CofV
HAZARDOUSSITE CONTROL
DIVISION
RemedialPlanning/
FieldInvestigation
Team(REM/FIT)
ZONE II
CONTRACT NO. •!68-01-6692 !
CHJMBHILLEcology &
Environment
WORK PLANREVISION
REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION/FEASIBILITY STUDY
VERONA WELLFIELDBATTLE CREEK, MI
EPA 38.5L51.0EPA 38.5M51.0
July 3, 1984
WORK PLANREVISION
REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION/FEASIBILITY STUDY
VERONA WELLFIELDBATTLE CREEK, MI
EPA 38.5L51.0EPA 38.5M51.0
July 3, 1984
000095
MODIFICATION OF THE RI/FS WORK PLANVERONA WELL FIELD
BATTLE CREEK, MICHIGAN
INTRODUCTION
This work plan covers activities associated with the Phase IIRemedial Investigation and an initial phase of the FeasibilityStudy for the Verona Wellfield at Battle Creek, Michigan.Included herein is a discussion of the project background,work plans, objectives, scope of work, budget, and scheduled.
BACKGROUND
The Verona Wellfield provides potable water to approximately35,000 residents of Battle Creek, Michigan, and a number ofcommercial and industrial establishments. During August1981, the Calhoun County Health Department discovered that anumber of private and city wells were contaminated with vola-tile organic hydrocarbons (VOC's). Subsequent testing re-vealed that nearly one-half of the city's 30 potable waterwells were contaminated.
In October 1983, an initial work plan was prepared whichincluded remedial investigation (RI), feasibility study (FS),community relations, and interim treatment design activities.The majority of the RI tasks, the community relations, andthe interim treatment design activities were authorized underEPA work assignment #38.5L51.0. The FS activities (W.A.#38.5M51.0) and Tasks 6 and 7 of the RI (Phase II ground-water monitoring wells and pumping tests) were not author-ized at that time. Work on the authorized work plan tasksis essentially complete at this time.
A Focused Feasibility Study (FFS) was subsequently author-ized to evaluate alternatives for an Initial Remedial Mea-sure (IRM). This study was followed by an IRM design forthe selected alternative. Construction of the selected IRMalternative (additional wells and treatment system) is pres-ently under way and is expected to be substantially completedby August 1984.
A meeting was held in Lansing, Michigan, in May 1984, todiscuss the activities required to complete the wellfield RIand to evaluate alternatives for source control at the ThomasSolvents site and possibly the Grand Trunk Western Railroadmarshalling yard. This work plan addresses the work tasksproposed for completion of the Verona wellfield RI and foran initial phase of the FS regarding source control at theThomas Solvent facilities.
0000353
OBJECTIVES
Remedial Investigation—Phase II
^ Results of the Phase I investigation have identified exten-sive contamination at two sources: 1) the Thomas SolventRaymond Road Facility; and 2) the Thomas Solvent Annex FacilityContamination has been traced or inferred to occur betweenthese facilities and the well field and occurs within thesand and gravel and the sandstone bedrock to the maximum
^ depth investigated (115 feet). Although data are insufficientto support a definitive conclusion, another possible contami-nant source has been identified as the Grand Trunk marshallingyard. The objectives of this Phase II RI Field Investigationare to:
^ 1. Sufficiently characterize the Thomas Solvent facili-ties contaminant sources to enable development andselection of source control alternatives
2. Confirm water quality observations throughout thestudy area where needed
"* 3. Investigate the source of the perchlorethylene/1,1,1-trichloroethane (PCE/TCA) plume observed in theeastern portion of the well field
Feasibility Study—Source Control Phase
- Information gathered from the Phase I remedial investigation,technical assistance team investigation, and studies conductedby the USGS have identified two major sources of contaminationto the aquifer supplying the Verona Well Field. These arethe Thomas Solvent Raymond Road Facility and the Thomas SolventAnnex Facility (see Figure 1 for locations).
The operation at these two facilities has been substantiallycurtailed through legal actions taken by the Michigan DNR.However, the two facilities act as sources of contaminationin that soils above the water table are contaminated withVOC's and the contamination in the groundwater at each siteis at very high levels. Therefore, each site is consideredto be a source of contamination to the remainder of the aquifer,
An initial phase of the Feasibility Study is warranted onthese two sources of contamination to the aquifer because ofthe high concentrations present within the soils and ground-water, the rate of groundwater movement, and the sensitivityof the remaining aquifer to the contamination. This phaseof the Feasibility Study will be limited to the particularhydrogeologic conditions of the relatively small area ofeach site. The objectives of this Feasibility Study phaseare to:
000035-1
1. Model the transport of contaminants in the groundwaterbeneath the sites, predicting the impact over time onneighboring water uses, emphasizing impact on theVerona Wellfield.
2. Estimate the rate of contaminant leaching into the ground-water from the soils at the sites.
3. Establish the standards to which each source should betreated.
This phase of the Feasibility Study will be initiated onreceipt of the results of the Phase II field investigationand as the groundwater modeling results become availablefrom the Remedial Investigation.
SCOPE OF WORK• —-'"• - " — " ••—The work tasks proposed for the Phase II RI and the FSSource Control phase are described below. Since the Phase IIwork tasks for the RI are a revised version of Tasks 6 and 7of the October 1983 RI Work Plan, the same task numberingorder will be maintained.
REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION—PHASE II WORK TASKS
TASK 6—PHASE II INVESTIGATION
Subtask 6-1—Testing at Municipal Well V-28
Vertical water quality sampling will be conducted at Well V-28in order to characterize the vertical extent of the PCE/TCAplume in the vicinity of that well and the most productivezones in that well. Flow meter and geophysical logging willalso be conducted to identify production zones within theaquifer and geologic marker units. Well V-28 was selectedbecause it had continuously high or increasing concentrat-ions of both compounds and appears to be the center of theplume.
The existing pump in the well must be removed temporarily.The City has indicated that they will contract to have thiswork done. Geophysical logging of the well will then beconducted to identify the location of marker units identi-fied in previously logged holes. Geophysical logs to be runinclude SP, resistivity, and natural gamma.
Following geophysical logging of the well, a flow meter logof the well will be completed while pumping the well. Thiswill consist of installing a flow meter, which measures thevertical velocity of flow through the well, inserting a pumpand logging the vertical velocity through the well during a
0000955
constant pumping rate. The pumping rate will be between 75and 150 gpm depending on pump availability.
Following the flow meter log, seven vertically-separatedwater samples will be collected over the 69-foot openinterval of the well. These samples will be collected usingdouble packers to isolate a 10-foot zone. These sampleswill be subjected to analysis for volatile organics using anonsite GC. Three of the samples will be sent to the con-tract laboratory program (CLP) for confirmation. Onsiteresults of these samples will be used to direct subsequentdrilling and sampling programs within the well field.
This subtask will be done by Warzyn.
Subtask 6-2—Soil Gas Sampling
Soil gas sampling will be conducted within the Grand TrunkMarshalling Yard to determine if a source of the PCE/TCAp-lume can be identified. If a source can be identified,wells currently scheduled for upgradient of the Marshallingyard will be installed in the Yard in Subtask 6-3.
A brief survey will be conducted at the Thomas SolventRaymond Road Facility to determine responses at severaldepths in an area of known groundwater quality. Anothersurvey will be conducted between wells W-9S and T-6 to deter-mine the potential location of a plume leaving the RaymondRoad Facility.
Sampling of the soil gas will be conducted using a drivepoint, collecting a sample from one depth. The depth ofsampling will be dependent on field results of verticalsampling at the Raymond Road Facility and within theMarshalling Yard. At sites within the Marshalling Yardwhere significant concentrations are observed, verticalsampling will be completed to determine if increases atdepth occur. Analysis of the soil gas will be done onsiteusing either a Photovac or the onsite mobile laboratory.
Subtask 6-3—Offsite Well Installation
Wells will be installed based on the results of the loggingand sampling of Well V-28 and the soil gas analysis. Loca-tion of the wells are shown on Figure 1 and specific installa-tion criteria are as follows:
000035G
EstimatedDepth
Well Number Type (feet)
W1I, W2I Upper Bedrock Well with 70Intermediate Water Sampling
W13S, W14S, W15S Glacial Drift Monitoring Well 40
W13I, W14I, W15I, Upper Bedrock Monitoring Well 70T7I
Location of the W13, W14, W15, and T7 nests are intended tomonitor the background conditions upgradient of the Marshal-ling Yard, assuming no onsite source is identified throughthe soil gas sampling. If a potential source is identified,these wells will be replaced by wells of appropriate depth,location, and construction in the Marshalling Yard.
Wells W1I and W2I will be drilled using air rotary drilling.Grab samples of the drill cuttings will be taken at 10-footintervals. Casing will be used to seal off the glacialdrift only if results of the sampling at V28 and W1S indicatethat the contamination is present solely within the glacialdrift.During dilling of wells W1I and W2I, groundwater samplingwill be conducted within the rock using a single packer orcasing to seal off all but the lower 10 feet of the hole.Water will be purged prior to sampling to obtain a sampleunaffected by the drilling method. Water samples will beanalyzed using onsite laboratory equipment to assist indetermining the vertical variation- in water quality and theappropriate depth for well placement.
The glacial drift monitoring wells will be drilled using ahollow stem auger drilling method. Samples will be obtainedat 5-foot intervals using a split spoon sampler. The upperbedrock wells T7I, W13I, W14I, and W15I will be drilled usingmud rotary through the glacial drift and air rotary withinthe rock. Casing will be set to the top of rock only ifneeded to prevent collapse of the hole as determined by thedriller.The well materials will consist of 2-inch-diameter galvan-ized steel casing with commercially- fabricated 10-foot-longstainless steel weir screen. The well seal shall be a com-bination of a bentonite seal with an overlying cement groutseal. A concrete collar will be placed at the surface witha locking protective casing. All wells will be developed by
0000.957
pumping until discharge water is sediment-free. Excess waterfrom all wells will be disposed of onsite. The downholedrilling equipment will be steam cleaned between holes toprevent cross-contamination of holes. The split spoonsamplers will be detergent washed and water rinsed betweensamples.
Technical guidance to the drilling contractor will be pro-vided by an experienced geologist to obtain the desiredhydrogeologic information during the drilling and wellinstallation. The geologist will collect formation andwater samples, select appropriate intervals to be tested,and select the depth to set permanent casing and screens.Additional program details are listed as follows:
o 120 lineal feet of hollow stem auger drilling
o 140 feet of air rotary drilling with intermediatewater sampling
o 280 feet of air rotary drilling
o Ten water samples collected over 10-foot intervals,during drilling
o D-Level protection
o HNU/OVA monitoring continuously during drilling
This subtask. is to be done by Warzyn.
Subtaslc 6-4—Onsite Well Installation
Additional wells are required at the Thomas Solvent's RaymondRoad and Annex facilities to better characterize the distribu-tion of contaminants both horizontally and vertically and todetermine the contaminant migration route from the RaymondRoad Facility. The location of the wells will be based inpart on results of the geophysical surveys conducted by theMDNR. Locations of the wells are shown on Figures 2 and 3,and specific criteria are as follows:
Well Number Tvpe
EstimatedDepth(feet)
B18I, B17I, B8I, Upper Bedrock Well with 70B23I, W16I Intermediate Water Sampling
B21, B22, B23 Glacial Drift Monitoring Well 30B24, B25, W16S
0000953
The vertical extent of contamination will be investigatedthrough the drilling of four, intermediate-depth borings (B8I,B17I, B18I, and B23I). Two borings will be located on eachsite as shown on Figures 2 and 3. These borings will bedrilled using a screened hollow stem auger on the RaymondRoad Facility (to the depth possible) and using air rotarydrilling on the Annex facility. Water samples will be col-lected during drilling at approximately 10- to 15-foot inter-vals below the depth of the adjacent monitoring well. Sampl-ing from the screened auger will occur through the auger.
, Sampling in the bedrock will be conducted from a specificinterval. The interval will be sealed off by driving casingor use of a single expandable packer. Sufficient water willbe purged to obtain samples unaffected by the drilling method.These samples will be analyzed using onsite laboratory equip-ment, with three to six samples sent to the CLP for confirma-
_ tion analyses. Results from the onsite equipment will beused to help determine well placement depths. Wells will beconstructed as described in Subtask 6-3.
A total of five wells are planned at the two Thomas Solventfacilities to fill in data gaps on horizontal extent of con- -tamination on each site. These wells will be located based .
" on results of the MDNR geophysical surveys. Each well willbe drilled using hollow stem auger dilling methods to a depthof approximately 30 feet. Wells will be installed as de-scribed in Subtask 6-3.
A two-well nest (W16S and W16I) will be placed between exist-* ing Wells T6 and W9S to intercept the assumed migration route
from the Raymond Road Facility. The nest location will bebased on soil gas sampling or a brief seismic survey. Theshallow well (W16S) will be drilled approximately 40 feetdeep. This well will be drilled using a screened hollowstem auger with water sampling at the water table and at thetop of the sandstone bedrock. The intermediate depth wellwill be drilled using air rotary drilling to a depth of approxi-mately 70 feet with water sampling in the bedrock, as discussedabove, at 10-foot intervals below the bedrock surface. Sampleswill be analyzed by onsite laboratory equipment. Resultswill be used to assist in selecting a screen depth.
Technical guidance to the drilling contractor will be pro-vided by an experienced geologist to obtain the desiredhydrogeologic information during the drilling and wellinstallation. The geologist will collect formation andwater samples, select appropriate intervals to be tested,and select the depth to set permanent casing and screens.Additional program details are listed as follows:
o 320 feet of hollow-stem auger drilling
o 17 water samples collected over during drilling
0000959
o C-level of protection during onsite drilling,D-level of protection at depth or offsite
o HNU/OVA monitoring continuously during drilling
This subtask is to be done by Warzyn
Subtask 6-5--Geophysical Logging
After each bedrock boring has been drilled and prior to wellinstallation, the hole will be logged using gamma ray logg-ing techniques. The intent of this logging is to identifyany shale units within the sandstone aquifer and to identifythe gamma anomaly marker unit.
This subtask will be performed by Warzyn.
Subtask 6-6—Permeability Testing
A baildown permeability test will be conducted at each newonsite well, Wells W1I and W2I, and key existing wells for atotal of 15 wells. This permeability testing will consistof a slug withdrawal with recovery measurement using apressure transducer with rapid measurement capabilities.
This subtask will be performed by Warzyn.
Subtask 6-7—Tracer Tests
Tracer tests are proposed to be conducted both on theRaymond Road Facility and within the well field. Thesetests are dependent on approval by the Michigan DNR andMichigan Department of Public Health. The purpose of thesetracer tests are to provide estimates of the dispersivitywithin the sand and gravel and bedrock aquifers as well asto confirm groundwater velocity and flow directions.
The test on the Thomas Solvent Raymond Road Facility will beconducted using bromide as the tracer compound injected intoWell B14 as slug injection. Three pounds of Bromide saltwill be dissolved in 400 gallons of water and injected intothe well over a one-day period. Analyses will be conductedover 6 weeks on samples from the downgradient monitoringwells. Samples will be analyzed by a bromide electrode inthe field and neutron activation in the laboratory for con-firmation. Approximately 65 samples will be sent to thelaboratory for analysis over the test period.
The tracer test within the well field willuse bromide saltas a tracer injected as a slug into Well V31. The massinjected will depend on background concentrations but isexpected to be approximately 15 pounds of bromide dissolvedin 1,800 gallons of water. This will be injected into
0000900
Well V31, using the existing pump to pump against a closedgate valve to mix the solution in the well. Samples will becollected from V28 and V27. Cost estimates assume sampleswill be collected by the well field operator and sent to theCLP for analysis. Approximately 100 samples will be sent tothe laboratory for bromide analysis.
Scheduling Subtasks 6-1 through 6-7
Figure 4 illustrates the schedule of activities described inSubtasks 6-1 through 6-7. Due to the need for field deci-sions, especially in SubtasJcs 6-1 and 6-2, to determine thecourse of following subtasks, the schedule of activities isimportant. This schedule has also been used to estimate thenumber and type of people required in the field.
Costs contained in this Work Plan assume these field tasks,Subtasks 6-1 through 6-7 will require the following levelsof effort:
o Per Diem for seven people for total of 82 mandays
o Nine trips (one trip for five people, two tripsfor two people)
o Eleven days rental for two vehicles, 6 days'rental for one vehicle
o Eleven days van rental
o Nine days for two SSO, 6 days for one SSO, pro-vided by E&E
o Nine days Level B equipment for four drillers, twogeologists, two SSO, provided by E&E
o Nine days of onsite laboratory equipment andoperator provided by CH2M HILL for water analyses
o Five days of use of a photovac and operatorprovided by CH2M HILL for the soil gas samplinganalysis
Subtask 6-8—Groundwater Sampling and Analysis
Following the drilling and installation of the Phase II moni-toring wells, a sampling and testing program will be conductedon 54 wells. A groundwater sample and water level measurementwill be collected from each of the following:
a. Five private wells in the Pennfield subdivisionnorthwest of the Annex Facility.
0000961
b. Twenty-nine of the W and B series wells installedin the Phase I investigation.
c. Nine wells installed under Task 6.3
d. Eleven wells installed under Task 6.4
The 2-inch wells will be sampled using a stainless steel,bottom-loading bailer. Purging will be completed using a2-inch stainless steel/teflon pump, or suction lift followedby bailing one well volume. Three well volumes will bepurged from wells which have been sampled previously. Fivewell volumes will be purged from recently-installed wells.
The excess discharge water will be contained at all new wellsand at wells where previous analyses indicated total volatilecontaminant concentrations greater than 100 mg/1. The waterwill be transported for disposal into the sewer system up-stream of the wastewater treatment plant. All samples willbe tested for volatile hydrocarbons using a GC/MS scan. Allsamples will be handled in accordance with EPA chain-of-custody procedures. Additional program details are asfollows:
a. Two persons on each sampling team, two personscompleting sample forms and cleaning samplingequipment, and a team leader
b. HNU/OVA monitoring during sampling
c. One trip, five people
d. Per Diem, 16 days, five people
e. Auto rental, 16 days
f. One SSO for 16 days provided by E&E
This subtask will be done by Warzyn.
Subtask 6-9—Well Location and Elevation Survey
The wells will be surveyed to within ±1 foot horizontallyand ±0.005 feet vertically. New well locations will beplotted on the base maps. The survey will be completedduring the water sampling program so a site safety officerwill be available.
Warzyn will subcontract this subtask.
10
0000962
Subtask 6-10—Technical Memorandum
A report will be prepared presenting results of the Phase IIfield investigation. The report will include well locations,well logs, results of testing performed in Task 6, and otherpertinent data.
This subtask will be done by Warzyn.
TASK 7—GROUNDWATER MODELING
This task will build on the USGS modeling effort to developa flow and contaminant transport model that can be used toaid in the development and evaluation of remedial actionalternatives. This modeling effort will be conducted inthree subtasks: 1) calibration of flow and contaminanttransport to previous and existing conditions; 2) productionmodeling of potential remedial measures; and 3) sensitivityanalyses of the model parameters.
Subtask 7-1—USGS Meeting
A meeting will be held with the USGS Lansing office to dis- .cuss the results of their flow modeling effort and to deter-mine how the two models can best be interfaced.
Subtask 7-2—Model Calibration
The flow model will be calibrated to existing conditionsusing the record of groundwater level measurements and thewell field pumpage.
The flow will be calibrated to contaminant transport basedon the observed contaminant distribution and estimatedsource contributions.
Subtask 7-3—Production Modeling
The production modeling will consist of simulating the fol-lowing conditions:
a. The effectiveness of the purge wells being usedfor the initial remedial measure
b. The effect on contaminant migration if the wellfield is abandoned
c. The potential source of the perchloroethylene/1,1,1-trichloroethane plume affecting the eastside of the well field
d. The effect of source control options on the wellfield water quality, including no source control
110000963
e. The effects of potential remedial actions on theaquifer
The model to be used in this study includes the quasi-three-dimensional Prickett-Lonnquist Aquifer Simulation Model forthe flow condition and the Random Walk Model to simulate thesolute transport.
Subtask 7-4—Sensitivity Analysis
In order to examine uncertainties, model sensitivity to sev-eral key parameters will be evaluated. These parametersinclude the transverse and longitudinal dispersivities, theaquifer transmissivity, the source input assumptions, andthe effect of the connection with the river.
Subtask 7-5—Technical Memorandum• • • ' ••"• — •• "• • 'A report will be prepared presenting the results of thegroundwater modeling. This will include the calibration,production, and sensitivity phases of the groundwater model-ing effort.
This subtask will be done by Warzyn.
Subtask 7-6—Project Control
CH2M HILL will provide overall project management responsi-bilities including monitoring of project objectives and re-suits of field activities, schedule and cost control, andquality assurance reviews of final work products.
FEASIBILITY STUDY —SOURCE CONTROL PHASE
The following tasks define the work elements and the scopeof work for each element of the Source Control phase of theFeasibility Study.
TASK 1 —ESTABLISH "HOW CLEAN IS CLEAN"
Subtask 1"!—Contaminant Transport Modeling
Contaminant transport modeling will be conducted for thewell field and surrounding area. This work is described andbudgeted in the RI, Task 7, as revised by this Work Plan.Results of this modeling will be used in the Focused Feasibil-ity Study to determine the effects of various scenarios ofcontaminant concentrations through time at each individualsource. The model will be used to assist in developingobjectives for the groundwater quality at each site, basedon predicted concentrations in the aquifer and final aquiferrestoration alternatives.
120000964
This subtaslc will be performed by Warzyn.
Subtask 1-2 — Evaluate Effect of Soils Leachability
The effect of contaminated soils on groundwater rechargewill be estimated. Projections on the length of time neededin combination with the rate of recharge needed to leach thesoils to certain concentrations will be made.
This subtask will be performed by Warzyn.
Subtask 1-3-— Soils and Groundwater Quality Objectives
The soil and groundwater quality objectives will be estab-lished to determine how clean the sites must be left inorder to be consistent with the final remedy and to provideprotection to the public health and welfare and to the envi-ronment. This work will include an endangerment assessment.
These objectives will be developed through a combination ofthe groundwater quality modeling, the soil leaching analysisin combination with the concentrations desired at the wellfield. The soil and groundwater quality objectives will beused in evaluation of remedial action alternatives.
This subtask will be performed by Warzyn.
Subtask 1-4 — Technical Memorandum
A technical memorandum will be prepared summarizing the soiland groundwater quality objectives, as well as the rationaleused to develop them.
This subtask will be performed by Warzyn and reviewed byCH2M HILL.
Subtask 1-5 — Quality Objectives Review Meeting
A review meeting on the technical memorandum prepared de-scribing the soil and groundwater quality objectives will beheld between CH2M HILL, Warzyn, EPA, the City of Battle Creek,interested state agencies, and other interested parties.The purpose of the meeting will be to reach agreement onwhether the objectives are "clean" enough.
This subtask will be performed by Warzyn, CH2M HILL, EPA,and other parties involved.
Subtask 1-6 — Project Control
CH2M HILL will provide overall project management responsi-bilities including monitoring of project objectives, scheduleand cost control, and quality assurance of the final product./CVR1/086
13000096."
TMU 1
ESTIMATED WUJECT COSTSVEMM CLLFIELO MOJECT
REMEDIAL IWESriBATlOMWK 8
LABOR COSTS EXPENSES
LABOR GRflOE, HUBS
P4 P3 K PI T2 Tl 0
DIRECT TRAVEL OTHER TOTALTOTAL LABOR AND DIRECT TOTAL 90UM- PROJECTHDU6 COST SUSIST COSTS EXPENSES TRACTRS COSTS
TASK 6 - Fitld Inmti|itionfe.1 V-6.2 Soil B«6.3 Offlitc fells6.4 OnsiU vlls6.5 G6.6 hraukility Tictin|6.7 Tranr T«tt6.6 SHplin| aid AN lysis6.9 Hill Swcy6.IB Technical
B17BBIBMIBM
B4t25464347BB
16 16 7t5 25B 2M
B 11B46 110465725 443B 101635645 3BBH 4360937M 44444 30604
2042 2042
450
3204 320440963 40963
1830 10302369 3524
OoO
Tflflt 7 -7.1 USBB7.a IMtl Calibntion7.3 ProActim Tntin|7.4 Smitivity (kulytii7.5 TtchBiul NMO7.6 Projtct CdHtral
SUBTOTAL
D. L OH
BMW
TOTAL
FEE
TDTALfFEE
3963 56W11285 11385
16 0130 1M
~I90 ~U6 ~~24 ~B ~B
6435 6433399? 4735
B B376
ISM 219BB 193113 2MB4
1939
1936
21293
219BI 193115 234374
2191 9191 13316
24091 2B23B5 24769B
OOooto
TABLE 2
ESTIMATED PROJECT COSTSVERONA UELLFIELD PROJECT
FEASIBILITY STUDY-SOURCE CONTROL PHASE
LABOR COSTS EXPENSES
LABOR GRADE, H O U R S D I R E C T T R A V E L O T H E R T O T A LTOTAL LABOR AND DIRECT TOTAL SUBCQN- PROJECT
P4 P3 P2 PI T2 Tl 0 HOURS COST SUBSIST COSTS EXPENSES TRACTRS COSTS
TAB1.1 Motel (S*« RI Phase 2> I 0 0 I I I 01.2 Soil Leadiability 0 I • 0 0 22% 22%1.3 Objectives 0 0 0 0 0 3103 31031.4 Technical Men 16 8 24 532 0 0 0 4240 47721.5 Review Meeting 24 84 569 1500 0 1500 3963 60781.6 Project NanageKnt 40 16 56 1181 0 400 4M I 1581
SUBTOTAL 60 24 6 • 0 0 0 104 2242 1500 400 1900 13622 17763.32
D. L. M 919 919
6IA OH 2713 2713
TOTAL 5674 19N 13622 21396
FEE 567 191 661 2713
TOTflL*FEE 6461 2*» 14303 24109
i 3 «•»«
" Si••u
8 , «<
5 -V • •K3o ia. • mt̂ i
>- zui ui£ z
o o •<
O I- 0£
CXDCO
c?o
M *
5 E5 ;S M
— 9i —
S*** I ^
s
S -l O_•t t |^| QJ
a- t * *gg 5 a?13 -1 ?e51 d II
C1118SFIGURE
morosco LOCATIONS OF OFF-SITEPHASE II MONITORING HELLS -VEMNA HELL FIELD
c
LIOCM
__ MVEO NOAO
— — — UNMWCD NOAO
0 TRANSMOSIOMIOWt«
0zs
MOTCt
C
©•a
•A UK
I«ti
POLt
WELL
BONlMG
MANMH t
FINE Htl)«*Ml
PROPOSED WEU
PHASE II PRDTOSCDHELL LOCATION
THOMAS SOLVENTS'ANNEX FACILITY
REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONVEMHA HELL FIELDMTUE CREEK.
FIGUHt 2
c c
RAYMOND " 2 RD.
MHfD flOAO
P-J
TftAH.
MILOMW
FENCE
GUAM) HAH.
m
mmH
/— • -— j<—• — ̂
MIME
•ALL
CULVERTWATCH *.MAINAOETREEEDOE OF
IKH.I
WELL
•OMlNfi
MANHOLE
FUICPROPOSED WELL
Awwl (MM*.
PHASE II PROPOSEDKIL LOUT I QMS
THOMAS SOLVENTBRAVMONO ROAOFAOUTY
REHEOIAl INVESTIGAriONVEROM HELL FIELD 'RATTLE CREEK. MICHIGAN
FIGUHL J
c cFIGURE 4
PHASE II FIELD INVESTIGATION SCHEDULE
July
Subtask
6-1V28
6-2Soil Gas
6-3Off-Site Wells
6-4On-S1te Wells
6-5Geophysical
6-6PermeabilityTests
6-7Tracer Tests
6-8GroundwaterSaapl Ing
6-9Survey
9
__
••M
10
—
•Hoi•Air
11
——
ow SiRotai
•••
12
A1r
,e»"«y
"+ 1
13
Rotai
•••
——
EGIN
C(
14
y
mmm
~RAYMO
Ul
JNDUC1
IS
•HIM
IND R(
^»H
BEG
' CONC
16
^^
AD TE
JEGIN
IN AU(
;URREI
17
••
iH
18
••••
19
^^m
20
ST - COMPLETE AT EN(1 1 1
WELL FIELD TEST
iUST 6 .
a WITH SUBTASK 6-8
21
OF !
22
UBTA!
23
HOIK
K 6
24
otaniw St<
tm
[cwl-41-39]
oo
CO
WORK PLAN REVISION REQUEST
SPM
rRSPO
L
EPAHQ
REVISION NO.: PATE- 7/3/84.
FROM: Jonas A. Dikinis
TO:
Regional Site Project Officer
Nancy M. WillisREM-Deputy Projeci Officer
WANO.: 38 .5L5I .Q
SITE NAME: Verona Wellfield
ACTIVITY: RI—Phase II————
INSTRUCTIONS POM PROCESSING••WORK PLAN REVISION REQUEST-
1) SPM lnltl«t«* «rtd tubmlti form to RSPO.
2) RSPO comolcw form, ftti REM-RPQ n•nd rtturni term to SPM
3} $PM forward* completed form TO ZPMO(Ann: AZPM-Admln.)
4} ZPMO dollvcn form to IP* HO.5) EPA MQ pfQcMHi/«pProv«t 1orm »na
rttwrnt to ZPMO.6) ZPMO notlfl«SPM of •oprov»l.
EXPLANATION OF NEED FOR REVISION: To perform sernnd phasp nf
remedial investigation as described in work plan revision.
BUDGET: Prior Authorized Amount * 467 ,200
Current Increase Requested * 247 . 6QQ
Increases Pending Approve! * 6 7 / 6 2 6
Total Budget S 753*51$,
LOE: Prior Authorized Amount
Current Increase Requested
Increases Pending Approval
Total Budget
1 .600 Hr>-
Hrs.
552 Mrs.
2.524
EFFECT OF CHANGE ON SCHEDULE: See schedule in Work Plan Revision
RSPO Signature/Approval/Date REM-RPO Signature/Approval/Date
Approved as submittedApproved with changesApproved pending fundingPartial approvalNot approved
Approved as submittedApproved with changesApproved pending fundingPartial approvalNot approved
REM-DPO Approval Signature/Date
CO Authorization Signature/Date
CHjMBHILL6/8/64
0000972
WORK PLAN REVISION REQUEST
SPM
rRSPO
L
EPAHQ
REVISION NO.: DATE: 7/3/84
FROM: Jonas A. Dikinis
TO:
Regional Site Project Officer
Nancv M. MillisREM-Deputv Project Officer
WANO.: 38.5M51.0
SITE NAME:
ACTIVITY:
Verona WellfieldFS—Source Control Phase
INSTRUCTIONS f O* PROCESSING"WO«K PLAN REVISION PJEOUEST"
1) SPM Inltlcw end lubmiti form to R$PO.2) RSPO eemeimt form, t«it REM RPQ n«n«tur«
•nd returns form to SPM.
3) 8PM forwtro* compltttd <orm 10 ZPMO(Ann; AZPM-Admln.)
4) ZPMO d»l(v«r» forrh IO tPA MO.
5) IPA HO pfOOUM/ippfOvti 1orm <rtprnurnt to ZPMO.
«) ZPMO noilflmSPM of tPDrow*!.
EXPLANATION OF NEED FOR REVISION: To perform an initial phase of the
Feasibility Study pertaining to source control issues._____
BUDGET: Prior Authorized Amount 1——83fQQQ
Current Increase Requested * 24,109
Increases Pending Approval $ 86 , 983
LOE:
Total Budget
Prior Authorized Amount
Current Increase Requested
Increases Pending Approve!
Total Budget
$ 194,092
1,550 Hrs.
104 Mrs.
394 Hrs.
2,048 Hrs.
EFFECT OF CHANGE ON SCHEDULE: No effect on RI schedule
RSPO Signature/Approval/Date
—— Approved •* submitted_ Approved with changes______ Approved pending funding—— Partial approval—— Not approved
—— Approved as submitted—— Approved with changes—— Approved pending funding— Partial approval—— Not approved
REM-RPO Signature/Approval/Oaie
REM-DPO Approval Signature/Date
CO Authorization Signature/Date
CHJMBHIU6/8/84
0000973
CH2M•HILL
engineersplannerseconomistsscientists
July 6, 1984
W65251.00
USEPA, Region V230 S. Dearborn St.Chicago, Illinois 60604
Attention: Mr. Jonas A. Dikinis
Gentlemen:
Subject: Error in July 3 Work Plan Revision
The Work Plan Revision submitted on July 3, 1984, had two minorarithmetic errors that should be corrected. Both errors werein Table 2.
A corrected Table 2 and a corrected Work Plan Revision Requestform are attached.
We apologize for any inconvenience this may have caused.
Yours very truly,
Bill ByersProcess Engineer
mem
CorvalHt Regional Office 0 0 0 0 9 7 42300 N.W. Walnut Blvd., P.O. Box 428, Corvallis, Oregon 97339 503/752-4271
