermal
Exposure
Primary
Ingestion
Inhalation
Dermal
Exposure
Routes Total
Target Organ(s)
Routes Total
Soil
Subsurface Soil
Former Manufacturing Area
BENZO[A]ANTHRACENE
4E-05
N/A
1E-05
5E-05
BENZO[A]PYRENE
3E-04
N/A
8E-05
3E-04
Hot Spot - MIPSO-SB04-08-10
BENZO[B]FLUORANTHENE
4E-05
N/A
1E-05
5E-05
DIBENZ[A,H]ANTHRACENE
6E-05
N/A
2E-05
8E-05
INDENO[1,2,3-CD]PYRENE
1E-05
N/A
4E-06
2E-05
Chemical Total
4E-04
N/A
1E-04
5E-04
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Exposure Point Total
5E-04
N/A
Exposure Medium Total
5E-04
N/A
Former Manufacturing Area Subsurface Soil Hot Spot - MIPSO-SB04-08-10 Total
5E-04
N/A
Notes:
N/A = Not applicable
HI = Hazard Index
Page 1 of 1
-------
TABLE 10.16.RME
RISK SUMMARY
REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE
Scenario Timeframe: Future
Receptor Population: Resident
Receptor Age: Lifetime, Age-Adjusted
Medium
Exposure
Medium
Exposure
Point
Chemical
of Potential
Concern
Carcinogenic Risk
Non-Carcinogenic Hazard Quotient
Ingestion
Inhalation
Dermal
Exposure
Routes Total
Primary
Target Organ(s)
Ingestion
Inhalation
Dermal
Exposure
Routes Total
Soil
Surface Soil
Former Lagoon/
Northern Drainage
Channel
BENZO[A]PYRENE
ARSENIC
CHROMIUM
1E-05
3E-05
6E-05
N/A
N/A
N/A
4E-06
4E-06
7E-05
2E-05
3E-05
1E-04
Chemical Total
1E-04
N/A
7E-05
2E-04
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Exposure Point Total
2E-04
N/A
Exposure Medium Total
2E-04
N/A
Former Lagoon / Northern Drainage Channel Surface Soil Total
2E-04
N/A
Soil
Subsurface Soil
Former Lagoon/
Northern Drainage
ARSENIC
CHROMIUM
2E-05
8E-05
N/A I 2E-06
N/A 8E-05
2E-05
2E-04
Chemical Total
9E-05
N/A
8E-05
2E-04
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Exposure Point Total
2E-04
N/A
Exposure Medium Total
2E-04
N/A
Former Lagoon / Northern Drainage Channel Subsurface Soil Total
2E-04
N/A
Receptor Total - Former Lagoon / Northern Drainage Channel Surface Soil
2E-04
Receptor HI Total
N/A
Receptor Total - Former Lagoon / Northern Drainage Channel Subsurface Soil
2E-04
Receptor HI Total
N/A
Notes:
N/A = Not applicable
HI = Hazard Index
Page 1 of 1
-------
TABLE 10.16a.RME
RISK SUMMARY
REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE
Scenario Timeframe: Future
Receptor Population: Resident
Receptor Age: Lifetime, Age-Adjusted
Medium
Exposure
Medium
Exposure
Point
Chemical
of Potential
Concern
Carcinogenic Risk
Non-Carcinogenic Hazard Quotient
Ingestion
Inhalation
Dermal
Exposure
Routes Total
Primary
Target Organ(s)
Ingestion
Inhalation
Dermal
Exposure
Routes Total
Soil
Surface Soil
Former Lagoon / Northern
Drainage Channel
Hot Spot - NDCSD09A_121713
ARSENIC
2E-04
N/A
3E-05
3E-04
Chemical Total
2E-04
N/A
3E-05
3E-04
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Exposure Point Total
3E-04
N/A
Exposure Medium Total
3E-04
N/A
Former Lagoon / Northern Drainage Channel Surface Soil Hot Spot - NDCSD09A_121713 Total
3E-04
N/A
Soil
Surface Soil
Former Lagoon / Northern
Drainage Channel
HotSpot- NDCSD10B
CHROMIUM
4E-04
N/A
4E-04
8E-04
Chemical Total
4E-04
N/A
4E-04
8E-04
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Exposure Point Total
8E-04
N/A
Exposure Medium Total
8E-04
N/A
Former Lagoon / Northern Drainage Channel Surface Soil Hot Spot - NDCSD10B Total
8E-04
N/A
Notes:
N/A = Not applicable
HI = Hazard Index
Page 1 of 1
-------
TABLE 10.23.RME
RISK SUMMARY, SITE-RELATED CONSTITUENTS
REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE
Scenario Timeframe: Future
Receptor Population: Site Worker
Receptor Age: Adult
Medium
Exposure
Medium
Exposure
Point
Chemical
of Potential
Concern
Carcinogenic Risk
Non-Carcinogenic Hazard Quotient
Ingestion
Inhalation
Dermal
Exposure
Routes Total
Primary \ Ingestion
Target Organ(s) |
Inhalation
Dermal
Exposure
Routes Total
Soil
Subsurface Soil
Former Manufacturing Area
Hot Spot - OU1SB23-0809
TRICHLOROETHYLENE
5E-07
N/A
7E-08
6E-07
Immune System, 6E-02
Developmental, Heart |
N/A
8E-03
7E-02
Chemical Total
5E-07
N/A
7E-08
6E-07
f 6E-02
N/A
8E-03
7E-02
Exposure Point Total
6E-07
7E-02
Exposure Medium Total
6E-07
7E-02
Ambient Air
(Subsurface Soil)
Former Manufacturing Area
Hot Spot - OU1SB23-0809
TRICHLOROETHYLENE
N/A
4E-06
N/A
4E-06
Immune System, N/A
Developmental, Heart |
1E+00
N/A
1E+00
Chemical Total
N/A
4E-06
N/A
4E-06
| N/A
1E+00
N/A
1E+00
Exposure Point Total
4E-06
1E+00
Exposure Medium Total
4E-06
1E+00
Former Manufacturing Area Subsurface Soil Hot Spot - OU1SB23-0809 Total
5E-06
2E+00
Notes:
N/A = Not applicable
HI = Hazard Index
Hot Spot-OU1SB23-0809
Total Immune System HI Across All Media =
Total Developmental HI Across All Media =
Total Heart HI Across All Media =
2E+00
2E+00
2E+00
Page 1 of 1
-------
TABLE 10.25.RME
RISK SUMMARY, SITE-RELATED CONSTITUENTS
REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE
Scenario Timeframe: Future
Receptor Population: Construction Worker
Receptor Age: Adult
Medium
Exposure
Medium
Exposure
Point
Chemical
of Potential
Concern
Carcinogenic Risk
Non-Carcinogenic Hazard Quotient
Ingestion
Inhalation
Dermal
Exposure
Routes Total
Primary 1 Ingestion
Target Organ(s) |
Inhalation
Dermal
Exposure
Routes Total
Soil
Subsurface Soil
Former Manufacturing Area
Hot Spot - OU1SB23-08093
TRICHLOROETHYLENE
8E-08
N/A
7E-09
8E-08
Immune System, Developmental, 2E-01
Heart |
N/A
2E-02
3E-01
Chemical Total
8E-08
N/A
7E-09
8E-08
f 2E-01
N/A
2E-02
3E-01
Exposure Point Total
8E-08
3E-01
Exposure Medium Total
8E-08
3E-01
Ambient Air
(Subsurface Soil)
Former Manufacturing Area
Hot Spot - OU1SB23-0809
TRICHLOROETHYLENE
N/A
2E-07
N/A
2E-07
Immune System, Developmental, N/A
Heart |
1E+00
N/A
1E+00
Chemical Total
N/A
2E-07
N/A
2E-07
| N/A
1E+00
N/A
1E+00
Exposure Point Total
2E-07
1E+00
Exposure Medium Total
2E-07
1E+00
Former Manufacturing Area Subsurface Soil Hot Spot - OU1SB23-0809 Total
3E-07
2E+00
Notes:
N/A = Not applicable
HI = Hazard Index
Hot Spot-OU1SB23-0809
Total Immune System HI Across All Media =
Total Developmental HI Across All Media =
Total Heart HI Across All Media =
2E+00
2E+00
2E+00
Page 1 of 1
-------
TABLE 10.27.RME
RISK SUMMARY, SITE-RELATED CONSTITUENTS
REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE
Scenario Timeframe: Future
Receptor Population: Resident
Receptor Age: Child
Medium
Exposure
Medium
Exposure
Point
Chemical
of Potential
Concern
Carcinogenic Risk
Non-Carcinogenic Hazard Quotient
Ingestion
Inhalation
Dermal
Exposure
Routes Total
Primary 1 Ingestion
Target Organ(s) |
Inhalation
Dermal
Exposure
Routes Total
Soil
Subsurface Soil
Former Manufacturing Area
Hot Spot - OU1SB23-0809
TRICHLOROETHYLENE
Immune System, Developmental, Heart | 1E+00
N/A
7E-02
1 E+00
Chemical Total
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
| 1E+00
N/A
7E-02
1 E+00
Exposure Point Total
N/A
1 E+00
Exposure Medium Total
N/A
1 E+00
Ambient Air
(Subsurface Soil)
Former Manufacturing Area
Hot Spot - OU1SB23-0809
TRICHLOROETHYLENE
Immune System, Developmental, Heart | N/A
7E+00
N/A
7E+00
Chemical Total
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
| N/A
7E+00
N/A
7E+00
Exposure Point Total
N/A
7E+00
Exposure Medium Total
N/A
7E+00
Former Manufacturing Area Subsurface Soil Hot Spot - OU1SB23-0809 Total
N/A
8E+00
Soil
Subsurface Soil
Former Manufacturing Area
Hot Spot - EBSB-05-10
TRICHLOROETHYLENE
Immune System, Developmental, Heart | 5E-01
N/A
3E-02
5E-01
Chemical Total
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
| 5E-01
N/A
3E-02
5E-01
Exposure Point Total
N/A
5E-01
Exposure Medium Total
N/A
5E-01
Ambient Air
(Subsurface Soil)
Former Manufacturing Area
Hot Spot - EBSB-05-10
TRICHLOROETHYLENE
Immune System, Developmental, Heart | N/A
3E+00
N/A
3E+00
Chemical Total
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
| N/A
3E+00
N/A
3E+00
Exposure Point Total
N/A
3E+00
Exposure Medium Total
N/A
3E+00
Former Manufacturing Area Subsurface Soil Hot Spot - EBSB-05-10 Total
N/A
4E+00
Soil
Subsurface Soil
Former Manufacturing Area
Hot Spot - MIPSO SB04-08-10
BENZO(A)PYRENE
Neurological | 2E+00
N/A
5E-01
2E+00
Chemical Total
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
| 2E+00
N/A
5E-01
2E+00
Exposure Point Total
N/A
2E+00
Exposure Medium Total
N/A
2E+00
Former Manufacturing Area Subsurface Soil Hot Spot - MIPSO SB04-08-10 Total
2E+00
Page 1 of 2
-------
TABLE 10.27.RME
RISK SUMMARY, SITE-RELATED CONSTITUENTS
REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE
Scenario Timeframe: Future
Receptor Population: Resident
Receptor Age: Child
Medium
Exposure
Medium
Exposure
Point
Chemical
of Potential
Carcinogenic Risk
Non-Carcinogenic Hazard Quotient
Concern
Ingestion
Inhalation
Dermal
Exposure
Routes Total
Primary
Target Organ(s)
Ingestion
Inhalation
Dermal
Exposure
Routes Total
Hot Spot - QU1SB23-0809
Notes:
Total Immune System HI Across All Media =
8E+00
N/A = Not applicable
Total Developmental HI Across All Media =
8E+00
HI = Hazard Index
Total Heart HI Across All Media =
8E+00
Hot Spot - EBSB-05-10
Total Immune System HI Across All Media =
4E+00
Total Developmental HI Across All Media =
4E+00
Total Heart HI Across All Media =
4E+00
Hot Spot - MIPSO SB04-08-10
Total Neurological HI Across All Media =
2.E+00 |
Page 2 of 2
-------
TABLE 10.28.RME
RISK SUMMARY, SITE-RELATED CONSTITUENTS
REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE
Scenario Timeframe: Future
Receptor Population: Resident
Receptor Age: Child
Medium
Exposure
Medium
Exposure
Point
Chemical
of Potential
Concern
Carcinogenic Risk
Non-Carcinogenic Hazard Quotient
Ingestion
Inhalation
Dermal
Exposure
Routes Total
Primary \ Ingestion
Target Organ(s) |
Inhalation
Dermal
Exposure
Routes Total
Soil
Surface Soil
Baseball Field Area
THALLIUM
Hair I Background Constituent
I i i
0E+00
Chemical Total
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
| 0E+00
N/A
0E+00
0E+00
Exposure Point Total
N/A
0E+00
Exposure Medium Total
N/A
0E+00
Baseball Field Area Surface Soil Total
N/A
0E+00
Soil
Subsurface Soil
Baseball Field Area
THALLIUM
Hair T Background Constituent
I I I
0E+00
Chemical Total
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
| 0E+00
N/A
0E+00
0E+00
Exposure Point Total
N/A
0E+00
Exposure Medium Total
N/A
0E+00
Baseball Field Area Subsurface Soil Total
N/A
0E+00
Receptor Total - Baseball Field Area Surface Soil
N/A
Receptor HI Total
0E+00
Receptor Total - Baseball Field Area Subsurface Soil
N/A
Receptor HI Total
0E+00
Notes:
N/A = Not applicable
HI = Hazard Index
Surface Soil
Total Hair HI Across All Media = [
0E+00
Subsurface Soil
Total Hair HI Across All Media = [
0E+00
Page 1 of 1
-------
TABLE 10.28a.RME
RISK SUMMARY, SITE-RELATED CONSTITUENTS
REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE
Scenario Timeframe: Future
Receptor Population: Resident
Receptor Age: Child
Medium
Exposure
Medium
Exposure
Point
Chemical
of Potential
Concern
Carcinogenic Risk
Non-Carcinogenic Hazard Quotient
Ingestion
Inhalation
Dermal
Exposure
Routes Total
Primary
Target Organ(s)
Ingestion
Inhalation
Dermal
Exposure
Routes Total
Soil
Surface Soil
Baseball Field Area
Hot Spot - BFSO-SS10-0 5-1
ARSENIC
Skin, Vascular
2E+00
N/A
2E-01
2E+00
Chemical Total
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
2E+00
N/A
2E-01
2E+00
Exposure Point Total
N/A
2E+00
Exposure Medium Total
N/A
2E+00
Baseball Field Area Surface Soil Hot Spot -BFSO-SS10-0_5-1 Total
N/A
2E+00
Notes:
N/A = Not applicable
HI = Hazard Index
Hot Spot - BFSO-SS10-0_5-1
Total Skin HI Across All Media =
Total Vascular/Cardiovascular HI Across All Media =
2E+00
2E+00
Page 1 of 1
-------
TABLE 10.29.RME
RISK SUMMARY, SITE-RELATED CONSTITUENTS
REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE
Scenario Timeframe: Future
Receptor Population: Resident
Receptor Age: Child
Medium
Exposure
Medium
Exposure
Point
Chemical
of Potential
Concern
Carcinogenic Risk
Non-Carcinogenic Hazard Quotient
Ingestion
Inhalation
Dermal
Exposure
Routes Total
Primary
Target Organ(s)
Ingestion
Inhalation
Dermal
Exposure
Routes Total
Soil
Surface Soil
Northern Drainage
Channel
MANGANESE
Central Nervous System
6E-01
N/A
3E-01
9E-01
Chemical Total
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
6E-01
N/A
3E-01
9E-01
Exposure Point Total
N/A
9E-01
Exposure Medium Total
N/A
9E-01
Former Lagoon / Northern Drainage Channel Surface Soil Total
N/A
9E-01
Surface
Water
Surface Water
Former Lagoon/
Northern Drainage
Channel
MANGANESE
Central Nervous System
2E-01
N/A
3E-01
5E-01
Chemical Total
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
2E-01
N/A
3E-01
5E-01
Exposure Point Total
N/A
5E-01
Exposure Medium Total
N/A
5E-01
Former Lagoon / Northern Drainage Channel Surface Water Total
N/A
5E-01
Receptor Total - Former Lagoon / Northern Drainage Channel Surface Soil, Sediment, Surface Water
N/A
Receptor HI Total
2E+00
Receptor Total - Former Lagoon / Northern Drainage Channel Subsurface Soil, Sediment, Surface Water
N/A
Receptor HI Total
5E-01
Notes: Surface Soil and Surface Water
n/a = Not applicable Total Neurotoxicity/Neurological/Nervous System HI Across All Media = | 1E+QQ
HI = Hazard Index
Page 1 of 1
-------
TABLE 10.29a.RME
RISK SUMMARY, SITE-RELATED CONSTITUENTS
REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE
Scenario Timeframe: Future
Receptor Population: Resident
Receptor Age: Child
Medium
Exposure
Medium
Exposure
Point
Chemical
of Potential
Concern
Carcinogenic Risk
Non-Carcinogenic Hazard Quotient
Ingestion
Inhalation
Dermal
Exposure
Routes Total
Primary
Target Organ(s)
Ingestion
Inhalation
Dermal
Exposure
Routes Total
Soil
Surface Soil
Former Lagoon / Northern
Drainage Channel
Hot Spot - NDCSD09A 121713
ARSENIC
Skin, Vascular
4E+00
N/A
5E-01
5E+00
Chemical Total
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
4E+00
N/A
5E-01
5E+00
Exposure Point Total
N/A
5E+00
Exposure Medium Total
N/A
5E+00
Former Lagoon / Northern Drainage Channel Surface Soil Hot Spot - NDCSD09A_121713 Total
N/A
5E+00
Notes:
N/A = Not applicable
HI = Hazard Index
Hot Spot - NDCSD09A_121713
Total Skin HI Across All Media =
Total Vascular/Cardiovascular HI Across All Media =
5E+00
5E+00
Page 1 of 1
-------
TABLE 10.37.RME
RISK SUMMARY, SITE-RELATED CONSTITUENTS
REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE
Scenario Timeframe: Future
Receptor Population: Resident
Receptor Age: Lifetime, Age-Adjusted
Medium
Exposure
Medium
Exposure
Point
Chemical
of Potential
Concern
Carcinogenic Risk
Non-Carcinogenic Hazard Quotient
Ingestion
Inhalation
Dermal
Exposure
Routes Total
Primary
Target Organ(s)
Ingestion
Inhalation
Dermal
Exposure
Routes Total
Soil
Subsurface Soil
Former Manufacturing
Area
ARSENIC
CHROMIUM
5E-05
Backgrc
N/A
)und Cons
7E-06
tituent
6E-05
0E+00
Chemical Total
5E-05
N/A
7E-06
6E-05
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Exposure Point Total
6E-05
N/A
Exposure Medium Total
6E-05
N/A
Former Manufacturing Area Subsurface Soil Total
6E-05
N/A
|Receptor Total
6E-05 | Receptor HI Total
N/A 1
Notes:
N/A = Not applicable
HI = Hazard Index
Page 1 of 1
-------
TABLE 10.37a.RME
RISK SUMMARY, SITE-RELATED CONSTITUENTS
REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE
Scenario Timeframe: Future
Receptor Population: Resident
Receptor Age: Lifetime, Age-Adjusted
Medium
Exposure
Exposure
Chemical
Carcinogenic Risk
Non-Carcinogenic Hazard Quotient
Medium
Point
of Potential
Concern
Ingestion
Inhalation
Dermal
Exposure
Primary
Ingestion
Inhalation
Dermal
Exposure
Routes Total
Target Organ(s)
Routes Total
Soil
Subsurface Soil
Former Manufacturing Area
BENZO[A]ANTHRACENE
4E-05
N/A
1E-05
5E-05
BENZO[A]PYRENE
3E-04
N/A
8E-05
3E-04
Hot Spot - MIPSO-SB04-08-10
BENZO[B]FLUORANTHENE
4E-05
N/A
1E-05
5E-05
DIBENZ[A,H]ANTHRACENE
6E-05
N/A
2E-05
8E-05
INDENO[1,2,3-CD]PYRENE
1E-05
N/A
4E-06
2E-05
Chemical Total
4E-04
N/A
1E-04
5E-04
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Exposure Point Total
5E-04
N/A
Exposure Medium Total
5E-04
N/A
Former Manufacturing Area Subsurface Soil Hot Spot - MIPSO-SB04-08-10 Total
5E-04
N/A
Notes:
N/A = Not applicable
HI = Hazard Index
Page 1 of 1
-------
TABLE 10.38.RME
RISK SUMMARY, SITE-RELATED CONSTITUENTS
REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE
Scenario Timeframe: Future
Receptor Population: Resident
Receptor Age: Lifetime, Age-Adjusted
Medium
Exposure
Medium
Exposure
Point
Chemical
of Potential
Concern
Carcinogenic Risk
Non-Carcinogenic Hazard Quotient
Ingestion
Inhalation
Dermal
Exposure
Routes Total
Primary
Target Organ(s)
Ingestion
Inhalation
Dermal
Exposure
Routes Total
Soil
Surface Soil
Former Lagoon/
Northern Drainage
Channel
BENZO[A]PYRENE
ARSENIC
CHROMIUM
1E-05
3E-05
Backgrc
N/A
N/A
)und Cons
4E-06
4E-06
tituent
2E-05
3E-05
Chemical Total
4E-05
N/A
7E-06
4E-05
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Exposure Point Total
4E-05
N/A
Exposure Medium Total
4E-05
N/A
Former Lagoon / Northern Drainage Channel Surface Soil Total
4E-05
N/A
Soil
Subsurface Soil
Former Lagoon/
Northern Drainage
Channel
ARSENIC
CHROMIUM
2E-05 | N/A | 2E-06
Background Constituent
I I
2E-05
0E+00
Chemical Total
2E-05
N/A
2E-06
2E-05
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Exposure Point Total
2E-05
N/A
Exposure Medium Total
2E-05
N/A
Former Lagoon / Northern Drainage Channel Subsurface Soil Total
2E-05
N/A
Receptor Total - Former Lagoon / Northern Drainage Channel Surface Soil
4E-05
Receptor HI Total
N/A
Receptor Total - Former Lagoon / Northern Drainage Channel Subsurface Soil
2E-05
Receptor HI Total
N/A
Notes:
N/A = Not applicable
HI = Hazard Index
Page 1 of 1
-------
TABLE 10.38a.RME
RISK SUMMARY, SITE-RELATED CONSTITUENTS
REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE
Scenario Timeframe: Future
Receptor Population: Resident
Receptor Age: Lifetime, Age-Adjusted
Medium
Exposure
Medium
Exposure
Point
Chemical
of Potential
Concern
Carcinogenic Risk
Non-Carcinogenic Hazard Quotient
Ingestion
Inhalation
Dermal
Exposure
Routes Total
Primary
Target Organ(s)
Ingestion
Inhalation
Dermal
Exposure
Routes Total
Soil
Surface Soil
Former Lagoon / Northern
Drainage Channel
Hot Spot - NDCSD09A_121713
ARSENIC
2E-04
N/A
3E-05
3E-04
Chemical Total
2E-04
N/A
3E-05
3E-04
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Exposure Point Total
3E-04
N/A
Exposure Medium Total
3E-04
N/A
Former Lagoon / Northern Drainage Channel Surface Soil Hot Spot - NDCSD09A_121713 Total
3E-04
N/A
Soil
Surface Soil
Former Lagoon / Northern
Drainage Channel
HotSpot- NDCSD10B
CHROMIUM
4E-04
N/A
4E-04
8E-04
Chemical Total
4E-04
N/A
4E-04
8E-04
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Exposure Point Total
8E-04
N/A
Exposure Medium Total
8E-04
N/A
Former Lagoon / Northern Drainage Channel Surface Soil Hot Spot - NDCSD10B Total
8E-04
N/A
Notes:
N/A = Not applicable
HI = Hazard Index
Page 1 of 1
-------
TABLE 1a (RAGS D ADULT LEAD WORKSHEET)
Former Manufacturing Area Subsurface Soil - Average Concentration
Future Site Worker
Jackson Ceramix, Falls Creek, Jefferson County, PA
1. Lead Screening Questions
Medium
Lead
Concentration
used in Model Run
Basis for Lead
Concentration Used
for Model Run
Lead Screening
Concentration
Basis for Lead Screening Level
Value
Units
Value
Units
Soil
49
mg/kg
Average Soil
Concentration
400
mg/kg
Recommended Residential Soil
Screening Level
2. Lead Model Questions
Question
Response
What lead model was used? Provide reference and version
EPA Adult Lead Model, dated
6/21/2009
If the EPA Adult Lead Model (ALM) was not used provide rationale for
model selected.
N/A
Where are the input values located in the risk assessment report?
Attached as Table 1b
What statistics were used to represent the exposure concentration terms
and where are the data on concentrations in the risk assessment that
support use of these statistics?
Arithmetic mean subsurface soil
concentration; see Table 3.1,
Attachment 1.
What was the point of exposure and location?
Former Manufacturing Area
Where are the output values located in the risk assessment report?
Attached as Table 1b
What GSD value was used? If this is outside the recommended range of
1.8-2.1), provide rationale in Appendix.
Default values were used (1.8 and
2.1).
What baseline blood lead concentration (PbBo) value was used? If this
is outside the default range of 1.7 to 2.2 provide rationale in Appendix.
Default values from ALM were used
(1.0 and 1.5 ug/dL).
Was the default exposure frequency (EF; 219 days/year) used?
Yes
Was the default BKSF used (0.4 ug/dL per ug/day) used?
Yes
Was the default absorption fraction (AF; 0.12) used?
Yes
Was the default soil ingestion rate (IR; 50 mg/day) used?
Yes
If non-default values were used for any of the parameters listed above,
where is the rationale for the values located in the risk assessment
report?
Sections 5 and 7.1.3 of the HHRA.
3. Final Result
Medium
Result
Comment/RBRG
Soil
49 ppm lead in subsurface soil results in geometric mean blood
lead levels ranging from 2.5 to 4.8 ug/dL for fetuses of exposed
women in homogeneous and heterogeneous populations. The
probabilities that the fetal blood lead levels exceed 10 ug/dL range
from 0.003% to 0.4%. These values are below the blood lead goal
as described in the 1994 OSWER Directive of no more than 5% of
children (fetuses of exposed women) exceeding 10 ug/dL blood
lead.
Page l ofl
-------
TABLE 2a (RAGS D ADULT LEAD WORKSHEET)
Former Manufacturing Area Subsurface Soil - Hot Spot MIPSO-SBQ7-03-05
Future Site Worker
Jackson Ceramix, Falls Creek, Jefferson County, PA
1. Lead Screening Questions
Medium
Lead
Concentration
used in Model Run
Basis for Lead
Concentration Used
for Model Run
Lead Screening
Concentration
Basis for Lead Screening Level
Value
Units
Value
Units
Soil
8360
mg/kg
Hot Spot Soil
Concentration
400
mg/kg
Recommended Residential Soil
Screening Level
2. Lead Model Questions
Question
Response
What lead model was used? Provide reference and version
EPA Adult Lead Model, dated
6/21/2009
If the EPA Adult Lead Model (ALM) was not used provide rationale for
model selected.
N/A
Where are the input values located in the risk assessment report?
Attached as Table 2b
What statistics were used to represent the exposure concentration terms
and where are the data on concentrations in the risk assessment that
support use of these statistics?
Hot spot subsurface soil
concentration; see Table 3.1,
Attachment 1.
What was the point of exposure and location?
Former Manufacturing Area, Hot
Spot MIPSO-SB07-03-05
Where are the output values located in the risk assessment report?
Attached as Table 2b
What GSD value was used? If this is outside the recommended range of
1.8-2.1), provide rationale in Appendix.
Default values were used (1.8 and
2.1).
What baseline blood lead concentration (PbBo) value was used? If this is
outside the default range of 1.7 to 2.2 provide rationale in Appendix.
Default values from ALM were
used (1.0 and 1.5 ug/dL).
Was the default exposure frequency (EF; 219 days/year) used?
Yes
Was the default BKSF used (0.4 ug/dL per ug/day) used?
Yes
Was the default absorption fraction (AF; 0.12) used?
Yes
Was the default soil ingestion rate (IR; 50 mg/day) used?
Yes
If non-default values were used for any of the parameters listed above,
where is the rationale for the values located in the risk assessment report?
Sections 5 and 7.1.3 of the HHRA.
3. Final Result
Medium
Result
Comment/RBRG 1
Soil
8360 ppm lead in subsurface soil results in geometric mean blood
lead levels ranging from 30.9 to 41.3 ug/dL for fetuses of exposed
women in homogeneous and heterogeneous populations. The
probabilities that the fetal blood lead levels exceed 10 ug/dL range
from 60.5% to 60.7%. These values exceed the blood lead goal as
described in the 1994 OSWER Directive of no more than 5% of
children (fetuses of exposed women) exceeding 10 ug/dL blood
lead.
Page l ofl
-------
TABLE 3a (RAGS D ADULT LEAD WORKSHEET)
Former Lagoon / Northern Drainage Channel Subsurface Soil - Average Concentration
Future Site Worker
Jackson Ceramix, Falls Creek, Jefferson County, PA
1. Lead Screening Questions
Medium
Lead
Concentration
used in Model Run
Basis for Lead
Concentration Used
for Model Run
Lead Screening
Concentration
Basis for Lead Screening Level
Value
Units
Value
Units
Soil
27
mg/kg
Average Soil
Concentration
400
mg/kg
Recommended Residential Soil
Screening Level
2. Lead Model Questions
Question
Response
What lead model was used? Provide reference and version
EPA Adult Lead Model, dated
6/21/2009
If the EPA Adult Lead Model (ALM) was not used provide rationale for
model selected.
N/A
Where are the input values located in the risk assessment report?
Attached as Table 3b
What statistics were used to represent the exposure concentration terms
and where are the data on concentrations in the risk assessment that
support use of these statistics?
Arithmetic mean subsurface soil
concentration; see Table 3.5,
Attachment 1.
What was the point of exposure and location?
Former Lagoon / Northern Drainage
Channel
Where are the output values located in the risk assessment report?
Attached as Table 3b
What GSD value was used? If this is outside the recommended range of
1.8-2.1), provide rationale in Appendix.
Default values were used (1.8 and
2.1).
What baseline blood lead concentration (PbBo) value was used? If this is
outside the default range of 1.7 to 2.2 provide rationale in Appendix.
Default values from ALM were used
(1.0 and 1.5 ug/dL).
Was the default exposure frequency (EF; 219 days/year) used?
Yes
Was the default BKSF used (0.4 ug/dL per ug/day) used?
Yes
Was the default absorption fraction (AF; 0.12) used?
Yes
Was the default soil ingestion rate (IR; 50 mg/day) used?
Yes
If non-default values were used for any of the parameters listed above,
where is the rationale for the values located in the risk assessment
report?
Sections 5 and 7.1.3 of the HHRA.
3. Final Result
Medium
Result
Comment/RBRG 1
Soil
27 ppm lead in subsurface soil results in geometric mean blood
lead levels ranging from 2.5 to 4.7 ug/dL for fetuses of exposed
women in homogeneous and heterogeneous populations. The
probabilities that the fetal blood lead levels exceed 10 ug/dL range
from 0.003% to 0.4%. These values are below the blood lead goal
as described in the 1994 OSWER Directive of no more than 5% of
children (fetuses of exposed women) exceeding 10 ug/dL blood
lead.
Page l ofl
-------
TABLE 4a (RAGS D ADULT LEAD WORKSHEET)
Former Lagoon / Northern Drainage Channel Subsurface Soil - Hot Spot FLSB01-0305
Future Site Worker
Jackson Ceramix, Falls Creek, Jefferson County, PA
1. Lead Screening Questions
Medium
Lead
Concentration
used in Model Run
Basis for Lead
Concentration Used
for Model Run
Lead Screening
Concentration
Basis for Lead Screening Level
Value
Units
Value
Units
Soil
21,100
mg/kg
Hot Spot Soil
Concentration
400
mg/kg
Recommended Residential Soil
Screening Level
2. Lead Model Questions
Question
Response
What lead model was used? Provide reference and version
EPA Adult Lead Model, dated
6/21/2009
If the EPA Adult Lead Model (ALM) was not used provide rationale for
model selected.
N/A
Where are the input values located in the risk assessment report?
Attached as Table 4b
What statistics were used to represent the exposure concentration
terms and where are the data on concentrations in the risk
assessment that support use of these statistics?
Hot spot FLSB01-0305 subsurface
soil concentration; see Table 3.5,
Attachment 1.
What was the point of exposure and location?
Former Lagoon / Northern Drainage
Channel, Hot Spot FLSB01-0305
Where are the output values located in the risk assessment report?
Attached as Table 4b
What GSD value was used? If this is outside the recommended range
of 1.8-2.1), provide rationale in Appendix.
Default values were used (1.8 and
2.1).
What baseline blood lead concentration (PbBo) value was used? If this
is outside the default range of 1.7 to 2.2 provide rationale in Appendix.
Default values from ALM were used
(1.0 and 1.5 ug/dL).
Was the default exposure frequency (EF; 219 days/year) used?
Yes
Was the default BKSF used (0.4 ug/dL per ug/day) used?
Yes
Was the default absorption fraction (AF; 0.12) used?
Yes
Was the default soil ingestion rate (IR; 50 mg/day) used?
Yes
If non-default values were used for any of the parameters listed above,
where is the rationale for the values located in the risk assessment
report?
Sections 5 and 7.1.3 of the HHRA.
3. Final Result
Medium
Result
Comment/RBRG 1
Soil
21,100 ppm lead in subsurface soil results in geometric mean
blood lead levels ranging from 74.3 to 97.2 ug/dL for fetuses of
exposed women in homogeneous and heterogeneous populations.
The probabilities that the fetal blood lead levels exceed 10 ug/dL
range from 92.2% to 96.1%. These values exceed the blood lead
goal as described in the 1994 OSWER Directive of no more than
5% of children (fetuses of exposed women) exceeding 10 ug/dL
blood lead.
Page l ofl
-------
TABLE 7a (RAGS D ADULT LEAD WORKSHEET)
Former Manufacturing Area Subsurface Soil - Average Concentration
Future Construction Worker
Jackson Ceramix, Falls Creek, Jefferson County, PA
1. Lead Screening Questions
Medium
Lead
Concentration
used in Model Run
Basis for Lead
Concentration Used
for Model Run
Lead Screening
Concentration
Basis for Lead Screening Level
Value
Units
Value
Units
Soil
49
mg/kg
Average Soil
Concentration
400
mg/kg
Recommended Residential Soil
Screening Level
2. Lead Model Questions
Question
Response
What lead model was used? Provide reference and version
EPA Adult Lead Model, dated
6/21/2009
If the EPA Adult Lead Model (ALM) was not used provide rationale for
model selected.
N/A
Where are the input values located in the risk assessment report?
Attached as Table 7b
What statistics were used to represent the exposure concentration
terms and where are the data on concentrations in the risk assessment
that support use of these statistics?
Arithmetic mean subsurface soil
concentration; see Table 3.1,
Attachment 1.
What was the point of exposure and location?
Former Manufacturing Area
Where are the output values located in the risk assessment report?
Attached as Table 7b
What GSD value was used? If this is outside the recommended range
of 1.8-2.1), provide rationale in Appendix.
Default values were used (1.8 and
2.1).
What baseline blood lead concentration (PbBo) value was used? If this
is outside the default range of 1.7 to 2.2 provide rationale in Appendix.
Default values from ALM were used
(1.0 and 1.5 ug/dL).
Was the default exposure frequency (EF; 219 days/year) used?
Yes
Was the default BKSF used (0.4 ug/dL per ug/day) used?
Yes
Was the default absorption fraction (AF; 0.12) used?
Yes
Was the default soil ingestion rate (IR; 50 mg/day) used?
No, IR of 100 mg/day used for
construction worker per ALM
Frequent Questions.
If non-default values were used for any of the parameters listed above,
where is the rationale for the values located in the risk assessment
report?
Sections 5 and 7.1.3 of the HHRA.
3. Final Result
Medium
Result
Comment/RBRG1
Soil
49 ppm lead in subsurface soil results in geometric mean blood
lead levels ranging from 2.7 to 5.0 ug/dL for fetuses of exposed
women in homogeneous and heterogeneous populations. The
probabilities that the fetal blood lead levels exceed 10 ug/dL range
from 0.005% to 0.5%. These values are below the blood lead goal
as described in the 1994 OSWER Directive of no more than 5% of
children (fetuses of exposed women) exceeding 10 ug/dL blood
lead.
Page l ofl
-------
TABLE 8a (RAGS D ADULT LEAD WORKSHEET)
Former Manufacturing Area Subsurface Soil - Hot Spot MIPSO-SBQ7-03-05
Future Construction Worker
Jackson Ceramix, Falls Creek, Jefferson County, PA
1. Lead Screening Questions
Medium
Lead
Concentration
used in Model Run
Basis for Lead
Concentration Used
for Model Run
Lead Screening
Concentration
Basis for Lead Screening Level
Value
Units
Value
nits
Soil
8360
mg/kg
Hot Spot Soil
Concentration
400
mg/kg
Recommended Residential Soil
Screening Level
2. Lead Model Questions
Question
Response
What lead model was used? Provide reference and version
EPA Adult Lead Model, dated
6/21/2009
If the EPA Adult Lead Model (ALM) was not used provide rationale for
model selected.
N/A
Where are the input values located in the risk assessment report?
Attached as Table 8b
What statistics were used to represent the exposure concentration
terms and where are the data on concentrations in the risk assessment
that support use of these statistics?
Hot spot subsurface soil
concentration; see Table 3.1,
Attachment 1.
What was the point of exposure and location?
Former Manufacturing Area, Hot Spot
MIPSO-SB07-03-05
Where are the output values located in the risk assessment report?
Attached as Table 8b
What GSD value was used? If this is outside the recommended range
of 1.8-2.1), provide rationale in Appendix.
Default values were used (1.8 and
2.1).
What baseline blood lead concentration (PbBo) value was used? If this
is outside the default range of 1.7 to 2.2 provide rationale in Appendix.
Default values from ALM were used
(1.0 and 1.5 ug/dL).
Was the default exposure frequency (EF; 219 days/year) used?
Yes
Was the default BKSF used (0.4 ug/dL per ug/day) used?
Yes
Was the default absorption fraction (AF; 0.12) used?
Yes
Was the default soil ingestion rate (IR; 50 mg/day) used?
No, IR of 100 mg/day used for
construction worker per ALM
Frequent Questions.
If non-default values were used for any of the parameters listed above,
where is the rationale for the values located in the risk assessment
report?
Sections 5 and 7.1.3 of the HHRA.
3. Final Result
Medium
Result
Comment/RBRG 1
Soil
8360 ppm lead in subsurface soil results in geometric mean blood
lead levels ranging from 59.4 to 78 ug/dL for fetuses of exposed
women in homogeneous and heterogeneous populations. The
probabilities that the fetal blood lead levels exceed 10 ug/dL range
from 86.9% to 91.7%. These values exceed the blood lead goal as
described in the 1994 OSWER Directive of no more than 5% of
children (fetuses of exposed women) exceeding 10 ug/dL blood
lead.
Page l ofl
-------
TABLE 9a (RAGS D ADULT LEAD WORKSHEET)
Former Lagoon / Northern Drainage Channel Subsurface Soil - Average Concentration
Future Construction Worker
Jackson Ceramix, Falls Creek, Jefferson County, PA
1. Lead Screening Questions
Medium
Lead
Concentration
used in Model Run
Basis for Lead
Concentration Used
for Model Run
Lead Screening
Concentration
Basis for Lead Screening Level
Value
Units
Value
Units
Soil
27
mg/kg
Average Soil
Concentration
400
mg/kg
Recommended Residential Soil
Screening Level
2. Lead Model Questions
Question
Response
What lead model was used? Provide reference and version
EPA Adult Lead Model, dated
6/21/2009
If the EPA Adult Lead Model (ALM) was not used provide rationale for
model selected.
N/A
Where are the input values located in the risk assessment report?
Attached as Table 9b
What statistics were used to represent the exposure concentration
terms and where are the data on concentrations in the risk assessment
that support use of these statistics?
Arithmetic mean subsurface soil
concentration; see Table 3.5,
Attachment 1.
What was the point of exposure and location?
Former Lagoon / Northern Drainage
Channel
Where are the output values located in the risk assessment report?
Attached as Table 9b
What GSD value was used? If this is outside the recommended range
of 1.8-2.1), provide rationale in Appendix.
Default values were used (1.8 and
2.1).
What baseline blood lead concentration (PbBo) value was used? If this
is outside the default range of 1.7 to 2.2 provide rationale in Appendix.
Default values from ALM were used
(1.0 and 1.5 ug/dL).
Was the default exposure frequency (EF; 219 days/year) used?
Yes
Was the default BKSF used (0.4 ug/dL per ug/day) used?
Yes
Was the default absorption fraction (AF; 0.12) used?
Yes
Was the default soil ingestion rate (IR; 50 mg/day) used?
No, IR of 100 mg/day used for
construction worker per ALM
Frequent Questions.
If non-default values were used for any of the parameters listed above,
where is the rationale for the values located in the risk assessment
report?
Sections 5 and 7.1.3 of the HHRA.
3. Final Result
Medium
Result
Comment/RBRG 1
Soil
27 ppm lead in subsurface soil results in geometric mean blood
lead levels ranging from 2.6 to 4.8 ug/dL for fetuses of exposed
women in homogeneous and heterogeneous populations. The
probabilities that the fetal blood lead levels exceed 10 ug/dL range
from 0.004% to 0.4%. These values are below the blood lead goal
as described in the 1994 OSWER Directive of no more than 5% of
children (fetuses of exposed women) exceeding 10 ug/dL blood
lead.
Page l ofl
-------
TABLE 10a (RAGS D ADULT LEAD WORKSHEET)
Former Lagoon / Northern Drainage Channel Subsurface Soil - Hot Spot FLSB01-0305
Future Construction Worker
Jackson Ceramix, Falls Creek, Jefferson County, PA
1. Lead Screening Questions
Medium
Lead
Concentration
used in Model Run
Basis for Lead
Concentration Used
for Model Run
Lead Screening
Concentration
Basis for Lead Screening Level
Value
Units
Value
Units
Soil
21,100
mg/kg
Hot Spot Soil
Concentration
400
mg/kg
Recommended Residential Soil
Screening Level
2. Lead Model Questions
Question
Response
What lead model was used? Provide reference and version
EPA Adult Lead Model, dated
6/21/2009
If the EPA Adult Lead Model (ALM) was not used provide rationale for
model selected.
N/A
Where are the input values located in the risk assessment report?
Attached as Table 10b
What statistics were used to represent the exposure concentration
terms and where are the data on concentrations in the risk
assessment that support use of these statistics?
Hot spot FLSB01-0305 subsurface
soil concentration; see Table 3.5,
Attachment 1.
What was the point of exposure and location?
Former Lagoon / Northern Drainage
Channel, Hot Spot FLSB01-0305
Where are the output values located in the risk assessment report?
Attached as Table 10b
What GSD value was used? If this is outside the recommended range
of 1.8-2.1), provide rationale in Appendix.
Default values were used (1.8 and
2.1).
What baseline blood lead concentration (PbBo) value was used? If this
is outside the default range of 1.7 to 2.2 provide rationale in Appendix.
Default values from ALM were used
(1.0 and 1.5 ug/dL).
Was the default exposure frequency (EF; 219 days/year) used?
Yes
Was the default BKSF used (0.4 ug/dL per ug/day) used?
Yes
Was the default absorption fraction (AF; 0.12) used?
Yes
Was the default soil ingestion rate (IR; 50 mg/day) used?
No, IR of 100 mg/day used for
construction worker per ALM Frequent
Questions.
If non-default values were used for any of the parameters listed above,
where is the rationale for the values located in the risk assessment
report?
Sections 5 and 7.1.3 of the HHRA.
3. Final Result
Medium
Result
Comment/RBRG 1
Soil
21,100 ppm lead in subsurface soil results in geometric mean
blood lead levels ranging from 146 to 190 ug/dL for fetuses of
exposed women in homogeneous and heterogeneous populations.
The probabilities that the fetal blood lead levels exceed 10 ug/dL
range from 99% to 99.8%. These values exceed the blood lead
goal as described in the 1994 OSWER Directive of no more than
5% of children (fetuses of exposed women) exceeding 10 ug/dL
blood lead.
Page l ofl
-------
TABLE 13a (RAGS D IEUBK LEAD WORKSHEET)
Former Manufacturing Area Subsurface Soil - Average Concentration
Future Residential Child (Age 0 to 84 Months)
Jackson Ceramix, Falls Creek, Jefferson County, PA
1. Lead Screening Questions
Medium
Lead Concentration
Used in Model Run
Basis for Lead
Concentration Used
for Model Run
Lead Screening
Concentration
Basis for Lead Screening Level
Value
Units
Value
Units
Soil
49
mg/kg
Average Soil
Concentration
400
mg/kg
Recommended Soil Screening
Level
Water
4
(jg/L
IEUBK Model Default
Value
15
Mg/L
Recommended Drinking Water
Action Level
2. Lead Model Questions
Question
Response for Residential Lead Model
What lead model (version and date was used)?
Lead Model for Windows, Version 1.1 Build 11
(February, 2010)
Where are the input values located in the risk
assessment report?
lEUBKwin OUTPUT (Attached as Table 13b and Figure
D
What range of media concentrations were used for
the model?
15 - 8360 mg/kg (subsurface soil)
What statistics were used to represent the
exposure concentration terms and where are the
data on concentrations in the risk assessment that
support use of these statistics?
Arithmetic mean concentration; located in Table 3.1,
Attachment 1.
Was soil sample taken from top 2 cm? If not, why?
Data set only includes subsurface soil samples.
Was soil sample sieved? What size screen was
used? If not sieved, provide rationale.
No - Samples were collected for multiple analyses.
What was the point of exposure/location?
Former Manufacturing Area
Where are the output values located in the risk
assessment report?
lEUBKwin OUTPUT (Attached as Table 13b and Figure
D
Was the model run using default values only?
Yes, except for soil concentration.
Was the default soil bioavailability used?
Yes -- Default is 30%
Was the default soil ingestion rate used?
Yes -- Default values for 7 age groups are 85, 135, 135,
135, 100, 090, and 85 mg/day
If non-default values were used, where is the
rationale for the values located in the risk
assessment report?
Discussion of parameters in the HHRA text.
3. Final Result
Medium
Result
Comment/PRG
Soil
Input value of 49 mg/kg in subsurface soil results in
0.001% of children above a blood lead level of 10 |jg/dL.
Geometric mean blood lead = 1.3 |jg/dL. This is below the
blood lead goal as described in the 1994 OSWER
Directive of no more than 5% of children exceeding 10
|jg/dL blood lead.
Page l ofl
-------
TABLE 14a (RAGS D IEUBK LEAD WORKSHEET)
Former Manufacturing Area Subsurface Soil - Hot Spot MIPSO-SB07-03-05
Future Residential Child (Age 0 to 84 Months)
Jackson Ceramix, Falls Creek, Jefferson County, PA
1. Lead Screening Questions
Medium
Lead Concentration
Used in Model Run
Basis for Lead
Concentration Used
for Model Run
Lead Screening
Concentration
Basis for Lead Screening Level
Value
Units
Value
Units
Soil
8,360
mg/kg
Hot Spot Soil
Concentration
400
mg/kg
Recommended Soil Screening
Level
Water
4
(jg/L
IEUBK Model Default
Value
15
Mg/L
Recommended Drinking Water
Action Level
2. Lead Model Questions
Question
Response for Residential Lead Model
What lead model (version and date was used)?
Lead Model for Windows, Version 1.1 Build 11
(February, 2010)
Where are the input values located in the risk
assessment report?
lEUBKwin OUTPUT (Attached as Table 14b and Figure
2)
What range of media concentrations were used for
the model?
8,360 mg/kg (subsurface soil)
What statistics were used to represent the
exposure concentration terms and where are the
data on concentrations in the risk assessment that
support use of these statistics?
Detected concentration in hot spot sample; located in
Table 3.1, Attachment 1.
Was soil sample taken from top 2 cm? If not, why?
Data set only includes subsurface soil sample.
Was soil sample sieved? What size screen was
used? If not sieved, provide rationale.
No - Samples were collected for multiple analyses.
What was the point of exposure/location?
Former Manufacturing Area, MIPSO-SB07-03-05
Where are the output values located in the risk
assessment report?
lEUBKwin OUTPUT (Attached as Table 14b and Figure
2)
Was the model run using default values only?
Yes, except for soil concentration.
Was the default soil bioavailability used?
Yes -- Default is 30%
Was the default soil ingestion rate used?
Yes -- Default values for 7 age groups are 85, 135, 135,
135, 100, 090, and 85 mg/day
If non-default values were used, where is the
rationale for the values located in the risk
assessment report?
Discussion of parameters in the HHRA text.
3. Final Result
Medium
Result
Comment/PRG
Soil
Input value of 8,360 mg/kg in subsurface soil results in
99.7% of children above a blood lead level of 10 |jg/dL.
Geometric mean blood lead = 36 |jg/dL. This is above the
blood lead goal as described in the 1994 OSWER
Directive of no more than 5% of children exceeding 10
|jg/dL blood lead.
Page l ofl
-------
TABLE 15a (RAGS D IEUBK LEAD WORKSHEET)
Former Lagoon / Northern Drainage Channel Subsurface Soil - Average Concentration
Future Residential Child (Age 0 to 84 Months)
Jackson Ceramix, Falls Creek, Jefferson County, PA
1. Lead Screening Questions
Medium
Lead Concentration
Used in Model Run
Basis for Lead
Concentration Used
for Model Run
Lead Screening
Concentration
Basis for Lead Screening Level
Value
Units
Value
Units
Soil
27
mg/kg
Average Soil
Concentration
400
mg/kg
Recommended Soil Screening
Level
Water
4
(jg/L
IEUBK Model Default
Value
15
Mg/L
Recommended Drinking Water
Action Level
2. Lead Model Questions
Question
Response for Residential Lead Model
What lead model (version and date was used)?
Lead Model for Windows, Version 1.1 Build 11
(February, 2010)
Where are the input values located in the risk
assessment report?
lEUBKwin OUTPUT (Attached as Table 15b and Figure
3)
What range of media concentrations were used for
the model?
15.6 - 21,100 mg/kg (subsurface soil)
What statistics were used to represent the
exposure concentration terms and where are the
data on concentrations in the risk assessment that
support use of these statistics?
Arithmetic mean concentration; located in Table 3.5,
Attachment 1.
Was soil sample taken from top 2 cm? If not, why?
Data set only includes subsurface soil samples.
Was soil sample sieved? What size screen was
used? If not sieved, provide rationale.
No - Samples were collected for multiple analyses.
What was the point of exposure/location?
Former Lagoon / Northern Drainage Channel
Where are the output values located in the risk
assessment report?
lEUBKwin OUTPUT (Attached as Table 15b and Figure
3)
Was the model run using default values only?
Yes, except for soil concentration.
Was the default soil bioavailability used?
Yes -- Default is 30%
Was the default soil ingestion rate used?
Yes -- Default values for 7 age groups are 85, 135, 135,
135, 100, 090, and 85 mg/day
If non-default values were used, where is the
rationale for the values located in the risk
assessment report?
Discussion of parameters in the HHRA text.
3. Final Result
Medium
Result
Comment/PRG
Soil
Input value of 27 mg/kg in subsurface soil results in less
than 0.001% of children above a blood lead level of 10
|jg/dL. Geometric mean blood lead = 1.1 |jg/dL. This is
below the blood lead goal as described in the 1994
OSWER Directive of no more than 5% of children
exceeding 10 pg/dL blood lead.
Page l ofl
-------
TABLE 16a (RAGS D IEUBK LEAD WORKSHEET)
Former Lagoon / Northern Drainage Channel Subsurface Soil - Hot Spot FLSB01-0305
Future Residential Child (Age 0 to 84 Months)
Jackson Ceramix, Falls Creek, Jefferson County, PA
1. Lead Screening Questions
Medium
Lead Concentration
Used in Model Run
Basis for Lead
Concentration Used
for Model Run
Lead Screening
Concentration
Basis for Lead Screening Level
Value
Units
Value
Units
Soil
21,100
mg/kg
Hot Spot Soil
Concentration
400
mg/kg
Recommended Soil Screening
Level
Water
4
(jg/L
IEUBK Model Default
Value
15
Mg/L
Recommended Drinking Water
Action Level
2. Lead Model Questions
Question
Response for Residential Lead Model
What lead model (version and date was used)?
Lead Model for Windows, Version 1.1 Build 11
(February, 2010)
Where are the input values located in the risk
assessment report?
lEUBKwin OUTPUT (Attached as Table 16b and Figure
4)
What range of media concentrations were used for
the model?
21,100 mg/kg (subsurface soil)
What statistics were used to represent the
exposure concentration terms and where are the
data on concentrations in the risk assessment that
support use of these statistics?
Detected concentration in hot spot sample; located in
Table 3.5, Attachment 1.
Was soil sample taken from top 2 cm? If not, why?
Data set only includes subsurface soil sample.
Was soil sample sieved? What size screen was
used? If not sieved, provide rationale.
No - Samples were collected for multiple analyses.
What was the point of exposure/location?
Former Lagoon / Northern Drainage Channel, FLSB01-
0305
Where are the output values located in the risk
assessment report?
lEUBKwin OUTPUT (Attached as Table 16b and Figure
4)
Was the model run using default values only?
Yes, except for soil concentration.
Was the default soil bioavailability used?
Yes -- Default is 30%
Was the default soil ingestion rate used?
Yes -- Default values for 7 age groups are 85, 135, 135,
135, 100, 090, and 85 mg/day
If non-default values were used, where is the
rationale for the values located in the risk
assessment report?
Discussion of parameters in the HHRA text.
3. Final Result
Medium
Result
Comment/PRG
Soil
Input value of 21,100 mg/kg in subsurface soil results in
over 99.9% of children above a blood lead level of 10
|jg/dL. Geometric mean blood lead = 61 |jg/dL. This is
above the blood lead goal as described in the 1994
OSWER Directive of no more than 5% of children
exceeding 10 pg/dL blood lead.
Page l ofl
-------
TABLE 17a (RAGS D IEUBK LEAD WORKSHEET)
Former Lagoon / Northern Drainage Channel Sediment - Average Concentration
Future Residential Child (Age 0 to 84 Months)
Jackson Ceramix, Falls Creek, Jefferson County, PA
1. Lead Screening Questions
Medium
Lead Concentration
Used in Model Run
Basis for Lead
Concentration Used
for Model Run
Lead Screening
Concentration
Basis for Lead Screening Level
Value
Units
Value
Units
Sediment
2886
mg/kg
Average Sediment
Concentration
400
mg/kg
Recommended Soil Screening
Level
Water
4
(jg/L
IEUBK Model
Default Value
15
Mg/L
Recommended Drinking Water
Action Level
2. Lead Model Questions
Question
Response for Residential Lead Model
What lead model (version and date was used)?
Lead Model for Windows, Version 1.1 Build 11
(February, 2010)
Where are the input values located in the risk
assessment report?
lEUBKwin OUTPUT (Attached as Table 17b and Figure
5)
What range of media concentrations were used for
the model?
15 - 9,750 mg/kg (sediment)
What statistics were used to represent the
exposure concentration terms and where are the
data on concentrations in the risk assessment that
support use of these statistics?
Arithmetic mean concentration; located in Table 3.6,
Attachment 1.
Was soil sample taken from top 2 cm? If not, why?
Data set includes sediment samples.
Was soil sample sieved? What size screen was
used? If not sieved, provide rationale.
No - Sediment samples were collected for multiple
analyses.
What was the point of exposure/location?
Former Lagoon / Northern Drainage Channel
Where are the output values located in the risk
assessment report?
lEUBKwin OUTPUT (Attached as Table 17b and Figure
5)
Was the model run using default values only?
Yes, except for sediment concentration.
Was the default soil bioavailability used?
Yes -- Default is 30%
Was the default soil ingestion rate used?
Yes -- Default values for 7 age groups are 85, 135, 135,
135, 100, 090, and 85 mg/day
If non-default values were used, where is the
rationale for the values located in the risk
assessment report?
Discussion of parameters in the HHRA text.
3. Final Result
Medium
Result
Comment/PRG
Sediment
Input value of 2886 mg/kg in sediment results in more than
91% of children above a blood lead level of 10 |jg/dL.
Geometric mean blood lead = 18.9 |jg/dL. This is above
the blood lead goal as described in the 1994 OSWER
Directive of no more than 5% of children exceeding 10
|jg/dL blood lead.
Page l ofl
-------
TABLE 18a (RAGS D IEUBK LEAD WORKSHEET)
Former Lagoon / Northern Drainage Channel Surface Water - Average Concentration
Future Residential Child (Age 0 to 84 Months)
Jackson Ceramix, Falls Creek, Jefferson County, PA
1. Lead Screening Questions
Medium
Lead Concentration
Used in Model Run
Basis for Lead
Concentration Used
for Model Run
Lead Screening
Concentration
Basis for Lead Screening Level
Value
Units
Value
Units
Soil
200
mg/kg
IEUBK Model Default
Value
400
mg/kg
Recommended Soil Screening
Level
Surface
Water
1333
(jg/L
Average Surface
Water Concentration
15
Mg/L
Recommended Drinking Water
Action Level
2. Lead Model Questions
Question
Response for Residential Lead Model
What lead model (version and date was used)?
Lead Model for Windows, Version 1.1 Build 11
(February, 2010)
Where are the input values located in the risk
assessment report?
lEUBKwin OUTPUT (Attached as Table 18b and Figure
6)
What range of media concentrations were used for
the model?
3.6 - 2,500 |jg/L (surface water)
What statistics were used to represent the
exposure concentration terms and where are the
data on concentrations in the risk assessment that
support use of these statistics?
Arithmetic mean concentration; located in Table 3.7,
Attachment 1.
Was soil sample taken from top 2 cm? If not, why?
Data set includes surface water samples.
Was soil sample sieved? What size screen was
used? If not sieved, provide rationale.
No - Surface water samples.
What was the point of exposure/location?
Former Lagoon / Northern Drainage Channel
Where are the output values located in the risk
assessment report?
lEUBKwin OUTPUT (Attached as Table 18b and Figure
6)
Was the model run using default values only?
Yes, except for surface water concentration and surface
water ingestion rate (0.1 |jg//day).
Was the default soil bioavailability used?
Yes -- Default is 30%
Was the default soil ingestion rate used?
Yes -- Default values for 7 age groups are 85, 135, 135,
135, 100, 090, and 85 mg/day
If non-default values were used, where is the
rationale for the values located in the risk
assessment report?
Discussion of parameters in the HHRA text.
3. Final Result
Medium
Result
Comment/PRG
Surface Water
Input value of 1333 |jg//L in surface water results in 89% of
children above a blood lead level of 10 |jg/dL. Geometric
mean blood lead = 17.6 |jg/dL. This is above the blood
lead goal as described in the 1994 OSWER Directive of no
more than 5% of children exceeding 10 pg/dL blood lead.
Page l ofl
-------
TABLE 27a (RAGS D ADULT LEAD WORKSHEET)
Former Manufacturing Area Subsurface Soil - Average Concentration
Future Adolescent Recreational User
Jackson Ceramix, Falls Creek, Jefferson County, PA
1. Lead Screening Questions
Medium
Lead
Concentration
used in Model Run
Basis for Lead
Concentration Used
for Model Run
Lead Screening
Concentration
Basis for Lead Screening Level
Value
Units
Value
Units
Soil
49
mg/kg
Average Soil
Concentration
400
mg/kg
Recommended Residential Soil
Screening Level
2. Lead Model Questions
Question
Response
What lead model was used? Provide reference and version
EPA Adult Lead Model, dated
6/21/2009
If the EPA Adult Lead Model (ALM) was not used provide rationale for
model selected.
N/A
Where are the input values located in the risk assessment report?
Attached as Table 27b
What statistics were used to represent the exposure concentration terms
and where are the data on concentrations in the risk assessment that
support use of these statistics?
Arithmetic mean subsurface soil
concentration; see Table 3.1,
Attachment 1.
What was the point of exposure and location?
Former Manufacturing Area
Where are the output values located in the risk assessment report?
Attached as Table 27b
What GSD value was used? If this is outside the recommended range of
1.8-2.1), provide rationale in Appendix.
Default values were used (1.8 and
2.1).
What baseline blood lead concentration (PbBo) value was used? If this
is outside the default range of 1.7 to 2.2 provide rationale in Appendix.
Default values from ALM were used
(1.0 and 1.5 ug/dL).
Was the default exposure frequency (EF; 219 days/year) used?
No, recreational EF of 60 days/year
used.
Was the default BKSF used (0.4 ug/dL per ug/day) used?
Yes
Was the default absorption fraction (AF; 0.12) used?
Yes
Was the default soil ingestion rate (IR; 50 mg/day) used?
No, recreational IR of 120 mg/day
used.
If non-default values were used for any of the parameters listed above,
where is the rationale for the values located in the risk assessment
report?
Sections 5 and 7.1.3 of the HHRA.
3. Final Result
Medium
Result
Comment/RBRG
Soil
49 ppm lead in subsurface soil results in geometric mean blood
lead levels ranging from 2.5 to 4.7 ug/dL for fetuses of exposed
women in homogeneous and heterogeneous populations. The
probabilities that the fetal blood lead levels exceed 10 ug/dL range
from 0.003% to 0.4%. These values are below the blood lead goal
as described in the 1994 OSWER Directive of no more than 5% of
children (fetuses of exposed women) exceeding 10 ug/dL blood
lead.
Page l ofl
-------
TABLE 28a (RAGS D ADULT LEAD WORKSHEET)
Former Manufacturing Area Subsurface Soil - Hot Spot MIPSO-SBQ7-03-05
Future Adolescent Recreational User
Jackson Ceramix, Falls Creek, Jefferson County, PA
1. Lead Screening Questions
Medium
Lead
Concentration
used in Model Run
Basis for Lead
Concentration Used
for Model Run
Lead Screening
Concentration
Basis for Lead Screening Level
Value
Units
Value
Units
Soil
8360
mg/kg
Hot Spot Soil
Concentration
400
mg/kg
Recommended Residential Soil
Screening Level
2. Lead Model Questions
Question
Response
What lead model was used? Provide reference and version
EPA Adult Lead Model, dated
6/21/2009
If the EPA Adult Lead Model (ALM) was not used provide rationale for
model selected.
N/A
Where are the input values located in the risk assessment report?
Attached as Table 28b
What statistics were used to represent the exposure concentration terms
and where are the data on concentrations in the risk assessment that
support use of these statistics?
Hot spot subsurface soil
concentration; see Table 3.1,
Attachment 1.
What was the point of exposure and location?
Former Manufacturing Area, Hot
Spot MIPSO-SB07-03-05
Where are the output values located in the risk assessment report?
Attached as Table 28b
What GSD value was used? If this is outside the recommended range of
1.8-2.1), provide rationale in Appendix.
Default values were used (1.8 and
2.1).
What baseline blood lead concentration (PbBo) value was used? If this is
outside the default range of 1.7 to 2.2 provide rationale in Appendix.
Default values from ALM were
used (1.0 and 1.5 ug/dL).
Was the default exposure frequency (EF; 219 days/year) used?
No, recreational EF of 60
days/year used.
Was the default BKSF used (0.4 ug/dL per ug/day) used?
Yes
Was the default absorption fraction (AF; 0.12) used?
Yes
Was the default soil ingestion rate (IR; 50 mg/day) used?
No, recreational IR of 120 mg/day
used.
If non-default values were used for any of the parameters listed above,
where is the rationale for the values located in the risk assessment report?
Sections 5 and 7.1.3 of the HHRA.
3. Final Result
Medium
Result
Comment/RBRG
Soil
8360 ppm lead in subsurface soil results in geometric mean blood
lead levels ranging from 21.1 to 28.7 ug/dL for fetuses of exposed
women in homogeneous and heterogeneous populations. The
probabilities that the fetal blood lead levels exceed 10 ug/dL range
from 35.4% to 41.2%. These values exceed the blood lead goal as
described in the 1994 OSWER Directive of no more than 5% of
children (fetuses of exposed women) exceeding 10 ug/dL blood
lead.
Page l ofl
-------
TABLE 29a (RAGS D ADULT LEAD WORKSHEET)
Former Lagoon / Northern Drainage Channel Subsurface Soil - Average Concentration
Future Adolescent Recreational User
Jackson Ceramix, Falls Creek, Jefferson County, PA
1. Lead Screening Questions
Medium
Lead
Concentration
used in Model Run
Basis for Lead
Concentration Used
for Model Run
Lead Screening
Concentration
Basis for Lead Screening Level
Value
Units
Value
Units
Soil
27
mg/kg
Average Soil
Concentration
400
mg/kg
Recommended Residential Soil
Screening Level
2. Lead Model Questions
Question
Response
What lead model was used? Provide reference and version
EPA Adult Lead Model, dated
6/21/2009
If the EPA Adult Lead Model (ALM) was not used provide rationale for
model selected.
N/A
Where are the input values located in the risk assessment report?
Attached as Table 29b
What statistics were used to represent the exposure concentration terms
and where are the data on concentrations in the risk assessment that
support use of these statistics?
Arithmetic mean subsurface soil
concentration; see Table 3.5,
Attachment 1.
What was the point of exposure and location?
Former Lagoon / Northern Drainage
Channel
Where are the output values located in the risk assessment report?
Attached as Table 29b
What GSD value was used? If this is outside the recommended range of
1.8-2.1), provide rationale in Appendix.
Default values were used (1.8 and
2.1).
What baseline blood lead concentration (PbBo) value was used? If this is
outside the default range of 1.7 to 2.2 provide rationale in Appendix.
Default values from ALM were used
(1.0 and 1.5 ug/dL).
Was the default exposure frequency (EF; 219 days/year) used?
No, recreational EF of 60 days/year
used.
Was the default BKSF used (0.4 ug/dL per ug/day) used?
Yes
Was the default absorption fraction (AF; 0.12) used?
Yes
Was the default soil ingestion rate (IR; 50 mg/day) used?
No, recreational IR of 120 mg/day
used.
If non-default values were used for any of the parameters listed above,
where is the rationale for the values located in the risk assessment
report?
Sections 5 and 7.1.3 of the HHRA.
3. Final Result
Medium
Result
Comment/RBRG
Soil
27 ppm lead in subsurface soil results in geometric mean blood
lead levels ranging from 2.4 to 4.7 ug/dL for fetuses of exposed
women in homogeneous and heterogeneous populations. The
probabilities that the fetal blood lead levels exceed 10 ug/dL range
from 0.003% to 0.4%. These values are below the blood lead goal
as described in the 1994 OSWER Directive of no more than 5% of
children (fetuses of exposed women) exceeding 10 ug/dL blood
lead.
Page l ofl
-------
TABLE 30a (RAGS D ADULT LEAD WORKSHEET)
Former Lagoon / Northern Drainage Channel Subsurface Soil - Hot Spot FLSB01-0305
Future Adolescent Recreational User
Jackson Ceramix, Falls Creek, Jefferson County, PA
1. Lead Screening Questions
Medium
Lead
Concentration
used in Model Run
Basis for Lead
Concentration Used
for Model Run
Lead Screening
Concentration
Basis for Lead Screening Level
Value
Units
Value
Units
Soil
21,100
mg/kg
Hot Spot Soil
Concentration
400
mg/kg
Recommended Residential Soil
Screening Level
2. Lead Model Questions
Question
Response
What lead model was used? Provide reference and version
EPA Adult Lead Model, dated
6/21/2009
If the EPA Adult Lead Model (ALM) was not used provide rationale for
model selected.
N/A
Where are the input values located in the risk assessment report?
Attached as Table 30b
What statistics were used to represent the exposure concentration
terms and where are the data on concentrations in the risk
assessment that support use of these statistics?
Hot spot FLSB01-0305 subsurface
soil concentration; see Table 3.5,
Attachment 1.
What was the point of exposure and location?
Former Lagoon / Northern Drainage
Channel, Hot Spot FLSB01-0305
Where are the output values located in the risk assessment report?
Attached as Table 30b
What GSD value was used? If this is outside the recommended range
of 1.8-2.1), provide rationale in Appendix.
Default values were used (1.8 and
2.1).
What baseline blood lead concentration (PbBo) value was used? If this
is outside the default range of 1.7 to 2.2 provide rationale in Appendix.
Default values from ALM were used
(1.0 and 1.5 ug/dL).
Was the default exposure frequency (EF; 219 days/year) used?
No, recreational EF of 60 days/year
used.
Was the default BKSF used (0.4 ug/dL per ug/day) used?
Yes
Was the default absorption fraction (AF; 0.12) used?
Yes
Was the default soil ingestion rate (IR; 50 mg/day) used?
No, recreational IR of 120 mg/day
used.
If non-default values were used for any of the parameters listed above,
where is the rationale for the values located in the risk assessment
report?
Sections 5 and 7.1.3 of the HHRA.
3. Final Result
Medium
Result
Comment/RBRG 1
Soil
21,100 ppm lead in subsurface soil results in geometric mean
blood lead levels ranging from 49.7 to 65.5 ug/dL for fetuses of
exposed women in homogeneous and heterogeneous populations.
The probabilities that the fetal blood lead levels exceed 10 ug/dL
range from 81.3% to 86%. These values exceed the blood lead
goal as described in the 1994 OSWER Directive of no more than
5% of children (fetuses of exposed women) exceeding 10 ug/dL
blood lead.
Page l ofl
-------
TABLE 31a (RAGS D ADULT LEAD WORKSHEET)
Former Lagoon / Northern Drainage Channel Sediment - Average Concentration
Current/Future Adolescent Recreational User
Jackson Ceramix, Falls Creek, Jefferson County, PA
1. Lead Screening Questions
Medium
Lead
Concentration
used in Model
Run
Basis for Lead
Concentration Used
for Model Run
Lead Screening
Concentration
Basis for Lead Screening Level
Value
Units
Value
Units
Sediment
2886
mg/kg
Average Sediment
Concentration
400
mg/kg
Recommended Residential Soil
Screening Level
2. Lead Model Questions
Question
Response
What lead model was used? Provide reference and version
EPA Adult Lead Model, dated
6/21/2009
If the EPA Adult Lead Model (ALM) was not used provide rationale for
model selected.
N/A
Where are the input values located in the risk assessment report?
Attached as Table 31b
What statistics were used to represent the exposure concentration terms
and where are the data on concentrations in the risk assessment that
support use of these statistics?
Arithmetic mean sediment
concentration; see Table 3.6,
Attachment 1.
What was the point of exposure and location?
Former Lagoon / Northern
Drainage Channel
Where are the output values located in the risk assessment report?
Attached as Table 31b
What GSD value was used? If this is outside the recommended range of
1.8-2.1), provide rationale in Appendix.
Default values were used (1.8 and
2.1).
What baseline blood lead concentration (PbBo) value was used? If this is
outside the default range of 1.7 to 2.2 provide rationale in Appendix.
Default values from ALM were
used (1.0 and 1.5 ug/dL).
Was the default exposure frequency (EF; 219 days/year) used?
No, recreational EF of 60
days/year used.
Was the default BKSF used (0.4 ug/dL per ug/day) used?
Yes
Was the default absorption fraction (AF; 0.12) used?
Yes
Was the default soil ingestion rate (IR; 50 mg/day) used?
No, recreational IR of 120 mg/day
used.
If non-default values were used for any of the parameters listed above,
where is the rationale for the values located in the risk assessment
report?
Sections 5 and 7.1.3 of the HHRA.
3. Final Result
Medium
Result
Comment/RBRG
Sediment
2886 ppm lead in sediment results in geometric mean blood lead
levels ranging from 8.8 to 12.9 ug/dL for fetuses of exposed
women in homogeneous and heterogeneous populations. The
probabilities that the fetal blood lead levels exceed 10 ug/dL range
from 3.2% to 9.7%. These values exceed the blood lead goal as
described in the 1994 OSWER Directive of no more than 5% of
children (fetuses of exposed women) exceeding 10 ug/dL blood
lead.
Page l ofl
-------
Rationale for Identification of Ecological COCs at N DC and FL
Jackson Ceramix Site, Jefferson and Clearfield Counties, PA
The background soil data set for Operable Unit 2 was used for all background comparisons with
the Northern Drainage Channel (NDC) soil data. This approach is appropriate because the
Operable Unit 2 background soil is hydric and geochemically more similar to the hydric soil in the
NDC than the upland Operable Unit 1 background soil data.
Plant Community
The ecological risk assessment (ERA) identified metals in soil/sediment as potentially posing a
risk to the plant community. In the area east of the vernal pools and the outfall N drainage (Figure
1.4), vegetation is sparse because this area was remediated and covered with gravel riprap. The
gravel inhibits plant growth. Where there is no gravel riprap, the NDC is well vegetated. This
observation suggests that the plants at this site are less sensitive than those used to derive the
benchmarks. Protecting other receptors is anticipated to also be protective of this on site plant
community.
Terrestrial Invertebrates
The ERA concluded that cadmium, chromium, calcium, copper, iron, lead, magnesium,
manganese, mercury, selenium, sodium, tin, and zinc in soil/sediment could pose a risk to
terrestrial invertebrates. Each of these inorganics is evaluated further below.
• Cadmium, iron, manganese, selenium: The exposure point concentrations for these metals
were calculated to be 1.19 milligram per kilogram (mg/kg) cadmium, 38,100 mg/kg iron,
949 mg/kg manganese, and 5.96 mg/kg selenium. These exposure point concentrations
are less than the background threshold values of 1.4 mg/kg cadmium, 46,500 mg/kg iron,
2,190 mg/kg manganese, and 9.7 mg/kg selenium. These comparisons indicate that
potential risks posed by these metals to the terrestrial invertebrate community are not
substantially different from those associated with background conditions.
• Chromium: In Ecological Soil Screening Levels for Chromium (EPA, 2008), EPA
identifies two studies of sufficient quality to support derivation of an invertebrate
ecological soil screening level (Eco-SSL). These studies identify a maximum acceptable
toxicant concentration (MATC) of 57 mg/kg. The chromium exposure point
concentration, 30.5 mg/kg, is less than the MATC, indicating that chromium
concentrations in the NDC soil do not pose a risk to the soil invertebrate community.
• Calcium, magnesium, and sodium: These three metals are essential nutrients that typically
would not be considered in an ERA. They were identified as potential risk drivers for
terrestrial invertebrates because they are site contaminants and have no screening values.
o Magnesium contamination is widespread across the NDC based on comparison of
individual detections to the background threshold value. There is limited information
in the literature on the potential toxicity of this divalent cation to soil invertebrates.
As noted below, the presence of calcium can limit potential toxic effects from other
divalent cations. Based on the fact that magnesium is an essential nutrient and, even
if present at high enough concentrations to exert a toxic effect, there is collocated
calcium to ameliorate potential toxicity, magnesium was not retained as a
contaminant of ecological concern.
1
-------
Rationale for Identification of Ecological COCs at N DC and FL
Jackson Ceramix Site, Jefferson and Clearfield Counties, PA
o Calcium contamination is widespread across the NDC. The literature indicates that
this metal, however, can limit toxicity of other divalent cations, such as copper.
Because the potential for calcium contamination to exert adverse effects appears to
be low, this metal was not identified as an ecological contaminant of concern (COC).
o The primary effect of very high sodium concentrations on terrestrial habitat is to
break down the soil structure. If the sodium concentrations in the NDC soil were
high enough to adversely affect soil structure, the plant community should show
stress. As described above, however, field observation suggest that soil
contamination is not adversely affecting the plant community. Sodium was not
identified as an ecological COC.
• Copper and lead: The exposure point concentrations for these metals result in hazard
quotients of 1.2 (copper) and 1.3 (lead). These quotients indicate that, on average, the
terrestrial invertebrate community is exposed to copper and lead concentrations that are
only slightly greater than the benchmarks. The benchmarks are the Eco-SSLs. The
copper Eco-SSL is the geometric mean of effect concentrations for 10 percent of the test
organisms (ECios) and MATCs that range from 27 mg/kg to 141 mg/kg. The lead Eco-
SSL is the geometric mean of MATCs ranging from 894 mg/kg to 3162 mg/kg. The
exposure point concentrations of 92.4 mg/kg copper and 2,220 mg/kg lead are within the
ranges of toxicity values used to derive the Eco-SSLs. Based on the hazard quotients and
comparison of the exposure point concentrations to the range of toxicity values used in
the Eco-SSL derivation, it is unlikely that copper and lead pose risks to the terrestrial
invertebrate community in the NDC.
• Mercury: All mercury detections are less than the background threshold value. Potential
risks posed by this metal are similar to those associated with background conditions.
• Tin: The 1995 Biological Technical Advisory Group (BTAG) screening value of 0.89
mg/kg is based on tin being in an organic form (EPA, 1995). There is little information
on the ecotoxicity of inorganic tin in the literature. Although it is possible for tin to
become methylated in aquatic environments, this process generally does not proceed
beyond mono-methylation. Tin is not identified as a COC for soil invertebrates.
• Zinc: The 95% upper confidence limit (UCL) for zinc of 220 mg/kg is approximately
twice the invertebrate Eco-SSL. The UCL, however, falls within the range of toxicity
values, 35 mg/kg to 355 mg/kg, used to derive the Eco-SSL. This observation suggests
that zinc in soil/sediment poses minimal risk to the terrestrial invertebrate community.
In summary, no COCs were identified for the terrestrial invertebrate community.
2
-------
Rationale for Identification of Ecological COCs at N DC and FL
Jackson Ceramix Site, Jefferson and Clearfield Counties, PA
Insectivores
The ERA identified cadmium, copper, lead, mercury, selenium, vanadium, and zinc as risk drivers
for insectivores. Each metal is evaluated in further detail below.
• Cadmium, mercury, selenium, and vanadium: As described above, the cadmium and
selenium exposure point concentrations are less than the background threshold values.
All mercury detections are less than the background threshold value. The vanadium 95%
IICL of 28.6 mg/kg is only slightly greater than the background threshold value of 26.7
mg/kg. The potential risks posed by these metals to the insectivore community are not
substantially different from those associated with background conditions.
• Copper: Using the same exposure assumptions as for the ERA, a copper concentration of
91 mg/kg results in a target hazard quotient of 0.99 based on the lowest observed adverse
effects level for the eastern phoebe, which is the receptor for which copper was identified
as a risk driver. The copper 95% IICL of 92.4 mg/kg is only slightly greater than the
potential cleanup goal. This comparison indicates that remediation for copper is not
warranted.
• Lead and zinc: For each metal, contamination is widespread across the NDC. Both metals
were identified as ecological COCs.
In summary, lead and zinc were identified as COCs for insectivores.
Benthic Invertebrates
The ERA identified multiple inorganics, polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs),
4-chloroaniline, DDD/DDE/DDT, chlordane, endrin ketone, bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate, acetone,
and carbon disulfide as risk drivers for benthic invertebrates. Each risk driver is discussed below.
• Lead: The 95% UCL for lead is greater than the probable effects level (PEL) and probable
effects concentration (PEC) listed in the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration screening quick reference tables (SQuiRTs). Detections at multiple
locations exceed the background threshold value, indicating widespread contamination.
Lead contamination may pose a risk to the benthic invertebrate community.
• Arsenic: Arsenic detections at five locations exceed the background threshold value of
21 mg/kg. As described below, at three locations individual arsenic detections are only
slightly greater than the background threshold value or the average concentration across
the ecologically active zone is less than the background threshold value. The arsenic
concentration is substantially greater than background conditions only at two locations.
Based on the isolated occurrence of significant arsenic contamination, this metal was not
identified as an ecological COC.
o BFASD02: The detection of 22.3 mg/kg is only slightly greater than the background
threshold value.
o FLSBO1: Arsenic was detected in the parent surface soil sample at a concentration
of 3 1.6 mg/kg. In the associated field duplicate, the arsenic detection is less than the
background threshold value. The average result for the parent sample/field duplicate
3
-------
Rationale for Identification of Ecological COCs at N DC and FL
Jackson Ceramix Site, Jefferson and Clearfield Counties, PA
pair is 25.9 mg/kg, which is slightly greater than the background threshold value.
When the result of 9 mg/kg for the near surface soil sample (0.5 to 2 foot below
ground surface) is considered, the average concentration for the sample location is
17.4 mg/kg, which is less than background threshold value.
o NDCSD09: Arsenic concentrations in both surface soil and near surface soil samples
are greater than the background threshold value.
o N DC SDK): The arsenic concentration in the surface soil is greater than the
background threshold value. In the near surface interval, the average concentration
of the parent sample and field duplicate is 18.6 mg/kg, which is less than the
background threshold value.
o NDCSD17: The surface soil result, 22.3 mg/kg, is only slightly greater than the
background threshold value. The average of the surface soil and near surface soil
detections is 20 mg/kg, which is less than the background threshold value.
• Beryllium: This metal was identified as a risk drive due to lack of a sediment benchmark.
All detections are less than the background threshold value. Any potential risks due to
beryllium exposure are consistent with background conditions.
• Cadmium, manganese, iron, selenium, and vanadium: As described above for the
terrestrial invertebrate community or insectivores, potential risks associated with these
metals are not substantially different from those associated with background conditions.
• Calcium, magnesium, and sodium: As described below, these three nutrients were not
identified as ecological COCs.
o Magnesium: Based on the fact that magnesium is an essential nutrient and, even if
present at high enough concentrations to exert a toxic effect, there is collocated
calcium to ameliorate potential toxicity, magnesium was not retained as a
contaminant of ecological concern.
o Calcium: As described above for terrestrial invertebrates, because the potential for
calcium contamination to exert adverse effects appears to be low, this metal was not
identified as an ecological COC.
o Sodium: As described above, field observations indicate that sodium concentrations
are not high enough to adversely affect the soil structure.
• Copper, nickel, and zinc: The 95% UCLs for these metals are less than the PECs and
PELs in SQuiRTs. This comparison indicates that copper, nickel, and zinc pose minimal
risk to the benthic invertebrate community.
• Tin: There is no sediment benchmark for tin. There is little information on the ecotoxicity
of inorganic tin in the literature. Although it is possible for tin to become methylated in
aquatic environments, this process generally does not proceed beyond mono-methylation.
Tin is not identified as a COC for benthic invertebrates.
4
-------
Rationale for Identification of Ecological COCs at N DC and FL
Jackson Ceramix Site, Jefferson and Clearfield Counties, PA
• Organic compounds:
o 95% UCLs or average concentrations for benzo(b )fl uoranthene;
benzo(k)fluoranthene, benzo(g,h,i)perylene; fluorene; indeno(l,2,3-c,d)pyrene; 2-
methylnaphthalene; DDD; DDE; chlordane; endrin ketone; acetone; and bis(2-
ethylhexyl)phthalate are less than the PELs and PECs. These compounds pose
minimal risk to the benthic invertebrate community.
o Average detections of acenaphthene and acenaphthylene are greater than the PELs.
These PAHs, however, were detected in approximately 10% or fewer of the samples.
Based on the limited presence in the NDC, these PAHs pose minimal risk to the
benthic invertebrate community.
o The 95% UCLs for anthracene and DDT are slightly greater than the PELs and less
than the PECs. This comparison suggests that these compounds pose minimal risk to
the benthic invertebrate community. Neither compound was associated with the
manufacturing processes that occurred at the site. The highest anthracene detection
was reported for NDCSD09, located southeast of outfall N and on the opposite of the
NDC from the manufacturing area. The highest anthracene detection likely reflects
contamination from stormwater runoff.
o The 95% UCLs or average concentrations for benzo(a)anthracene, benzo(a)pyrene,
chrysene, dibenzo(a,h)anthracene, and pyrene are greater than the PELs and PECs.
This comparison suggests that these PAHs could pose a risk to the benthic
invertebrate community. As noted above, however, PAHs were not used in the
historical manufacturing process at the Site. The highest concentrations of these
PAHs were reported for samples collected downstream of outfall N on the eastern
side of the Site. The elevated concentrations of these PAHs likely reflect
contamination from stormwater runoff.
o The 95% UCL for fluoranthene is less than the PEC and approximately equal to the
PEL. The 95%) UCL for phenanthrene is greater than the PEL and less than the PEC.
As described for the other PAHs, the highest fl uoranthene and phenanthrene
concentrations were reported for samples collected from the eastern part of the Site
that is affected by stormwater runoff from outfall N.
o 4-Chloroaniline was detected in 5 of 37 samples. Based on its limited presence, this
compound is unlikely to affect the benthic invertebrate community.
o The benchmark for carbon disulfide is based on the protection of surface water and
was calculated using an equation describing the partitioning of this compound
between surface water and sediment. Carbon disulfide was detected in surface water
samples at concentrations less than the aquatic benchmark. These surface water data
indicate that carbon disulfide is not partitioning into the surface water at
concentrations that could pose an ecological risk.
5
-------
Rationale for Identification of Ecological COCs at N DC and FL
Jackson Ceramix Site, Jefferson and Clearfield Counties, PA
Table 1 - Summary of Organic Compound Detections at NDCFL
PAH
95% UCL
(mg/kg)
Detection
Frequency
PEL
(mg/kg)
PEC
(mg/kg)
Acenaphthene
0.105'"
3/44
0.0889
Acenaphthvlene
0.319'1'
5/44
0.128
..
Anthracene
0.266
10/44
0.245
0.845
Benzo(a)anthracene
1.31
25/44
0.385
1.05
Benzo(a)pyrene
1.17
24/44
0.782
1.45
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
1.84
25/44
1.9'2'
..
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
0.519
19/44
2.4'2'
..
Benzo(g,h,i)pery!ene
0.596
21/44
1.7'2'
..
Chrvsene
1.33
25/44
0.862
1.29
Diben/o(a.h)anthracene
0.322'1'
4/39
0.135
..
Fluoranthene
2.27
29/44
2.355
2.23
Fluorene
0.107
2/44
0.144
0.536
Indenol l.2.3-c.d)pvrene
0.994
23/44
2'2'
..
2-Methvlnaphthalene
0.0775'1'
2/44
0.76'2'
..
Phenanthrene
0.961
23/44
0.515
1.17
Pvrene
1.8
28/44
0.875
1.52
DDD
0.0066
5/42
0.00851
0.028
DDE
0.00245
10/42
0.00675
0.0313
DDT
0.00498
14/42
0.00477
0.0629
Chlordane
0.00846
25/42
0.0089
0.0176
Endrin ketone'5'
0.00286
8/42
0.0624
0.207
4-Chloroaniline
0.766
5/37
..
..
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
0.53
7/44
..
2.6'4'
Acetone
0.0331
11/37
0.65'2'
..
Carbon disulfide
0.00396
10/40
--
--
Notes:
111 Arithmetic mean detection. Too few detections to support 95% UCL calculation.
[21 PEL, and PEC not available. Value is low effect level from L.ANL, EcoRISK database, version 3.3.
[3] Used PEL, and PEC for endrin as surrogates.
[4| PEC from MacDonald, et al (2003).
In summary, based on multiple lines of evidence, the organic compounds identified as risk drivers
in the ERA were not retained as ecological COCs. The COC identified for the benthic invertebrate
community is lead.
Piscivores
Lead and zinc were identified as posing a potential risk to fish-eating birds and mammals. Both
metals are widespread contaminants across the NDC and are identified as ecological COCs.
Aquatic Community
As described above, the former lagoon is shallow and filled with algae in the summer. These
conditions do not provide good quality aquatic habitat. The highest metal concentrations were
reported for the samples collected in the former lagoon. If only the samples from the channels are
considered, detections of aluminum, barium, iron, lead, and manganese exceed the aquatic
benchmarks.
6
-------
Rationale for Identification of Ecological COCs at N DC and FL
Jackson Ceramix Site, Jefferson and Clearfield Counties, PA
Background surface water samples were collected from Sandy Lick Creek. Comparison of the
NDC channel surface water data to the Sandy Lick Creek background values indicates that
aluminum, barium, iron, and manganese are not surface water contaminants. The average,
unfiltered lead concentration of 2.1 micrograms per liter (ng/L) is less than the benchmark of 2.5
|jg/L. No COCs were identified for the aquatic community.
Table 2 N DC Channel Surface Water Data
Maximum Detection
Background Value
Metal
(m-e/L)
(Rg/L) 1
Aluminum
154
395 j
Barium
85.2
95
Iron
1,500
1,710
Manganese
608
766
Summary
In summary, the following contaminants were identified as ecological COCs:
• Lead and zinc for insectivores.
• Lead for the benthic invertebrate community.
• Lead and zinc for piscivores.
References
Efroymson, R.A., M.E. Will, and G.W. Suter II, 1997b. Toxicological Benchmarks for
Contaminants of Potential Concern for Effects on Soil and Litter Invertebrates and Heterotrophic
Processes: 1997 Revision. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge TN. ES/ER/TM-126/R2.
MacDonald, D.D., C.G. Ingersoll, D.E. Smorong, R.A. Lindskoog, G. Sloane, and T. Biernacki
(2003). Development and Evaluation of Numerical Sediment Quality Assessment Guidelines for
Florida Inland Waters. January.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 1995. Region III BTAG Screening Levels.
EPA, 2008. Ecological Soil Screening Levels for Chromium, Interim Final. OSWER Directive
9285.7-66, April.
7
-------
Table H.48
Summary of Ecological Risk Drivers
Forested Wetland Habitat
Ecological Risk
Driver
Medium
Affected Receptor(s)
Comments
Aluminum
Surface water
Aquatic community
Antimony
Soil/scdimcnt
Plants and bcnthic
invertebrates
Background constituent;
bcnthic invertebrate
quotient is 1 to one
significant figure
Arsenic
Soil/scdimcnt
Plants and bcnthic
invertebrates
Barium
Surface water
Aquatic community
Beryllium
Soil/scdimcnt
Plants and bcnthic
invertebrates
Limited presence of
contamination; no
screening value for
bcnthic invertebrates
Cadmium
Soil/scdimcnt
Avian inscctivorcs and
bcnthic invertebrates
Bcnthic invertebrate
quotient is 1 to one
significant figure
Surface water
Aquatic coinmunitv
Calcium
Soil/scdimcnt
Plants, terrestrial
invertebrates, bcnthic
invertebrates
No screening values
Surface water
Aquatic coinmunitv
Chromium
Soil
Plants, terrestrial
invertebrates
Cobalt
Soil
Plants
Copper
Soil
Plants, terrestrial
invertebrates, avian
inscctivorcs. and bcnthic
invertebrates
To one significant figure,
the 95% UCL results in a
quotient of 1 for plants
and invertebrates
Cyanide
Soil/scdimcnt
Plants and bcnthic
invertebrates
Iron
Soil/scdimcnt
Plants, terrestrial
invertebrates, and bcnthic
invertebrates
Background constituent
Surface water
Aquatic coinmunitv
Lead
Soil/scdimcnt
Plants, terrestrial
invertebrates, bcnthic
invertebrates, inscctivorcs.
and piscivorcs
To one significant figure,
the 95% UCL results in a
quotient of 1 for
terrestrial invertebrates
Surface water
Aquatic coinmunitv
Magnesium
Soil/scdimcnt
Plants, terrestrial
invertebrates, bcnthic
invertebrates
No screening values
Manganese
Soil/scdimcnt
Plants, terrestrial
invertebrates, bcnthic
invertebrates
Surface water
Aquatic community
Page 1 of 3
-------
Table H.48
Summary of Ecological Risk Drivers
Forested Wetland Habitat
Ecological Risk
Driver
Medium
Affected Receptor(s)
Comments
Mercury
Soil/sediment
Plants, terrestrial
invertebrates, avian
inscctivorcs
Used methyl mercury
TRVs for food web
modeling
Surface water
Aquatic community
Background constituent
Nickel
Sediment
Bcnthic invertebrates
Bcnthic invertebrate
quotient is 1 to one
significant figure
Potassium
Soil/sediment
Plants, terrestrial
invertebrates, bcnthic
invertebrates
Background constituent
Selenium
Soil/sediment
Plants, terrestrial
invertebrates, inscctivorcs.
and bcnthic invertebrates
Sodium
Soil/sediment
Plants, terrestrial
invertebrates, bcnthic
invertebrates
No screening values
Tin
Soil/sediment
Plants, terrestrial
invertebrates, bcnthic
invertebrates
No screening value for
bcnthic invertebrates
Vanadium
Soil/sediment
Plants, avian inscctivorcs.
and bcnthic invertebrates
Limited presence of
contamination; no
sediment benchmark
Zinc
Soil/sediment
Plants, terrestrial
invertebrates, avian
inscctivorcs. bcnthic
invertebrates, and piscivorcs
Surface water
Aquatic community
2-Methylnaphthalene
Sediment
Bcnthic invertebrates
Low detection frequency
but reporting limits
greater than benchmark
4-Chloroanilinc
Sediment
Bcnthic invertebrates
Low detection frequency
but reporting limits
greater than benchmark
Accnaphthcnc
Sediment
Bcnthic invertebrates
Low detection frequency
but reporting limits
greater than benchmark
Acenaphthylene
Sediment
Bcnthic invertebrates
Low detection frequency
but reporting limits
greater than benchmark
Anthracene
Sediment
Bcnthic invertebrates
Bcnzo(a)anthraccnc
Sediment
Bcnthic invertebrates
Surface water
Aquatic community
Upstream influence
Bcnzo(a)pvrcnc
Sediment
Bcnthic invertebrates
Benzo(b+k)fluoranthene
Sediment
Bcnthic invertebrates
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
Sediment
Bcnthic invertebrates
Chrysene
Sediment
Bcnthic invertebrates
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
Sediment
Bcnthic invertebrates
Low detection frequency
but reporting limits
jgreater than benchmark
Page 2 of 3
-------
Table H.48
Summary of Ecological Risk Drivers
Forested Wetland Habitat
Ecological Risk
Driver
Medium
Affected Receptor(s)
Comments
Fluoranthcnc
Sediment
Bcnthic invertebrates
Fluorcnc
Sediment
Bcnthic invertebrates
Low detection frequency
but reporting limits
greater than benchmark
Indcnol 1.2.3-c.d)pvrcnc
Sediment
Bcnthic invertebrates
Phcnanthrcnc
Sediment
Benthic invertebrates
Pyrene
Sediment
Bcnthic invertebrates
DDD/DDE/DDT
Sediment
Bcnthic invertebrates
Chlordanc. total
Sediment
Bcnthic invertebrates
Endrin ketone
Sediment
Bcnthic invertebrates
Bcnthic invertebrate
quotient is 1 to one
significant figure
bis( 2-ethv lhcxy 1 Iphthalatc
Sediment
Bcnthic invertebrates
Acetone
Sediment
Bcnthic invertebrates
Carbon disulfide
Sediment
Bcnthic invertebrates
Acctophcnonc
Surface water
Aquatic community
No screening value;
upstream influence
Benzaldehyde
Surface water
Aquatic community
No screening value;
upstream influence
Caprolactam
Surface water
Aquatic community
No screening value;
upstream influence
Page 3 of 3
-------
APPENDIX C
DETAILED COST ESTIMATE
-------
Table D.l
FMA Cost Summary, All FMA Alternatives
Jackson Ceramix Site
The Borough of Falls Creek, Jefferson and Clearfield Counties, PA
FMA Alternative
Duration,
years
Total Present Value
of Capital Costs
Total Present
Value of Annual
Costs
Total Present
Value of Periodic
Costs
Total Present
Value of
Alternative
FMA Alternative 1: No Action
N/A
$
$
$
$
FMA Alternative 2 - Repair Existing Soil Cover;
In Situ Thermal Treatment; 1 Cs
30
$ 7,343,204
$ 310,800
$ 9,485
$ 7,663,488
FMA Alternative 3 - Repair Existing Soil Cover;
In Situ Chemical Treatment; ICs
30
$ 8,570,873
$ 310,800
$ 9,485
$ 8,891,157
Notes:
FMA = Former Manufacturing Area
IC = Institutional Control
N/A = not applicable
Page 1 of 1
-------
Table D.2
Assumptions for Former Manufacturing Area (FMA) Alternatives
Jackson Ceramix Site
The Borough of Falls Creek, Jefferson and Clearfield Counties, PA
FMA Alternative 1: No Action
- No actions remedial actions would occur at the Former Manufacturing Area (FMA).
FMA Alternative 2: Repair Existing Soil Cover; In Situ Thermal Treatment; ICx
Assumptions associated with implementing in situ thermal treatment:
- Assume that a remedial design investigation would occur to address data gaps. For costing purposes, it was assumed that the investigation would
include collecting two subsurface soil samples down to 40 feet bgs from 10 borings advanced using direct-push and analyzed for volatile organic
carbons (VOCs) and total organic carbon (TOC). Groundwater would be collected from 5 temporary wells and 5 permanent monitoring wells and
analyzed for VOCs. metals, and total organic carbon. Aquifer pump tests also would be performed on at least two wells in the VOC Source Area to
better understand hydraulic conductivity in support of the thermal treatment design. Pump tests would include step tests and constant rate pumping
tests.
- For costing purposes, it is assumed that the in situ thermal treatment method that would be applied to the 12,000 square foot VOC-source area would
be electrical resistance heating.
- Treatment area has an assumed chlorinated VOC mass of 2,900 pounds based on average chlorinated VOC concentrations in area.
- Five existing monitoring wells located within a 50-foot radius of thermal treatment zone would require abandonment and would be reinstalled as
stainless steel monitoring wells w/ similar construction as the abandoned wells.
- A power study would need to be conducted to determine that power company (Penelec) could provide electrical demand. Cost estimate is based on a
power control unit (PCU) that requires 1,800 amperes (amps). 480 Volts-alternating current (VAC), 3-pha.se. The current cost estimate assumes this
service is available. However, if this service is not available, a smaller PCU could be used and the treatment site could be sequenced, which would
lengthen the treatment time. Another option includes utilizing a medium voltage (13,800 VAC, 3-phase. 100 amps) if the power company has this
capabilitv.
- The utility company would need to provide a power drop to extend 3-phase power approximately 800 feet, stopping at the north side of the railroad
outside of the right-of-way.
- Costs assume that an electrical subcontractor would extend service under the railroad via jack-and-bore drilling to the thermal treatment zone located
south of the railroad. The area would likely require dewatering during jack-and-bore drilling. Removed groundwater during dewatering activities would
be stored in a frac tank for treatment through a skid-mounted activated carbon svstem.
- Utility Occupancy License Agreement and Right of Entry access agreements would be required from B&P Railroad to install thermal treatment
svstem and to run utilities under the railroad to connect to the svstem.
- Thermal treatment costs assume electrodes would be installed using standard drilling techniques and extend 24 feet bgs with 14 feet between
electrodes. Electrodes would be co-located with vapor recovery wells.
- The cost estimate assumes that the installation of subsurface components for the thermal remedy would require 3 months, construction of surface
components would require 3 months, operation of the thermal system would require 9 months, and demobilization/site restoration would require 2
months (or a total of 17 months).
Page 1 of 3
-------
Table D.2 (Continued)
Assumptions for FMA Alternatives
Jackson Ceramix Site
The Borough of Falls Creek, Jefferson and Clearfield Counties, PA
FMA Alternative 2: Repair Existing Soil Cover; In Situ Thermal Treatment; ICs (continued)
- All thermal treatment equipment located within the railroad right-of-way (25-foot of center) would require subsurface placement.
- Vapor recovery and condensate treatment is assumed to use skid-mounted activated carbon system located above grade on the FMA landfill cover
adjacent to the railroad right-of-way. Costs assume that approximately 14,000 pounds of activated caibon would be required.
- Perimeter fencing would be constructed to surround the thermal treatment system and any infrastructure located above grade.
- To monitor remedy effectiveness during implementation of the thermal remedy, groundwater sampling will occur but will be associated with
Operable Unit 3 (OU3) Groundwater.
- Air monitoring would occur on a weekly basis for 1 month before operation. 9 months during operation, and one month after operation is completed.
Assumptions associated with repairing the existing FMA soil cover:
- A topographical survey would be conducted to identify depressions in surface cover.
- Based on visual observations during field activities, it is assumed that approximately 19 cubic yards of low permeability soil would be added to low-
lying areas of soil cover and compacted.
- A post-repair topographical survey would be conducted to document final conditions for future site inspections. The soil cover would be surveyed
every 5 years to monitor for settlement.
- Performance groundwater monitoring for landfill cap and source area treatment would include monitoring 12 wells (6 overburden and 6 bedrock) on a
quarterly basis for 2 years (Years 1 and 2); semiannual basis for 5 years (Years 3, 4, 5, 6, 7); annual for remaining 23 years (assuming 30-year life of
landfill cover) (Years 8 through 30).
- Borrow soil would be tested for geotechnical properties prior to use.
- Assume borrow source for low permeability soil is located within 20 miles of site.
- Repaired areas of landfill cover would be revegetated with native seed mix.
- Oversight would be performed by one Site Supervisor and one Site Safety and Health Officer.
- For operation and maintenance, the landfill cover would be mowed once per year.
- Maintenance for soil cover would occur annually for 30 years. However, assume that no cover maintenance would occur during Years 1 and 2 while
the cover is being initially repaired.
- Land Use Control (LUC) inspections of the soil cover would occur annually for 30 years.
- Monitoring well abandonment costs arc not included because the landfill (and buried waste) would remain in place.
Page 2 of 3
-------
Table D.2 (Continued)
Assumptions for FMA Alternatives
Jackson Ceramix Site
The Borough of Falls Creek, Jefferson and Clearfield Counties, PA
FMA Alternative 3: Repair Existing Soil Cover; In Situ Chemical Treatment; ICs
Assumptions associated with implementing in situ chemical treatment:
- Assume that a remedial design investigation would occur to address data gaps. The investigation would include collecting groundwater and
subsurface soil samples within the VOC Source Area to obtain more recent analytical data. Aquifer pump tests also would be performed on at least
two wells in the VOC Source Area to better understand hydraulic conductivity in support of the thermal treatment design.
- Four in situ chemical oxidation (I SCO) injections (assuming PersulfOx) injected in the chlorinated VOC Source Area from 5 to 23 feet bgs.
Injections would not occur within 25 feet of railroad. ISCO treatment area would only include 54 percent of VOC Source Area.
- In situ chemical reduction (I SCR) injection would occur 6 months after fourth ISCO injection. Assumed that emulsified vegetable oil (EVO (/lactate
solution would be applied across 50 percent of original ISCO injection area from 5 to 23 feet bgs.
- Injections would be applied with direct-push technology.
- Access road would need to be constructed to mobilize equipment and large quantities of amendments to treatment area.
- During injections, remedy effectiveness would be monitored monthly in 12 monitoring wells (6 overburden and 6 bedrock). Long term performance
monitoring of groundwater is part of OU3 reiiicdv and not included in this costing.
- Groundwater would be sampled for VOCs and metals to monitor migration of soil to groundwater contamination and effectiveness of soil remedy.
Assumptions associated with repairing the existing FMA soil cover:
- A topographical survey would be conducted to identify depressions in surface cover.
- Based on visual observations during field activities, it is assumed that approximately 19 cubic yards of low permeability soil would be added to low-
lying areas of soil cover and compacted.
- A post-repair topographical survey would be conducted to document final conditions for future site inspections. The soil cover would be surveyed
every 5 vcars to monitor for settlement.
- Monitor 12 wells (6 overburden and 6 bedrock): monthly during the injections, quarterly for 2 years after completion of injections; semiannual for 5
vcars; annual for remaining 23 vcars.
- Borrow soil would be tested prior to use for geotccliiiical properties.
- Assume borrow source for low permeability soil is located within 20 miles of site.
- Repaired areas of landfill cover would be revegetated with native seed mix.
- Oversight would be performed by one Site Supervisor and one Site Safety and Health Officer.
- For operation and maintenance, the landfill cover would be mowed once per year.
- Maintenance for soil cover would occur annually for 30 years. However, assume that no cover maintenance would occur during Years 1 and 2 while
the cover is being initially repaired.
- LUC inspections of the soil cover would occur annually for 30 years.
- Monitoring well abandonment costs are not included because the landfill (and buried waste) would remain in place.
Page 3 of 3
-------
Table D.3
Alternative 2 - Present Value Analysis
Jackson Ceramix Site
The Borough of Falls Creek, Jefferson and Clearfield Counties, PA
FMA Alternative 2 - Repair Existing Soil Cover; In Situ Thermal Treatment; ICs
Present
Value of
Annual Costs
Present
Year
Capital Costs
Present Value of
Annual
Periodie
Value of
Cumulative
Capital Costs
Costs
Costs
Periodie
Costs
Present Value
0
$ 7,358,913.09
$ 7,343,203.56
$
$
$
$
$ 7,343,203.56
1
$
$
$ 8,907.66
$ 8,324.92
$
$
$ 8,324.92
2
$
$
$ 8,907.66
$ 7,780.30
$
$
$ 7,780.30
3
$
$
$ 27,798.68
$ 22,692.01
$
$
$ 22,692.01
4
$
$
$ 27,798.68
$ 21,207.48
$
$
$ 21,207.48
5
$
$
$ 27,798.68
$ 19,820.08
$ 4,395.60
$ 3,134.00
$ 22,954.08
6
$
$
$ 27,798.68
$ 18,523.44
$
$
$ 18,523.44
7
8
& &
a a
& &
a a
$ 27,798.68
$ 27,798.68
$ 17,311.62
$ 16,179.09
& &
a a
& &
a a
$ 17,311.62
$ 16,179.09
9
$
$
$ 27,798.68
$ 15,120.64
$
$
$ 15,120.64
10
$
$
$ 27,798.68
$ 14,131.44
$ 4,395.60
$ 2,234.50
$ 16,365.94
II
$
$
$ 27,798.68
$ 13,206.95
$
$
$ 13,206.95
12
$
$
$ 27,798.68
$ 12,342.95
$
$
$ 12,342.95
13
$
$
$ 27,798.68
$ 11,535.47
$
$
$ 11,535.47
14
$
$
$ 27,798.68
$ 10,780.81
$
$
$ 10,780.81
15
$
$
$ 27,798.68
$ 10,075.52
$ 4,395.60
$ 1,593.17
$ 11,668.69
16
$
$
$ 27,798.68
$ 9,416.38
$
$
$ 9,416.38
17
$
$
$ 27,798.68
$ 8,800.35
$
$
$ 8,800.35
18
$
$
$ 27,798.68
$ 8,224.63
$
$
$ 8,224.63
19
$
$
$ 27,798.68
$ 7,686.57
$
$
$ 7,686.57
20
$
$
$ 27,798.68
$ 7,183.71
$ 4,395.60
$ 1,135.91
$ 8,319.61
21
$
$
$ 27,798.68
$ 6,713.75
$
$
$ 6,713.75
22
$
$
$ 27,798.68
$ 6,274.53
$
$
$ 6,274.53
23
$
$
$ 27,798.68
$ 5,864.05
$
$
$ 5,864.05
24
$
$
$ 27,798.68
$ 5,480.42
$
$
$ 5,480.42
25
$
$
$ 27,798.68
$ 5,121.88
$ 4,395.60
$ 809.89
$ 5,931.77
26
$
$
$ 27,798.68
$ 4,786.81
$
$
$ 4,786.81
27
$
$
$ 27,798.68
$ 4,473.65
$
$
$ 4,473.65
28
$
$
$ 27,798.68
$ 4,180.98
$
$
$ 4,180.98
29
$
$
$ 27,798.68
$ 3,907.46
$
$
$ 3,907.46
30
$
$
$ 27,798.68
$ 3,651.83
$ 4,395.60
$ 577.44
$ 4,229.27
TOTAL
$ 7,358,913
$ 7,343,204
$ 310,800
$ 9,485
$ 7,663,488 |
Notes:
Discount rate from EPA OSWER Directive 9355.0-75 (A Guide to Developing and Documenting Cost Estimates During the Feasibility Study) dated July
2000.
FMA = Former Manufacturing Area
IC = Institutional Control
Page 1 of 1
-------
Table D.4
Alternative 3 - Present Value Analysis
Jackson Ceramix Site
The Borough of Falls Creek, Jefferson and Clearfield Counties, PA
FMA Alternative 3 - Repair Existing Soil Cover; In Situ Chemieal Treatment; ICs
Present
Year
Capital Costs
Present Value
Annual
Present Value of
Periodic
Value of
Cumulative
of Capital Costs
Costs
Annual Costs
Costs
Periodic
Costs
Present Value
0
$ 8,589,208.77
$ 8,570,872.85
$
$
$
$
$ 8,570,872.85
1
$
$
$ 8,907.66
$ 8,324.92
$
$
$ 8,324.92
2
$
$
$ 8,907.66
$ 7,780.30
$
$
$ 7,780.30
3
$
$
$ 27,798.68
$ 22,692.01
$
$
$ 22,692.01
4
$
$
$ 27,798.68
$ 21,207.48
$
$
$ 21,207.48
5
$
$
$ 27,798.68
$ 19,820.08
$ 4,395.60
$ 3,134.00
$ 22,954.08
6
$
$
$ 27,798.68
$ 18,523.44
$
$
$ 18,523.44
7
8
$
$
$
$
$ 27,798.68
$ 27,798.68
$ 17,311.62
$ 16,179.09
$
$
$
$
$ 17,311.62
$ 16,179.09
9
$
$
$ 27,798.68
$ 15,120.64
$
$
$ 15,120.64
10
$
$
$ 27,798.68
$ 14,131.44
$ 4,395.60
$ 2,234.50
$ 16,365.94
11
$
$
$ 27,798.68
$ 13,206.95
$
$
$ 13,206.95
12
$
$
$ 27,798.68
$ 12,342.95
$
$
$ 12,342.95
13
$
$
$ 27,798.68
$ 11,535.47
$
$
$ 11,535.47
14
$
$
$ 27,798.68
$ 10,780.81
$
$
$ 10,780.81
15
$
$
$ 27,798.68
$ 10,075.52
$ 4,395.60
$ 1,593.17
$ 11,668.69
16
$
$
$ 27,798.68
$ 9,416.38
$
$
$ 9,416.38
17
$
$
$ 27,798.68
$ 8,800.35
$
$
$ 8,800.35
18
$
$
$ 27,798.68
$ 8,224.63
$
$
$ 8,224.63
19
$
$
$ 27,798.68
$ 7,686.57
$
$
$ 7,686.57
20
$
$
$ 27,798.68
$ 7,183.71
$ 4,395.60
$ 1,135.91
$ 8,319.61
21
$
$
$ 27,798.68
$ 6,713.75
$
$
$ 6,713.75
22
$
$
$ 27,798.68
$ 6,274.53
$
$
$ 6,274.53
23
$
$
$ 27,798.68
$ 5,864.05
$
$
$ 5,864.05
24
$
$
$ 27,798.68
$ 5,480.42
$
$
$ 5,480.42
25
$
$
$ 27,798.68
$ 5,121.88
$ 4,395.60
$ 809.89
$ 5,931.77
26
$
$
$ 27,798.68
$ 4,786.81
$
$
$ 4,786.81
27
$
$
$ 27,798.68
$ 4,473.65
$
$
$ 4,473.65
28
$
$
$ 27,798.68
$ 4,180.98
$
$
$ 4,180.98
29
$
$
$ 27,798.68
$ 3,907.46
$
$
$ 3,907.46
30
$
$
$ 27,798.68
$ 3,651.83
$ 4,395.60
$ 577.44
$ 4,229.27
TOTAI
S 8,589,209
S 8,570,873
$ 310,800
$ 9,485
S 8,891,157
Notes:
Discount rate from EPA OSWER Directive 9355.0-75 (A Guide to Developing and Documenting Cost Estimates During the Feasibility Study) dated July
2000.
FMA = Former Manufacturing Area
IC = institutional control
O&M = operation and maintenance
Page 1 of 1
-------
Table D.5
Summary of Capital Costs for FMA Alternative 2
Jackson Ceramix Site
The Borough of Falls Creek, Jefferson and Clearfield Counties, PA
Site: Jackson Ceramix Site
Description: FMA Alternative 2
Location: Borough of Falls Creek, PA
Capital Costs
Base Year (Year 0)
Phase: Feasibility Study
- Repair existing soil cover depressions with low permeability soil.
Base Year: 2020
- Perform thermal treatment using electrical resistance heating for VOC Source Area (approx. 12,000 square feet).
Date: November 2019
-Implement institutional controls to prevent residential use
and mitigate intrusive activities without engineering controls.
Estimated
Unit of
Unit Location
Inflation
Project
Item Description
Quantity
Measure
Cost Factor
Factor
Cost
Subtotal Notes
Pre-Field Activities
Prepare Work Plan (to include Accident Prevention Plan and Quality Control Plan)
1
LS
t 75,000.00 1
00
1
00
$ 75,000.00
Assume Draft, Draft Final, and Final
Power Study
1
LS
t 3,000.00 1
00
1
00
$ 3,000.00
Engineering estimate for labor associated with contractor and subcontractor
Electric utility power drop (approx. 800 feet)
1
LS
70,000.00 1
00
1
00
$ 70,000.00
Based on discussions with utility company (Penelec in May 2019)
$ 148,000
Remedial Design Investigation - Aquifer Testing
2-inch submersible pump
2
weeks
t 245.00 1
07
1
20
$ 628.08
RACER Cost Database (Assembly 33230507, 8/2/2016)
Water level meter
2
weeks
t 38.50 1
07
1
20
$ 98.70
RACER Cost Database (Assembly 33020573, 8/2/2016)
R72030 Level Troll 700,15 psig (6)
10
days
t 128.58 1
00
1
05
$ 1,352.13
2018 vendor quote
R72040 Level Troll 700, 30 psig
10
days
t 21.43 1
00
1
05
$ 225.35
2018 vendor quote
Rugged cable, 1600ft
10
days
t 137.12 1
00
1
05
$ 1,441.93
2018 vendor quote
Field crew (2)
10
days
t 635.00 1
00
1
00
$ 6,350.00
Engineering estimate, includes labor, lodging, and per diem
Rental truck
2
Weeks S
293.79 1
00
1
00
$ 587.58
Enterprise online quote
Truck fuel
100
Gallon !
2.50 1
00
1
00
$ 250.00
Engineering estimate
Diesel generator, 5-kW, 120/240 VAC
10
days !
117.40 1
07
1
20
$ 1,504.83
RACER Cost Database (Assembly 33010503, 8/2/2016)
2-inch discharge hose, 25-feet
10
each
t 34.99 1
00
1
05
$ 367.95
2018 vendor quote
2-inch PVC check valve
1
each
t 19.39 1
00
1
05
$ 20.39
2018 vendor quote
Hydrogeologist (post-processing data)
36
hr
t 80.00 1
00
1
00
$ 2,880.00
Engineering Estimate
c IS 707
Remedial Design Investigation - VOC Source Area Samnlin«
J) 1J) I \J I
Miscellaneous Materials for Collecting and Managing Samples
1
Event
t 500.00 1
00
1
00
$ 500.00
Engineering estimate
Mobilization/demobilization equipment
1
Lump Sum
t 2,000.00 1
00
1
00
$ 2,000.00
Engineering estimate
Field crew
6
days
t 1,500.00 1
00
1
00
$ 9,000.00
Assume mid-level geologist plus field tech (includes truck, travel, and per diem)
Direct-push, continuously-sampled borings from ground surface to 40 feet bgs
400
LF
t 18.00 1
00
1
05
$ 7,571.40
2018 Vendor quote; assume ten borings at 40 feet bgs
Subsurface soil sample analyses for VOCs (quantity includes field QC samples)
23
Samples
t 60.00 1
00
1
05
$ 1,451.19
2018 Vendor quote; assume two samples per boring (includes QA/QC)
Decontamination Pad Construction
1
Lump Sum
t 150.00 1
00
1
05
$ 157.74
2018 vendor quote
High-solids bentonite slurry grout
120
LF
t 5.00 1
00
1
05
$ 630.95
2018 vendor quote
Groundwater sample analyses for VOCs, metals, and total organic carbon (quantity
includes field QC samples)
14
Samples
t 122.57 1
00
1
05
$ 1,804.50
2018 vendor quote
Data validation
37
Samples
t 40.00 1
00
1
05
$ 1,556.34
2018 vendor quote
Pump controller
1
Weeks
t 275.00 1
00
1
05
$ 289.19
2018 vendor quote
Pressurized C02 cannisters (1 per well per event)
12
Cannisters
t 40.00 1
00
1
05
$ 504.76
2018 vendor quote
Pump, 3/4" bladder
1
Per Week
t 150.00 1
00
1
05
$ 157.74
2018 vendor quote
Water level measure
1
Per Week
t 50.00 1
00
1
05
$ 52.58
2018 vendor quote
Water quality meter
1
Per Week
t 330.00 1
00
1
05
$ 347.02
2018 vendor quote
Tubing
2,400
LF
t 0.60 1
00
1
05
$ 1,514.28
2018 vendor quote
IDW analysis, handling, and disposal
1
LS
t 3,000.00 1
00
1
00
$ 3,000.00
Engineering Estimate
Overnight Shipping
5
Per Cooler
t 67.00 1
00
1
00
$ 335.00
Engineering Estimate
$ 30,873
Page 1 of 4
-------
Table D.5 (Continued)
Summary of Capital Costs for FMA Alternative 2
Jackson Ceramix Site
The Borough of Falls Creek, Jefferson and Clearfield Counties, PA
Estimated
Unit of
Unit
Location
Inflation
Project
|
Item Description
Quantity
Measure
Cost
Factor
Factor
Cost
Subtotal
Notes
Mobilization / Site Preparation
Construction Survey and Staking
1
Day $
1,325.00
1
00
1.00
S 1,325.00
Engineering Estimate
Decontamination Pad Construction
1
LS $
1,000.00
1
00
1.00
S 1,000.00
Engineering Estimate
Utility Location and Clearance
8
HR $
472.80
1
07
1.20
S 4,848.26
RACER Cost Database (Assembly 33022609, 8/2/2016)
Tree Removal with Clearing and Grubbing
1
Acre $
8,300.00
1
07
1.05
S 9,339.11
2018 RS Means, 31 13 13.10 0020
Brush disposal
1
LS $
400.00
1
00
1.00
S 400.00
Engineering Estimate
Office trailer, rent
17
Months $
327.00
1
07
1.05
S 6,254.96
2018 RS Means, 01 52 13.20 0350; 01 01 52 13.20 0700
Office trailer, delivery and pickup
1
EA $
3,000.00
1
07
1.05
S 3,375.58
2018 RS Means, 01 52 13.20 0890
Generator for office trailer, 5-KW
17
Months $
6,329.00
1
07
1.05
S 121,063.06
2018 RS Means, 01 54 33 2200
Field office equipment
17
Months $
226.00
1
07
1.05
S 4,323.00
2018 RS Means, 01 52 13.40 0100
Field office supplies
17
Months $
90.00
1
07
1.05
S 1,721.55
2018 RS Means, 01 52 13.40 0120
Temporary access road
1
LS $
20,000.00
1
00
1.00
S 20,000.00
Engineering Estimate
Storage (Conex) Rental
17
Months $
93.00
1
07
1.05
S 1,778.93
C 1 "7C J-)Q
2018 RS Means, 01 52 13.20 1250
Repair Existing Soil Cover
Soil testing, Proctor compaction, 4" std mold ASTM 698
4
EA
131.61
1.07
1.20
S 674.79
RACER Cost Database (Assembly 33021114, 8/2/2016)
Soil testing, permeability, variable or constant head, undisturbed, ASTM D 2434
5
EA $
227.00
1.07
1 90
S 1,454.84
RACER Cost Database (Assembly 33021110, 8/2/2016)
Clay, Low Permeability, 6" Lifts (Purchase, Deliver, and Place from Off-Site)
20
CY $
13.06
1
07
JL.
1.20
S 334.80
RACER Cost Database (Assembly 33080507, 8/2/2016)
Purchase, Deliver, and Place 6-inch Layer of Imported Topsoil
10
CY $
219.26
1
07
1.20
S 2,810.46
RACER Cost Database (Assembly 18050301, 8/2/2016)
Seeding, Vegetative Cover
0.02
Acre $
4,105.35
1
07
1.20
S 105.24
RACER Cost Database (Assembly 18050402, 8/2/2016)
Compaction, 2 passes, 6" lifts, sheepsfoot
20
CY $
0.19
1
07
1.20
4.87
RACER Cost Database (Assembly 17030528, 8/2/2016)
Mobilization/demobilization survey equipment
2
Events $
500.00
1
07
1.00
1,070.00
Engineering estimate; mobilization of crew before and after repair of soil cover
Topographic Survey (2-person crew)
4
Day $
980.72
1
07
1.20
S 5,028.32
RACER Cost Database (Assembly 33220212, 8/2/2016)
Backhoe operator
5
Day $
648.00
1
07
1.05
S 3,645.63
2018 RS Means Crew Equipment Operator/Medium
Silt Fence
500
LF $
1.88
1
07
1.05
S 1,057.68
2018 RS Means 31 25 14.16 1000
S 16.187
Well Abandonment (monitoring wells within 50-foot radius of ERH treatment zone)
Mobilize/demobilize drilling rig & crew
1
LS
2,041.36
1.07
1.20
S 2,616.60
RACER Cost Database (Assembly 33010101, 8/2/2016)
Drill rig and 2-man crew, daily rate
3
day $
3,973.52
1.07
1.05
13,412.95
2018 RS Means crew B-23A less laborer
Well abandonment (2- and 4-inch PVC wells)
190
LF $
25.44
1.07
1.20
6,195.68
RACER Cost Database (Assembly 33231823, 8/2/2016)
Well pad removal/disposal
5
EA $
120.00
1.00
1.00
600.00
$ 22,825
Engineering Estimate
Installation of Stainless-Steel Monitoring Wells
Mobilize/demobilize drilling rig & crew
1
LS $
2,041.36
1
07
1.20
S 2,616.60
RACER Cost Database (Assembly 33010101, 8/2/2016)
Drilling, Air Rotary, 6 in. diameter borehole (unconsolidated)
190
LF $
39.49
1
07
1.20
S 9,617.43
RACER Cost Database (Assembly 33231146, 8/2/2016)
2 inch Stainless Steel Well Casing
130
LF $
65.09
1
07
1.20
10,846.15
RACER Cost Database (Assembly 33230121, 8/2/2016)
4 inch Stainless Steel Well Casing
80
LF $
83.88
1
07
1.20
8,601.35
RACER Cost Database (Assembly 33230122, 8/2/2016)
2 inch Stainless Steel Well Screen
30
LF $
64.41
1
07
1.20
2,476.81
RACER Cost Database (Assembly 33230221, 8/2/2016)
4 inch Stainless Steel Well Screen
30
LF $
82.38
1
07
1.20
3,167.83
RACER Cost Database (Assembly 33230222, 8/2/2016)
2 inch Stainless Steel Well Plug
3
EA $
114.75
1
07
1.20
441.26
RACER Cost Database (Assembly 33230311, 8/2/2016)
4 inch Stainless Steel Well Plug
2
EA $
165.28
1
07
1.20
423.71
RACER Cost Database (Assembly 33230312, 8/2/2016)
2 inch well, bentonite seal
3
EA $
166.08
1
07
1.20
638.64
RACER Cost Database (Assembly 33232101, 8/2/2016)
4 inch well, bentonite seal
2
EA $
438.52
1
07
1.20
1,124.18
RACER Cost Database (Assembly 33232102, 8/2/2016)
2 inch screen, filter pack
30
LF $
11.10
1
07
1.20
426.84
RACER Cost Database (Assembly 33231401, 8/2/2016)
4 inch screen, filter pack
30
LF $
19.17
1
07
1.20
737.16
RACER Cost Database (Assembly 33231402, 8/2/2016)
Bollards
20
EA $
578.19
1
07
1.20
14,822.41
RACER Cost Database (Assembly 18010503, 8/2/2016)
Surface Pad, concrete, 4 ft x 4 ft x 4 in.
5
EA $
105.36
1
07
1.20
675.25
RACER Cost Database (Assembly 33231502, 8/2/2016)
Well Development (Crew and Equipment)
40
HR $
80.00
1
00
1.00
3,200.00
Engineering Estimate
IDW Analysis, Handling, and Disposal
1
LS $
3,000.00
1
00
1.00
3,000.00
Engineering Estimate
$ 62,816
Page 2 of 4
-------
Table D.5 (Continued)
Summary of Capital Costs for FMA Alternative 2
Jackson Ceramix Site
The Borough of Falls Creek, Jefferson and Clearfield Counties, PA
Estimated
Unit of
Unit Location
Inflation
Project
Item Description
Quantity
Measure
Cost Factor
Factor
Cost
Subtotal Notes
In Situ Thermal Treatment
Engineering estimate to extend utilities from power drop below railroad to ERH treatment zone
Electrical subcontractor
1
LS
30,000.00 1
00
1.00
$ 30,000.00
on south side of railroad. Area may require dewatering.
Flag person
40
weeks 3
2,750.00 1
00
1.00
$ 110,000.00
Engineering estimate for installation, construction, and demobilization. Not needed for operation.
7-foot galvanized chain-link fence
600
LF $
47.94 1
07
1.20
$ 36,869.52
RACER Cost Database (Assembly 18040108, 8/2/2016)
Electrical Resistance Heating (ERH) (includes system installation, operation, vapor
recovery treatment, and abandonment).
1
LS
2,556,000.00 1
00
1.00
$ 2,556,000.00
Vendor quote from May 2019.
Direct-push rig, track-mounted, non hydraulic, includes labor, sampling,
decontamination
2
days !
1,500.00 1
07
1.20
$ 3,210.00
RACER Cost Database (Assembly 33020667, 8/2/2016)
Analysis of confirmation soil samples (VOCs and TOC)
8
Samples !
70.00 1
00
1.05
$ 560.00
Vendor quote from 2018
Data validation (VOCs and TOC)
8
Samples !
23.00 1
00
1.05
$ 184.00
Vendor quote from 2018
Electrical energy usage
4,440,000
kW-hours !
0.14 1
00
1.00
$ 636,252.00
average rate for Pennsylvania
Activated carbon, granular or powdered form (Bulk)
7
Ton !
4,820.00 1
07
1.20
$ 36,101.80
RACER Cost Database (Assembly 33150413, 8/2/2016)
Removal, transport, regeneration of spent carbon, < 2K to 10K lb
14,000
lb
0.49 1
07
1.20
$ 7,340.20
RACER Cost Database (Assembly 33132066, 8/2/2016)
IDW analysis, handling, and disposal
1
LS
5,000.00 1
00
1.00
$ 5,000.00
Engineering Estimate
S 3.421.518
Baseline Monitoring
Miscellaneous Materials for Collecting and Managing Samples
2
Events S
500.00 1
00
1.00
$ 1,000.00
Engineering estimate
Field crew
6
days !
1,500.00 1
00
1.00
$ 9,000.00
Assume mid-level geologist plus field tech (includes truck, travel, and per diem)
Ambient air monitor, monthly rental
11
Months !
250.00 1
07
1.20
$ 2,942.50
RACER Cost Database (Assembly 33020315, 8/2/2016)
Groundwater sample analyses for VOCs, metals, and total organic carbon (quantity
includes field QC samples)
28
Samples !
122.57 1
00
1.05
$ 3,431.96
Vendor quote from 2018
Data validation
28
Samples !
43.00 1
00
1.05
$ 1,204.00
Vendor quote from 2018
Gas monitors, monthly rental
2
Months !
520.00 1
07
1.20
$ 1,112.80
RACER Cost Database (Assembly 33020321, 8/2/2016)
Calibration gas, purchase
2
EA
127.35 1
07
1.20
$ 272.53
RACER Cost Database (Assembly 33020319, 8/2/2016)
Pump controller
2
Weeks i
275.00 1
00
1.05
$ 550.00
Vendor quote from 2018
Pressurized C02 cannisters (1 per well per event)
24
Cannisters !
40.00 1
00
1.05
$ 960.00
Vendor quote from 2018
Pump, 3/4" bladder
2
Per Week S
150.00 1
00
1.05
$ 300.00
Vendor quote from 2018
Water level measure
2
Per Week S
50.00 1
00
1.05
$ 100.00
Vendor quote from 2018
Water quality meter
2
Per Week S
330.00 1
00
1.05
$ 660.00
Vendor quote from 2018
Tubing
4,800
LF
0.60 1
00
1.05
$ 2,880.00
Vendor quote from 2018
Overnight Shipping
4
Per Cooler !
67.00 1
00
1.00
$ 268.00
Engineering estimate
24,682
Demobilization/Site Restoration
Regrade
1
LS $
1,025.00
1.07
1.05
Topsoil placement
15
CY $
34.50
1.07
1.05
Sod placement
1
MSF $
525.00
1.07
1.05
Field Oversight
Site Supervisor
60
Weeks $
3,635.00
1.00
1.00
Site Safety and Health Officer
60
Weeks $
3,635.00
1.00
1.00
Rental truck
60
Weeks $
293.79
1.00
1.00
Truck fuel
1,170
Gallon $
2.50
1.00
1.00
.emedial Action Completion Report
Prepare and Submit Remedial Action Completion Report
LS
40,000.00
1.00
1,153.32
582.29
590.73
218,100.00
218,100.00
17,627.50
2,925.00
40,000.00
2018 RS Means 31 22 13.20 0200
2018 RS Means 32 91 19.13 0500 (landscape rates)
2018 RS Means 32 92 23.10 0300
2,326
S 456.753
Engineering estimate
Engineering estimate
Enterprise online quote - May 2019
Engineering estimate
Assume Draft, Draft Final, and Final
40.000
Page 3 of 4
-------
Table D.5 (Continued)
Summary of Capital Costs for FMA Alternative 2
Jackson Ceramix Site
The Borough of Falls Creek, Jefferson and Clearfield Counties, PA
Item
Description
Estimated Unit of Unit Location Inflation
Quantity Measure Cost Factor Factor
Project
Cost
Subtotal
Notes
Project Cost and Contingencies Summary
Capital Cost Subtotal
S 4,417,115
Bid Contingency
Scope Contingency
15%
25%
$ 662,567
$ 1,104,279
EPA Guidance** (typically 10 - 20%)
EPA Guidance** (Range 15 - 55%)
Capital with Contingency
$ 6,183,961
Professional Services
Construction Management
Project Management
Remedial Design
6%
5%
8%
Total Base Year Capital Costs:
$ 371,038
$ 309,198
$ 494,717
$ 7,358,913
Based on EPA guidance document EPA 540-R-00-002
Based on EPA guidance document EPA 540-R-00-002
Based on EPA guidance document EPA 540-R-00-002
Notes:
Inflation factor of 1.20 applied to all 2016 unit rates from RS Means and RACER Cost Database. Factor from Turner Cost index, which was 970 in 1st quarter of 2016 and 1162 in 3rd quarter of 2019.
Inflation factor of 1.05 applied to all 2018 unit rates from RS Means. Factor from Turner Cost index, which was 1105 in 3rd quarter of 2018 and 1162 in 3rd quarter of 2019.
Locality factor of 1.07 applied for Pennsylvania for all unit rates from RS Means and RACER Cost Database. Locality factor not applied to engineering estimates or vendor quotes because those costs are independent of site location.
ASTM = American Standard Test Method
CY = cubic yard
EA = each
EPA = U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FMA = Former Manufacturing Area
ft = feet
HR = hour
IC = Institutional Controls
IDW = investigation derived waste
in = inches
KW = kilowatt
lb = pound
LF = linear foot
LS = lump sum
QC = quality control
TOC = total organic carbon
VOC = volatile organic compound
Page 4 of 4
-------
Table D.6
Summary of Capital Costs - FMA Alternative 3
Jackson Ceramix Site
The Borough of Falls Creek, Jefferson and Clearfield Counties, PA
Site: Jackson Ceramix Site
Location: Borough of Falls Creek, PA
Phase: Feasibility Study
Base Year: 2020
Date: November 2019
Summary of Capital Costs (Base Year)
Description: FMA Alternative 3
Capital Costs - Base Year (Year 0)
- Repair existing soil cover depressions with low permeability soil.
- Perform injections of in situ chemical oxidation amendment (3 separate injection events) and in situ chemical reduction amendment (1 injection event) to treat VOC Source Area.
- Injections not applied within railroad right-of-way.
- Institutional Controls.
Item
Description
I'.stiinated
Quantity
I nit of I nit Location Inflation Project
Measure ('ost Factor Factor ('ost
Subtotal
Notes
Pre-Field Activities
Prepare Work Plan (to include Accident Prevention Plan and Quality Control Plan)
LS
$ 75,000.00
75,000.00
Assume Draft, Draft Final, and Final
_ZM
2-inch submersible pump
2
weeks $
245.00
1.07
1.20
$
628.08
RACER Cost Database (Assembly 33230507, 8/2/2016)
Water level meter
2
weeks $
38.50
1.07
1.20
$
98.70
RACER Cost Database (Assembly 33020573, 8/2/2016)
R72030 Level Troll 700, 15 psig (6)
10
days $
128.58
1.00
1.05
$
1,352.13
2018 vendor quote
R72040 Level Troll 700, 30 psig
10
days $
21.43
1.00
1.05
$
225.35
2018 vendor quote
Rugged cable, 1600ft
10
days $
137.12
1.00
1.05
$
1,441.93
2018 vendor quote
Field crew (2)
10
days $
635.00
1.00
1.00
$
6,350.00
Engineering estimate, includes labor, lodging, and per diem
Rental truck
2
Weeks $
293.79
1.00
1.00
$
587.58
Enterprise online quote
Truck fuel
100
Gallon $
2.50
1.00
1.00
$
250.00
Engineering estimate
Diesel generator, 5-kW, 120/240 VAC
10
days $
117.40
1.07
1.20
$
1,504.83
RACER Cost Database (Assembly 33010503, 8/2/2016)
2-inch discharge hose, 25-feet
10
each $
34.99
1.00
1.05
$
367.95
2018 vendor quote
2-inch PVC check valve
1
each $
19.39
1.00
1.05
$
20.39
2018 vendor quote
Hydrogeologist (post-processing data)
36
hr $
80.00
1.00
1.00
$
2,880.00
S
Engineering Estimate
15,707
Remedial Design Investigation - VOC Source Area Sampling
Miscellaneous Materials for Collecting and Managing Samples
1
Event $
500.00
1.00
1.00
$
500.00
Engineering estimate
Mobilization/demobilization equipment
1
Lump Sum $
2,000.00
1.00
1.00
$
2,000.00
Engineering estimate
Field crew
6
days $
1,500.00
1.00
1.00
$
9,000.00
Assume mid-level geologist plus field tech (includes truck, travel, and per diem)
Direct-push, continuously-sampled borings from ground surface to 40 feet bgs
400
LF $
18.00
1.00
1.05
$
7,571.40
2018 Vendor quote; assume ten borings at 40 feet bgs
Subsurface soil sample analyses for VOCs (quantity includes field QC samples)
23
Samples $
60.00
1.00
1.05
$
1,451.19
2018 Vendor quote; assume two samples per boring (includes QA/QC)
Decontamination Pad Construction
1
Lump Sum $
150.00
1.00
1.05
$
157.74
2018 vendor quote
High-solids bentonite slurry grout
120
LF $
5.00
1.00
1.05
$
630.95
2018 vendor quote
Groundwater sample analyses for VOCs, metals, and total organic carbon (quantity
includes field QC samples)
14
Samples $
122.57
1.00
1.05
$
1,804.50
2018 vendor quote
Data validation
37
Samples $
40.00
1.00
1.05
$
1,556.34
2018 vendor quote
Pump controller
1
Weeks $
275.00
1.00
1.05
$
289.19
2018 vendor quote
Pressurized C02 cannisters (1 per well per event)
12
Cannisters $
40.00
1.00
1.05
$
504.76
2018 vendor quote
Pump, 3/4" bladder
1
Per Week $
150.00
1.00
1.05
$
157.74
2018 vendor quote
Water level measure
1
Per Week $
50.00
1.00
1.05
$
52.58
2018 vendor quote
Water quality meter
1
Per Week $
330.00
1.00
1.05
$
347.02
2018 vendor quote
Tubing
2,400
LF $
0.60
1.00
1.05
$
1,514.28
2018 vendor quote
IDW analysis, handling, and disposal
1
LS $
3,000.00
1.00
1.00
$
3,000.00
Engineering Estimate
Overnight Shipping
5
Per Cooler $
67.00
1.00
1.00
$
335.00
Engineering Estimate
30,873
Page 1 of 3
-------
Table D.6 (Continued)
Summary of Capital Costs - FMA Alternative 3
Jackson Ceramix Site
The Borough of Falls Creek, Jefferson and Clearfield Counties, PA
Item
Description
Kstiniated
Quantity
I nit of
Measure
I nit
(:«st
Location
Factor
Inflation
Factor
Project
Cost
Subtotal
Notes
Construction Survey and Staking
1
Day
$
1,325.00
1.00
1.00
$
1,325.00
Engineering Estimate
Mobilization/Demobilization, misc. equipment
4
LS
$
1,118.00
1.07
1.20
$
5,732.18
2016 RS Means 0 1 54 36 50 1300 and 1400
Mobilization/Demobilization, drill rig and injection platform
4
LS
$
2,458.00
1.07
1.20
$
12,602.60
2016 RS Means 0 1 54 36 50 1300 and 02 32 13.10 0300
Decontamination Pad Construction
2
LS
$
1,000.00
1.00
1.00
$
2,000.00
Engineering Estimate
Utility Location and Clearance
8
I IK
$
472.80
1.07
1.20
$
4,848.26
RACER Cost Database (Assembly 33022609, 8/2/2016)
Tree Removal with Clearing and Grubbing
1.0
Acre
$
8,300.00
1.07
1.05
$
9,339.11
2018 RS Means, 31 13 13.10 0020
Brush disposal
1
LS
$
400.00
1.07
1.00
$
428.00
Engineering Estimate
Office trailer, rent
11
Months
$
327.00
1.07
1.05
$
3,924.68
2018 RS Means, 01 52 13.20 0350; 01 01 52 13.20 0700
Office trailer, delivery and pickup
1
EA
$
3,000.00
1.07
1.05
$
3,375.58
2018 RS Means, 01 52 13.20 0890
Generator for office trailer, 5-KW
11
Months
$
6,329.00
1.07
1.05
$
75,961.14
2018 RS Means, 01 54 33 2200
Field office equipment
11
Months
$
226.00
1.07
1.05
$
2,712.47
2018 RS Means, 01 52 13.40 0100
Field office supplies
11
Months
$
90.00
1.07
1.05
$
1,080.19
2018 RS Means, 01 52 13.40 0120
Storage (Conex) Rental
11
Months
$
93.00
1.07
1.05
$
1,116.19
2018 RS Means, 0 1 52 13.20 1 250
Temporary access road
1
LS
$
20,000.00
1.00
1.00
$
20,000.00
Engineering Estimate
Laboratory Bench-Scale Study
1
LS
$
15,000.00
1.00
1.00
$
15,000.00
Engineering Estimate
s
159.445
Renair Existing Soil ( over
Soil testing, Proctor compaction, 4" std mold ASTM 698
4
EA
$
131.61
1.07
1.20
$
674.79
RACER Cost Database (Assembly 33021114, 82/2/2016)
Soil testing, permeability, variable or constant head, undisturbed, ASTM 1) 2434
5
EA
$
227.00
1.07
1.20
$
1,454.84
RACER Cost Database (Assembly 33021110, 8/2/2016)
Clay, Low Permeability, 6" Lifts (Purchase, Deliver, and Place from Off-Site]
20
CY
$
13.06
1.07
1.20
$
334.80
RACER Cost Database (Assembly 33080507, 8/2/2016)
Purchase, Deliver, and Place 6-inch Layer of Imported Topsoil
10
CY
$
219.26
1.07
1.20
$
2,810.46
RACER Cost Database (Assembly 18050301, 8/2/2016)
Seeding, Vegetative Cover
0.02
Acre
$
4,105.35
1.07
1.20
$
105.24
RACER Cost Database (Assembly 18050402, 8/2/2016)
Compaction, 2 passes, 6" lifts, sheepsfoot
20
CY
$
0.19
1.07
1.20
$
4.87
RACER Cost Database (Assembly 17030528, 8/2/2016)
Mobilization/demobilization survey equipment
2
Events
$
500.00
1.07
1.00
$
1,070.00
Engineering estimate; mobilization of crew before and after repair of soil cover
Topographic Survey (2-person crew)
4
Day
$
980.72
1.07
1.20
$
5,028.32
RACER Cost Database (Assembly 33220212, 8/2/2016)
Backhoe operator
5
Day
$
648.00
1.07
1.05
$
3,645.63
2018 RS Means Crew Equipment Operator/Medium
Silt Fence
1,000
LF
$
1.88
1.07
1.05
$
2,115.37
2018 RS Means 31 25 14.16 1000
17-244
In Situ Chemical Injections
PersulfOx (total for three rounds)
Emulsified Vegetable Oil (EOS Pro)
Sodium Lactate
Shipping and Handling Cost
Water truck, 6000 gallons (3), rental
Water truck, 6000 gallons (3), operation
Fork lift, rental
Forklift, operation
Drilling/injection rig, platform, and crew
Drilling subcontractor field supervisor
Drilling subcontractor field technician
Decon water load, transport, dispose
Metering system (rental)
10 CY mixing system
144,700
12,900
1
1
10
490
10
79
39
39
39
1
1
10
lb
$
21.78
1.00
lb
$
1.27
1.00
drums
$
709.95
1.00
LS
$
475,500.00
1.00
Weeks
$
1,500.00
1.07
Hours
$
87.60
1.07
Weeks
$
462.50
1.07
HR
$
26.26
1.07
Days
$
5,132.13
1.07
Days
$
3,350.00
1.07
Days
$
465.20
1.07
LS
$
1,500.00
1.00
EA
$
2,500.00
1.07
Week
$
7,166.38
1.07
.00
$ 3,152,279.80
Vendor quote, March 2019
.00
$ 16,408.80
Vendor quote, March 2019
.00
$ 709.95
Online quote, March 2019
.00
$ 475,500.00
Engineering Estimate (15% of total material costs)
.20
$ 18,842.37
2016 RS Means 01 54 33 40 6950
.20
$ 55,019.72
2016 RS Means 01 54 33 40 6950
.20
$ 5,809.73
2016 RS Means 01 54 33 40 2020
.20
$ 2,659.13
2016 RS Means 01 54 33 40 2020, operate one hour per drilling day plus 4 hours during mob and demob
$ 256,554.97
2016 RS Means crew B-23A, additional laborer, centrifugal pump (01 54 33 40 4100), diaphragm pump (01 54 33 40
.20
5100), trailer (01 54 33 40 6480)
.20
$ 167,466.36
2016 RS Means 01 31 13 20 0260
.20
$ 23,255.33
Laborer cost from 2016 RS Means crew B-23A
.00
$ 1,500.00
Engineering estimate
.20
$ 3,204.48
RACER Cost Database (Assembly 33150426, 8/2/2016)
.20
$ 90,021.05
RACER Cost Database (Assembly 33150423, 8/2/2016)
4.269.232
Page 2 of 3
-------
Table D.6 (Continued)
Summary of Capital Costs - FMA Alternative 3
Jackson Ceramix Site
The Borough of Falls Creek, Jefferson and Clearfield Counties, PA
F.stimatcd
1 nit of
1 nit
Location
Inflation
Project
Item Description
Quantity
Measure
(:«st
Factor
Factor
Cost
Subtotal
\ :i(- I
Baseline Monthly Performance Monitoring
Miscellaneous Materials for Collecting and Managing Samples
11
Per Event 3
500.00
1.00
1.00
$ 5,500.00
Engineering estimate
Field crew
33
Day 3
2,480.00
1.00
1.00
$ 81,840.00
Assume 3 10-hr days for mid-level geologist plus field tech (includes truck, fuel, lodging, labor, and per diem)
Sample analyses (quantity includes field QC samples)
Includes VOCs, TAL metals, total organic carbon to monitor effectiveness of soil remedy (via soil to groundwater
152
Per Event
122.57
1.00
1.00
$ 18,630.64
migration pathway).
Data validation
152
Samples $
43.00
1.00
1.05
$ 6,873.15
2018 vendor quote
Pump controller
11
Per Week 3
275.00
1.00
1.05
$ 3,181.04
2018 vendor quote
Pressurized C02 cannisters
132
Per Cannister 3
40.00
1.00
1.05
$ 5,552.36
2018 vendor quote
Pump, 3/4" bladder
11
Per Week 3
150.00
1.00
1.05
$ 1,735.11
2018 vendor quote
Water level measure
11
Per Week 3
50.00
1.00
1.05
$ 578.37
2018 vendor quote
Water quality meter
11
Per Week 3
330.00
1.00
1.05
$ 3,817.25
2018 vendor quote
Tubing
26,400
LF $
0.60
1.00
1.05
$ 16,657.09
2018 vendor quote
Overnight Shipping
22
Per Cooler 3
67.00
1.00
1.00
$ 1,474.00
Engineering estimate
S
145,839
Demobilization/Site Restoration
Regrade
1
LS $
1,025.00
1.07
1.05
$ 1,153.32
2018 RS Means 31 22 13.20 0200
Topsoil placement
15
CY $
34.50
1.07
1.05
$ 582.29
2018 RS Means 32 91 19.13 0500 (landscape rates)
Sod placement
1
MSF $
525.00
1.07
1.05
$ 590.73
2018 RS Means 32 9 2 23.10 0300
$
2.326
Field Oversight
Site Supervisor
53
Week $
3,635.00
1.00
1.00
$ 193,866.67
Engineering estimate
Site Safety and Health Officer
53
Week $
3,635.00
1.00
1.00
$ 193,866.67
Engineering estimate
Rental truck (2)
53
Weeks $
587.58
1.00
1.00
$ 31,337.78
Enterprise online quote May 2019
Truck fuel
2,340
Gallon $
2.50
1.00
1.00
$ 5,850.00
Engineering Estimate
s
424.921
Construction Comnletion Rcmirt
Prepare and Submit Remedial Action Completion Report
1
LS $
15,000.00
1.00
1.00
$ 15,000.00
Assume Draft, Draft Final, and Final
s
15.000
Project Cost and Contingencies Summary
Capital Cost Subtotal
s
5,155,587
Bid Contingency
15%
$
773,338
EPA Guidance** (typically 10 - 20%)
Scope Contingency
25%
$
1,288,897
EPA Guidance** (Range 15 - 55%)
Capital with Contingency
s
7,217,822
Professional Services
Construction Management
6%
$
433,069
Based on EPA guidance document EPA 540-R-00-002
Project Management
5%
$
360,891
Based on EPA guidance document EPA 540-R-00-002
Remedial Design
8%
$
577,426
Based on EPA guidance document EPA 540-R-00-002
Total Base Year Capital Costs:
s
8,589,209
Notes:
Inflation factor of 1.20 applied to all 2016 unit rates from RS Means and RACER Cost Database. Factor from Turner Cost index, which was 970 in 1st quarter of 2016 and 1162 in 3rd quarter of 2019.
Inflation factor of 1.05 applied to all 2018 unit rates from RS Means. Factor from Turner Cost index, which was 1105 in 3rd quarter of 2018 and 1162 in 3rd quarter of 2019.
Locality factor of 1.07 applied for Pennsylvania for all unit rates from RS Means and RACER Cost Database. Locality factor not applied to engineering estimates or vendor quotes because those costs are independent of site location.
ASTM = American Standard Test Method
C02 = carbon dioxide
CY = cubic yard
EA = each
EPA = U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
FMA = Former Manufacturing Area
HR = hour
KW = kilowatt
lb = pound
LF = linear foot
LS = lump sum
MSF = one thousand square feet
TAL = target analyte list
VOC = volatile oiganic compound
Page 3 of 3
-------
Table D.7
Summary of Annual Costs for FMA Alternatives 2 and 3
Jackson Ceramix Site
Site: Jackson Ceramix Site
Location: Borough of Falls Creek, PA
Phase: Feasibility Study
Base Year: 2020
Date: November 2019
Description: Annual Costs for FMA Alternatives 2 and 3
I'.stimatecl
I nit of
Locality
Inflation
Item Description
Quantity
Measure
I Hit cost
Factor
(•'actor
Project C ost
Subtotal
.Notes
Annual Cover Inspection
Staff Engineer
1
Day
$ 790.00
1.07
1.20
1,012.62
Inspection includes truck, travel, and per diem
$ 1,013
Annual Cover Maintenance
Engineering estimate (includes bagged topsoil, seed, straw mulch, erosion control pins, and other materials needed
Cover Maintenance/Repair Materials
1
LS
$ 500.00
1.07
1.00
535.00
to complete minor repairs on the cover).
Staff Engineer
1
Days
$ 790.00
1.07
1.20
1,012.62
includes truck, travel, and per diem
Mobilization/Demobilization for Mowing
1
EA
$ 300.00
1.00
1.00
300.00
Engineering estimate
Mowing (12 acres, three times per year)
36
Acres
$ 252.38
1.07
1.20
11,645.97
RACER Cost Database (Assembly 18050415, 8/2/2016)
$ 13,494
Annual Renortins
1 Annual O&M Report
1
LS
$ 5,000.00
1.07
1.00
5,350.00
$ 5,350
Engineering estimate
Annual Costs with Cover Inspection and Reporting (No Maintenance)
Subtotal Costs
S 6,363
Scope contingency
15%
percent
S 954
EPA Guidance** (Range 15 - 55%)
Project Management
10%
percent
S 636
Based on EPA guidance document EPA 540-R-00-002
Technical Support
15%
percent
S 954
Based on EPA guidance document EPA 540-R-00-002
Total Annual Cost Per Year (Year 1 and 2):
$ 8,908
Annual Costs with Cover Inspection, Cover Maintenance, and Reporting
Subtotal Costs
S 19,856
Scope contingency
15%
percent
S 2,978
EPA Guidance** (Range 15 - 55%)
Project Management
10%
percent
S 1,986
Based on EPA guidance document EPA 540-R-00-002
Technical Support
15%
percent
S 2,978
Based on EPA guidance document EPA 540-R-00-002
Total Annual Cost Per Year (Years 3
through 30):
$ 27,799
Notes:
Assume no cover maintenance costs for Years 1 and 2 while the cover is being repaired.
Inflation factor of 1.17 applied to all 2016 unit rates fromRS Means and RACER Cost Database. Factor from Turner Cost index, which was 970 in 1st quarter of 2016 and 1135 in 1st quarter of 2019.
Locality factor of 1.07 applied for Pennsylvania for all unit rates from RS Means and RACER Cost Database. Locality factor not applied to engineering estimates or vendor quotes because those costs are independent of site location.
EA = each LS = lump sum
EPA = U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 0&M=operation and maintenance
FMA = Former Manufacturing Area TAL = target analyte list
LF = linear foot VOC = volatile organic compound
Page 1 of 1
-------
Table D.8
Summary of Periodic Costs for FMA Alternatives 2 and 3
Jackson Ceramix Site
The Borough of Falls Creek, Jefferson and Clearfield Counties, PA
Site:
Location:
Phase:
Base Year:
Date:
Description:
Jackson Ceramix Site
Borough of Falls Creek, PA
Feasibility Study
2020
November 2019
Periodic Costs for FMA Alternatives 2 and 3
Item
Description
Ktlrnateil
Quantity
Unit of
Measure
Unit cost
Locality
Factor
Project Cost
Notes
Survev Landfill Cover
Mobilization/Demobilization
Survey Crew (2-person)
Oversight (mid-level scientist)
1
16
1
EA
HR
Day
$ 400.00
$ 150.00
$ 1,000.00
Subtotal:
1.07
1.07
1.00
$ 428.00
$ 2,568.00
$ 1,000.00
$ 3,996
Vendor quote
Vendor quote
Includes truck, travel, and per diem
Proiect Cost and Contingencies Summary
Periodic Costs Subtotal
Project Management
10%
percent
Total Periodic Costs
$ 3,996
$ 399.60
$ 4,396
Based on EPA guidance document EPA 540-R-00-002
Notes:
Assume that the cover is surveyed every 5 years to monitor for settlement.
EA = each
EPA = U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FMA = Former Manufacturing Area
11R = hour
Page 1 of 1
-------
Table D.9
BFA Cost Summary, All UFA Alternatives
Jackson Ceramix Site
The Borough of Falls Creek, Jefferson and Clearfield Counties, PA
BFA Alternative
Duration,
years
Total Present
Value of Capital
Costs
Total Present
Value of Annual
Costs
Total Present
Value of
Periodic Costs
Total Present
Value of
Alternative
BFA Alternative I: No Action
N/A
$
$
$
$
BFA Alternative 2: Excavation with Off-Site Disposal
1
$ 39,100
$
$
$ 39,100
Notes:
BFA = Baseball Field Area (Taylor Municipal Park)
O&M = operation and maintenance
N/A = not applicable
Page I of I
-------
Table D. 10 (Continued)
UFA Alternative 2 - Excavation with Off-Site Disposal
Jackson Ceramix Site
The Borough of Falls Creek, Jefferson and Clearfield Counties, PA
Site: Jackson Ceramix Site
Location: Burrough of Falls Creek, P A
Phase: Feasibility Study
Base Year: 2020
Date: June 2019
Capital Cost Summary (Year 0)
Total Soil Excavation Area (square feet) = 140
Total Excavation Soil Volume, in place (BCY) = 8
Total Excavation Soil Volume, removed with 20% swell (LCY) = 10
Soil CY to Tons conversion (tons/CY) = 1.3
Estimated Excavation Soil Volume (tons) = 13
*LocationFactor for RS Means Costs (Pennsylvania Avg) = 1.07
Description
Qty
UOM
Unit Cost
Location
Factor
Inflation
Factor
Total Cost
Subtotals
Remarks
Mobilization
Utility Location / Clearance (ground penetrating radar)
Decontamination Pad
Excavation. Transport & Disposal
Excavate and Load. Bank Measure, Medium Material. 3/4 CY Bucket
Excavator
12 CY Dump Truck Haul/Hour
Operating Costs
Haul and Dispose of Nonhazardous Soil at Landfill
Waste Characterization Analysis
Soil and Erosion Control (silt fence)
Site Restoration
Backfill. 6-inch lifts, off-site (includes delivery, spreading, compaction)
Topsoil placement and grading, loam. 6-inch deep, placed
Seeding, Vegetative Cover
Final survey, 2-person crew
ElcavatjonlMdikerslght
Site supervisor
Laborer
Rental truck
Truck fuel
Site Closeout Report
Remedial Action Completion Report
0.5
1
10
1
13
1
160
5
3
17
0.5
1
10
Day
Each
LCY
Hrs
Day
Ton
Each
LF
LCY
LCY
SY
Day
Hrs
Hrs
Day
Gallon
LS
105.00 1.07
507.44 1.07
4.45
104.72
312.40
52.00
1,300.00
1.88
22.01
34.50
1.60
980.72
90.00
60.00
95.00
2.50
$ 15,000.00
1.07
1.07
1.07
1.00
1.07
1.07
1.07
1.07
1.07
1.07
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.17
1.17
1.17
1.17
1.03
1.00
1.00
1.03
1.17
1.17
1.17
1.17
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
65.72
635.26
55.71
1,048.79
344.30
676.00
1,391.00
331.51
131.65
129.57
33.38
613.88
720.00
480.00
95.00
25.00
$ 15,000.00
701
2016 RACER 33029903
2016 R ACER 16029018
2016 R ACER 17030276
2016 R ACER 17020416
2018 RS Means, 01 54 33 450
Vendor Estimate (Greentree Landfill)
Vendor Estimate (Greentree Landfill). I sample per 250 CY
2018 RS Means 31 25 14.16 1000
3.847
2016 R ACER 17030423
2016 RACER 33111106
2016 R ACER 17030423
2016 RACER 33220212
908
EE
EE, junior scientist
Enterprise online quote
EE
1.320
EE
15.000
Page I of 2
-------
Table D. 10 (Continued)
UFA Alternative 2 - Excavation with Off-Site Disposal
Jackson Ceramix Site
The Borough of Falls Creek, Jefferson and Clearfield Counties, PA
Description
Qtv UOM Unit Cost
Location
Factor
Inflation
Factor
Total Cost
Subtotals
Remarks I
Project Cost and Contingencies Summary
Capital Cost Subtotal
$ 21,777
Bid Contingency
Scope Contingency
15%
20%
$ 3,267
$ 4,355
EPA Guidance** (typically 10 - 20%)
EPA Guidance** (Range 15 - 55%)
Capital with Contingency
$ 29,399
Professional Services
Project Management (excludes O&P)
Remedial Design (excludes O&P)
Construction Management (excludes O&P)
8%
15%
10%
$ 2,352
$ 4,410
$ 2,940
EPA Guidance**
EPA Guidance**
EPA Guidance**
TOTAL CAPITAL COST
$ 39,100
Notes:
**A Guide to Developing and Documenting Cost Estimates During the Feasibility Study EPA 540-R-00-002, July 2000
RACER costs obtained from version 11.5 in April/May 2019.
Inflation factor of 1.17 applied to all 2016 unit rates from RS Means and RACER Cost Database. Factor from Turner Cost index, which was 970 in 1st quarter of 2016 and 1135 in 1st quarter of 2019.
Inflation factor of 1.03 applied to all 2018 unit rates from RS Means. Factor from Turner Cost index, which was 1105 in 3rd quarter of 2018 and 1135 in 1st quarter of 2019.
Locality factor of 1.07 applied for Pennsylvania for all unit rates from RS Means and RACER Cost Database. Locality factor not applied to engineering estimates or vendor quotes because those costs are independent of site location.
BCY = bank cubic yard
CY = cubic yard
EE = engineer's estimate
HR = hours
LCY = loose cubic yard
LF = linear foot
LS = lump sum
QTY = quantity
SY = square yard
UOM = unit of measure
Page 2 of 2
-------
Table DM
NDC/FL Cost Summary, All NDC/FL Alternatives
Jackson Ceramix Site
The Borough of Falls Creek, Jefferson and Clearfield Counties, PA
NDC/FL Alternative
Duration,
Years
Total Present
Value of Capital
Costs
Total Present
Value of Annual
Costs
Total Present
Value of Periodic
Costs
Total Present
Value of
Alternative
NDC/FL Alternative 1: No Action
N/A
$
$
$
$
NDC/FL Alternative 2: Excavation with Ex Situ
Stabilization and Off-Site Disposal for NDC Surface
Soils. FL Sediments, and FL Subsurface Soil Hotspot;
In Situ Bioavailability Reduction for NDC Surface
Soils; ICs
30
$ 5,365,636
$ 566,843
$ 1,887,115
$ 7,819,594
NDC/FL Alternative 3: In Situ Stabilization for NDC
Surface Soils; Wet Excavation with Off-Site Disposal;
In Situ Soil Cover for FL Sediments and FL Subsurface
Soil Hotspot; ICs
30
$ 2,257,339
$ 516,890
$ 712,588
$ 3,486,817
NDC/FL Alternative 4: In Situ Stabilization for NDC
Surface Soils; Excavation with Ex Situ Stabilization
and Off-Site Disposal for FL Sediments; 1 Cs
30
$ 2,463,626
$ 439,805
$ 71 1.604
$ 3,615,035
Notes:
FL = Former Lagoon; sludge settling lagoon
N/A = not applicable
NDC = Northern Drainage Channel
Page 1 of 1
-------
Table D.12
NDC/FL Remedial Alternatives Assumptions
Jackson Ceramix Site
The Borough of Falls Creek, Jefferson and Clearfield Counties, PA
Contaminated Soil/Sediment Location
Area
(square feet)
Depth Interval
(feet)
Volume
(cubic feet)
Volume
(BCY)
Excavated Volume,
20% swell factor (LCY)
NDC - herbaceous vegetation portion
100,300
0-2
200,600
7,430
8,920
NDC - forested wetland vegetation portion
236,700
0-2
473,400
17,540
21,050
NDC - drainage channels
4,000
0-1
4,000
150
—
FL - upper 2 feet sediment
9,000
0-2
18,000
670
810
FL - subsurface soil hotspot
3,000
2-5.5*
13,500
500
600
Notes:
* Hotspot sample in FL was from 3 to 5 feet below ground surface (bgs); however excavation volumes assume that soil from bottom of surface soil interval (2 feet bgs) down to 5.5 feet bgs (over excavation of 6
inches) would be required to capture the hotspot.
BCY = bank cubic yards NDC = Northern Drainage Channel 346,000
LCY = loose cubic yards FL = Former Lagoon
Assumptions for NDC/FL Alternatives
NDC/FL Alternative 2: Excavation with Ex Situ Stabilization and Off-Site Disposal for NDC Surface Soils. FL Sediments, and FL Subsurface Soil Hotspot: In
Situ Bioavailability Reduction for NDC Surface Soils; ICs
Assumptions associated with in situ treatment ofNDC surface soils:
- Manually apply liquid stabilization amendment (such as biochar or humic acid) throughout contaminant of concern (COC)-contaminated surface soils in NDC
containing forested wetland vegetation.
- Assumes that application method will be through manual injection and will cover 5,000 square feet per person per day. With two laborers, applying amendment will
take 24 days, assuming working 10-hr shifts per day.
- Assumes reapplication of stabilization amendment every 5 years.
- Perform long-term monitoring (collecting semiannual soil, surface water, and groundwater samples) and annual reporting for 30 years to ensure stabilization of
metals.
Assumptions associated with vacuum dredging NDC surface water drainage channels and impoundments:
- Assumed 4 drainage channels that are 500 feet in length, average bottom width of 2 feet, and contaminated sediment depth of 1 foot.
- Assume half of the drainage channel area is located in portion ofNDC with herbaceous vegetation and half in portion ofNDC with forested wetland vegetation.
- Assume vacuum dredging production rate of 5 cubic yards per hour (CY/hr) to account for maneuvering slowly along 2000 feet of channels and dragging hoses
through dense vegetation.
- Assume that dredged sediment is transported to a constructed dewatering containment area of 2,500 square feet (50 feet by 50 feet by 3 feet deep). Time required to
dewater the spoils depends on weather conditions and the thickness of the spoil pile. Typical construction would be building a temporary berm around the dewatering
area with a gentle slope away from the point where spoils are introduced. Water will collect in the far side of the area away from the introduction point.
- Assume the dredge slurry has a solids content of 40 percent when introduced to the dewatering basin. Assume in situ water content of 30 percent. Assume 10
percent moisture content after dewatering is complete. Estimated dewatering water volume for disposal would be approximately 15,000 gallons. Does not account
for loss of water by evaporation or infiltration.
- Soil transport and disposal unit costs for 150 cubic yard (CY) of dredge spoils after dewatering.
- No confirmation samples will be collected because contamination is vertically delineated.
Page 1 of 4
-------
Table D.12
NDC/FL Remedial Alternatives Assumptions
Jackson Ceramix Site
The Borough of Falls Creek, Jefferson and Clearfield Counties, PA
- Channels will not be backfilled.
Assumptions associated with dry excavation ofNDC and FL:
- Install cofferdam to divert water from NDC and FL.
- Pump surface water around work area.
- Soil/sediment from NDC is likely nonhazardous.
- Sediment and subsurface soil from FL is potentially characterized as hazardous with lead Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) greater than (>) 5
milligrams per liter (mg/L).
- Wetland vegetation survey will be conducted to define and map which NDC areas contain herbaceous vegetation and which areas contain forested wetland
- Excavate surface soil from COC-contaminated portion ofNDC that contains herbaceous vegetation, load into 14-CY dump trucks, and transport to nearby landfill
for disposal.
- Excavate upper 2 feet of the FL and the subsurface hotspot to 5.5 feet bgs at the FL. Haul excavated sediment to lined rolloff bin. Collect sample to determine
whether material is hazardous (TCLP > 5 mg/L of lead). It is assumed that all FL material will exceed TCLP threshold value with 5 mg/L of lead.
- Assumes that ex situ stabilization treatment of FL sediment/subsurface soil will with amendment on tarped laydown area in 250 CY batches using backhoe.
- Collect confirmation samples from treated material to verify material rendered nonhazardous. Transport and dispose of treated material at nearby landfill.
- No confirmation samples will be collected because excavations are vertically delineated.
- Assume backfill source is available within 15 miles of Site.
- Backfill open NDC and FL excavations with clean material.
- Revegetate disturbed areas with native wetland vegetation at 1,000 square yards (SY) per day
- Perform preliminary and post remedial action topographic surveys.
- Work assumes 10 hours per day and 5 days per week schedule.
Assumptions associated with ICs:
- Prevent residential development.
- Perform annual land use control (LUC) inspections and reporting for 30 years.
NDC/FL Alternative 3: In Situ Stabilization for NDC Surface Soils: Wet Excavation with Off-Site Disposal: In Situ Soil Cover for FL Sediments and FL
Subsurface Soil Hotspot: ICs
Assumptions associated with in situ treatment ofNDC surface soils:
- Manually apply liquid stabilization amendment (such as biochar or humic acid) throughout COC-contaminated surface soils in NDC.
- Application method will be through manual injection. Application rate will be 5,000 square feet per person per day (10 hr days). Assume two laborers will be
required to complete application.
- Initial applications will occur with a pilot study (30% of area) and then a full-scale application (remaining 70% of area). These will be two separate events, requiring
separate mob/demobs. Confirmation samples collected after application at a rate of 1 per 500 CY.
- Reapplication will only occur 5 years after full-scale implementation.
- Long-term monitoring and reporting will occur annually through Yr 7, then will occur every 5 yrs until Yr 30 or until performance objectives are obtained to ensure
protectiveness/effectiveness of remedy.
Assumptions associated with vacuum dredging NDC surface water drainage channels and impoundments:
- Assumed 4 drainage channels that are 500 feet in length, average bottom width of 2 feet, and contaminated sediment depth of 1 foot.
Page 2 of 4
-------
Table D.12
NDC/FL Remedial Alternatives Assumptions
Jackson Ceramix Site
The Borough of Falls Creek, Jefferson and Clearfield Counties, PA
- Assume half of the drainage channel area is located in portion ofNDC with herbaceous vegetation and half in portion ofNDC with forested wetland vegetation.
- Assume vacuum dredging production rate of 5 CY/hr to account for maneuvering slowly along 2000 feet of channels and dragging hoses through dense vegetation.
- Assume that dredged sediment is transported to a constructed dewatering containment area of 2,500 square feet (50 feet by 50 feet by 3 feet deep). Time required to
dewater the spoils depends on weather conditions and the thickness of the spoil pile. Typical construction would be building a temporary berm around the dewatering
area with a gentle slope away from the point where spoils are introduced. Water will collect in the far side of the area away from the introduction point.
- Assume the dredge slurry has a solids content of 40 percent when introduced to the dewatering basin. Assume in situ water content of 30 percent. Assume 10
percent moisture content after dewatering is complete. Estimated dewatering water volume for disposal would be approximately 15,000 gallons. Does not account
for loss of water by evaporation or infiltration.
- Soil transport and disposal unit costs for 150 CY of dredge spoils after dewatering.
- No confirmation samples will be collected because contamination is vertically delineated.
- Channels will not be backfilled.
Assumptions associated with in situ soil cover of FL:
- Install AquaBlok™ over FL, place 12 inches of sediment on top, and revegetate with emergent wetland plant seeds.
- Collect confirmation samples from surface water of FL and analyze for metals.
- Perform preliminary and post remedial action topographic survey of FL.
- Perform long-term monitoring (collecting annual soil, surface water, and groundwater samples) and annual reporting for 30 years.
- Perform annual LUC inspections and reporting for 30 years.
NDC/FL Alternative 4: In Situ Stabilization for NDC Surface Soils: Excavation with Ex Situ Stabilization and Off-Site Disposal for FL Sediments: ICs
Assumptions associated with in situ treatment ofNDC surface soils:
- Manually apply liquid stabilization amendment (such as biochar or humic acid) throughout COC-contaminated surface soils in NDC.
- Application method will be through manual injection. Application rate will be 5,000 square feet per person per day (10 hr days). Assume two laborers will be
required to complete application.
- Initial applications will occur with a pilot study (30% of area) and then a full-scale application (remaining 70% of area). These will be two separate events, requiring
separate mob/demobs. Confirmation samples collected after application at a rate of 1 per 500 CY.
- Reapplication will only occur 5 years after full-scale implementation.
- Long-term monitoring and reporting will occur annually through Yr 7, then will occur every 5 yrs until Yr 30 or until bioavailable lead concentrations are below
performance objectives to ensure protectiveness/effectiveness of remedy.
Assumptions associated with vacuum dredging NDC surface water drainage channels and impoundments:
- Assumed 4 drainage channels that are 500 feet in length, average bottom width of 2 feet, and contaminated sediment depth of 1 foot.
- Assume half of the drainage channel area is located in portion ofNDC with herbaceous vegetation and half in portion ofNDC with forested wetland vegetation.
- Assume vacuum dredging production rate of 5 CY/hr to account for maneuvering slowly along 2000 feet of channels and dragging hoses through dense vegetation.
Page 3 of 4
-------
Table D.12
NDC/FL Remedial Alternatives Assumptions
Jackson Ceramix Site
The Borough of Falls Creek, Jefferson and Clearfield Counties, PA
- Assume that dredged sediment is transported to a constructed dewatering containment area of 2,500 square feet (50 feet by 50 feet by 3 feet deep). Time required to
dewater the spoils depends on weather conditions and the thickness of the spoil pile. Typical construction would be building a temporary berm around the dewatering
area with a gentle slope away from the point where spoils are introduced. Water will collect in the far side of the area away from the introduction point.
- Assume the dredge slurry has a solids content of 40 percent when introduced to the dewatering basin. Assume in situ water content of 30 percent. Assume 10
percent moisture content after dewatering is complete. Estimated dewatering water volume for disposal would be approximately 15,000 gallons. Does not account
for loss of water by evaporation or infiltration.
- Soil transport and disposal unit costs for 150 CY of dredge spoils after dewatering.
- No confirmation samples will be collected because contamination is vertically delineated.
- Channels will not be backfilled.
Assumptions associated with excavation of FL:
- Install cofferdam to divert water from FL.
- Pump surface water around work area.
- Sediment and subsurface soil from FL is potentially characterized as hazardous with lead TCLP > 5 mg/L.
- Excavate upper 2 feet of the FL and the subsurface hotspot to 5.5 feet bgs at the FL. Haul excavated sediment to lined rolloff bin. Collect sample to determine
whether material is hazardous (TCLP > 5 mg/L of lead). It is assumed that all FL material will exceed TCLP threshold value with 5 mg/L of lead.
- Assumes that ex situ stabilization treatment of FL sediment/subsurface soil will with amendment on tarped laydown area in 250 CY batches using backhoe.
- Collect confirmation samples from treated material to verify material rendered nonhazardous. Transport and dispose of treated material at nearby landfill.
- Assume backfill source is available within 15 miles of Site.
- Backfill open FL excavations with clean material.
- Revegetate disturbed areas with native wetland vegetation at 1,000 SY per day
- Perform preliminary and post remedial action topographic surveys.
- Work assumes 10 hours per day and 5 days per week schedule.
Assumptions associated with ICs:
- Prevent residential development.
- Perform annual LUC inspections and reporting for 30 years or until performance objectives are achieved.
Page 4 of 4
-------
Table D.13
NDC/FL Alternative 2 - Present Value Analysis
Jackson Ceramix Site
The Borough of Falls Creek, Jefferson and Clearfield Counties, PA
NDC/FL Alternative 2: Excavation with Ex Situ Stabilization and Off-Site Disposal for NDC Surface Soils, FL Sediments,
and FL Subsurface Soil Hotspot; In Situ Bioavailability Reduction for NDC Surface Soils; ICs
Year
Capital Costs
Present Value
Annual
Present
Value of
Annual Costs
Periodic-
Present Value
of
Periodic Costs
Cumulative
of Capital Costs
Costs
Costs
Present Value
0
$ 5,377,114.70
$ 5,365,635.84
$
$
$
$
$ 5,365,635.84
1
$
$
$ 45,679.87
$ 42,691.47
$
$
$ 42,691.47
2
$
$
$ 45,679.87
$ 39,898.57
$
$
$ 39,898.57
3
$
$
$ 45,679.87
$ 37,288.38
$
$
$ 37,288.38
4
$
$
$ 45,679.87
$ 34,848.95
$
$
$ 34,848.95
5
$
$
$ 45,679.87
$ 32,569.12
$ 874,548.37
$ 623,540.90
$ 656,110.02
6
$
$
$ 45,679.87
$ 30,438.43
$
$
$ 30,438.43
7
8
& &
a a
& &
a a
$ 45,679.87
$ 45,679.87
$ 28,447.13
$ 26,586.10
& &
a a
& &
a a
$ 28,447.13
$ 26,586.10
9
$
$
$ 45,679.87
$ 24,846.82
$
$
$ 24,846.82
10
$
$
$ 45,679.87
$ 23,221.33
$ 874,548.37
$ 444,576.05
$ 467,797.37
11
$
$
$ 45,679.87
$ 21,702.18
$
$
$ 21,702.18
12
$
$
$ 45,679.87
$ 20,282.41
$
$
$ 20,282.41
13
$
$
$ 45,679.87
$ 18,955.52
$
$
$ 18,955.52
14
$
$
$ 45,679.87
$ 17,715.44
$
$
$ 17,715.44
15
$
$
$ 45,679.87
$ 16,556.49
$ 874,548.37
$ 316,976.58
$ 333,533.06
16
$
$
$ 45,679.87
$ 15,473.35
$
$
$ 15,473.35
17
$
$
$ 45,679.87
$ 14,461.08
$
$
$ 14,461.08
18
$
$
$ 45,679.87
$ 13,515.02
$
$
$ 13,515.02
19
$
$
$ 45,679.87
$ 12,630.86
$
$
$ 12,630.86
20
$
$
$ 45,679.87
$ 11,804.55
$ 874,548.37
$ 225,999.92
$ 237,804.46
21
$
$
$ 45,679.87
$ 11,032.29
$
$
$ 11,032.29
22
$
$
$ 45,679.87
$ 10,310.55
$
$
$ 10,310.55
23
$
$
$ 45,679.87
$ 9,636.03
$
$
$ 9,636.03
24
$
$
$ 45,679.87
$ 9,005.63
$
$
$ 9,005.63
25
$
$
$ 45,679.87
$ 8,416.48
$ 874,548.37
$ 161,134.82
$ 169,551.30
26
$
$
$ 45,679.87
$ 7,865.87
$
$
$ 7,865.87
27
$
$
$ 45,679.87
$ 7,351.28
$
$
$ 7,351.28
28
$
$
$ 45,679.87
$ 6,870.35
$
$
$ 6,870.35
29
$
$
$ 45,679.87
$ 6,420.89
$
$
$ 6,420.89
30
$
$
$ 45,679.87
$ 6,000.83
$ 874,548.37
$ 114,886.90
$ 120,887.73
TOTAL
$ 5,377,115
$ 5,365,636
$ 566,843
$ 1,887,115
$ 7,819,594
Notes:
Discount rate of 7% from EPA OSWER Directive 9355.0-75 (A Guide to Developing and Documenting Cost Estimates During the Feasibility Study) dated July
2000.
FL = Former Lagoon; sludge settling lagoon
NDC = Northern Drainage Channel
Page 1 of 1
-------
Table D.14
NDC/FL Alternative 3
- Present Value Analysis
Jackson Ceramix Site
The Borough of Falls Creek, Jefferson and Clearfield Counties, PA
NDC/FL Alternative 3: In Situ Stabilization for NDC Surfaee Soils; Wet Exeavation with Off-Site Disposal; In Situ Soil
Cover for FL Sediments and FL Subsurface Soil Hotspot; ICs
Annual
Present Value
Periodie
Present Value
Cumulative
Year
Capital Costs
Present Value
of Annual
Costs
of
Periodie Costs
of Capital Costs
Costs
Costs
Present Value
0
$ 2,262,168.46
$ 2,257,339.26
$
$
$
$
$ 2,257,339.26
1
$
$
$ 72,787.81
$ 68,025.99
$
$
$ 68,025.99
2
$
$
$ 72,787.81
$ 63,575.69
$
$
$ 63,575.69
3
$
$
$ 72,787.81
$ 59,416.54
$
$
$ 59,416.54
4
$
$
$ 72,787.81
$ 55,529.47
$
$
$ 55,529.47
5
$
$
$ 72,787.81
$ 51,896.70
$ 999,441.11
$ 712,587.70
$ 764,484.40
6
$
$
$ 72,787.81
$ 48,501.59
$
$
$ 48,501.59
7
8
$
$
$
$
$ 72,787.81
$ 7,000.63
$ 45,328.59
$ 4,074.43
$
$
$
$
$ 45,328.59
$ 4,074.43
9
$
$
$ 7,000.63
$ 3,807.88
$
$
$ 3,807.88
10
$
$
$ 7,000.63
$ 3,558.76
$
$
$ 3,558.76
11
$
$
$ 7,000.63
$ 3,325.95
$
$
$ 3,325.95
12
$
$
$ 72,787.81
$ 32,318.66
$
$
$ 32,318.66
13
$
$
$ 7,000.63
$ 2,905.01
$
$
$ 2,905.01
14
$
$
$ 7,000.63
$ 2,714.96
$
$
$ 2,714.96
15
$
$
$ 7,000.63
$ 2,537.35
$
$
$ 2,537.35
16
$
$
$ 7,000.63
$ 2,371.35
$
$
$ 2,371.35
17
$
$
$ 72,787.81
$ 23,042.76
$
$
$ 23,042.76
18
$
$
$ 7,000.63
$ 2,071.23
$
$
$ 2,071.23
19
$
$
$ 7,000.63
$ 1,935.73
$
$
$ 1,935.73
20
$
$
$ 7,000.63
$ 1,809.09
$
$
$ 1,809.09
21
$
$
$ 7,000.63
$ 1,690.74
$
$
$ 1,690.74
22
$
$
$ 72,787.81
$ 16,429.17
$
$
$ 16,429.17
23
$
$
$ 7,000.63
$ 1,476.76
$
$
$ 1,476.76
24
$
$
$ 7,000.63
$ 1,380.15
$
$
$ 1,380.15
25
$
$
$ 7,000.63
$ 1,289.86
$
$
$ 1,289.86
26
$
$
$ 7,000.63
$ 1,205.48
$
$
$ 1,205.48
27
$
$
$ 72,787.81
$ 11,713.77
$
$
$ 11,713.77
28
$
$
$ 7,000.63
$ 1,052.91
$
$
$ 1,052.91
29
$
$
$ 7,000.63
$ 984.03
$
$
$ 984.03
30
$
$
$ 7,000.63
$ 919.65
$
$
$ 919.65
TOTAL
$ 2,262,168
$ 2,257,339
$ 516,890
$ 712,588
$ 3,486,817
Notes:
Discount rate of 7% from EPA OSWER Directive 93 5 5.0-75 (A Guide to Developing and Documenting Cost Estimates During the Feasibility Study) dated July
2000.
FL = Former Lagoon; sludge settling lagoon
IC = Institutional Controls
NDC = Northern Drainage Channel
Page 1 of 1
-------
Table D.15
NDC/FL Alternative 4 - Present Value Analysis
Jackson Ceramix Site
The Borough of Falls Creek, Jefferson and Clearfield Counties, PA
NDC/FL Alternative 4: In Situ Stabilization for NDC Surface Soils; Excavation with Ex Situ Stabilization and Off-Site
Disposal for FL Sediments; ICs
Year
Capital Costs
Present Value
of Capital Costs
Annual
Costs
Present
Value of
Annual Costs
Periodic
Costs
Present Value
of
Periodic Costs
Cumulative
Present Value
0
$ 2,468,896.40
$ 2,463,625.89
$
$
$
$
$ 2,463,625.89
1
$
$
$ 69,877.31
$ 65,305.89
$
-
$
$ 65,305.89
2
$
$
$ 69,877.31
$ 61,033.55
$
-
$
$ 61,033.55
3
$
$
$ 69,877.31
$ 57,040.70
$
-
$
$ 57,040.70
4
$
$
$ 69,877.31
$ 53,309.06
$
-
$
$ 53,309.06
5
$
$
$ 69,877.31
$ 49,821.55
$
998,061.71
$ 711,604.20
$ 761.425.76
6
$
$
$ 69,877.31
$ 46,562.20
$
-
$
$ 46,562.20
7
8
& &
a a
& &
a a
$ 69,877.31
$ 4,090.12
$ 2.547.12
$ 2,380.49
$
$
-
& &
a a
$ 2.547.12
$ 2,380.49
9
$
$
$ 4,090.12
$ 2,224.75
$
-
$
$ 2.224.75
10
$
$
$ 4,090.12
$ 2,079.21
$
-
$
$ 2,079.21
11
$
$
$ 4,090.12
$ 1,943.19
$
-
$
$ 1,943.19
12
$
$
$ 69,877.31
$ 31,026.36
$
-
$
$ 31,026.36
13
$
$
$ 4,090.12
$ 1,697.25
$
-
$
$ 1,697.25
14
$
$
$ 4,090.12
$ 1,586.22
$
-
$
$ 1,586.22
15
$
$
$ 4,090.12
$ 1,482.45
$
-
$
$ 1,482.45
16
$
$
$ 4,090.12
$ 1,385.46
$
-
$
$ 1,385.46
17
$
$
$ 69,877.31
$ 22,121.37
$
-
$
$ 22,121.37
18
$
$
$ 4,090.12
$ 1,210.12
$
-
$
$ 1,210.12
19
$
$
$ 4,090.12
$ 1,130.95
$
-
$
$ 1,130.95
20
$
$
$ 4,090.12
$ 1,056.96
$
-
$
$ 1,056.96
21
$
$
$ 4,090.12
$ 987.82
$
-
$
$ 987.82
22
$
$
$ 69,877.31
$ 15,772.23
$
-
$
$ 15,772.23
23
$
$
$ 4,090.12
$ 862.80
$
-
$
$ 862.80
24
$
$
$ 4,090.12
$ 806.35
$
-
$
$ 806.35
25
$
$
$ 4,090.12
$ 753.60
$
-
$
$ 753.60
26
$
$
$ 4,090.12
$ 704.30
$
-
$
$ 704.30
27
$
$
$ 69,877.31
$ 11,245.38
$
-
$
$ 11,245.38
28
$
$
$ 4,090.12
$ 615.16
$
-
$
$ 615.16
29
$
$
$ 4,090.12
$ 574.92
$
-
$
$ 574.92
30
$
$
$ 4,090.12
$ 537.31
$
-
$
$ 537.31
TOTAL
S 2,468,896
S 2,463,626
S 439,805
S 711,604
S 3,615,035
1
Notes:
Discount rate of 7% from EPA OSWER Directive 93 5 5.0-75 (A Guide to Developing and Documenting Cost Estimates During the Feasibility Study) dated July
2000.
FL = Former Lagoon; sludge settling lagoon
IC = Institutional Controls
NDC = Northern Drainage Channel
Page 1 of 1
-------
Table D.16
Summary of Capital Costs for NDC/FL Alternative 2
Jackson Ceramix Site
The Borough of Falls Creek, Jefferson and Clearfield Counties, PA
Jackson Ceramix - OU1 NDC/FL
COST ESTIMATE SUMMARY
NDC/FL Alternative 2: Excavation with Ex Situ Stabilization and Off-Site Disposal for NDC Surface Soils, FL Sediments, and FL Subsurface Soil Hotspot; In Situ Bioavailability
Description: Reduction for NDC Surface Soils; ICs
Site: Jackson Ceramix
Locality Factor:
1.07
(Regional Avg for Pennsylvania)
Location: NDC/FL
Phase: Feasibility Study
Includes:
Base Year: 2020
- Excavation and off site disposal of contaminated NDC surface soils in
portion of NDC with herbaceous vegetation.
Date: November 2019
- Low-impact vacuum dredging of sediments within drainage channels.
- Excavation, stabilization treatment, and off site disposal of FL sediments and FL subsurface soil hotspot.
- In situ stabilization for contaminated NDC surface soils
in portion of NDC with forested wetland vegetation.
- ICs to prohibit residential development.
CAPITAL COSTS (Base Year)
DKSC RIP HON
Quantity
I nit of Measure
i nit
('ost
Locality
Factor
Inflation ,, . ,. .
Project( osts
Factor
Subtotal
.N'OTFS
Pre- Meld Activities
Prepare Work Plan (to include Accident Prevention Plan
and Quality Control Plan)
1.00
Lump Sum
$ 50,000
1.00
1.00 $
50,000.00
S 50,000
Assume Draft, Draft Final, and Final
Mobilization / Site Preparation
Survey (2-person crew)
5
Day
$ 980.72
1.07
1.20 $
6,296.22
2016 RACER 33220212
Decontamination Pad Construction
1
Lump Sum
$ 1,000.00
1.00
1.00 $
1,000.00
Engineering Estimate
Utility Location and Clearance
5
Hour
$ 472.80
1.00
1.20 $
2,836.80
2016 RACER 33022609
Clearing and Grubbing
3
Acre
$ 8,300.00
1.07
1.05 $
23,398.25
2018 RS Means, 31 13 13.10 0020
Brush disposal
1
Lump Sum
$ 400.00
1.00
1.00 $
400.00
Engineering Estimate
Office trailer, rent
4.2
Months
$ 327.00
1.07
1.05 $
1,543.01
2018 RS Means, 01 52 13.20 0350; 01 01 52 13.20 0700
Office trailer, delivery and pickup
1
Each
$ 3,000.00
1.07
1.05 $
3,370.50
2018 RS Means, 01 52 13.20 0890
Generator for office trailer, 5-KW
4.2
Months
$ 6,329.00
1.07
1.05 $
29,864.65
2018 RS Means, 01 54 33 2200
Field office equipment
4.2
Months
$ 226.00
1.07
1.05 $
1,066.43
2018 RS Means, 01 52 13.40 0100
Field office supplies
4.2
Months
$ 90.00
1.07
1.05 $
424.68
2018 RS Means, 01 52 13.40 0120
Storage (Conex) Rental
4.2
Months
$ 93.00
1.07
1.05 $
438.84
S 70.639
2018 RS Means, 01 52 13.20 1250
NIK' Surface Soil Excavation and Disposal
Pump
5
days
$ 305.20
1.07
1.05 $
1,714.46
2018 RSMeans, 01 54 33 4400
Cofferdam
2,000
LF
$ 79.00
1.00
1.00 $
158,000
Vendor Quote, Big Bags
Silt fence
2,000
LF
$ 1.36
1.07
1.20 $
3,492.48
2016 RACER 18050206
2CY Excavator, load on truck
7,430
BCY
$ 1.35
1.07
1.20 $
12,879.16
2016 RACER 17039917
Equipment Operator, Excavator
130
Hour
$ 52.58
1.07
1.20 $
8,776.65
2016 RACER 33221004
Backhoe w/Front End Loader
65
Hour
$ 28.66
1.07
1.20 $
2,391.96
2016 RACER 17030443, assume loader operated at 50% time of excavator
Equipment Operator, Backhoe
65
Hour
$ 52.58
1.07
1.20 $
4,388.33
2016 RACER 33221004
Haul and Dispose of Nonhazardous Soil at Greentree Landfill
9,659
tons
$ 52.00
1.00
1.00 $
502,268.00
Vendor Estimate (Greentree Landfill)
Waste Characterization Analysis
30
Each
$ 1,300.00
1.00
1.00 $
39,000.00
Vendor Estimate (Greentree Landfill), 1 sample per 250 CY
32 Ft. Dump Truck, 6 Mil Liner, disposable
10
Each
$ 31.31
1.07
1.20 $
402.02
2016 RACER 33190807
Diesel fuel
500
gallons
$ 2.24
1.07
1.20 $
1,438.08
S 734.751
2016 RACER 33420201
Page 1 of 3
-------
Table D.16 (Continued)
Summary of Capital Costs for NDC/FL Alternative 2
Jackson Ceramix Site
The Borough of Falls Creek, Jefferson and Clearfield Counties, PA
Jackson Ceramix - OU1 NDC/FL
COST ESTIMATE SUMMARY
CAPITAL COSTS (Base Year)
I nit
Locality
Inflation
DESCRIPTION
Quantity
I nit of Measure
( ost
Factor
Factor
Project ('osts
Subtotal .NOTES
NIK' Drainage Channel Sediment Vacuum Dredging and Disposal
Mobilization/Demobilization
1
Lump Sum $
2,500.00
1.00
1.00
$ 2,500.00
Engineering Estimate
Dredge pump, hoses, and dredge intake (rental)
5
Day $
2,000.00
1.00
1.00
$ 10,000.00
Engineering Estimate
Equipment Operator (2)
5
Day $
1,280.00
1.00
1.00
$ 6,400
Engineering Estimate
Construct Dewatering Basin
1
Lump Sum $
4,350.00
1.00
1.00
$ 4,350
Engineering Estimate
Silt fence
2,000
LF $
1.36
1.07
1.20
$ 3,492.48
2016 RACER 18050206
Pump
10
days $
305.20
1.07
1.05
$ 3,428.92
2018 RSMeans, 01 54 33 4400
Frac tank (5,000 gallon)
2
week $
3,955.00
1.00
1.00
$ 7,910.00
Vendor Estimate (March 2019)
Waste Characterization Analysis (dewatered sediment)
1
Each $
1,300.00
1.00
1.00
$ 1,300.00
Vendor Estimate (Greentree Landfill), 1 sample per 250 CY
Waste Characterization Analysis (dewatering water)
3
Each $
1,000.00
1.00
1.00
$ 3,000.00
Vendor Estimate (1 sample per 500 gallons)
2CY Excavator, load on truck
150
BCY $
1.35
1.07
1.20
$ 260.01
2016 RACER 17039917
Equipment Operator, Excavator
3
Hour $
52.58
1.07
1.20
$ 202.54
2016 RACER 33221004
Haul and Dispose of Nonhazardous Soil at Greentree Landfill
125
tons $
52.00
1.00
1.00
$ 6,500.00
Vendor Estimate (Greentree Landfill)
Haul and Dispose of Nonhazardous Water from Frac Tank
3
trip $
2,500.00
1.00
1.00
$ 7,500.00
Vendor Estimate (March 2019)
32 Ft. Dump Truck, 6 Mil Liner, disposable
4
Each $
31.31
1.07
1.20
$ 150.76
2016 RACER 33190807
Diesel fuel
200
gallons $
2.24
1.07
1.20
$ 575.23
$
2016 RACER 33420201
57.570
FL Sediment Excavation, Ex Situ Treatment, and Disposal
Silt fence
2,000
LF $
1.36
1.07
1.20
$ 3,492.48
2016 RACER 18050206
2CY Excavator, load on truck
1,170
BCY $
1.35
1.07
1.20
$ 2,028.08
2016 RACER 17039917
Equipment Operator, Excavator
20
Hour $
52.58
1.07
1.20
$ 1,350.25
2016 RACER 33221004
Backhoe w/Front End Loader
90
Hour $
28.66
1.07
1.20
$ 3,311.95
2016 RACER 17030443, used for loading at FL and staging area
Equipment Operator, Backhoe
90
Hour $
52.58
1.07
1.20
$ 6,076.14
2016 RACER 33221004
1.25 CY wheel loader
28
Hour $
102.78
1.07
1.20
$ 3,695.15
2016 RACER 17030220, use 8 hrs per day 50% of total treatment time
15 CY waste mixer
28
Hour $
104.72
1.07
1.20
$ 3,764.89
2016 RACER 33150434
Equipment Operator
28
Hour $
52.58
1.07
1.20
$ 1,890.36
2016 RACER 33221004
Bulk chemical transport (40,000 lb truckload)
1
Each $
2,675.00
1.07
1.20
$ 3,435
Soil stabilization
444
Square Yards $
15.81
1.07
1.20
$ 9,022.24
2016 RACER 17030607
Ancillary equipment for treatment
1
Lump Sum $
856.00
1.07
1.20
$ 1,099.10
2016 RACER 33150435
Confirmation samples (includes QA/QC), TCLP metals and TAL metals
2
Each $
303.55
1.07
1.20
$ 779.52
2016 RACER 33021702, 33020401, 33021620 (Assume 1 sample collected every
(includes disposal of sample)
1000 CY)
Haul and Dispose of Nonhazardous Soil at Greentree Landfill
2,008
ton $
52.00
1.00
1.00
$ 104,426.40
Vendor Estimate (Greentree Landfill)
Waste Characterization Analysis
7
Each $
1,300.00
1.00
1.00
$ 9,100.00
Vendor Estimate (Greentree Landfill), 1 sample per 250 CY
32 Ft. Dump Truck, 6 Mil Liner, disposable
5
Each $
30.07
1.07
1.20
$ 193.05
2016 RACER 33190807
Diesel fuel
200
gallons $
2.24
1.07
1.20
$ 575.23
$
2016 RACER 33420201
154.240
Backfill and Restore
950 Loader, 3 CY, Backfill with Borrow Material
31,368
BCY $
33.53
1.07
1.20
$ 1,350,471.45
2016 RACER 17010705, roundtrip less than 5 miles, load and haul
Place and Grade Backfill, includes compaction
31,368
ECY $
1.56
1.07
1.20
$ 62,831.36
2016 RACER 17030415
Compaction Operator
202
hours $
440.72
1.07
1.20
$ 114,463.61
2016 RACER 33170464
Soil testing, Proctor compaction, 4" standard mold, ASTM D698
8
Each
$123.00
1.07
1.20
$ 1,278.66
2016 RACER 33021114, assume 1 test per 500 SY
Seed Wetland w/ Bionutrients
95
LB
135.00
1.07
1.00
$ 13,722.75
Vendor quote, apply 1 lb per 2500 SF
Survey (2-person crew)
5
Day $
980.72
1.07
1.20
$ 6,296
2016 RACER 33220212
Diesel fuel
200
gallons $
2.24
1.07
1.20
$ 575.23
$
2016 RACER 33420201
1.549.639
NIK' In Situ Treatment
Biochar amendment (15% wt/wt application to NDC)
2,631
CY $
195.00
1.00
1.00
$ 513,045
Vendor Quote (BioChar Prime, full truckloads)
Shipping and handling
1
Lump Sum $
25,652
1.00
1.00
$ 25,652
Assume 5% of cost
Nonpressurized water system for 10 CY Mixer
1
Each $
2,500.00
1.07
1.20
$ 3,210
2016 RACER 33150426
10 CY Mixing System
1.1
Month $
7,166.38
1.07
1.20
$ 10,122
2016 RACER 33150423
Sprayers
2
Each $
200.00
1.07
1.00
$ 428
Eng. Est
Laborers (2)
473
Hour $
52.58
1.07
1.20
$ 31,960.52
2016 RACER 33221004
Confirmation soil samples (includes QA/QC), TAL metals
24
Each $
303.55
1.07
1.20
$ 9,354.20
$
2016 RACER 33020401 (Assume 1 sample collected every 10000 SF)
593.772
Page 2 of 3
-------
Table D.16 (Continued)
Summary of Capital Costs for NDC/FL Alternative 2
Jackson Ceramix Site
The Borough of Falls Creek, Jefferson and Clearfield Counties, PA
Jackson Ceramix - OU1 NDC/FL
COST ESTIMATE SUMMARY
CAPITAL COSTS (Base Year)
DESCRIPTION
Quantity
, I nit Locality Inflation ,, . ,,, ,
11ii11 ol Measure - Project ( ost.x
Cost Factor Factor
Subtotal
NOTES
Contractor Field Oversight
Site Safety and Health Officer
1,156
Hour $ 70.00 1.00 1.00 $ 80,895
Eng. Est
Fuel
1,156
Gallons $ 3.00 1.00 1.00 $ 3,467
Eng. estimate usage of 50 gallons per week
Track Rental
23
Weeks $ 92.00 1.00 1.00 $ 2,126
S 86.488
Eng. Est
Remedial Action Completion
Prepare Remedial Action Completion Report
1
LS $ 50,000 1.00 1.00 $ 50,000
S 50.000
Total Capital Costs
S 3,347,099
Bid Contingency
10%
$ 334,710
Middle of range listed in EPA's Feasibility Study Cost Guidance
25%
$ 836,775
Mid-range of scope contingency for soil excavation, Exhibit 5-6, EPA's Feasibility
Scope Contingency
Study Cost Guidance
Total Capital with Contingency
S 4,518,584
Professional Services
Project Management
5%
$ 225,929
Exhibit 5-8, EPA's Feasibility Study Cost Guidance
Remedial Design
8%
$ 361,487
Exhibit 5-8, EPA's Feasibility Study Cost Guidance
Construction Management
6%
$ 271,115
Exhibit 5-8, EPA's Feasibility Study Cost Guidance
Total Base Year Costs
S 5,377,115
RACER costs obtained from version 11.5 in April/May 2019.
Inflation factor of 1.20 applied to all 2016 unit rates from RS Means and RACER Cost Database. Factor from Turner Cost index, which was 970 in 1st quarter of 2016 and 1162 in 3rd quarter of 2019.
Inflation factor of 1.05 applied to all 2018 unit rates from RS Means. Factor from Turner Cost index, which was 1105 in 3rd quarter of 2018 and 1162 in 3rd quarter of 2019.
Locality factor of 1.07 applied for Pennsylvania for all unit rates from RS Means and RACER Cost Database.
Locality factor not applied to engineering estimates or vendor quotes because those costs are inc
ependent of site location.
Notes:
ASTM = American Standard Test Method
BCY = bank cubic yard
CY = cubic yard
EPA = U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FL = Former Lagoon; sludge settling lagoon
KW = kilowatt
lb = pound
LF = linear foot
NDC = Northern Drainage Channel
QA = quality assurance
QC = quality control
SF = square foot
TCLP = Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure
TAL = target analyte list
Page 3 of 3
-------
Table D.17
Summary of Capital Costs for NDC/FL Alternative 3
Jackson Ceramix Site
The Borough of Falls Creek, Jefferson and Clearfield Counties, PA
Jackson Ceramix - OU1 NDC/FL
COST ESTIMATE SUMMARY
NDC/FL Alternative 3: In Situ Stabilization for NDC Surface Soils; Wet Excavation with Off-Site Disposal; In Situ Soil Cover for FL Sediments and FL
Site: Jackson Ceramix
Description:
Subsurface Soil Hotspot; ICs
Location: NDC/FL
Locality Factor:
1.07
(Regional Avg
for Pennsylvania)
Phase: Feasibility Study
Base Year: 2020
Includes:
Date: November 2019
- In situ stabilization of all COC-contaminated NDC surface soils.
- Low-impact vacuum dredg
ing of sediments within drainaj
'e channels.
- Installation of in situ soil cover over contaminated FL sediments and FL subsurface soil hotspot.
- ICs to protect implemented remedy.
CAPITAL COSTS (Base Year)
Unit of
Unit
Locality
Inflation
DESCRIPTION
Quantity
Measu re
Cost
Factor
F acto r
Project Costs Subtotal
NOTES
Pre-Field Activities
Prepare Work Plan (to include Accident
Prevention Plan and Quality Control Plan)
1.00
Lump Sum
$ 50,000
1.00
1.00
$ 50,000.00
$
50,000
Assume Draft, Draft Final, and Final
Mobilization / Site Preparation
Pre-construction Survey and Staking
4
Day
$ 1,325.00
1.00
1.00
$ 5,300.00
Engineering Estimate
Decontamination Pad Construction
1
LS
$ 1,000.00
1.00
1.00
$ 1,000.00
Engineering Estimate
Utility Location and Clearance
5
HR
$ 472.80
1.00
1.20
$ 2,836.80
2016 RACER 33022609
Clearing and Grubbing
3
Acre
$ 8,300.00
1.07
1.05
$ 23,398.25
2018 RS Means, 31 13 13.10 0020
Brush disposal
1
LS
$ 400.00
1.00
1.00
$ 400.00
Engineering Estimate
Office trailer, rent
2.0
Months
$ 327.00
1.07
1.05
$ 734.77
2018 RS Means, 01 52 13.20 0350; 01 01 52 13.20 0700
Office trailer, delivery and pickup
1
EA
$ 3,000.00
1.07
1.05
$ 3,370.50
2018 RS Means, 01 52 13.20 0890
Generator for office trailer, 5-KW
2.0
Months
$ 6,329.00
1.07
1.05
$ 14,221.26
2018 RS Means, 01 54 33 2200
Field office equipment
2.0
Months
$ 226.00
1.07
1.05
$ 507.82
2018 RS Means, 01 52 13.40 0100
Field office supplies
2.0
Months
$ 90.00
1.07
1.05
$ 202.23
2018 RS Means, 01 52 13.40 0120
Storage (Conex) Rental
2.0
Months
$ 93.00
1.07
1.05
$ 208.97
$
2018 RS Means, 01 52 13.20 1250
NDC In Situ Treatment
Pump
5
days
$ 305.20
1.07
1.05
$ 1,714.46
2018 RS Means, 01 54 33 4400
Cofferdam
2,000
LF
$ 79.00
1.00
1.00
$ 158,000.00
Vendor Quote, Big Bags
Silt fence
2,000
LF
$ 1.36
1.07
1.20
$ 3,492.48
2016 RACER 18050206
Biochar amendment (15% wt/wt application to NDC
3,746
CY
$ 195.00
1
1.00
$ 730,470.00
Vendor Quote (BioChar Prime, full truckloads)
Bulk chemical transport (40,000 lb truckload)
1
EA
$ 36,524
1.07
1.00
$ 39,080
Assume 5% of cost
Nonpressurized water system for 10 CY Mixer
1
EA
$ 2,500.00
1.07
1.20
$ 3,210.00
2016 RACER 33150426
10 CY Mixing System
1.5
Month
$ 7,166.38
1.07
1.20
$ 14,095.23
2016 RACER 33150423
Sprayers
2
EA
$ 200.00
1.07
1.00
$ 428.00
Eng. Est
Laborers (2)
674
HR
$ 52.58
1.07
1.20
$ 45,503.57
2016 RACER 33221004
Confirmation samples (includes QA/QC), TCLP
metals and TAL metals (includes disposal of
sample)
100
EA
$ 303.55
1.07
1.20
$ 38,929.05
$
1,034,923
2016 RACER 33021702, 33020401, 33021620 (Assume 1 sample collected every 250
CY)
Page 1 of 3
-------
Table D.17 (Continued)
Summary of Capital Costs for NDC/FL Alternative 3
Jackson Ceramix Site
The Borough of Falls Creek, Jefferson and Clearfield Counties, PA
1 Jackson Ceramix - OU1 NDC/FL
COST ESTIMATE SUMMARY
CAPITAL COSTS (Base Year)
DESCRIPTION
Quantity
Unit of
Measu re
Unit
Cost
Locality
Factor
Inflation
Factor
Project Costs
Subtotal
NOTES
NDC Drainage Channel Sediment Vacuum Dredging and Disposal
Mobilization/Demobilization
1
Lump Sum !
2,500.00
1.00
1.00
$ 2,500.00
Engineering Estimate
Dredge pump, hoses, and dredge intake (rental)
5
Day 3
2,000.00
1.00
1.00
$ 10,000.00
Engineering Estimate
Equipment Operator (2)
5
Day 3
1,280.00
1.00
1.00
$ 6,400
Engineering Estimate
Construct Dewatering Basin
1
Lump Sum !
4,350.00
1.00
1.00
$ 4,350
Engineering Estimate
Silt fence
2,000
LF 3
1.36
1.07
1.20
$ 3,492.48
2016 RACER 18050206
Pump
10
days !
305.20
1.07
1.05
$ 3,428.92
2018 RSMeans, 01 54 33 4400
Frac tank (5,000 gallon)
2
week !
3,955.00
1.00
1.00
$ 7,910.00
Vendor Estimate (March 2019)
Waste Characterization Analysis (dewatered
1
EA S
1,300.00
1.00
1.00
$ 1,300.00
Vendor Estimate (Greentree Landfill), 1 sample per 250 CY
sediment)
Waste Characterization Analysis (dewatering
3
EA S
1,000.00
1.00
1.00
$ 3,000.00
Vendor Estimate (1 sample per 500 gallons)
water)
2CY Excavator, load on truck
150
BCY
1.35
1.07
1.20
$ 260.01
2016 RACER 17039917
Equipment Operator, Excavator
3
HR
52.58
1.07
1.20
$ 202.54
2016 RACER 33221004
Haul and Dispose of Nonhazardous Soil at Greentree
125
tons 3
52.00
1.00
1.00
$ 6,500.00
Vendor Estimate (Greentree Landfill)
Haul and Dispose of Nonhazardous Water from Frac
3
trip 3
2,500.00
1.00
1.00
$ 7,500.00
Vendor Estimate (March 2019)
32 Ft. Dump Truck, 6 Mil Liner, disposable
4
EA
31.31
1.07
1.20
$ 150.76
2016 RACER 33190807
Diesel fuel
200
gallons !
2.24
1.07
1.20
$ 575.23
$
57,570
2016 RACER 33420201
FL In Situ Soil Cover
AquaBlok material w/o delivery
315,000
LB 3
0.11
1.07
1.00
$ 38,520.00
Vendor Quote (35 lbs./SF)
Bulk chemical transport (40,000 lb truckload)
1
EA 3
1,926
1.07
1.00
$ 2,061
assume 5 percent of total cost
Crawler-mounted, 1 CY 215 Hydraulic Excavator (w
100
HR
98.06
1.07
1.20
$ 12,590.90
2016 RACER 17030230
AquaBlok Installation
0.2
Acre i
50,000
1.07
1.00
$ 11,053.72
Vendor Quote
Confirmation surface water samples (includes
10
EA 3
303.55
1.07
1.20
$ 3,897.58
QA/QC)
2016 RACER 33021702, 33020401, 33021620
950 Loader, 3 CY, Backfill with Borrow Material
333
CY 3
36.70
1.07
1.20
$ 15,707.60
2016 RACER 17010705, roundtrip less than 5 miles, load and haul
Place and Grade Backfill, includes compaction
333
ECY 3
1.56
1.07
1.20
$ 667.68
2016 RACER 17030415
Compaction Operator
16
HR 3
440.72
1.07
1.20
$ 9,054.15
2016 RACER 33170464
Soil testing, Proctor compaction, 4" standard
mold, ASTM D698
3
EA
$123.00
1.07
1.20
$ 473.80
2016 RACER 33021114, assume 1 test per 500 SY
Post-construction Survey
2
Day 3
1,325.00
1.00
1.00
$ 2,650.00
Engineering Estimate
Seed Wetland w/Bionutrients
15
LB 3
135.00
1
1.00
$ 2,025.00
Vendor quote, apply 1 lb per 2500 SF; three applications
Restoration Labor
80
HR 3
60.00
1
1.00
$ 4,800.00
$
103,501
Engineering Estimate, apply seed mix three times
Page 2 of 3
-------
Table D.17 (Continued)
Summary of Capital Costs for NDC/FL Alternative 3
Jackson Ceramix Site
The Borough of Falls Creek, Jefferson and Clearfield Counties, PA
Jackson Ceramix - OU1 NDC/FL
COST ESTIMATE SUMMARY
CAPITAL COSTS (Base Year)
DESCRIPTION
Quantity
Unit (if
Measu re
Unit
Cost
Locality
Factor
Inflation
Factor
Project Costs
Subtotal
NOTES
Contractor Field Oversight
SSHO/Field Supervisor
Fuel
Truck Rental
822
500
10
Remedial Action Completion
Prepare Remedial Action Completion Report
1IR
gallons
Weeks
LS
70.00 1
3.00 1.00
92.00 1.00
50,000
1.00
1.00
1.00
57,540.00
1,500
920
Engr Estimate for SSHO/Field Supervisor plus 8 hours prep/travel time
Eng. estimate usage of 50 gallons per week
Eng. Est
59,960
1.00 $ 50,000.00
50,000
Total Capital Costs
Bid Contingency
Scope Contingency
Total Capital with Contingency
Professional Services
Project Management
Remedial Design
Construction Management
Total Base Year Costs
10%
25%
5%
8%
6%
1,408,135
140,813 Middle of range listed in EPA's Feasibility Study Cost Guidance
352 034 Mid-range of scope contingency for soil excavation, Exhibit 5-6, EPA's Feasibility
Study Cost Guidance
1,900,982
95,049 Exhibit 5-8, EPA's Feasibility Study Cost Guidance
152,079 Exhibit 5-8, EPA's Feasibility Study Cost Guidance
114,059 Exhibit 5-8, EPA's Feasibility Study Cost Guidance
2,262,168
2016 RACER costs obtained from version 11.5 in April/May 2019.
Inflation factor of 1.20 applied to all 2016 unit rates from RS Means and RACER Cost Database. Factor from Turner Cost index, which was 970 in 1st quarter of 2016 and 1162 in 3rd quarter of 2019.
Inflation factor of 1.05 applied to all 2018 unit rates from RS Means. Factor from Turner Cost index, which was 1105 in 3rd quarter of 2018 and 1162 in 3rd quarter of 2019.
Locality factor of 1.07 applied for Pennsylvania for all unit rates from RS Means and RACER Cost Database. Locality factor not applied to engineering estimates or vendor quotes because those costs are independent of site location.
Notes:
ASTM = American Standard Test Method HR = hour QA = quality assurance
CY = cubic yard KW = kilowatt QC = quality control
EA = each lb = pound SF = square foot
ECY = embankment cubic yards LF = linear foot TAL = target analvte list
EPA = U.S. Environmental Protection Agency LS = lump sum TCLP = Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure
FL = Former Lagoon NDC = Northern Drainage Channel
Page 3 of 3
-------
Table D.18
Summary of Capital Costs for NDC/FL Alternative 4
Jackson Ceramix Site
The Borough of Falls Creek, Jefferson and Clearfield Counties, PA
Jackson Ceramix - OU1 NDC/FL
COST ESTIMATE SUMMARY
NDC/FL Alternative 4: In Situ Stabilization for NDC Surface Soils; Excavation with Ex
Description:
Situ Stabilization and Off-Site Disposal for FL Sediments; ICs
Site: Jackson Ceramix
Locality Factor:
1.07
(Regional Avg for Pennsylvania)
Location: NDC/FL
Phase: Feasibility Study
Includes:
Base Year: 2020
- Excavation, stabilization treatment, and off site disposal of FL sediments and FL subsurface soil hotspot.
Date: November 2019
- Low-impact vacuum dredging of sediments within drainage channels.
- In situ stabilization for contaminated NDC surface soils (includes pilot study application at 30% area and full-scale application).
- ICs to prohibit residential development and protect remedy.
CAPITAL COSTS (Base Year)
D1S( RIP HON
Quantity
I nit of Measure
1 nit
( ost
Locality
Factor
Inflation
Factor
Project ( osts
Subtotal NOTES
Pre- Meld Activities
Prepare Work Plan (to include Accident Prevention
Plan and Quality Control Plan)
1.00
LS
$ 50,000
1.00
1.00
50,000.00
s
Assume Draft, Draft Final, and Final
50.000
Mobilization / Site Preparation
Survey (2-person crew)
5
Day
$ 980.72
1.07
1.20
6,296.22
2016 RACER 33220212
Decontamination Pad Construction
1
LS
$ 1,000.00
1.00
1.00
1,000.00
Engineering Estimate
Utility Location and Clearance
5
HR
$ 472.80
1.00
1.20
2,836.80
2016 RACER 33022609
Clearing and Grubbing
3
Acre
$ 8,300.00
1.07
1.05
23,398.25
2018 RS Means, 31 13 13.10 0020
Brush disposal
1
LS
$ 400.00
1.00
1.00
400.00
Engineering Estimate
Office trailer, rent
3.2
Months
$ 327.00
1.07
1.05
1,171.35
2018 RS Means, 01 52 13.20 0350; 01 01 52 13.20 0700
Office trailer, delivery and pickup
1
EA
$ 3,000.00
1.07
1.05
3,370.50
2018 RS Means, 01 52 13.20 0890
Generator for office trailer, 5-KW
3.2
Months
$ 6,329.00
1.07
1.05
22,671.25
2018 RS Means, 01 54 33 2200
Field office equipment
3.2
Months
$ 226.00
1.07
1.05
809.56
2018 RS Means, 01 52 13.40 0100
Field office supplies
3.2
Months
$ 90.00
1.07
1.05
322.39
2018 RS Means, 01 52 13.40 0120
Storage (Conex) Rental
3.2
Months
$ 93.00
1.07
1.05
333.14
S
2018 RS Means, 01 52 13.20 1250
FL Sediment Excavation, Ex Situ Treatment, and Disposal
Silt fence
2,000
LF
$ 1.36
1.07
1.20
3,492.48
2016 RACER 18050206
2CY Excavator, load on truck
1,170
BCY
$ 1.35
1.07
1.20
2,028.08
2016 RACER 17039917
Equipment Operator, Excavator
60
HR
$ 52.58
1.07
1.20
4,050.76
2016 RACER 33221004
Backhoe w/Front End Loader
130
HR
$ 28.66
1.07
1.20
4,783.93
2016 RACER 17030443, used for loading at FL and staging area
Equipment Operator, Backhoe
130
HR
$ 52.58
1.07
1.20
8,776.65
2016 RACER 33221004
1.25 CY wheel loader
84
HR
$ 102.78
1.07
1.20
11,085.44
2016 RACER 17030220, use 8 hrs per day 50% of total treatment time
15 CY waste mixer
84
HR
$ 104.72
1.07
1.20
11,294.68
2016 RACER 33150434
Equipment Operator
84
HR
$ 52.58
1.07
1.20
5,671.07
2016 RACER 33221004
Bulk chemical transport (40,000 lb truckload)
1
EA
$ 2,675.00
1.07
1.20
3,435
Soil stabilization
444
SY
$ 15.81
1.07
1.20
9,022.24
2016 RACER 17030607
Ancillary equipment for treatment
1
LS
$ 856.00
1.07
1.20
1,099.10
2016 RACER 33150435
Confirmation samples (includes QA/QC), TCLP
6
EA
$ 303.55
1.07
1.20
2,408.35
2016 RACER 33021702, 33020401, 33021620 (Assume 1 sample
metals and TAL metals (includes disposal of sample)
collected every 250 CY)
Haul and Dispose of Nonhazardous Soil at Greentree Landfill
2,008
ton
$ 52.00
1.00
1.00
104,426.40
Vendor Estimate (Greentree Landfill)
Waste Characterization Analysis
7
EA
$ 1,300.00
1.00
1.00
9,100.00
Vendor Estimate (Greentree Landfill), 1 sample per 250 CY
32 Ft. Dump Truck, 6 Mil Liner, disposable
5
EA
$ 30.07
1.07
1.20
193.05
2016 RACER 33190807
Diesel fuel
200
gallons
$ 2.24
1.07
1.20
575.23
S
2016 RACER 33420201
181,442
Page 1 of 3
-------
Table D.18 (Continued)
Summary of Capital Costs for NDC/FL Alternative 4
Jackson Ceramix Site
The Borough of Falls Creek, Jefferson and Clearfield Counties, PA
Jackson Ceramix - OU1 NDC/FL
COST ESTIMATE SUMMARY
CAPITAL COSTS (Base Year)
I nit of Measure
I nit
Locality
Inflation
Project ('osts
l)i:S( RII'TION
Quasi tity
('ost
Factor
Factor
Subtotal
\s > i i-N
Backfill and Restore
950 Loader, 3 CY, Backfill with Borrow Material
1,170
BCY $
33.53
1.07
1.20
$ 50,371.45
2016 RACER 17010705, roundtrip less than 5 miles, load and haul
Place and Grade Backfill, includes compaction
1,170
ECY $
8.66
1.07
1.20
$ 13,009.74
2016 RACER 17030415
Compaction Operator
210
HR $
440.72
1.07
1.20
$ 118,835.74
2016 RACER 33170464
Soil testing, Proctor compaction, 4" standard mold,
ASTM D698
8
EA
$123.00
1.07
1.20
$ 1,278.66
2016 RACER 33021114, assume 1 test per 500 SY
Seed Wetland w/ Bionutrients
95
LB $
135.00
1.07
1.00
$ 13,722.75
Vendor quote, apply 1 lb per 2500 SF
Survey (2-person crew)
5
Day $
980.72
1.07
1.20
$ 6,296
2016 RACER 33220212
Diesel fuel
200
gallons $
2.24
1.07
1.20
$ 575.23
S
204.090
2016 RACER 33420201
NIK' In Situ Treatment (Pilot Study - 30% Area)
Biochar amendment (15% wt/wt application to NDC)
1,124
CY $
195.00
1.00
1.00
$ 219,180
Vendor Quote (BioChar Prime, full truckloads)
Shipping and handling
1
LS $
10,959
1.00
1.00
$ 10,959
assume 5 percent of total cost
Nonpressurized water system for 10 CY Mixer
1
EA $
2,500.00
1.07
1.20
$ 3,210
2016 RACER 33150426
10 CY Mixing System
0.5
Month $
7,166.38
1.07
1.20
$ 4,229
2016 RACER 33150423
Sprayers
2
EA $
200.00
1.07
1.00
$ 428
Eng Est
Laborers (2)
202
HR $
52.58
1.07
1.20
$ 13,651.07
2016 RACER 33221004
Confirmation soil samples (includes QA/QC), TAL
metals
15
EA $
303.55
1.07
1.20
$ 5,839.36
S
257,496
2016 RACER 33020401 (Assume 1 sample collected every 10000 SF)
NDC In Situ Treatment (Full-Scale - Remaining 70% Area)
Biochar amendment (15% wt/wt application to NDC)
2,622
CY $
195.00
1.00
1.00
$ 511,290
Vendor Quote (BioChar Prime, full truckloads)
Shipping and handling
1
LS $
25,565
1.00
1.00
$ 25,565
assume 5 percent of total cost
Nonpressurized water system for 10 CY Mixer
1
EA $
2,500.00
1.07
1.20
$ 3,210
2016 RACER 33150426
10 CY Mixing System
1
Month $
7,166.38
1.07
1.20
$ 9,867
2016 RACER 33150423
Sprayers
2
EA $
200.00
1.07
1.00
$ 428
Eng Est
Laborers (2)
472
HR $
52.58
1.07
1.20
$ 31,852.50
2016 RACER 33221004
Confirmation soil samples (includes QA/QC), TAL
metals
35
EA $
303.55
1.07
1.20
$ 13,625.17
S
595.837
2016 RACER 33020401 (Assume 1 sample collected every 10000 SF)
Page 2 of 3
-------
Table D.18 (Continued)
Summary of Capital Costs for NDC/FL Alternative 4
Jackson Ceramix Site
The Borough of Falls Creek, Jefferson and Clearfield Counties, PA
Jackson Ceramix - OU1 NDC/FL
COST ESTIMATE SUMMARY
CAPITAL COSTS (Base Year)
• f IT
I itit of .Measure
1 siit
Locality
Inflation
l)i:S( RII'TION
Quasi tity
('ost
Factor
I ro
r actor
joct v osts
Subtotal MOTES
S IX' Drainage Channel Sediment Vacuum Dredging and Disposal
Mobilization/Demobilization
1
Lump Sum
$ 2,500.00
1.00
1.00 $
2,500.00
Engineering Estimate
Dredge pump, hoses, and dredge intake (rental)
5
Day
$ 2,000.00
1.00
1.00 $
10,000.00
Engineering Estimate
Equipment Operator (2)
5
Day
$ 1,280.00
1.00
1.00 $
6,400
Engineering Estimate
Construct Dewatering Basin
1
Lump Sum
$ 4,350.00
1.00
1.00 $
4,350
Engineering Estimate
Silt fence
2,000
LF
$ 1.36
1.07
1.20 $
3,492.48
2016 RACER 18050206
Pump
10
days
$ 305.20
1.07
1.05 $
3,428.92
2018 RSMeans, 01 54 33 4400
Frac tank (5,000 gallon)
2
week
$ 3,955.00
1.00
1.00 $
7,910.00
Vendor Estimate (March 2019)
Waste Characterization Analysis (dewatered
1
EA
$ 1,300.00
1.00
LOO
1 300 00
Vendor Estimate (Greentree Landfill), 1 sample per 250 CY
sediment)
Waste Characterization Analysis (dewatering water)
3
EA
$ 1,000.00
1.00
o
p
3,000.00
Vendor Estimate (1 sample per 500 gallons)
2CY Excavator, load on truck
150
BCY
$ 1.35
1.07
1.20 $
260.01
2016 RACER 17039917
Equipment Operator, Excavator
3
HR
$ 52.58
1.07
1.20 $
202.54
2016 RACER 33221004
Haul and Dispose of Nonhazardous Soil at Greentree Landfill
125
tons
$ 52.00
1.00
1.00 $
6,500.00
Vendor Estimate (Greentree Landfill)
Haul and Dispose of Nonhazardous Water from Frac Tank
3
trip
$ 2,500.00
1.00
1.00 $
7,500.00
Vendor Estimate (March 2019)
32 Ft. Dump Truck, 6 Mil Liner, disposable
4
EA
$ 31.31
1.07
1.20 $
150.76
2016 RACER 33190807
Diesel fuel
200
gallons
$ 2.24
1.07
1.20 $
575.23
2016 RACER 33420201
S
57.570
Contractor Field Oversight
Site Safety and Health Officer
1,038
HR
$ 70.00
1.00
1.00 $
72,691
Engr Est
Fuel
1,050
gallons
$ 3.00
1.00
1.00 $
3,150
Eng est of 50 gallons per week
Truck Rental
21
Weeks
$ 92.00
1.00
1.00 $
1,932
Eng est
S
77.773
Remedial Action Completion
Prepare Remedial Action Completion Report
1
LS
$ 50,000
1.00
1.00 $
50,000
s
50.000
Total Capital Costs
s
1,536,817
Bid Contingency
10%
$
153,682 Middle of range listed in EPA's Feasibility Study Cost Guidance
25%
$
384 204 Mid-range of scope contingency for soil excavation, Exhibit 5-6, EPA's
Scope Contingency
Feasibility Study Cost Guidance
Total Capital with Contingency
s
2,074,703
Professional Services
Project Management
5%
$
103,735 Exhibit 5-8, EPA's Feasibility Study Cost Guidance
Remedial Design
8%
$
165,976 Exhibit 5-8, EPA's Feasibility Study Cost Guidance
Construction Management
6%
$
124,482 Exhibit 5-8, EPA's Feasibility Study Cost Guidance
Total Base Year Costs
s
2,468,896
2016 RACER costs obtained from version 11.5 in April/May 2019.
Inflation factor of 1.20 applied to all 2016 unit rates from RS Means and RACER Cost Database. Factor from Turner Cost index, which was
970 in 1 st quarter of 2016 and 1162
in 3rd quarter of 2019.
Inflation factor of 1.05 applied to all 2018 unit rates from RS Means. Factor from Turner Cost index, which was 1105 in
3rd quarter of 2018 and 1162 in 3rd quarter of 2019.
Locality factor of 1.07 applied for Pennsylvania for all unit rates from RS Means and RACER Cost Database. Locality factor not applied to
estimates or vendor quotes because those costs are independent of site location.
Notes:
ASTM = American Standard Test Method
BCY = bank cubic yard
CY = cubic yard
EA = each
ECY = embankment cubic yards
EPA = U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FL = Former Lagoon; sludge settling lagoon
HR = hour
KW = kilowatt
lb = pound
LF = linear foot
LS = lump sum
NDC = Northern Drainage Channel
QA = quality assurance
QC = quality control
SF = square foot
SY = square yard
TAL = target analyte list
TCLP = Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure
wt = weight
Page 3 of 3
-------
Table D.19
Summary of Annual Costs for NDC/FL Alternative 2
Jackson Ceramix Site
The Borough of Falls Creek, Jefferson and Clearfield Counties, PA
Site: Jackson Ceramix
Location: NDC/FL
Phase: Feasibility Study
Base Year: 2020
Date: November 2019
Description: NDC/FL Alternative 2 - Annual Costs
Estimate!)
0 nit of
Locality
Item Description
Quantity
Measure
Unit cost
Factor
Project Cost
Notes
LUC Inspections
Staff Engineer
1
day
$ 790.00
1.07
$ 845.30
Inspection and repair; includes truck, travel, and per diem
Subtotal:
$ 845
Scope contingency
15%
percent
$ 127
EPA Guidance** (Range 15 - 55%)
Subtotal with Scope Contingency
$ 972
Environmental Monitoring (per sampling event)
Miscellaneous materials for collecting and managing samples
1
each
$ 100.00
1.00
$ 100.00
Engineering estimate
Field crew
3
day
$ 1,350.00
1.00
$ 4,050.00
Assume mid level geologist plus field tech (includes travel, and per diem)
Sample analyses (quantity includes field QC samples)
30
samples
$ 49.00
1.00
$ 1,470.00
Includes sampling surface water, groundwater, and sediment/soil for TAL metals.
Pump controller
1
per week
$ 275.00
1.00
$ 275.00
Vendor quote
Pressurized C02 cannisters
2
per can
$ 40.00
1.00
$ 80.00
Vendor quote
Pump, 3/4" bladder
1
per week
$ 150.00
1.00
$ 150.00
Vendor quote
Water level measure
1
per week
$ 50.00
1.00
$ 50.00
Vendor quote
Water quality meter
1
per week
$ 330.00
1.00
$ 330.00
Vendor quote
Tubing
1200
LF
$ 0.60
1.00
$ 720.00
Vendor quote
Overnight Shipping
4
per cooler
$ 67.00
1.00
$ 268.00
assume 9 bottles per cooler/ FedEx overnight
Rental truck
1
per week
$ 473.00
1.00
$ 473.00
Vendor quote
Subtotal:
$ 7,966
Scope contingency
15%
percent
$ 1,195
EPA Guidance** (Range 15 - 55%)
Subtotal with Scope Contingency
$ 9,161
Annual Reporting
Annual Monitoring Report
1
LS
$ 15,000.00
1.00
$ 15,000.00
Scope contingency
15%
percent
$ 2,250
EPA Guidance** (Range 15 - 55%)
Subtotal with Scope Contingency
$ 17,250
Annual Costs with Semiannual Monitoring and Annual LUC Inspection
Subtotal Costs
$ 36,544
Project Management
10%
percent
$ 3,654
Based on EPA guidance document EPA 540-R-00-002
Technical Support
15%
percent
$ 5,482
Based on EPA guidance document EPA 540-R-00-002
Total Annual Cost Per Year:
$ 45,680
Locality factor not applied to engineering estimates or vendor quotes because those costs
are independent of site location.
Notes:
C02 = carbon dioxide
EPA - U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FL = Former Lagoon; sludge settling lagoon
LF = linear foot
LS = lump sum
LUC = land use control
NDC = Northern Drainage Channel
QC = quality control
TAL = target analvte list
Page 1 of 1
-------
Table D.20
Summary of Annual Costs for NDC/FL Alternatives 3
Jackson Ceramix Site
The Borough of Falls Creek, Jefferson and Clearfield Counties, PA
Site: Jackson Ceramix
Location: NDC/FL
Phase: Feasibility Study
Base Year: 2020
Date: November 2019
Description: NDC/FL Alternative 3
Estimated
Osiit of
Cot
ality
Item Description
Quantity
Measure
Unit cost Factor
Project Cost
Notes
Annual Inspection of LUCs. In Situ Soil Cover, and Minor Maintenance
Cover Maintenance/Repair Materials
i
LS
$ 500.00 1
00 $
500.00
Engineering estimate
Staff Engineer
3
day
$ 790.00 1
00 $
2,370.00
Inspection and repair; includes truck, travel, and per diem
LUC Inspection Tech Memo
i
LS
$ 2,000.00 1
00 $
2,000.00
Subtotal:
$
4,870
Scope contingency
15%
percent
$
731
EPA Guidance** (Range 15 - 55%)
Subtotal with Scope Contingency
$
5,601
Environmental Monitoring and Reporting (Per Sampling Event) - annual sampling for Yrs I to 7. then sampling everv 5 vears (Yrs 12, 17, 22. 27)
Miscellaneous materials for collecting and managing samples
5
each
$ 100.00 1
00 $
500.00
Engineering estimate
Field crew
10
day
$ 1,350.00 1
00 $
13,500.00
Assume mid level geologist plus field tech (includes travel, and per diem)
Sample analyses (quantity includes field QC samples)
60
samples
$ 49.00 1
00 $
2,940.00
Includes sampling surface water, groundwater, and sediment/soil for TAL metals.
Pump controller
2
per week
$ 275.00 1
00 $
550.00
Vendor quote
Pressurized C02 cannisters
2
per can
$ 40.00 1
00 $
80.00
Vendor quote
Pump, 3/4" bladder
2
per week
$ 150.00 1
00 $
300.00
Vendor quote
Water level measure
2
per week
$ 50.00 1
00 $
100.00
Vendor quote
Water quality meter
2
per week
$ 330.00 1
00 $
660.00
Vendor quote
Tubing
1200
LF
$ 0.60 1
00 $
720.00
Vendor quote
Overnight Shipping
7
per cooler
$ 67.00 1
00 $
469.00
assume 9 bottles per cooler/ FedEx overnight
Rental truck
2
per week
$ 473.00 1
00 $
946.00
Vendor quote
Annual Monitoring Report
i
LS
$ 25,000.00 i
00 $
25,000.00
Subtotal:
$
45,765
Scope contingency
15%
percent
$
6,865
EPA Guidance** (Range 15 - 55%)
Subtotal with Seope Contingency
$
52,630
[Total Annual Costs (Yrs 1 to 7. 12. 17. 22. 27)
Subtotal Costs
$
58,230
Project Management
10%
percent
$
5,823
Based on EPA guidance document EPA 540-R-00-002
Technical Support
15%
percent
$
8,735
Based on EPA guidance document EPA 540-R-00-002
Cost Per Year: $
72,788
[Total Annual Costs (Yrs 8 to 11, 13 to 16,18 to 21, 22 to 26, 28 to 30)
Subtotal Costs
$
5,601
Project Management
10%
percent
$
560
Based on EPA guidance document EPA 540-R-00-002
Technical Support
15%
percent
$
840
Based on EPA guidance document EPA 540-R-00-002
Cost Per Year: $
7,001
[Locality factor not applied to engineering estimates or vendor quotes because those costs
are independent of site location.
Notes:
C02 = carbon dioxide LF = linear foot NDC = Northern Drainage Channel
EPA - U.S. Environmental Protection Agency LS = lump sum QC = quality control
FL = Former Lagoon; sludge settling lagoon LUC = land use control TAL = target analyte list
Page 1 of 1
-------
Table D.21
Summary of Annual Costs for NDC/FL Alternatives 4
Jackson Ceramix Site
The Borough of Falls Creek, Jefferson and Clearfield Counties, PA
Site: Jackson Ceramix
Location: NDC/FL
Phase: Feasibility Study
Base Year: 2020
Date: November 2019
Description: NDC/FL Alternative 4 - Annual Costs
tlstimatecl
0nit of
Locality
Item Description
Quantity
Measure
Unit cost
Factor
Project Cost
Notes
lAnnual Inspection of LUCs (Yrs 1 to 30)
Staff Engineer
1
day
$ 790.00
1.07
845.30
Inspection and repair; includes truck, travel, and per diem
LUC Inspection Tech Memo
1
LS
$ 2,000.00
1.00
2,000.00
Subtotal:
2,845
Scope contingency
15%
percent
<
6 427
EPA Guidance** (Range 15 - 55%)
Subtotal with Scope Contingency
*
3,272
[Environmental Monitoring and Reporting (Per Samnlinsi Event) - annual sampling for Yrs 1 to 7. then sampling everv 5 years (Yrs 12. 17. 22. 27)
Miscellaneous materials for collecting and managing samples
5
each
$ 100.00
1.00
500.00
Engineering estimate
Field crew
10
day
$ 1,350.00
1.00
13,500.00
Assume mid level geologist plus field tech (includes travel, and per diem)
Sample analyses (quantity includes field QC samples)
60
samples
$ 49.00
1.00
N>
o
o
o
Includes sampling surface water, groundwater, and sediment/soil for TAL metals.
Pump controller
2
per week
$ 275.00
1.00
550.00
Vendor quote
Pressurized C02 cannisters
2
per can
$ 40.00
1.00
80.00
Vendor quote
Pump, 3/4" bladder
2
per week
$ 150.00
1.00
300.00
Vendor quote
Water level measure
2
per week
$ 50.00
1.00
100.00
Vendor quote
Water quality meter
2
per week
$ 330.00
1.00
660.00
Vendor quote
Tubing
1200
LF
$ 0.60
1.00
720.00
Vendor quote
Overnight Shipping
7
per cooler
$ 67.00
1.00
469.00
assume 9 bottles per cooler/ FedEx overnight
Rental truck
2
per week
$ 473.00
1.00
946.00
Vendor quote
Annual Monitoring Report
1
LS
$ 25,000.00
1.00
25,000.00
Includes data review, validation, and reporting for draft and final versions.
Subtotal:
(
45,765
Scope contingency
15%
percent
6,865
EPA Guidance** (Range 15 - 55%)
Subtotal with Scope Contingency
*
52,630
Total Annual Costs (Yrs 1 to 7. 12. 17. 22. 27)
Subtotal Costs
(
55,902
Project Management
10%
percent
(
5,590
Based on EPA guidance document EPA 540-R-00-002
Technical Support
15%
percent
(
8,385
Based on EPA guidance document EPA 540-R-00-002
Cost Per Year:
69,877
Total Annual Costs (Yrs 8 to 11. 13 to 16.18 to 21. 22 to 26. 28 to 30)
Subtotal Costs
3,272
Project Management
10%
percent
<
B 327
Based on EPA guidance document EPA 540-R-00-002
Technical Support
15%
percent
<
B 491
Based on EPA guidance document EPA 540-R-00-002
Cost Per Year:
4,090
Locality factor not applied to engineering estimates or vendor quotes because those
Notes:
C02 = carbon dioxide
EPA - U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FL = Former Lagoon; sludge settling lagoon
are independent of site location.
LF = linear foot NDC = Northern Drainage Channel
LS = lump sum QC = quality control
LUC = land use control TAL = target analyte list
Page 1 of 1
-------
Table D.22
Summary of Periodic Costs for NDC/FL Alternative 2
Jackson Ceramix Site
The Borough of Falls Creek, Jefferson and Clearfield Counties, PA
Site: Jackson Ceramix
Location: NDC/FL
Phase: Feasibility Study
Base Year: 2020
Date: November 2019
Description: Alternative 2 - Periodic Costs
Unit of
Unit
Locality
Inflation
Description
Quantity
Measu re
Cost
Factor
F acto r
Pro ject Costs
Subtotal
Notes
Reapplication of In Situ Stabilization
Biochar amendment (15% wt/wt application to NDC)
2,631
CY $
195.00
1.00
1.00
$ 513,045.00
Vendor Quote (BioChar Prime, full truckloads)
Shipping and handling
1
LS $
25,652.25
1.00
1.00
$ 25,652.25
Eng Est; 5% of cost
Nonpressurized water system for 10 CY Mixer
1
EA $
2,500.00
1.07
1.20
$ 3,210.00
2016 RACER 33150426
10 CY Mixing System
1.1
Month $
7,166.38
1.07
1.20
$ 9,900.12
2016 RACER 33150423
Sprayers
2
EA $
200.00
1.00
1.00
$ 400.00
Eng Est
Laborers (2)
473
HR $
52.58
1.07
1.20
$ 31,960.52
2016 RACER 33221004
Confirmation soil samples (includes QA/QC), TAL metals
35
EA $
303.55
1.07
1.20
$ 13,672.72
2016 RACER 33020401
Site Safety and Flealth Officer
257
HR $
70.00
1.00
1.00
$ 17,969.00
Eng est
Fuel
300
gallons $
3.00
1.00
1.00
$ 900.00
Eng est of 50 gallons per week
Truck Rental (2)
6
Weeks $
184.00
1.00
1.00
$ 1,104.00
Eng est
Reporting
1
LS $
30,000.00
1.00
1.00
$ 30,000.00
Engineering Estimate, assume draft and final versions
Subtotal:
s
647,814
Projeet Cost and Contingencies Summary
Periodic Costs Subtotal
3
647,814
Overhead and Profit (O&P)
25%
percent
3
161,953
O&P applied only to subcontractor and other direct costs
Project Management (excludes O&P)
10%
percent
3
64,781
Based on EPA guidance document EPA 540-R-00-002
Total Periodic Costs
S
874,548
Notes:
Assume that reapplication of in situ stabilization needs to occur every 10 years.
Locality factor not applied to engineering estimates or vendor quotes because those costs are independent of site location.
RACER costs obtained from version 11.5 in April May 2019.
CY = cubic yards
EA = each
EPA -U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FL = Former Lagoon; sludge settling lagoon
HR = hour
LS = lump sum
NDC = Northern Drainage Channel
QA = quality assurance
QC = quality control
TAL = target analvte list
wt = weight
Page 1 of 1
-------
Table D.23
Summary of Periodic Costs for NDC/FL Alternative 3
Jackson Ceramix Site
The Borough of Falls Creek, Jefferson and Clearfield Counties, PA
Site: Jackson Ceramix
Location: NDC/FL
Phase: Feasibility Study
Base Year: 2020
Date: November 2019
Description: Alternative 3 - Periodic Costs
Unit of
Locality
Inflation
Description
Quantity
Measure
Unit Cost
Factor
Factor
Project Costs
Subtotal
Notes
Survev In Situ Sediment Cover
Mobilization/Demobilization
1
EA
S 400.00
1.07
1.00
$ 428.00
Vendor quote
Survey Crew (2-person)
4
HR
S 150.00
1.07
1.00
$ 642.00
Vendor quote
Oversight (mid-level scientist)
1
Day
S 920.00
1.00
1.00
$ 920.00
Includes truck, travel, and per diem
Subtotal:
<
S 1,990
Reaoolication of In Situ Stabilization
Biochar amendment (15% wt/wt application to NDC)
3,746
CY
S 195.00
1.00
1.00
$ 730,470.00
Vendor Quote (BioChar Prime, full truckloads)
Shipping and handling
1
LS
S 36,523.50
1.00
1.00
$ 36,523.50
Eng Est; 5%> of cost
Nonpressurized water system for 10 CY Mixer
1
EA
S 2,500.00
1.07
1.20
$ 3,210.00
2016 RACER 33150426
10 CY Mixing System
1.5
Month
S 7,166.38
1.07
1.20
$ 14,095.23
2016 RACER 33150423
Sprayers
2
EA
S 200.00
1.00
1.00
$ 400.00
Eng Est
Laborers (2)
674
HR
S 52.58
1.07
1.20
$ 45,503.57
2016 RACER 33221004
Confirmation soil samples (includes QA/QC), TAL metals
50
each
S 303.55
1.07
1.20
$ 19,464.52
2016 RACER 33020401
Site Safety and Health Officer
357
HR
S 70.00
1.00
1.00
$ 24,990.00
Eng Est
Fuel
400
gallons
S 3.00
1.00
1.00
$ 1,200.00
Eng est of 50 gallons per week
Truck Rental
8
Weeks
S 92.00
1.00
1.00
$ 736.00
Eng est
Reporting
1
LS
S 30,000.00
1.00
1.00
$ 30,000.00
Engineering Estimate, assume draft and final versions
Subtotal:
S 906,593
Project Cost and Contingencies Summary
Periodic Costs Subtotal
i 908,583
Project Management (excludes O&P)
10% percent
i 90,858
O&P applied only to subcontractor and other direct costs
Total Periodic Costs
S 999,441
Notes:
Assume that the cover is surveyed every 5 years to monitor for settlement.
Locality factor not applied to engineering estimates or vendor quotes because those costs are independent of site location.
RACER costs obtained from version 11.5 in April/May 2019.
CY = cubic yards
EA = each
EPA - U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FL = Former Lagoon; sludge settling lagoon
11R = hour
LS = lump sum
NDC = Northern Drainage Channel
QA = quality assurance
QC = quality control
TAL = target analyte list
wt = weight
Page 1 Of 1
-------
Table D.24
Summary of Periodic Costs for NDC/FL Alternative 4
Jackson Ceramix Site
The Borough of Falls Creek, Jefferson and Clearfield Counties, PA
Site: Jackson Ceramix
Location: NDC/FL
Phase: Feasibility Study
Base Year: 2020
Date: November 2019
Description: NDC/FL Alternative 4 - Periodic Costs
Item
Description
J2u£ntit>_
Unit of
Measure
Unit
Cost
Locality
Factor
Inflation
Factor
JVoject^Cost^^
Notes
Reapplication of In Situ Stabilization (V'r 5)
Biochar amendment (15% wt/wt application to NDC)
3,746
CY
$ 195.00
1.00
1.00
$ 730,470.00
Vendor Quote (BioChar Prime, full truckloads)
Shipping and handling
1
LS
$ 36,523.50
1.00
1.00
$ 36,523.50
Engingeering Estimate; 5%> of cost
Nonpressurized water system for 10 CY Mixer
1
EA
$ 2,500.00
1.07
1.20
$ 3,210.00
2016 RACER 33150426
10 CY Mixing System
1.5
Month
$ 7,166.38
1.07
1.20
$ 14,095.23
2016 RACER 33150423
Sprayers
2
EA
$ 200.00
1.00
1.00
$ 400.00
Engineering Estimate
Laborers (2)
674
HR
$ 52.58
1.07
1.20
$ 45,503.57
2016 RACER 33221004
Confirmation soil samples (includes QA/QC), TAL metals
50
EA
$ 303.55
1.07
1.20
$ 19,464.52
2016 RACER 33020401
Site Safety and Health Officer
357
HR
$ 70.00
1.00
1.00
$ 24,990.00
Engineering Estimate
Fuel
400
gallons
$ 3.00
1.00
1.00
$ 1,200.00
Engineering Estimate of 50 gallons per week
Truck Rental
8
Weeks
$ 184.00
1.00
1.00
$ 1,472.00
Engineering Estimate
Reporting
1
LS
$ 30,000.00
1.00
1.00
$ 30,000.00
Engineering Estimate, assume draft and final versions
Subtotal:
907,329
Project Cost and Contingencies Summary
Periodic Costs Subtotal
Project Management (excludes O&P)
10%
percent
Total Periodic Costs
907,329
90,733 O&P applied only to subcontractor and other direct costs
998,062
Notes:
Assume that the cover is surveyed every 5 years to monitor for settlement.
Locality factor not applied to engineering estimates or vendor quotes because those costs are independent of site location.
CY = cubic yards
EA = each
FL = Former Lagoon; sludge settling lagoon
11K = hour
LS = lump sum
NDC = Northern Drainage Channel
QA = quality assurance
QC = quality control
TAL = target analyte list
wt = weight
Page 1 Of 1
-------
APPENDIX D
APPLICABLE OR RELEVANT AND
APPROPRIATE REQUIREMENTS AND
STANDARDS (ARARS)
-------
Table 2.1
Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements and Standards To Be Considered
Jackson Ceramix, The Borough of Falls Creek, PA
ARAR
Legal Citation
ARAR
Class/TBC
Requirement Synopsis
Applicability to Proposed Remedies
Location-Specific ARARs
Migratory Bird Treaty
Act
50 C.F.R. § 10.13
Applicable
Prohibits the unlawful taking, possession or
sale of any migratory bird native to the
United States or its territories
The remediation might require construction
activity while migratory birds arc present.
Endangered Species
Act
50 C.F.R. Part 17; 50 C.F. R
§402
Applicable
Requires action to avoid jeopardizing the
continued existence o listed endangered or
threatened species or modification of their
habitat.
There arc no current provisions to protect
federally listed species found to exist for this
area. However, species could be found or
newly-listed in the vicinity during the remedial
design phase. Ensures that biennial reviews for
listed species arc performed until remedy
implementation.
Wetland Protection and
Mitigation
40 C.F.R. § 230.10
Applicable
Requires federal agencies to take action to
avoid adversely affecting wetlands, to
minimize wetlands destruction, and to
preserve the value of wetlands.
These regulations will be triggered since
excavation of contaminated soil and sediment
from the wetlands will be part of any remedial
alternative. Actions will be needed to address
and avoid any potential short-term and long-
term adverse effects to the wetlands (e.g. a
"discharge of fill material" occurs within the
meaning of 40 C.F.R. § 230.2). Restoration
activities will take place once all contaminated
material is treated.
Compensatory
Mitigation for Loss of
Aquatic Resources
40 C.F.R. § 230.93
Relevant and
Appropriate
Describes the standards and criteria for
establishing compensatory mitigation of
wetlands.
Disruption to wetlands may occur during the
implementation of any remedial alternative.
Dam Safety and
Encroachment
Regulations
Substantive requirements of
25 Pa. Code §§ 105.1;
105.17; 105.18a; and
105.20a
Relevant and
Appropriate
Establishes criteria for placing structures
and conducting activities in wetlands.
Disruption to wetlands may occur during the
implementation of any remedial alternative.
Flood Plain
Management
25 Pa. Code § 106.31, 106.32
Relevant and
Appropriate
These provisions regulate the construction
or substantial improvement of a structure
located within a floodplain.
The substantive standards are relevant and
appropriate because remedial activity will
occur within the Sandy Lick Creek Floodplain.
Page 1 of 4
-------
Table 2.1 (continued)
Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements and Standards To Be Considered
Jackson Ceramix, The Borough of Falls Creek, PA
ARAR
Legal Citation
ARAR
Class/TBC
Requirement Synopsis
Applicability to Proposed Remedies
Action-Specific ARARs/TBCs
A. Water
Pennsylvania Water
Quality Toxics
Management Strategy
25 Pa. Code §§ 16.1,
16.24, 16.31 - 16.33,
16.41, 16.51 and
16.101-102
Applicable
Sets forth guidelines and procedures for
development of criteria for toxic
substances.
Any remedy that involves the discharge of
treated water will be required to comply with
the substantive requirements of these
discharge standards that arc more stringent
than Federal Clean Water Act.
Pennsylvania Water
Quality Standards
25 Pa. Code § 93.4, 93.6,
93.7, 93.8(a) to (c), 93.9
Relevant and
Appropriate
These arc specific water quality criteria
established pursuant to Section 304 of the
CWA. These provisions set the
concentrations of pollutants that are
allowable to levels that preserve human
health based on water and fish ingestion and
to preserve aquatic life. Ambient water
quality criteria may be relevant and
appropriate to the CERCLA cleanups based
on uses of a water body. These water
quality criteria arc used in the development
of effluent limitations in NPDES permits.
For remedies requiring dcwatcring. the
removed water would likely require treatment
prior to discharge. The discharged treated
water would be required to meet the
substantive guidelines established for
protection of human health and aquatic life.
NPDES Regulations
40 C.F.R. §§ 122.2,
122.4, 122.5, 122.21,
122.26, 122.29,
122.41. 122.43 - 122.45,
122.47, 122.48
(All of these sections, except
for 122.47, arc incorporated
by reference into
Pennsylvania's regulation by
25 Pa. Code § 92a.3.)
Relevant and
Appropriate
Establishes effluent limitations for
discharges to waters of the U.S. and
Pennsylvania.
Any remedy that involves the discharge of
treated water will be required to comply with
the substantive requirements of these
discharge standards.
Federal UIC Program
Regulations
40 C.F.R. §§ 144.1-144.55;
144.79-144.84;
146.1-146.10; 146.51-
146.73; 147.1951, 147.1952,
147.1955
Relevant and
Appropriate
Provides requirements for UIC permitting
based on the federal program promulgated
under Part C of the Safe Drinking Water
Act.
The substantive requirements of these
regulations will be followed for any remedy
that involves the injection of materials into the
subsurface.
Page 2 of 4
-------
Table 2.1 (continued)
Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements and Standards To Be Considered
Jackson Ceramix, The Borough of Falls Creek, PA
ARAR
Legal Citation
ARAR
Class/TBC
Requirement Synopsis
Applicability to Proposed Remedies
Action-Specific ARARs/TBCs (continued)
A. Water (continued)
Discharge of Storm
Water
32 P.S. §680.13
Applicable
Requires implementation of storm water
control measures to prevent injury to health,
safety, or property.
Storm water controls will be implemented ana
maintained during construction of the remedy.
Clean Water act
Section 404
33 C.F.R Parts 322 and 323
Applicable
Prohibits discharge of dredged or fill
material into navigable waters and
protection of aquatic resources
Activities conducted in wetlands at the Site
may be subject to the substantive parts of these
regulations.
PADEP Groundwater
Monitoring Guidance
Manual
Chapter 7: Water Well
Abandonment
Guidelines
TBC
These provisions represent minimum
guidelines for proper abandonment of wells.
To be considered when developing and
implementing alternatives that may include
abandonment of existing wells.
B. Soil
Erosion and Sediment
Controls
25 Pa. Code §§ 102.4(b)(1),
102.11,
102.22
Applicable
Identifies erosion and sediment control
requirements and criteria for activities
involving land clearing, grading, and other
earth disturbances. Establishes erosion and
sediment control criteria.
These regulations apply to excavation or
construction activities at the Site that disturb
the ground surface. Would be applicable if
capping, excavation, or well installation is
required.
C. Wastes
Hazardous Waste
Management
Regulations
25 Pa. Code. 261 a. 1 -
261a.32; 262a.l0-12; 264a. 1;
264a. 173
Applicable
Regulates the management of hazardous
waste to ensure the safe and proper disposal
of wastes and to provide for resource
recovery by controlling hazardous waste
from "cradle to grave".
Establishes general requirements for hazardous
waste management. Previous investigations
have determined that current waste is
nonhazardous. However, if a waste profiling
determines that there arc hazardous wastes on
Site, action will be taken to manage these
wastes according to the guidelines of this act.
Corrective Action
Management Unit
(CAMU) Regulations
40 C.F.R. Part 264.552
Applicable
CAMUs arc special units created under
RCRA to facilitate treatment, storage, and
disposal of hazardous wastes managed for
implementing cleanup, and to remove the
disincentives to cleanup that the application
of RCRA to these wastes can sometimes
impose.
A CAMU is used only for managing CAMU-
eligible wastes for implementing corrective
action or cleanup at the facility. These
regulations apply to any remedy that may
include ex-situ treatment and placement back
on site.
Management of
Remediation Waste
Under RCRA
U.S. EPA 530-F-98-026,
October 14, 1998
TBC
Identifies regulation and policies that apply
to remediation waste.
To be considered when developing
remediation alternatives and in evaluating
iniplcnicntability.
Page 3 of 4
-------
Table 2.1 (continued)
Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements and Standards To Be Considered
Jackson Ceramix, The Borough of Falls Creek, PA
ARAR
Legal Citation
ARAR
Class/TBC
Requirement Synopsis
Applicability to Proposed Remedies
Action-Specific ARARs/TBCs (continued)
C. Wastes (continued)
Area of Contamination
Concept (first
presented in National
Contingency Plan).
55 Federal Register (FR)
8758, March 8, 1990.
TBC
Describes a land-based unit in which
consolidation and in situ treatment of
hazardous waste docs not create a new
point of hazardous waste generation.
To be considered when developing and
implementing alternatives that may include
waste consolidation or in situ treatment.
Determining When
Land Disposal
Restrictions (LDRs)
Are Applicable to
CERCLA Response
Actions
OSWER Directive: 9347.3-
05FS, July 1989.
TBC
LDRs place specific restrictions (e.g.,
treatment of waste to concentration levels)
on RCRA hazardous wastes prior to their
placement in land disposal units.
To be considered when developing and
implementing alternatives that may include
onsite treatment of characteristically hazardous
wastes before disposal.
Residual Waste
Handling
25 Pa. Code § 288.234.
Applicable
These provisions govern the handling and
disposal of residual wastes.
These provisions arc applicable to any remedy
that will result in the generation of residual
wastes upon implementation.
D. Air
Fugitive Air Emissions
40 C.F.R. § 50.6 - 50.7;
Applicable
Establishes the fugitive dust regulation for
particulate matter.
Any construction and/or excavation activities
will comply with the substantive requirements
of these regulations.
Construction.
Modification.
Reactivation, and
Operation of Sources
25 Pa. Code §§ 127.1 et seq.
Applicable
Establishes the requirements for the use of
best available technology on new air
pollutant emissions sources.
Any construction and/or excavation activities
as well as any treatment alternative that would
result in the emission of Site contaminants to
the air will comply with the substantive
requirements of these regulations.
Visible Emissions
25 Pa. Code § 123.41
Applicable
Establishes opacity limits for visible air
emissions.
Emissions from any excavation/ construction
will comply with the substantive requirements
of these requirements.
ARAR = applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements
CERCLA = Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
C.F.R. = Code of Federal Regulations
CWA = Clean Water Act
EPA = U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
NPDES = National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
OSWER = Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Pa = Pennsylvania
P.S. = Pennsylvania Statutes
RCRA = Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
TBC = To Be Considered
UIC = Underground Injection Control
Page 4 of 4
------- |