I .474120 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM CH2MHILL

DRAFT Basis of Preliminary Estimate for Dredging of PCB Contaminated Sediments from Portage Creek, Kalamazoo, MI PREPARED FOR: Jim Sailc/USEPA

PREPARED BY: Jeff Kejser/CH2M HILL David CoIe/ami HILL

COPIES: Paul Bucholtz/MDNRE Loimie Reese/CH2M HILL George Hicks/CH2M HILL

DATE: July 12,2010 PROJECTMUMBER: 365780.DE.01

Purpose The United States Environmental Protection Agency (USE?A) requested that CH2M HILL provide a Qass 4 cost estimate for remediation of die section of Portage Creek from Alcott Street to the confluence of the Kalamazoo River in Kalamazoo, Michigan. The purpose of this estimate is to provide a Qass 4 rough-order-order-magnitude (ROM) evaluation of costs to perform removal of polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) contaminated sediments at a range of removal levels including 80,40,20,10 and 5 parts per million (ppm).

Project Description In 2009, the Millennium LLC performed soil ^d sediment coring of the section of Portage Creek extending from Alcott St. to the confluence with the Kalamazoo River. Data from die 2009 sampling was analyzed and reported in "Portage Creek Estimation of Volume of Contaminated Sediment and PCB Mass from 2009 Sediment Sampling", Field Environmental Decision Support (FIELDS), June 4,2010. This report provided computer generated plan views depicting contaminated segments of Portage Creek by PCB concentration in the sediment at 80,40,20,10,5 and 1 ppm.

USEPA requested CH2M HILL provide a Qass 4 cost estimate utilizing the volumes generated by the FIELDS Group. A Class 4 estimate is identified by the American Association of Cost Engineers 08R-97 as generally a study or feasibility cost estimate completed with 1% to 15% of the design information and has an expected level of accuracy of -30% to +50%.

The following activities were included in the development of the cost estimate:

DRAFT BASIS OF PRELIMINARY ESTIMATE FOR DREDGING OF PCS CONTAMINATED SEDIMENTS FROM PORTAGE CREEK, KALAMAZOO, Ml

Design Project management Access agreement negotiation Permitting Field engineering Construction management Data management Dredging, stabilization and disposal of contaminated isediment

• Collection and management of free water generated during mecharucal dredging and

• Site restoration

The estimate has been developed to provide the USEPA with preliminary costs in Current dollars (2010), since the specif time frame and methodology have not been determined. (Table 1)

TABU 1 / ' Class 4 Cost Estimate

80 ppm PCB Removed

40 ppm PCB Removed

20 ppm PCB Removed

10 ppm PCB Removed

5 ppm PCB Removed

Estimated Cost $1,000,000 $2,700,000 $4,600,000 $5,800,000 $7,500,000

+50% $1,500,000 $4,000,000 $6,9^,000 $8,600,000 $11,000,000

-30% $7oaooo $1,900,000 $3,200,000 $4,00,000 $5,200,000

Cost Estimate Methodology This estimate is based on the following general assmnptions:

1. Mechanical dredging of aU sediments to load transfer areas. These areas will consist of water tight mixing boxes located within contmned lined areas.

2. Free water removal and solidification of sediments in the load transfer area to pass the paint filter test

3. Access (easement) agreements can be obtained for mechanical dredging of all contaminated sechments

4. Protected and endangered species are not present or can rdocated if they are disturbed by the dredging activities

5. Tiubidity control is based on installation of a silt curtain downstream of the active dredging area and utilization of an excavator equipped with an environmental bucket. Turbidity monitoring performed upstream and downstream during active dredging operations. Assumed standard background plus 30 ntu.

In addition, the following notes apply to the estimate:

• Technical Tasks—Design, project management, penriitting, field engineering, construction management, data manageinent, and iii-situ characterization were aU

DRAFT BOE PORTAGE CREEK SEDIMENT REMOVALDOCX

DRAFT BASIS OF PREUMINARY ESTIMATE FOR DREDGING OF PCS CONTAMINATED SEDIMENTS FROM PORTACS CREEK, KALAMAZOO, Ml

estimated using parametric multipliers. This estimating technique uses a statistical relationship between historical data and other variables (i.e., site conditions) to calculate an estimate for activity parameters, such as scope, cost, budget, and dturation.

• Quantities—Quantity take-offs for volume of sediment removal were calculated based on the Figures 2 a/b, 3 a/b, 4 a/b, 5 a/b and 6 a/b provided in the FIELDS report. These figures depict plan views only and were hand scaled for estimating purposes. Key volumes and quantity assumptions are shown in Attachment C, Data Assumptions. Estimated quantities reflet an over dredge allowance of 6 inches. Volume to mass conversion was performed based on an assiuned density conversion of 1.5 tons/cubic yard of sediment. No quantity estimate was prepared for removal of less than 5 ppm FCB contamination.

• Costs—Construction cost was estimated by generating "Estimated Unit Prices" for various tasks that Me anticipated to occur during dredging. Appropriate cormts and calculated amoimts were applied to those xmit price estimates for each FCB ranoval level specified. Design, aigineering, project management and construction management costs are based on parametric methods. The estimated costs include a 15% contingency to account for unidentified elernents of the scope of work. The tasks for which Unit Prices were estimated are presented in Table 2.

• Transportation and Disposal of sediments with FCB concentrations above 40 ppm were assumed at EQ (Wa3me Disposal) located in Belleview, Michigan. Disposal of sediments with FCB concentrations less than 40 ppm were ̂ sumed at Republic Services KL Subtitle D landfill located in Kalameizoo, Michigan. Waste characterization data was not available for preparation of the estimate.

• Estimated Unit Prices were developed by building up crews for the activities and setting nominal production rates based on estimator experience. Prices for transportation and disposal were estimated from preliminary vendor cost information.

• Site Restoration pricing is based on a potential approach of tree planting and sod installation in all areas disturbed by the dredging.

• Allowances—Contingency for area difficulty, yet undefined scope or vmforeseen site conditions, project management, remedial design and construction management have been included in the estimate summary as parametric multipliers.

In addition to generating an estimate for mechanical dredging, CH2M HILL also reviewed 'general costs for hydraulic dredging with sediment dewatering and water treatment. This approach may be competitive for removal of 10 ppm FCB or lower concentrations. Potential non-cost related drivers to choose hydraulic dredging: mability to obtain access agreements, water treatment svstems set-up location and/ or tiie preservation of the Creek banks. If desired, CH2M HILL will develop estimated costs for this approach. ~

DRAFT BOE PORTAGE CREEK SEDIMENT REMOVALDOCX

DFm BASIS OF PREUMINARY ESTIMATE FORDREPGJNG OF PCT CONTAMINATEP SEPIMEyrSFRgM_TORTAGE CREEK. KAUAMAZOO, Ml

TABLE 2 Unit Cost Tasks

ID DESCRIPTION COMMENTS

1a WORK PLAN General cost level based on CH2M HILL experience

1b HEALTH & SAFETY PLAN General cost level based on CH2M HILL experience

1c ACTIVITY HAZARD ANALYSIS General cost level based on CH2M HILL experience

Id SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS PLAN General cost level based on CH2M HILL experience

1e QA/QC PLAN General cost level based on CH2M HILL experience

G01 MOBIUZE DREDGING SUB TO FIRST AREA Assumes cost for Initial mob of all equipment to an area

G02 CLEARING CREW cost Cost for clearing and tree/brush removal for perpendicular dredging access

G03 MECHANICAL DREDGING CREW Cost for sediment removal based on 150 cy/day productbn

G04 SOLIDIFICATION COSTS Cost for sediment solidification in mix boxes located in the dredging area with superabsorbent polymer/Portland cement blend based on 150 cy/day production

G05 BRIDGE CLEARING RESOURCES Cost for sediment removal with modified horizontal drill equiprhent based on 50 cy/day production

G06 WATER HANDUNG CREW Cost for sediment free water removal based on 10% of environmental bucket capacity production

GOT SURVEYING CREW Estimated cost for daily bathymetric survey crew to confirm existing sediment cut lines and removal depths

G08 STREAM RESTORATION COST Assumes 10 trees/100 ft and sod installation over disturbed areas

G09 MOT COST Based on visual counts of areas where Maintenance of Traffic may be required

G10 MONITORING RESOURCES COST • Assumed cost for daily air and water quality monitoring

Gil T&D COST (TSCA) Assumed for T&D at EG, Belleview, Ml

G12 T&D Cost (non-TSCA) Assumed Republic Services, Kalamazoo, Ml

G13 REMOB TO NEW AREA COST Co^ to shift the dredging operation over a street

G14 ACCESS AGREEMENT NEGOTIATION Based on counts of potential access agreements required. No list was provided so these counts are best guess

G15 T&D/WATER TREATMENT OF FREE WATER Cost for T&D of free water collected in load transfer tanks

G16 SHIFT DREDGING EQUIPMENT Cost to shift the dredging operation 100 It

DRAR BOE PORTAGE CREEK SEDIMENT REMOVALDOCX

DRAFT BASIS OF PRHJMINARY ESTIMATE FOR DREDGING OF RGB CONTAMINATED SEDIMENTS FROM PORTAGE. CREEK, KALAMAZOO, Ml.

Exclusions • Removal and replacement of outfall and otiier piping structures could not be

estimated based on the currently available information and therefore such costs are assuined to be accotmted for in the contingency cost allowance.

• Costs for pa3Tment and performance bonds have not been included.

• Costs have not been escalated for out year construction implementation (beyond 2010)

^ • No backfill or stream bed covering/capping has been included in the ROM cost

^ • No relocation or replacement of utilities located within Portage Creek dredging zones.

^ • Costs for negotiation with Railroads and excavation under railroad structures have been included. However, these costs are subject to significanf change and/or the work being excluded from the scope.

• Traffic management beyond site exit as defined above or local permitting requirements yet imdefined.

_ — • Removal of stumps and root systems from stream banks were not included.

General Notes The estimates cont^ed in this report have been produced using one or more of the following methods:

• Comparison witin similar work performed by contractors, with material and labor adjustments based on observed or perceived site conditions and/or on information provided by local engineers or operators of the facilities tiiat have been surveyed

• Facility cost/capacity ratios, with adjustments for site conditions

• Ratio methods, using known material/ equipment costs as guides

Only the basic parameters for performing the work have been determined; final memodology will impact the ultimate cost for project execution. Based on the Qass 4 estimate classification, expected final methodology cost will be within the plus 50% to minus 30% of the ROM estimate cost.

Detmled cost estimates (Qass 3) can only be developed by performing sufficient engineering and design to define the scope for discrete projects. Once detailed designs are developed, then det^ed engineer's estimates can be performed and bid specification packages can be put out for competitive bidding.

The purpose of tiiese estimates is to assist in establishing priorities for decision-making and to aid in evaluating the potential cost of performing the tasks identified. These estimates cannot be relied upon to establish fimding levels for individual tasks, as neither preliminary nor detailed derign engineering has been performed in sufficient detail to provide sediment

DRAFT BOE PORTAGE CREEK SEDIMENT REMOVALDOCX

DRAFT BASIS .0_F PREUMINARY ESTIMATE FOR DREDGING OF PCB CONTAMINATED SEDIMEI^S FROM PORTAGE CREEK KAIAMAZOO, Ml

quantities, TSCA/Non-TSCA contamination and/or sediment characterization from which to develop budget funding estimate (AACE Qass 3). Soils reports and other environmental information have not been available.

Therefore, caution should be used in utilizing these rough order of magnitude numbers for anything otiier than preliminary evaluation and planning ptirposes. Once the priorities have been established, the traditional engineering, procurement and construction process of design, bid and build can be followed.

DRAFT BOE POPfTAGE GREEK SEDIMENT REMOVALDOCX

Attachment A Applicable Drawings

PORTAGE CREEK DREDGING

DRAWING NOTES

K.^lrimazoo Rii/fir: Portage Creek Nniiti 80 pprR Block B:35sd Cleanup

K.3larniii/DD. Ml

June 2G"iD

a aiHi 009

•SfCWJiJAHKMr XXwi-KMaa

AtSi Mmmiare

800

G

KalarnazQCJ R:iver: Portage Creek South 80 ppm Block Based Cleanup

K iKimiizoa, Ml

June 2010

K.ilrimazoo R^ver: Portage CreeN North 40 ppm Block Based Cleanyp

Kalan>ijJDu f,1l

Jurte 2C-10

riJtWW Ctefium uA£m/iJtiBP*(fMKiiUki

AfiU a C04 aw

imiii

Kalamazoo Rpvar Portage Creek Soyfti 40 ppm Block Based Cleanup

l<!|ijifTui'XHai, idl

Jum: 2G10

Kalamazoo Riv^n Portaga Craek NorSh 20 ppm Blpclc Based Cleanup

Kaia-nvaaroQ, Mi

Jura 20(10

Kalamaizoo River: Portage Creek Sojlh 2t Raised C^^eanup

K«jiliTW|?aq. Mi

June 2e 10

»

-h Q 0114 QM HHCZ=lllilfel

m*. WW OHi-fhMiW

•WW jww'iw*

Ka|?imiizno Rsvf^r^ Portiige North 10 ppm Block B;iBed Clean op

Kalamaroo Mi

Jyrie 2010

+ o OH a« •li^K=3MI»f

r«» .Ts^jjiT fliitiitTimni

Afrnmrmisn

F^ure Sa. ffefnedbOsji afeei ibr 10 ppm cfeaehiip

Kaiimazc^o River: Portage Greek South 10 ppm Blonk Based Creanyp

KpAairrui^Da,

June 2D1D

far ie ppm deaiMp

Kalamazoo River; Ponage Creek 5 ppm Block Based Cioaii'jp

i(^alannji7op, Ml June 2010

UTW^CiWJSit. tMCfU aNrSuRB uSM.-ufla7i/4fiiLE«D«

JVW-IVMbR tko Acinar Mm fttjm:

Kalamazoo River; Portage Creek South 5 pp«n liluck Hif.r.cJ CJes-insip

m June 2010

Figure 6b. RmedMan aieas lor ippni cfeaMqi

Kalaitiazdd River: Portage Creek fsiorth 1 ppm BtocSc Based!

KaiamajDQ Ml June 2010

FELDS dCM ojtie

inw7iwiM!*>ioai £M«£an» <jWM,'OSmiJjifKAlM

amJsammStre MpjIitfterMMiBpc

f^lpm ittwuwlBfiDn areas for 1 pjiiii dom-iip

Kalamazoo River: Portage Creek Soiiih 1 ppm Block Basadi Cleanup

Kaliimnjoa Ml June 1010

Attachment B Cost Estimate Summary

s I

ll

s

If

It

u>

II

s 8 8

§ § U)

11

R

R

R

R

JJ

I

&-

8"

.1 s

I

I

9

|«|«

t

J ~ o

t

= S S s p ?

f

s

I

I

I

LI 8 _

CO ~

t

S

8

s

I

i I.

I

s"

in"

L| J J;

Z

%

n s o

S

a

1

s 0>

i m s

a>

in s

8 8 8 i s i s i i g *-

IS s s ^ »•

» «»

in CD I "-^ § s s"

sSs i i s-

SI II

M- 4» «»

§ S K tN r»- •.

SI CO

c*) h» O) "c-eo CO

III I 1 i.? s H « n

S N-h*' s s $

Ol N CI

r^ ^ CM CO CM ^

CM ^

«« 4»

I s ^ s

s s It

§ t— s » CD Si i §

o S CO

lo ITT CM GO SS' s

CM OS s s <s ^ s s

•* «» 4» Vt Vt U^ •» M

se se u> m

se m

se n

lU

12

«

> &

o m 3

s a (0 s f «

til

lU

o o

c a.

0) s

I II

o

» E Q UJ •- «

£ I ^1-^ o =

III I S P 5 .«5

A

I Q. O r E g s A •B

II

§ X (A I

= 20. g -- N CO g

(0 (0 §

E 3

•3 C a

I

S Q.

I I I

s s

1

# t s 0

1 ts.

it U |l |f If

a a •

(O z 0

§ § s 1 1 to

I s lU

I 3 m

8 S

IS r in

c 10

iiii

III m

o a B

IS

•5

I li

o o

it = O &

sfl^ Ilii

a •c § S

^ O) to -c UJ 2 o O S o SI S e it -i _ . Slli III III!

|l

IF

I,

p

Ss

SI

^5

511

IP

SIS 15

Si d

w

Q:

K

# t 9 0

1

11

0 o

1 i' ^ I

5^ UJ S DC o 3

1 9

I II

6 w

III

I

i' s i-

111

II®

L

i£

isl

sis

88

w 5 sss

&S8

o UJ

ffl S

5J

«• «• r:S

as

II

8S

fl

IM etf £

e 8

if

I I I

I

U s &

i CD

ii;

u

It

111

II

ll§

sSI

8fe

iii

II s®

8S^

§1

?§

8?

S8S

es

i

SJ 0

1 11

o o i?

o

ll

ll.

ii

lis

11 =

s s II III I

SR

i

&s

nn

m 3.

^.1

5S§

83 t S

&

sil

8S

Sm

Is

S"

3S3

Bss

S3

SS 1

^^ "J

# t 9

I

h.

51I

I'

I

Si

gl

m

if

fs

Pi

S?

IS

m

1^1

ss

gs

n

o o gi N CO s: I

ii

t

p si

i B ) a

I a

:CD<D(0<D9<O<O(P(OGO

I 5 S

I

o 1 lU ° K .

J c 3 ! •S! o

' O O O O I

i. s o-

I ||

|l

g "8 1?

o z 5 .

a js

si

t 5

I

PROJECT ROM TASK UNIT RATE ESTIMATE SUMMARY Portage Creek Mechanical Dredging Class 4 Rough Order of Magnitude Estimate Kalamazoo, Ml

» aiqaiiniii»iiiiiiiii M'l'i*' "f!* •

«atbwl» I* OHM* «jpWM ̂ CM ID portawi Qii wvrti a M uiiiisiiwilwi Mahfew, piuViiiip i

Item No. TMkDOTOIpllafi UOM OiHntty BMiMdCost (USD)

EstProchictldn Rite

V

Productloo RateUitt

UnttRM for Cost

Cafe Unit

Q01 MOauZE OREOQINO SUB TO RRST AREA LS 1 $ IB.r28 8 1 LS 8 3a,ha LS

002 CLEMMING CREW COST DAY 1 $ 7,1M % 100 LFMqr 8 71 JO VLF

Qta MECHANICAL DRSOINO CREW DAY 1 1 W 8 100 cyMiy 8 3632 ITCY

004 SOUOIFICATION COSTS TON 1 f 3,020 $ 18030 tunidtv 8 20.10 Iftanagam

005 BRIDOe CLEARtMQ RESOURCES DAY 1 t tflll t 60 cyMqr 8 10033 tICT

OOB WATER HANOUNO CREW DAY 1 $ 2,412 t 1 d>y 8 231138 inal

007 SURVEYmOCREW DAY 1 $ 2,680 t 1 day 8 2388 $may

008 STREAM RESTORATION COST IP 100 $ 10.0M 8 100 Wday 8 10033 8A3

008 MOTCCST LS 1 0 0,441 $ 1 L3 8 8341 LS

310 MGNITORINO RESOURCES COST DAY 1 $ 4jBn 1 7 Day 8 890 $«ay

Q11 f&DCOST(TSCA) TON 20 I 3381 $ 20 tan 8 17030 8Tan

Q12 TAD Cost (norwTSCA) ! TON 20 1 026 8 20 ton 8 2038 8Ton 1

on R^OB TO NEW AREA COST LB 1 t 8.630 8 1 LS 8 83» LS

014 ACCESS AGREEMENT NEOOTIATION LS 1 I 14376 8 130 LS 8 14371 LS

010 TADAWATER TREATMENT OF FREE WATS* GAL 4,000 $ 1300AO 8 4300.00 gal 8 038 IRIBI

616 SHIFT DREDGINQ EQUIFWIT LS 1 1 030030 1 130 U 8 8300 13 • •

STANDARD CREW COST (PORTAOE) Potags creak OrMga Om 4 ROM (7-a7-10) v2 (Isr dje) (verNon 1) JU

7/12/2010 Paoelert

lU -s i

§> I "S

0

1 3 •5 Q °> P C

50 m S 51

I&

i' An «

SI i' ||g lis

P

I u

I i

n

P 1

f a ?•

II h £

ii

ll

I

t of

if I «:

i

'I

c S

3

1

I

11^

siiU

is

II

PS

a s

II

ss.s

it

tt

y I

O S

tn 6

in

'I S8S

§§§

I

•g B I II

gg 8S

S S

11

iii

I

I II

t.i. 8,8

S S

III

s s s II

i s

I

f N!^ Sii

H

2 s

•B I

ill

III

m

Is

.8 -SIR

ill

III

ri

II

§8

If

i n l5|

7|S S«-B II

2|

S a ga..

1:11

II

III

II II "SS

11 II

# & S S-

I si

IIJ

IS8 III!

ss

«.8

II

88S

ill

g g

III

ss

»si

n

ss

II

§i oS

II

if

II

1 e s I

s

lg

III ss i"

II

sis

1 1 1

9:3 3 hi

11

ill

111

11

si^Ssisa I I I

i I

Si s s

ss

II

rr g s e e i i liU

8:8 ic:s

a 8 8

II

II

¥ I s 0

1

O

IS

11

Hi

ill

III

III

a

i g I ̂ 1,1

' §

»*6 "I Jii 1 |8| ll® 111

3 -

\m

ll

II

g. 11

III

III

f-%

I I

li

II

s I

2 rs

ill

33

§§

ll

33

g .a f

-d •1 .E

I I

I 1

i s s-

i

S 8 |S

ss

ii i i

s 88

S?

Ill

fl

11

ill II

I

I -3 S-

I

I 1 •o

I O

£

o c Q. a

ffi S

O

Ife

iil

III! !

lilt ii

6?^ ifl

So ^3 K-a a o B U

s

s o

B 3

I 3 •3 o

oe a

5-

3

ii

I

3

Ii t 9 s

) 0^ . ^ r»

J3

o UJ 5 lU o

a t-

11

s.i i§

s s

li

I

I I

I

I s s

I

I

i

ii

II

s s ,lrt Ip*

-G-w i s

li

Attachment C Takeoff Information

O CO

o

I 'M

m Si

il & S I O

< «

U I £l UJ S s O Q I

.!!] ill 1

ill!

I I

\h-'|i& Ifl^ l||i §!« i

0) O) s

Q "5

o e «

CD

10 11 O u.

Sli

llf S||

I

Q E&

I a

ll

sis

III!

5S o d

If

ss

Iff

s i

S

IS

gs o

fff

II

III

S|S

lii

SSig

SS

S!Q

ss

sf s

sgs

11

!?s

ss

rr S

Q ,

ii o

si ii

I B.

J n

s •c -s. O '

i? S S

III

% € S||

57

nil

11

ss

SI

II Is

f «

0>

d

1 5

e (D

i!

2l

If £ «0

111

ill

Iff sil

& £

Is

8 .

S

fcS

S| CO

5

II

sa

ss d

• UJ 323

S ffi

1

0 <0

1 ̂ S n

t S

2

UJ ,

ii 11

If s®.

t s. O '

ill

ll? 2

h

ol E£

S

S

§§

II

i.i g g

S o

I

O 10 i'B

z if Q .

S"

Df O (L

or 1 p S St

s

£11

^11 III

a

L

I

I? E£

lint II 1

p. St

sg

S.S

lg

il

a ss

8&

gs

Us

8g

S

U

S8

f SR

ViS ss

9S

5 tn

-ss If

ass

as

S

SR O

gg

S§

gs

«i

s^i

S

gg

O CD

S Q u>

O

& £

I Sff

II il

Ill

III |S=

III

Iff S||

h

a I

s ® II cf

m.

S 1 o ? S S

m

ill

H

tl

H

ss

Si

s II

8 is

u III III III 111 ill

s

8S

IS?

&I&

ss

8°|

?8S

8S

U

S8

O <D

3 (o 5 I

Q

i.

ii K u UJ

i g

2

|s p. g;