iiriiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii sdms docid

iiriiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii SDMS DocID 2150842

EXPLANATION OF SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES for the

Atlantic Wood Industries, Inc. Superfund Site

I. INTRODUCTION

Site Name: Atlantic Wood Industries, Inc. Superfund Site

Site Location: Portsmouth, Virginia

Lead Agency: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III ("EPA")

Support Agency: Virginia Department of Environmental Quality ("VADEQ")

II. STATEMENT OF PURPOSE

On December 21, 2007, EPA issued a Record of Decision ("2007 ROD"). The 2007 ROD selected the cleanup for ground water (Operable Unit ["OU"] 2) and sediment ("OU3") and amended the clean up for soils and dense non-aqueous phase liquid ("DNAPL") contamination ("OUl"). EPA had previously issued a ROD for soils and DNAPL m 1995. The 2007 ROD estimated the cleanup would cost $44.9 million. During the cleanup design, EPA determined the amount of soil requiring treatment and the volume of sediment requiring dredging were significantly greater than estimated in 2007. As a result, the cost of the cleanup will increase. EPA now estimates that the cleanup will cost approximately $98.2 million.

EPA is issuing this Explanation of Significant Differences ("ESD") to formally document and communicate this cost increase and to provide information as to the location of the off- shore sheet pile wall in the Elizabeth River (the greater the volume of sediments that require dredging, the further from shore the wall must be located). EPA is issuing this ESD in accordance with Section 117(c) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, as amended ("CERCLA"), 42 U.S.C. § 9617(c), and Section 300.435(c)(2)(i) of the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan ("NCP"), 40 C.F.R. § 300.435(c)(2)(i). Section 117(c) of CERCLA and Section 300.43 5(c)(2)(i) of the NCP require the publication of an explanation of significant differences when modifications to the remedial action selected in a Record of Decision are necessary, and such modifications significantly change, but do not fundamentally alter, the remedial action with respect to scope, performance, or cost. Since the cleanup activities are not changing, EPA considers the cost increase to be a significant change but not a fundamental change.

This ESD and all documents that form the basis for the decision to modify the remedial action are being added to the Administrative Record file for Atlantic Wood Industries Superfund Site in accordance with Section 300'.825(a)(2) of the NCP, 40 C.F.R. § 300.825(a)(2). The Administrative Record file is available for public review at the locations listed in Section VIII of the ESD.

AR302178

III. SITE HISTORY AND SITE CONDITIONS

The Atlantic Wood Industries, Inc. Superfund Site ("site") is generally located south of Elm Avenue (Virginia Highway 337) adjacent to and in the Southern Branch of the Elizabeth River in Portsmouth, Virginia. The site includes approximately 48 acres of land with contaminated soil on the industrialized waterfront and approximately 35 acres of contaminated sediment in the Southern Branch of the Elizabeth River. From 1926 to 1992, AWI operated a creosote and pentachlorophenol wood treatment facility at the site. The land portion of the site is surrounded by the Norfolk Naval Shipyard ("NNSY"), the operations center for the Portsmouth Public School District, and several other small industrial properties. The contaminated sediments area generally extends from the Atlantic Wood Industries ("AWI") facility east to the navigational channel, north to the eastern-most part of the PER Properties land (formerly owned by the Portsmouth Port and Industrial Commission) and south to Pier B of to the Southgate Annex of the NNSY. The site also includes contaminated ground water that has mostly remained underneath the former wood treatment facility.

The AWI facility operations included wood treatment, storage of wood, and disposal of wastes, which led to the contamination of the site. As a result of historical site operations, sediments in the Elizabeth River contain visible creosote. The ground water and soil at the site are also heavily contaminated with creosote. Creosote contamination previously migrated into a storm sewer and discharged to an inlet of the Elizabeth River at the northeast corner of the site near the former Jordan Bridge.

A significant portion of the western half of the AWI facility was leased to the Navy during World War II. The Navy filled low lying areas of the property to use the property as a storage area. The Navy also conducted sand blasting activities adjacent to the AWI property. Due to these activities, the site is contaminated with heavy metals such as copper, zinc, lead and arsenic. The Navy produced acetylene at the NNSY and pumped a calcium hydroxide waste stream across the site and discharged it in a wetland that straddled the property line between the NNSY and the AWI facility.

During the 1980s EPA assessed the site and determined that the site qualified for detailed evaluation and, if necessary, cleanup by EPA's Superfund program. In 1990, the site was formally added to the National Priorities List, which is the list of national priorities among the known releases or threatened releases of hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants throughout the United States and its territories.

IV. DESCRIPTION OF SELECTED REMEDY AND REMEDY IMPLEMENTATION

A. Selected Remedv

EPA's selected remedy described in the 2007 ROD addresses risks to human health and the environment from soil, ground water, and sediment contamination. The main components of

AR302179

the selected remedy include: 1) a clean soil cover over the areas of contaminated soil; 2) stabilization of DNAPL-soaked soils on the west side of the site; 3) monitored natural attenuation (natural cleaning) of ground water; 4) installation of a sealed sheet pile wall off-shore in the Southern Branch of the Elizabeth River to prevent creosote migration to the river; 5) dredging of contaminated river sediments beyond the wall with consolidation of the dredged sediments mainly behind the sheet pile wall (creating new land) and also on the west side of the site in a landfill; 6) enhanced monitored natural recovery (natural cleaning) of sediments; 7) creation of wetlands to replace wetlands lost due to sediment consolidation behind the wall; and 8) institutional controls to further protect the public and the environment over time.

B. Remedv Implementation

In early 2008, EPA began the detailed design for the cleanup. Construction started in 2010, about one year earlier than expected, due to $3.7 million from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) being designated for the site. These funds have been used to construct part of a landfill berm and a berm along the banks of the Southern Branch of the Elizabeth River that, along with the off-shore sheet pile wall, will hold the dredged sediments.

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) has started construction on the off-shore sheet pile wall. The USACE awarded McLean Contracting, a local marine construction firm, an $18.5 million contract for this work. The wall is scheduled for completion in January 2013. The USACE recently awarded a contract for the DNAPL stabilization work, which is scheduled to start late this summer or early fall.

The design for the dredging of the contaminated sediments is underway and will be completed in the fall of 2012 with dredging expected to start in 2013 following the completion of the off-shore wall.

FIGG Bridge is building the South Norfolk Jordan Bridge across the Southern Branch of the Elizabeth River. The bridge goes through the site and FIGG is conducting a portion of the cleanup on the property it purchased to construct the bridge. This bridge is replacing the former Jordan Bridge.

V. DESCRIPTION OF SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES AND THE BASIS FOR SUCH DIFFERENCES

The increase in the estimated cost of the cleanup is mainly due to two things: 1) a significant increase in the volume of contaminated sediments in the Southern Branch of the Elizabeth River that require dredging compared to the estimated volume in the 2007 ROD; and 2) a significant increase in the volume of DNAPL-soaked soils that require remediation compared to the estimated volume in the 2007 ROD.

Figure 1 (Figure 29 from the 2007 ROD, see attached) shows the area of the river that the 2007 ROD estimated required cleanup. The darker orange area of the river was the area estimated to require dredging. With respect to the enhanced sheet pile wall, the ROD set forth an

AR302180

approximate location at Paragraph 11.2, Description of the Selected Remedy, and Figure 29. The ROD noted, however, that the exact location of the off-shore sheet wall was to be identified in the remedial design and subject to EPA approval. During the cleanup design, additional samples were collected to finalize the area and depth of sediments that required cleanup. Samples collected before the ROD were collected with 20-foot long core samplers, which in some locations did not go deep enough to find the bottom of the contamination. During the design, 30-foot long core samplers were used, which were able to reach the bottom of the contamination. To the area north and east of the AWI facility, EPA attempted to more finely define the extent of the cleanup expecting that it might decrease in area. Additional sampling in these areas showed the previous investigation had accurately determined the edge of the cleanup.

To the south of the AWI facility at the Southgate Annex of the NNSY, additional sampling was necessary because there was only limited sampling in this area during the remedial investigation ("RI") before the 2007 ROD. During part of the RI, the Navy had plans to dredge this area and the contamination found by EPA had a distinct petroleum odor and was attributed to oil from ships rather than polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons ("PAHs") from creosote. Later in the remedial investigation and feasibility study ("RI/FS") process, the Navy decided not to follow through with its plans to dredge the Southgate Annex, and it provided a detailed analysis to EPA showing that there was creosote contamination in the area of the Southgate Annex. Additional sampling at the Southgate Annex during the cleanup design showed that a larger area of the Annex had been impacted by the AWI operation than originally estimated. A large portion of the increase in sediment volume is due to the sediments at the Southgate Annex. High levels of metals were also found in this same area.

Based on the RI and design sampling, Figure 2 shows the revised area of the river that must be remediated. In the 2007 ROD, the anticipated location of the off-shore sheet wall was situated in a way that would provide the volume necessary, when coupled with the landfill on the west side of the facility, to consolidate the amount of sediments outside the wall that would be dredged. With the significant increase in volume of sediments requiring remediation, the wall location was moved further east (see Figure 2) to accommodate the increase in volume of sediments that required dredging and consolidation. The 2007 ROD estimated that 155,000 cubic yards of sediment required dredging. Based on new samples collected during the design, EPA now estimates that 315,000 cubic yards of sediment must be dredged. The estimated cost of the river cleanup has increased with both the longer and higher off-shore sheet pile wall and the increase in volume of sediments that must be dredged.

The 2007 ROD estimated that 7,200 cubic yards of creosote and PCP-soaked soils in the southwest portion of the site adjacent to the operations center of the Portsmouth Public School District required excavation or treatment in place. Detailed sampling during the design showed that the volume was actually 45,000 cubic yards. Due to the difficulty with excavating soil so deep and near the operations center buildings, coupled with the lack of area to put any excavated soil because of the increase in volume of sediments requiring dredging, EPA will treat the soil in place in accordance with the 2007 ROD.

Table 1 shows the detailed cost estimate from the 2007 ROD. Table 2 shows the new cost estimate. The new cost estimate takes into account the volume increases mentioned above

AR302181

and the known costs from work that has been or is currently on-going. The new cost estimate for the cleanup outlined in the 2007 ROD is $98.2 million.

Since the cost increase is due to increases in the volume of contamination, yet the actual cleanup activities remain those outlined in the 2007 ROD, it is appropriate to update the estimated cost of the 2007 ROD with this ESD since the modification does not fundamentally alter the cleanup plan with respect to scope, performance, or cost. Each of the alternatives in the 2007 ROD would have seen a significant cost increase due to the increase in volume of sediments (for those alternatives that contained dredging) or increase in areal extent of contaminated sediments (for those alternatives that included sub-aqueous caps).

With respect to the enhanced sheet pile wall. Figure 2 (attached) shows the final location of the wall, in comparison to the approximate location of the wall depicted in the 2007 ROD. Property owners in this area have been provided with notice of the final location, and opportunity to comment. They have been supportive of the final location.

VI. SUPPORT AGENCY COMMENTS

In accordance with 40 C.F.R. § 300.435(c)(2), EPA has consulted with VADEQ concerning the change to the 2007 ROD as described in this ESD. VADEQ supports the change set forth herein and submitted its concurrence on this ESD to EPA in a letter dated June 26, 2012.

VII. STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS

EPA has determined that the selected remedy set forth in the 2007 ROD, as modified by this ESD, complies with the statutory requirements of Section 121 of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. § 9621. EPA believes that the selected remedy set forth m the 2007 ROD, as revised by this ESD, remains protective of human health and the environment, meets the Federal and State requirements that are applicable or relevant and appropriate to the remedial action in accordance with 40 C.F.R. § 300.430(f)(l)(ii)(B), and is cost effective. In addition, the modified remedy uses permanent solutions and alternative treatment technologies to the maximum extent practicable for the site.

VIII. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

In accordance with Section 300.825(a)(2) of the NCP, 40 C.F.R. § 300.825(a)(2), this ESD and all documents that form the basis for the decision to modify the remedy are being added to the Administrative Record file for the site. The Administrative Record file is available for public review on computers at the locations listed below:

AR302182

U.S EPA, Region III Hours: 6th floor Docket Room Monday - Friday SAM - 4PM Attn: Paul Van Reed (215)814-3157 1650 Arch Street Philadelphia, PA 19103

Portsmouth Public Library Hours Craddock Branch Monday - Thursday 10AM - 5:30PM 28 Prospect Parkway Friday 10AM-3PM (TEMPORARY) Portsmouth, VA 23702 Saturday 10AM-3PM

Norfolk Public Library Hours Horace C. Downing Branch Tuesday - Thursday 10AM - 7PM 555 E. Liberty Street Friday - Saturday 10AM - 5PM Norfolk, VA 23523

Chesapeake Public Library Hours Indian River Library Monday - Thursday 10AM - 8PM 2320 Old Greenbrier Road Friday 10AM - 6PM Chesapeake, VA 23325 Saturday 10AM - 5PM

Sunday 1PM-5PM

The Administrative Record file is also available online at: http://loqqerhead.epa.qov/arweb/public/search results.isp?siteid=VAD990710410.

Questions about EPA's action should be directed to:

Larry Johnson Community Involvement Coordinator (3HS52) U. S. EPA Region III 1650 Arch Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 (215)814-3239 (800)553-2509 [email protected]

Pursuant to Section 117(c) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. § 9617(c), and Section 300.435(c)(2)(i)(B) of the NCP, 40 C.F.R. § 300.435(c)(2)(i)(B), EPA will publish a notice summarizing this ESD, including the reasons for the change to the selected remedy, and informing the public of its availability in Virginian-Pilot published in the Tidewater area of Virginia, which includes the City of Portsmouth and other communities near the site.

Many of the stakeholders have known even as early as December 2009, as a result of a meeting of the Sediment Remediation Partnership of the Elizabeth River Project, that the volume of contaminated sediments increased significantly. During this meeting, at which various stakeholders, including adjacent property owners. State agencies, and the Navy, are typically attendees, EPA provided information as to the increase in sediment volume and a new off-shore sheet wall location. As a result of comments received by EPA during the December 2009

Pages AR302183

http://loqqerhead.epa.qov/arweb/public/search

mailto:[email protected]

meeting, and in an effort to minimize the amount of river filling, EPA further refined the location of the proposed off-shore sheet wall. Since December 2009, EPA has continued to provide information to stakeholders about the location of the off-shore sheet wall and has made available interim designs of the wall. EPA also has communicated with adjacent property owners in order to discuss and respond to these owners' questions and interests with regard to the off-shore sheet wall location. In addition, EPA has communicated to stakeholders since at least as early as May 2010 that the estimated cost of the cleanup was going to be over $100 million.

IX. SIGNATURE

This ESD modifies the selected remedy set forth in the 2007 ROD for the Atlantic Wood Industries, Inc. Superfund site to address the cost increase associated with the increase in the volume of contaminated sediment requiring dredging and the volume of DNAPL-soaked soil requiring treatment.

Approve

lLonal<l, Hazaraou^ Site Cleanup Division E p / R 4 i o n III

AR302184

Explanation of Significant Differences - Figure 1

p p | Butdnos

PiofMity Lines

SlonnV«kUrO*di

72 n H Slorm Water Oiain

Bm Ave Storm Sewer

I IWMer

I NavigMon Chamal

JReebredWelland*

^ ^ E x i e U n g Sheet n ine

Fonner Ue*Ai«ae

ASMArae

Open Bury Alee

HieCric OisposelAma

Wood SKrage see

Wood Treetmeot Aiea

- — ^ FGrmer Storage Tank

Legend r / i / , , Soi Cover ^ ^ Otshore Slieetpla WMI

HHoiDundwalar Plume a a M t Ofchore Sheelple Wall w t t Staiiiizatlon Behind

" Excaei Dredge Sedlmertt (<iaoo p(xn) QapoeelArea V>V> DMAPIjOradged SedlmenI F«l (Upfier 3' Stadlllzad)

I QNAPL Excavalxm and Uapoaal Beivnd MM

I OMenuon Baati

I I Dredge al lFAH> 100, slop at < « ppm

I |MNR1BW<100 >45ppm

[~J~ J EaNmalad FMH Cantammatorf

/

US. Gtwemtnanl (Mwy)

( N K ) « \ U-^-^ ----

Alternative 4 Soil Cover, Partial DNAPL Consolidation and Containment, MNA/Groundwater Monitoring, Dredging with Disposal Beliind Enhanced Off-Shore Sheet Pile Wall, and Enhanced ly NR

N "Tu la in ju l iPu tae

SciiodiOMau

« - B ^ i iFMtl I December 2007 Record of Decision

Atlantic Wood Industries, Inc. Superfund Site Portsmouth, Virginia

Figure 29 Alternative 4

EPA's Selected Remedy

AR302185

Explanation of Significant Differences - Figure 2 Atlantic Wood Industries Superfund Site

The area of the Southern Branch of the Elizabeth River shaded blue is the area of the river requiring remediation, with most of it requiring dredging, as determined by EPA based on sampling performed as part of the design.

The red line is the current location of the off shore wall as it is being constructed.

The black line was the off shore wall location anticipated in the 2007 ROD.

AR302186

ESD Table 1 Xable S-. cost Estimate for Selected Remedy (Alternative 4) Soil Cover, Partial DNAPL Consolidation and Containment, MNA/Ground Water.Monitoring, Dredging

with Consolidation Behind Enhanced Off-Shore Sheet Pile Wall, and Enhanced MNR

Item

(1) Soil Cover

(a) MobilizaHon/Demobilization

(b) Soil Cover

(1) vegetative layer (6 inches of topsoil and seeding)

(2) protective layer (12 inches of native soil)

(3) demarcation layer (geotextile layer)

(c) Erosion Control

( l)si te perimeter

(d) Long-term Cap Maintenance

(1) mowing (1 per year for 30 years)

(2) inspections (1 per year for 30 years)

(3) repairs (1 per year for 30 years)

(4) reports (1 per year for 30 years)

Subtotal (1)

(2) Excavation of West Side DNAPL

(a) Excavate and transport to east side

(b) Backfill with imported fill

(c) Construction Dewatering

(1) Tanks

(2) Dewatering Pump

(3) Slurry Wall (around DNAPL excavation areas)

(d) Unexploded Ordnance Avoidance

(1) Mobilization

(2) Ordnance avoidance crew rale

Subtotal (2)

(3) Ground Water Dewatering Treatment Plant

(a) Temporary treatment building

(b) Ii\fluent Pump

(c) Pre-Treatment Filter

(d) Holding Tank (filter backwash water)

(e) Carbon Adsorption (2 units with media)

(0 Effluent Holding Tank

(g) Sludge Handling (from filter backwash)

(1) sludge pump

(2) sludge holding tank

(3) filter press

(4) control panel

(h) Discharge Pump

(i) Transfer Pipe from Treatment Plant to River

(j) installation and Incidentals (piping, electrical, HVAC)

(k) Operations

Subtotal (3)

Quantity

1

47.1

47.1

47.1

8,500

1

1

1

I

7,200

7,200

1 •

1

1

1

90

1

1

1

1

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

500

1

1

Unit Cost

550,000

526,000

511,235

56,820

$2

$2,000

$2,000

$10,000

52,000

58

$12

$15,000

$15,000

$500,000

51,187

$1,787

$40,000

51,000

$15,000

515,000

$20,000

525,000

51,000

$8,000

$15,000

$5,000

$5,000

$50

$125,000

550,000

.

Units

LS

AC

AC

AC

LF

YR

YR

YR

YR

CY

CY

LS

LS

LS

LS

day

LS

EA

EA

EA

EA

EA

EA

EA

EA

EA

EA

LF

LS

LS

Capital Cost

550,000

$1,224,600

$529,169

5321 7??.

$17,000

$2,141,991

$57,600

586,400

515,000

$15,000

$500,000

$4,187

5160,830

$839,017

$40,000

54,000

$15,000

515,000

540,000

525,000

54,000

$8,000

$15,000

$5,000

$5,000

$25,000

$125,000

550,000

$376,000

O&M Cost 1 Annual

$2,000

S2,l)0()

510,000

52,000

$16,000

/

Present Worth

$24,818

524,818

5124,090

524,818

5198,545

AWI 2007 Record of Decision: Table 8 - Cost Estimate for Selected Remedy Page 1 of 4

AR302187

Table 8: Cost Estimate for Selected Remedy (Alternative 4) Soil Cover, Partial DNAPL Consolidation and Containment, MNA/Ground Water Monitoring, Dredging


Item

(4) Long-term Ground Water and DNAPL Monitoring

(a) Develop Sampling Plan

(b) Monitoring Well Installation

(c) Annually (20 wells, years 1 through 30)

(1) sample collection

(2) sample analysis

Subtotal (4)

(5) Off-Shore Sheet Pile Wall

(a) Install Sheet Piles approx..200 ' (S) and 545' (N) off-shore

(b) Deadman/tiebacks

(c) On-shore portion of the wall

(d) Overflow weirs (sand)

(e) Riprap in front of wall

{)) Extend storm sewers in inlets

Subtotal (5)

(6) Dredging and Disposal Behind Bulkhead and On West Side

(a.l) Dredging sediment > 100 ppm, continuing to 45 ppm

(a.1.5) Dredging of clay in Wyecoff Inlet (see Figure 31)

(a.2) Water treatment for dewatering (use cap cost from Sec 3)

(a.3) Dewatering ops costs using treatment sys

(b) Backfill and compact behind bulkeads

(c) Backfill excess material on west side

(d) Stabilization of 5' behind sheet pile wall

(e) Stabilization of upper 3' for load bearing surface

(f") Stabilization of 15% of material disposed on west side

(g) Treatability Study (Stabilization)

(h) Enhanced MNR (6 inches of sand)

(i) ErJianced MNR (6 inches of sand) - Estimated Navy Area

(j) Sand placement over exposed clay (1 foot of sand)

(k) Sand placement rest of dredge area to address residuals

(1) Dredging Q A / Q C (bathymetry)

Subtotal (6)

(7) River Monitoring

Sediment

(a) Project Planning and Organization

(b) Sampling Labor

(c) Sampling Equipment

(d) Sample Analysis and Data Validation (32 samples)

(e) Data Evaluation and Reporting

Quantity

1

2

1

20

61,075

192

15,300

96

5,738

1

157.300

3,800

1

161,100

69,000

88,300

6,136

9,778

13,245

1

5.6

1.3

6,6

6.6

1

32

Unit Cost

$20,000

$15,000

$18,000

$500

$70

$360

557

565

$40

$40,000

530

$30

5326,000

$2

$10

$14

$60

$60

560

$25,000

$105,000

$105,000

$210,000

$210,000

$10,000

S 1,400

$ 9,000

$ 49,150

$ 500

$ 16,800

Units

EA

event

.EA

SF

EA

SF

EA

TON

i-S

CY

CY

LS

CY

CY

CY

CY

CY

CY

LS

AC

AC

AC

AC

LS

LS

LS

1^

LS

LS

Capital Cost

$20,000

$30,000

$50,000

$4,275,250

568,940

5872,100

$6,224

$229,520

$40,000

55,492,034

54,719,000

5114,000

$326,000

5322,200

' $690,000

$1,236,200

$368,160

$586,680

5794,700

$25,000

$588,000

$131,250

51,386,000

$1,386,000

$10,000

512,683,190

O&M Cost 1

Annual

518,000

510,000

528,000

S 1,400

$ 9,000

$ 49,150

$ 16,000

$ 16,800

Present Worth

$223,363

$124,090

$347,453

$17,373

5111,681

5609,904

5198p45

$208,472


AR302188



Item

Biota (annually years 1 through 4)

(f) Cageil bivalve study and collection of crabs

(g) Statistical and risk analysis

Biota (every 5 years - years 5 through 30)

(h) Caged bivalve study and collection of crabs

(i) Statistical and risk analysis

Subtotal (7)

(8) Stormwater Management & Wetland Mitigation

(a) Detention Basins

(1) ExcavaHon/Hauling

(2) Geotechnical Material

(3) Grading

(4) Backfill

(5) Seeding

(6) Flow Control Structures

(b) Drainage Swales

(1) Clearing / Grubbing

(2) Excavation

(3) Grading

(4) Seeding

(c ) Tidal Wetland Mitigation (assume 1 acre)

(1) Excavation/Hauling

(2) Backfill

(3) Grading

(4) Plantings

Subtotal (8)

(9) Institutional Controls

(a) Deed Restrictions

(b) 5-Year Review Reporting (every 5 years for 30 years)

Subtotal (9)

COMSTRUOTON SUBTOl'AL

Contractor Submittals, H&5, and Construction Q A / Q C

Contractor Overhead

Contractor Profit

Contingency

Quantity

1

1

1

1

12,000

8,000

70,000

1,000

70

2

3

1,400

' 4,500

123

11,300

2,400

43,560

1

1

6

Unit Cost

$ 71,000

5 41,000

S 71,000

5 41,000

55

52

$1

$3

565

510,000

M,700

.•»

$2

565

55

$3

51

550,000

$25,000

5150,000

5% of Construction Subtotal

10% of Construction Subtota



Units

LS

LS

LS

LS

CY

SY

SF

CY

MSF

LS

AC

CY

SF

MSF

CY

CY

SF

LS

LS

EA

(:0N5TRUCTI0N TOTAI- I I I

Project Management

Engineering

Resident Engineering/Inspection

10% of Construction Total



l U l A L C A I ' I I A L L U M a | | |

OPtR.ATION i MAINTENANCE SUBTOTAL

Capital Cost

563,120

$16,000

$70,000

52,610

54,550

$20,000

512,220

$7,364

59,000

$7,995

$56,500

$7,200

$43,560

$50,000

$370,119

$25,000

$25,000

S2l,^W,3S0

$1,098,868

52,197,735

$2,197,735

54,395,470

$31,S67.lS8

53,186,716

$3,186,716

53,186,716

" «41,42';,3U5

O&M Cost 1 Annual

$ 71,000

5 41,000

5204,350

$30,000

$30,000

• $278,35(5

Present Worth

$240,492

$138,876

$153,218

588,478

$1,767,039

5323,700

$323,700

S5,6Je;,73^


AR302189



Item

O&M Project Management and Support O&M Contingency

Quantity Unit Cost

10% of O&M Subtotal

15% of O&M Subtotal

Units

TOTAL ESTIMATED COSTS I I I

Capital Cost

$41,427,305

O&M Cost ] Annual

527,835 $41,753

5347,938

Present Worth

$345,406

$518,108

53,500,251

NET PRESENT WORTH OF COSTS 544,927,556


AR302190

Explanation or Significant Differences - Table 2

Atlantic Wood Industries Superfund Site 2012 Cost Estimate for Cleanup

Soil Cover, Partial DNAPL Consolidation, Groundwater Monitoring, Dredging With Consolidation Behind Enhanced Off-Shore Sheet Pile Wall

Quantity Unit Cost Units

E S D

Capital Cost O&M Cost Atmual Present Worth

d) .MobiJiy.tilion/Demobilization

(b) Soil Cover I

(1) vegetative layer (6 inches of topsoil and seeding)

HHm^^tective layer (12 iiKhes of native soil):l

(3) doiiicircation laver (geotextile layer)

(c) Erosion Control I

(1) site perinieler

(d) Long-term Cap Maintenance (1) inowiitg (J per ve.ir tor 30 years)

(3) repairs (1 per year for 30 years)

Subtotal (1) J $16,000

WSoBSMWliMtion of West SidelWAsPt

(d) Upper soil and debris removal

|||[||||^l'SoUdification/stabilizatlon. ' ^ ^ I

(c) utility roloedtion (d) ^^^^^^^g^mmmmmaamtmmmmm^

Total (2) - indudes contractor submiiialVoveiheac^iDfit

(3) Groundwater Dewatering Treatment Plant

Subtotal ( 3 ) S | m

i__ $10,000,000

rroMdwiter andl)SKl*t Mohftorini

(a) Develop SamplLiig I'laii

(b) Monitoring Well Installation ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ | ^ ^ ^ ^ |

(c) Aimualh- (20 wells, years 1 througji 30)

Hjjjjlll^ple collectillllllllllllllfllllHl^millll (2) samp

$20,000 LS

J $15,000 EA

$20,000

$30,000

(2) sample analysis 20

Subtotal (4) $50,000 $28,000

$24,818

$24,818

$124,090

$24,818

$18,000 $223,363 $10,000 $124,090

$347,453

ESD for 2007 ROD Atlantic Wood Industries Superfund Site 1 of 3

AR302191

(5) Off-Shore Sheet Pile Wall

Total (5) - includes contractor submit ta lVoverhead/prof i t $21,570,000 $180,000 S2,2;VV627

(6) Dredging and Disposal Behind Bulkhead and On West Side

(a) Dredging sediment > 100 ppm, continuing to 45 ppm

(d.i.5) DriHlgiiig ol fiav in VVveiolf Ink'l (sco Ingun- 31)

(a.2) Water treatment for dewatering (use capital cost from Sec 3 of 2(X)7 ROD) (d.3) ncwwaler ing tij^s LOSIS using tTedtnient system

(b) Backfill and compact behind ^^,^^^j^^gMHHMHH

(c) Bai klill excess matt'rial on west side

(d) Stabilization of 5' behind sheet pile wall

(e) Stahili/.ation of upper 3' lor load bearing surface

(f) Stabilization of 15% of material disposed on w ^ t si

(g) TrealabiUt\' Stueh' (Stabilization)

(h) Enhanced MNR (6 inches of sand)

(i) Eiilianced MNR (h inches ol sand) - Estimated Navy Area

fflflmiHilnrfttirntflYrrf (k) Sand placement rest of dredge area to address residuals

(m) relocale storm s e u e r

(n) west side landfill cell construction

(o) east side containment berm

Subtotal (6)

(7) Annual River Monitoring

(a) Project Planning and Organization

(b) Sampling Labor

(c) Sampling Equipment (d) Sample Anahsis and Data \aIiddtion (32 samples)

(e) Data Evaluation and Reporting! Biota (annual ly years 1 thru 4)

(f) Caged bivalve study and collection of cralra

(g) Statislital and risk anah'sis

Biota (every 5 years - years 5 thru 30) .Ji (li) Cageii bi\'alve s ludv and collection t)f crabs

(1) Statistical and risk analysis . | H H |

Subtotal (7)

(8) Stormwater Management

(a) Detention Basins fl^^^^^^^l

(b) Drainage Swales

(c) Tidal Wetland Mitigation (1 acre)

(!) l'.xt.a\'ation/l lauling

(2) BackfiU

(3) Grading

315,000

0

1

315,000

$30

$30

$326,000

$2

•

15.0

$10

$14

$60

$60

$60 $25,000

$105,000

$105,000

$210,000

$105,000

$10,000

$1,000,000

$1,700,000

$740,000

$ 1,400

$ y,uoo P ' 49,150 $ 500

16,800

71,000

41,000

$ 71,000

$226,750 $1,792,480

H^^^k^ 0

! 0 ' ^ ^ 0

$350,000

$5

IjMWfc' $3 $1

Acre

CV

CY m SI

$350,000

SO

IHnB ' 0 so

^ $0

iubtotal (8) I • : $350,000


AR302192

(a) Deed Restrictions (b) 5-Year Review Reporting (every 5 years for 30 years)

$25,000 LS

$150,000 EA

Subtotal (9)1

$25,000

$30,000

p25,000 $30,000

$323,700

$323,700

CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL (forthosc items where Subtotal above does not include the items just below) $26,127,195

Contractor Overhead 10% ol Construe lion Subtotal

CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL

Construction Contigencv 20% of Coirstruction Subtotal

Project Maiwgement 10% of Construction Total

Engineering (Design)

Resident Engineering/ Inspection 5% of Construction Total

P H I ^ $1,306,360

$2,612,720

$2,612,720

$64,228,994

$12,845,799

$6,422,899

$7,300,000

$3,211,450

^ ^ •1

""Ti

TOTAL CAPITAL COSTS $94,009,142

OPERATION & MAINTENANCE SUBTOTAL $480,750 $2,662,178

O&M Project Management and Support 10% of O&M Subtotal

O&M Contingency 15% of O&M Subtotal

$48,075

$72,113

$596,565

$894,847

TOTAL ESTIMATED COSTS $94,009,142 $600,938 $4,153,590

NET PRESENT WORTH OF COSTS $98,162,731


:;^;-. AR302193

iiriiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii sdms docid

Documents