NCD980602163_20001011_Warren County PCB Landfill_SERB C_Evaluation of So. Maryland Equipment for Warren County Detox-OCR

JAMES 8 . HUNT JR.
GOVERNOR
BILL HOLMAN
SECRETARY
Mr. Eric New man (3 HS23)
Remedial Proj ect Manager
EPA Region Ill
1650 Arch Street
Philadelphia. PA 19 103
Dear Mr. Newman:
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
Octo be1· I I. 2000
As you are aware. th e EPA has offered the Stute of North Carolin a assistan ce to support the
detoxificati on of the Warre n County J)CB Land ti ll. Thar ,1ssisw nce was outlined in a letter from
Ass istant Administrator Tim l~ields to (juvern m .l i111 Hunt un August 11 .
One of the ass istance items wils rhe use of eq uipment fro m the So uth ern Mai·yland Superfund site.
Over the pi:tst month. Pat Backus ofm:, stall hils discussed the possibility of using this equipment
11 ith yo u il nd nrnny others. She has reviewed rhe speci ti c equipm ent ava ilable, the condition of the
eq uipment. the suitability of the equipment for the Warren County project, an d the relocation of
the eq uipm ent to North Ca rolina. In additio n. Pat has considered the responsibility for
pe1·formance that would be assum ed by the swre if use of the equi pment were required. Whil e
some of the eq uipment cou id be used in Warren County. we fee l that when considering all the
aspects surro un ding its use that it would not be in th e best interest of th e state to use the Southern
Maryland equipment.
We du apprec iate rhe oppurrunit:, l-:!11\ h,1s gi1en 11s tu consider th is equ ipment and thank you ilnd
tithL-r 1-Y/\ ,tc1ll. the l·uq1s ut· 1·:w,•i11ee1·,. ;111li thL' u11TL'lll llJ1L'r:1t<11· 1ll. the equipment for prnviding
information to hel p us make this decisi1l11. \,\ e ,1l s11 luuk t"ur11,1rd tu the opportunity to d iscuss
,·ou r experience at the Southern 1vl,1ry Jund pruject so 11 e c,1n bencli t 1·ro m you r ··Jessons learned."
Cc: l'at 8c1ck us
Bill Mcye1·
Since1·ely.
Deputy D ·
I )ivi ·un ut· Wusre rv h1 n,1gen1e111
160 1 M AIL SERVIC E CENTER, RALEIGH , N ORT H CARO LINA 27699-1601
P H ONE 91 9 -733-4 ()8-1 FAX [phone] www.ENR.STATE.Nc.us/ENR/
AN EOUAL OPPORTUNI TY i AF'FlRMATIV t:: .\C TIC "J EMr"L'..JYE R -500/o REC.:YCLf:0.'1 0°() POST-CONSUMER PAPER
08 /29/2000 09:37 FAX
F a x Transmission
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, B altimore District
Environmental Remediation Resident Office
Southem Maryland Wood Treating ProJect Office
25202 Three Notch Road
Hollywood, MD 20636
301-373-5471
Fax: [phone]
_To:_ft_}4,_1_t1,4c_· _t_//S ___ Fro_m:_@ l/(J/11/r~
Fax: (9/9} 7( J--J 'OJ-Pages: b
Phone: Date:
CC:
Comments:
&I; a
lactt~,./,'vv1 /~#J,i,, /1..,,. -/-u6 (2-J ea,/ukr cfrv~
1/
(A..rf'€v..,t;p,., a 1 per~"~ b7 /T ?~ ~
08 /29 /2000 09 :37 FAX
. i"':~gr9up
Southem Maryland Wood Treatment Site
25202 Three Notch Rd.
Hollywood, MD 20636
301-3783-5954 FAX: [phone]
To: ED HUGHES
GENTLEMEN:
LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL
DATE: 10/28/99 I ~~1~~=
ATTENTION:
Ed Hughes
RE:
Southern Md Wood Treat. Site
0016
WE ARE SENDING YOU:* ATTACHED * UNDER SEPARATE COVERVIA _____ THE FOLLOWING ITEMS:
* SHOP DRAWINGS * PRINTS * PLANS * SAMPLES * SPECIFICATIONS
* COPY OF LETTER * CHANGE ORDER *-------------------
COPIES DATE NO. DESCRIPTION
2 10/26/1999 Inspection and repair notes for the internal inspection of calciners
#1 and #2 at SMWT
THESE ARE TRANSMITTED AS CHECKED BELOW:
FOR APPROVAL
* FOR YOUR USE
AS REQUESTED
APPROVED AS SUBMITTED
APPROVED AS NOTED
RETURN FOR CORRECTIONS
RESUBMIT
SUBMIT
RETURN
COPIES FOR APPROVAL
COPIES FOR DISTRIBUTION
CORRECTED PRINTS
FOR REVIEW AND COMMENTS * __________________________ _
FOR BIDS DUE _________ 19 * PRINTS RETURNED AFTER LOAN TO US
REMARKS: ----~l~f .,._,yo=u~s=h~ou_ld~ha-v~e~a~□ ...... Y...,Q=ue=s=ti~on=s~, _pl~ea=s=e~fe=e~I =fre=e~t=o~c=on=t-ac=t~K=ir~k .... TI-c=kn.,_..o~r-at._.....(3~0~1,_)-3~7~3~-5~9~5~4-~----
COPY TO: Correspondence File (complete),K. Ticknor . F Benvenga,
Franz
SIGNED:
f\LE COPY
.2 9 OCT 1999
08 /29 /2000 09:37 FAX
c0'3~~d 9ll0 ll9 cl 6
INSPECTION AND ~PAIR NOTES
FO~
THE INTERNAL INSPEcno~ OF CALCINERS #1 & #2
AT :
THE SMWT SITE, HOLLYWOOD, MARYLAND
(Inspection Notes per Inspectio~ Procedure Dated 8-17-99)
Performed by
IT Corpo.-.tion
for '
TheUS~CE
27 September-22 ;0ctober 1999
08/29 /2000 09 :37 FAX
£0"39~d 9ll 0 l!9 cl6 141 04
0G:S! 566! 9c lJO
Drum Number One lntemal Inspection, 27 ~ptember 1999 -
1. 95% of circumferential welds inspected visupUy
2. 50¾ of longitudinal welds inspected visuaUy
3. 25% of drum lifters inspected visually
4. All internal surfaces inspected visually
no discrepancies noted
no discrepancies noted
no discrepancies noted, 3/16" THK.
no discrepancies noted
Zone #2 drum thickness measured O. 51" thick in three places, 1200 apart1 using an
NDT International, Inc .• Model NDT 710, ~er. No. 1278, ultrasonic thickness gauge,
laboratory calibrated 2-18-98, zero calibrated, 9-27-99.
5. I 00% of feed angle flights inspected visually
6. Feed end dam inspected visually
7. Feed and Discharge Hoods inspected visually
no discrepancies noted, 3/16" THK.
no discrepancies noted,¼" THK.
no discrepancies noted
Overall Evaluation: Based on the manufacturer~ original fabrication data and this inspection, the
No. l calciner drum, internal components, welds, feed and discharge hoods and tires are at or
above 80% of the original dimensions/thickness; If the unit is operated and maintained in the
future, u it has since fabrication and installatiott. it should have a minimum 100,000 ton life prior
to requiring a major rebuild. '
9-29-99/LA vcA V
Drum Number One Plenum Refractory Rep,irt 28-30 September 1999
1. The feed and discharge hoods required mo~cation to allow entrance, inspection and repair
of all p1emun zones by cutting entrance openings and fabricating refractory lined doors.
2. The Zone #2 exhaust stack, purge ducting, and Zone #2, refractory lined, arch section was
removed to allow a complete refractory inspection. A minimal number of the S.S. retainer
clips had fallen from the S.S. studs due to ~xidation and a small amount of blanket was
showing indications of starting to hang loo~ from the arch and walls-but none of it required
repair.
2
08129120 00 09:37 FAX
~0·3~~d 9Ll0 l19 Gl6 14105
lc:Sl 6661 9c lJO
3. The zone separator walls between zones # 1 ~ #2 and #2 & #3 were down and the HD Board
had pulled away from the wall and exposed the shell opposite the burner wall between Zones
#1 & #2. .
4. Refractory materials (HD Board, refractory blanket, attachment hardware, pins, rigidizer and
cement) were ordered and repairs complete4 to both Zone separator walls .
Overall Evaluation: Due to the oxidation and carburiz.ation of some of the calciner #1 S.S.
refractory installation hardware, especially op~site the burner wa1i it is estimated that additional
refractory inspection, repair and replacement wijl have to be accomplished during the life of the
project•probably aLleast once in the 60-90 day time period.
I
Drum Number Two Internal Inspection, 19 October 1999
1. 95% of circumferential welds inspected visually
2, SO% of longitudinal welds inspected visually
3. 25% of drum lifters inspected visually
4. All internal surfaces inspected visually
ilo discrepancies noted
no discrepancies noted
no discrepancies noted
no discrepancies noted
Zone# 2 drum thickness measured 0.51'' thick in three places, 1200 apart, using an NOT
International, Inc., Model NDT 710, Ser. No. 1278 ultrasonic thickness gauge,
laboratory calibrated 2· 18-98, zero cali~rated I 0-20-99.
5. 1000/o of feed angle flights inspected visuall)!
6. Feed end dam inspected visually .
7. Feed and Discharge Hoods inspected visually
no discrepancies noted, 3/16" THK. ·
no discrepancies noted,¼" THK.
no discrepancies noted
Overall Evaluation: Based on the manufactur~s original fabrication data and this inspection. the
No. 2 calciner drum, internal components, welds, feed and discharge hoods and tires are at or
above 85% of the original dimensions/thickness. If the unit is operated and maintained in the
future, as it has since fabrication and installatioh, it should have a minimum 100,000 ton life prior
to requiring a major rebuild.
10-21-uM
3 .
08/29/2000 09:37 FA X 14]06
tc:~t 5501 9c ~Jo ... •·
s0·3~~d 9ll0 lt9 cl5
Drum Number Two PJeoum Refractory Repair, 10-22 September 1999
I
1. The feed and discharge hoods of Calciner #2 also required modification to allow entrance,
inspection and repair of aU three plenum zones by cutting entrance openings and fabricating
refractory lined doors. '
2. The Zone #2 exhaust stack. purge ducting. and Zone #2, refractory lined. arch section was
removed to allow a complete refractory inspection. A number of the S.S. refractory anchors
and retainer clips had oxidized allowing the refractory blanket opposite the burner wall to
separate and fall away from the wall. Approximately thirty-six (36) square feet of blanket
had to be removed, the remnants of the old hardware removed. the corrosion ground from
the new S.S. stud locations. and approximately fifty (SO) new S.S. studs welded back to the
wall. The blanket was replaced, S.S. retainer clips installed and covered with 30000 F refrac-
tory cement. The remainder of the blanket installed in the arch sections and walls appeared
to be satisfactory but the exposed S.S. attachment hardware was 35-40% oxidized .
3. The zone separator walls between zones # 1 '& #2 and #2 & #3 were down and the HD Board
had pulled away from the wall and exposed the shell opposite the burner wall between
Zones #1 & #2.
4. Refractory materials (HD Board, refractory:blanket, attachment hardware, pins, rigidizer and
cement) were ordered and repairs completed to both Zone separator walls .
Overall Evaluation: Due to the oxidation and carburization of the calciner #2 S.S. refractory
installation hardware, especially opposite the b4rner wall, it is estimated that additional refractory
inspection, repair and replacement will have to be accomplished during the life of the project-
probably at least once every 60-90 days .
10-22-99/L~,w
4
Use of Southern Maryland Equipment
1 of 1
Subject: Use of Southern Maryland Equipment
Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2000 11 :34:01 EDT
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail] (Mike Kelly), [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail] (Henry Lancaster),
[e-mail] (Sherri Evans Stanton)
After talking to Dollie yesterday, I am concerned that the pendulum is
swinging too fast and too far in the other direction .... Providing for the
use of the referenced equipment is still a very good idea .... This approach
can possibly reduce project cost while simultaneously satisfying the federal
match requirement (I understand that some judgment is still to be made on the
later) of the funding ..... Several protections are or can be put in place to
ensure that project cost, liability of the state, and quality of the project
are properly managed ...... For example, 1) The State should not dictate the
use of the equipment simply make it available for consideration to the
interested bidders ...... In fact the state should point out that
refurbishment will be necessary, and that it is up to the interested bidder
to determine how best to accomplish that ..... Access to the equipment should
be handled through an agreement with EPA and the successful bidder would take
possession of it directly from the southern Maryland site, that is if they
chose to use it ...... This approach allows the bidding market to determine if
the equipment should be used or not .... There is no UNFAIR advantage because
everyone has access to the equipment its specifications and operating
data .... In fact it can be argued that those with experience on other
similar thermal equipment will have the ability to better enhance the
southern Maryland units ....... 2) If concerns still remain about liability o f
the state, a specific "Indemnity clause" addressing this issue could be
included in the contract documents ..... 3) Keep in mind that the contractor
must provide a performance bond for the project ..... This means if the
equipment cant be used then they would be at tremendous risk ...... Because o f
the type of the companies we are dealing with, the market wont allow
that ..... Therefore it is my opinion that several protections are or can be
put in place for the potential use of the referenced equipment, and the
concept is still an excellent one (please think out of the box ) ..... Finally
it appears that the EPA has done a good job of trying to accommodate the type
of involvement we asked for, and the CAB and the state should express their
gratitude ....... Thanks Patrick ..... .
08/25/2000 2:52 PM
,_Southern MD Wood equipment for Warren County LF.
1 of2
Subject: Southern MD Wood equipment for Warren County LF.
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 11 : 3 5: 17 -0400
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Pat --Here is the message I sent to Abe before he attended the state directors
meeting in Arizona. Eric
-----Forwarded by Eric Newman/R3/USEPA/US on 08/23/2000 11:27 AM-----
1--------+----------------------->
I I Eric Newman I
I I I
I I 08/11/2000 I
I I 04:55 PM I
I I I
1--------+----------------------->
>------------------------------------------------· ----------1
I I
I To: Abe Ferdas/R3/USEPA/US@EPA I
I cc: Peter Schaul/R3/USEPA/US@EPA, Peter I
I Ludzia/R3/USEPA/US@EPA I
I Subject: Southern MD Wood equipment for Warren I
I County LF. I
>-----------------------------------------------------------1
Abe,
The project manager assigned to the Warren County LF for North Carolina
Department of Natural Resources is Patricia Backus. I did have the opportunity
to speak with her earlier today. I touched on some of the topics highlighted
below and s he told me that she has had the same concerns. She told me that when
the possibility of getting the equipment from Southern Maryland first came up it
seemed to be a great idea. Now that she has thought it out she agrees that it
may not be a good idea at all. However, the folks that she is working with at
the State agency have told her 1) the State can not turn down the offer of the
equipment until the offer is officially made, and 2) the State also fears the
potential backlash of not following through and getting this "cheap'' equipment
due to the politics o f this high profile EJ matter. Time was s hort for her
today but she told me that she would call to get more details from me next week.
Basically, she needs sufficient information to support a decision to pass on
this particular offer being made by EPA.
Here are a couple reasons why I think the State would be better off not bringing
the thermal desorbers from Southern Maryland to Warren County:
This equipment is very worn. When these desorbers were designed it was
thought that we would be treating 145,000 tons and that approximately 25,000
of those tons would be treated in the two Batch desorbers. It turns out that
the Batch units never worked and the two continuous desorbers we have out
there will have treated 270,000 tons by the time we are through . When we
hit the 145,000 ton mark back in September 1999 we shut the units down to
inspect their integrity. We found that the insulation in the shell had
broken free causing several hot spots (leading to metal fatigue). We were
f orced to refurbish both units at a cost o f $900K. We also tested the
thickness of the metal drum and found that the wall had worn down t o 75-85%
of its original thickness. It was concluded that the 75% thickness was
sufficient to continue to process soil (at that time we thought that we would
have a t otal of 245 ,000 tons to treat). Well, these are just two of the
findings back in September 1999. Both units will almost definitely require
08/23/2000 2:23 PM
~outhem MD Wood equipment for Warren County LF.
2 of2
major overhauls before they are re-used.
We purchased the desorbers for approx. $3M back in 1997. It has been our
intention to sell them for what ever we can get at the conclusion of the
project. To that end, we went out to bid on these desorbers and held the bid
opening last month. It turns out that we had some ambiguous language in the
RFP which will cause us to re-bid the matter if we do sell them. However, it
is instructive that the "winning" bid came in at approx. $300K. The free
market is telling us that these desorbers are only worth on the order of 10
cents on the dollar compared to their purchase price. Also, 17 entities
attended the bidders meeting and toured the site; only 6 entities submitted a
bid. Most telling, IT, the current contractor at the site decided that they
didn't even want to bid on them (even though they have a couple up-coming
thermal jobs) .
If the State decides to award the remediation contract to a company which
will agree to utilize equipment provide by the State, it will be the State's
contractual liability when the equipment does not perform to expectations.
It is my understanding that the State would like to award a fixed price or
lump sum contract. Any failure of in performance of the equipment will be a
huge "changed condition" that contractors love so much.
There are many more reasons why I do not think that this is in the State's best
interest but I'll stop here. The fact i s , it is in our best interest to stay
the course and sell the equipment "as is" for what ever we can get and pass
along 10% of the sales price to the State of Maryland. We already have an end
game which will have the desorbers decon'd and then picked up at the buyers
cost. We will likely have the equipment off the site sometime around
Thanksgiving and never hear another word about them. If the State of North
Carolina decides they "may want" the equipment we will be forced to store the
equipment on the site until which time the State makes a decision. We do not
plan on having security on the site once we demobe. If the State decides they
do not want it next Spring we will have to remobilize, re-bid the job for
equipment which we haven't been providing security or maintenance for (i.e.,
rust, etc.). If in the end the State does want this equipment, it will be in
our best interest to give it to them. The last thing we want is to "loan" it to
them, have even more wear and have it come back to us. If this were to occur,
we would incur even more expense.
Please feel free to call for additional information, Eric
P.S. The folks at HQ working on this are Ken Skahn (Sheckels group) and John
Kingscott, TIO. Peter S. had a discussion with the Region IV Branch Chief for
the northern half of region IV earlier today. I expect to hear from t he Section
Chief for the their North Carolina section next week.
Have fun in Arizona!
08/23/2000 2:23 PM
f4]001
Oi /10/00 16:48 "a6109419i0i ENV SCI ENGINEER
( . Post-it~· f ax Note
To
7671 Oat~
Fax#
Hot ►/,:-­pages :;,;
SOUTHERN MARYLAND WOOD TREATING SITE
SEALED BID AUCTION. OF
SURPLUS GOVERNMENT EQUIPMENT
To Prospective Bidder;
Contained herein is an addendum to the original solicitation for surplus Government Property. All lemis and
conditions contained within the original solicitation also pt:rtain to the addendum.
Bid Deadline: Bids must b~ r'e~eived by close of business ( 4:00 p.m. EST) on 10 17 J,tly
2000.
Viewing of Property: Viewing of pmperty will be By Appointment Only on 21 June 2000 h,:tween
2 pm and 3 pm at the Southern Maryland Wood Tre~tiog Superfund Site,
25202 Three Notch Rd, Hollywood, MD. (Please bring the followina; safety
gear: st~I toed boob, safety glasses, and hardhat. No one will be permittl'!:d
in the process area without proper :safety equipment.)
Bid Openiog Date; H 18 July 2000 (nQte; equipmeot will not be available until
a.1)1:,roximately late September to mid-October 2000.)
Questions: All questions pertaining to surplus government equipment, including thi:ir
operation, must be submitted in writing. All answers to questions will be
submitted to all prospective bidders In writing.
Appointment; For viewing appointment contact Robert Messie at [phone].
FAXED Bids: Will not be accepted.
The enclosed documents are considered an integral part of this fovitation for Bid and should be carefully
reviewed by Bidder:
SECTION A. -Solicitation Bid Sheets -"Revised by Adendum Nt). 2"
SECTION B. -Solicitation lostructions -"Revised by Addendum No. 1~
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS FOR PROSPECTIVE BIDDERS
Addendum No. 2 -6/28/00
07 /10/00 16 :48 '5'6109419707
Solicitation
SMWf lFB No. 01
Property Sale
INVITATION FOR BID
Sale of Surplus Government Property
The Southern Maryland Wood Treating Superfund Site
15202 Three Notch Road
Hollywood, MD 20636
ADDENDUM NO. 2
TO -
BID PROPOSAL
2 Addendum No. 2 -6/28/00
07/10/00 16:48 '5'6109419707 ENV SCI ENGINEER ·-· ....... ~·-.. ,._ ... ~ ..... ··'. _...,,, ___ -1 .......
SECTION "A" -"Revised"
SOUCITATION
BID SHEETS
Bidder shall comply will all "Sections" of this Invitation for Bid.
Bidder Name:
Company: City/Stute/Zip:
Address: Phone/Fax:
Discharge screw C(1nveyor, 12" Grt!en Used
Double Paddle Mixer/Cooler Green Used l -----------+~~---t----+---+---~-~--+--H __ o_t_cy._l_on_e_v_e_s_se_l _________ ---+-_Gr_e_en_--+-_U_se_d_..+-----+---1 __
Pum Skid Green Used 1
Quencher/Scrubber Skid Green Used 1 f-----W-'=--e-t -el-e1.:-~trustatic preciprtator (WESP) ___ -t __ Gr_e_e_n_:~_U-_-s_e-d=======---;--1--
Flameless thermal oxidizer Green Used t --------1-----+----+----1-----1----T_ ... yjn screw feeder, 12'' & hopper Green Used l
Coolin Tower Green Used 1 -+-----+----Radial stacker conve or Green Used 1--------.:....:;.,;,.;;..;...._-1,..____::::..;;...:..:;__,._ __ -+-__ ---f
Control anel, ABB Green Used
Main Power control unit, ABB Green Used Induced Draft Fan-----'-----------+--G-r-et::-~1-l ---+-l-Js_e_d----1-----1----
~--1---------+-----,~--+--v st:en_i control p_an_e_l ___ +--_Gr-e_en_-+-_U_se_d_t--------+------tl'J:!,
Combustion Air Fan Green Used 1----.....-----+-~--+---~-----e Feed Ho r Green. Used
WESP control anel Green Used l ____________ _.
~---s_·t_ur_sa_Powerscrt:en Vibrating Screener Green Used I
Gatewa Com uter w/19"Monitor +Modem Green Used 1
10~000 Gul Vertical St~el Tank Green Used l 1------------~---__..Jf-------+-----+---10.000 Gal Horizontal Steel Tank Green Used 1
1.800 Gal Steel Tank Green Used l
15,000 Gal Fuel Tank. double-lined Grnen Used 1 --~--+----+----+---HFID, California Anal ical Model #300 Green Used 1
K2BW Minilo er Data Recorder Green Used 1
TIGG Carbon Accumulator Green Used 2 ·
3 Addendum No. 2 -6/28/00
{4]003
07 /10/00 16:49 '5"6109 419707 ENV SCI ENGINEER ._._..,,_,--.,,., -.. -•
(41004
Backing Plates for 6" VRS pumps New 3 $
Bucking Plates New 1 $
Bearing for shredder New 3 $
Beating, flange 3" New 3 $
Bearing, pillow block tail end New 3 $
B~ing, incline belt New 2 $
Be.a.ting, trunion housing New 2 $
Be.aring, head section of radial stacker New 6 $
Bearing, 3" New ") $ .,_,,
Bea.ring, New 6 $
Rearing (hanger) for discharge screw 3" New 2 $
Bearing Housing for trunion New 4 $
Bearing Lock Collar taper locks New 4 $
Bearing Lock Ring taper lodes New 4 $
Bearing Seals for FSAF 216 trunion New 3 $
Bearings Trakrol roll;r bearings for dnun s~l New l $
Belt. misc. New 1 $
Belting, ~or powerscrccn 20" New 2 $
Belting, for powergrid 60" New 1 $
Belting, radial stacker New 1 $
Belting, \or powerscreeu so· New 6 $
Bel1.s1 A38 belts: for FTO New 12 $
Belts, rnis_c_ belts New 2 $
Belts, misc. belts New 7 $
Belts, misc. belts New 12 $
Belts, misc. belts New 10 $
Belts. long belts for ge.arbox New IO $
Belts, cyclone New 3 $
Belts, discharge screw New 2 $
BelL,;;, V belts gear box New 2 $
Belts 3VX670 New l $
Btacket for !di~ calciner New 4 $
Bushing Shaft for motor New 2 $
Bushings for Cyclone New 4 $
Butterfly Valve New 1 $
Chain #50 for pony motors New l $
Chain slurry for powerscreen ¼" simplex New 3 $
Chain 112 Links #160 New 2 $
Chain Links #160 New 3 $
Chain RS#l60 10' sections New 6 $
Compression Springs for trakrol bearings New 1 $
Coupling feed screw 1 7/8 New 1 $
Coupling grid coupling for twin screws New 1 $
4 Addendum No. 2 -6/28/0IJ
07 /10 /00 16:50 '5'6109419707 ENV SCI ENGINEER __ . [4)005
•..:. • ••~ jf I I •. : .,'' .: ' 10 i;, · .... ·· ....... , .. •.· ',
'1'1. . •, •••
t~L,:~:./;i~~~~::;:/,:,.\L:~---::;:~;.:·•::_,-.,.-.-·: -·:-.. ,>, ..
-~~~~~,:i:~,;~.-.:.~~:iH .:~~;•,1.'!1': -~" ,I• • .-..
Coupling Guard for twin screws New 10 $
Elastic Lock Nuts for trakrol bearings ------+------1--,------,1---End Cap for trunion bearings 1-----.----"--------~------------1-------+---+--~~ Fan Blades for cooling r.ower
New 4 $
New 2 $
New 1 $
Filter for air compressor New 2 $
l Filter oi I for air compressor ------------Fil t cr _::_--+--------+----+----~ New $ -.
$ 1---+-F il t er
New 2
New 2
Filter fuel tank New 1 __ _,
Filtt:r, hydro New 2 ...
Filter, hydro New 2 ---·-Filter, oil .....---1 FilterT oil
New 2
New 1 .-----+--------------------+-------i--Filter -· New 6
Filt~r l------1------~----···---~----t-----t----:-.,----i---Filter, oil
New 6 --....
New 2
Filter, h:~-·dr_a_u_,li-c-sc·reen New 1 •,
Filter Hydraulic Fluid ------------+--------t--Flange (SF), pump coupling ,____ -1---=--'--..:...._;_-:._-=---==------------Flange (SF), Mupling for motor to pump --------------+-----------;-Flex Coupling for head section 1---~---
New 3
New 2
New 1 ., --,
New 3
3 Flex Coupling,. drive end, head section (large) ~~---+-----+----+-----+--FI ex Coupling ddve end, head section (small)
New
New 1 -· .• .,. ...
Float Ball for cooling lower
L---··· -------------------------
New 3
Gaskets form 520 pumps New 1 -....
Gearbox SCXT 125 2 -----------------------+------+__:;.__~-+----jf-----:---t-Gearbox SC:X.7' 425A
New
1 --------~-----· ---·· Graphite Seals 2 per unit
Hanger Bearing Assembly for screw bearing
Heat Excha.riger Plate TA MlO FG Ml OB plate
New
New
New
New
1
1
2
I
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ --$
$
$
$
$
$
Hub, 1-1/2 I----+---' Hub, for fot=d screws ½ x ¼ to 2.125/2.126
New $
2 $ ~---+--=----...:__-1----+-~-.....-+-~--· --New -----------+------+---Hub, clutch for pony motor ....c---------------------Hub (SF) coupling motor to pump
L--.-.-,.--'---=---=--=---~------------
.... New 5 $
New 1 $ -------Id fan Blower New 1 $
~--+-,-lm_p,__e_ller (CD4MCu) for large pump -+~=-.:__+----+----+-
Impeller (Ductile) srnaU pumps 5 5/8 ______ +-------+----+---
I.tnpellers (small)
N~w 2 $
New 2 $ ...
New 2 $
Impellers Large carbon impellers L---·-+-.!..---.....:::~~__;_----~--------+-----+-----=---+-----+-----+-Input Shafts TXT425A gear box
New 3 $
New 1 $
Mounting Plate for chain tension New 3 $
O-Rings for mod tank pump New 6 $
O-Rings for No. 5 carbon inserts New 7 $
O-Rings for 5ITiall throat bushings New 3 $
O-Rings (Viton) for mod tank pump New 3 $
5 4 Addendum No. 2 • 6/28/00
07 /10 /00 16:50 '5"6109419707
•' ..... : ...... · .. . ;')
I ,-,,r.' • ... , • ~••• ,,.,., .• ~,..-_ ... ,,.,_, •' ::• ~ ", •
., . . · .. · ,, ··:·, .... ..
,••• • .. ,r~I •~ .:.,: 40~•-=:~;: ~ .:.•,:.: 1 ~~ t • ~• •• ; ,'
i~~;g_1~~~;~iJl}~:~t~:/}/}}t\:~• ",) -~ -•H" _, •.I -<:' , .-~-<':··. ~--· ..
Packiag Gland tail end of pugmifl $ New 2
Poppet Valve for FTO $ 1--~-+--=----------------1-------+-.::,.;..;~~---+------!~----Pump, complete process water pump $
New
New
•,
1
I
Pump Housing for cooUfig tQwer $
1----,!,---~-----~;__---·------+-----.+--...,;.__--1----+-------+-'------1 Pump Hnusing for small pump $ ---=--.!..---------!.-----.+---...:....:.~-~---+----+-'-~--··-
1------+--Pu_mp Power_F_ra_m_c_-s_ma_ll _______ ·--------+-----1-----+-----1-....::$ ___ ---J
Pump Power F l'filne large $ ---··--------------=-----_____ .,.__._ ___ ...-1,-:.:;..;,,;_+-----+-----t-:$,-.....-----1
Rebuild Kit for ARO pumps ----+-~.:....:..:...-.J----1-----+· _:.,__ ____ _
Rebuild Kit mod tank pump $ l.-•,----1 __________ ~-~------·--+----------+--·-
New
New
New
New
Ni;:w
New
I
t
2
3
1
5
Rollers for slide gates -1--:..:...:~--1----.J--............:=---4.....:$ ___ . _ Rollers for incline p~-w-erscr--een---------1-----$
1-----+-------------+---"-'--+----+-·--=----------1 Rollers (return} for radial stacker $
Rollers (stralght) for incline=--b....,el,...t -------+--======:=::.:.=...~-_--1-+~-_-_·--=--=--=-:~-=--=.~-=--=--=-::$--__ -_:_----~--4
Screen for cooling tower $ ~ ·--+------~-----------4-----..------+--Seal (tnech) for 520 pumps __j:__-~-+---=----+--'$'----· .. -
1-----+--S~_al (mech) for mod tank pump --+-------1.___::...:.::.;,.:__ ......... __ ___.:f---.....:--+.;::...$ -~---1
Seal trunion bea.riog seals $ '--· --l-______ _.::::,_ ______ -----+-----+-----+-----+--~---+-$=-----~
Se,.11 Kit tnuuon bearing seals
New
New
New
New
New
New
'• New
New
New
1
3
3
l
1 ·-1
4
15
3
Seal Kit Etcct for pugmm hearings .. -----+------+-----+-$
Seals (large seal) $
New
New
1
1
Shaft Output Hub for pugmill gearhox $
1-----+-Sllafts Stub for pugmill .. ----------1-----+------+-------J:----=---+-=$ ___ __,
Sheave 2 belt 2B68 $ '"-----+-------~-----------+------1---=-~:....._4-__ -4-_~---+-'-------1 Sheave 2 belt 2TB42 sk $
New
New
New
New
2
1
l
2
Sheave 2 belt 2/Jv-10.6 2517 bushing $ ·------=--------+----Sheave 3 belt $ !----+-
New
New
1
1
Sheave 3 belt 3R5V42 $ -·--+-------.------.. ---·-----+-------+----:......-1----+---==---i-'-------l Sheave 3 belt 3B5vl3.6 $
New
New
2
l
Sheave 3 belt 3B 5.4 sd $ New 1
Sheave 3 belt sheaves 3 V3035 CA $ --~--------+-------1----=--~:..._4--__ -+--=---t-:----· .. -Sheave for pugmill gearbox $
New
New
l
l
Sheave for pugmill motor $ ----------+-----+--Sh eave 2 belt 7.0x23 sk ted $ 1----4---Sleevc for small pumps $
1----+ $ Sleeve Shaft P520 A&B pumps --I---~~-+---~___::;___--+~---.. _
Spider coupling large $
New
New
New
New
New
1
3 ·-
1
9
1
Spider coupling small $ New 1
i----4--S~pr_oc_ket for gearbox on calciner -h----+--~-.._j..---+-----~$ ___ .. __
Sprocket (large) for feed conveyor $
New
New
1
1
New I Sprocket (large) for tWin screws $
Sprocket (small) feeds.crew 1240-10 New 2
New 1 Stub Shaft for cyclone $
Taper Lock drive gear 2" New 2 ·
New I Taper Lock feed belt motor $
New 5 Taper Lock ex 2 15/16 DI sdm $
6 " Addt:ndum No. 2 -6/28/00
14\007
07 /10 /00 16:51 '5'6109419707 ENV SCI ENGINEER . ---··-.
Taper Lock New $ 5
Ta.~ Lock Bushing for gearbox $ New 3
~-···--+~T-=-:-a ___ p_er_L_oc____,k....,.B_us_h_in-"gCC..m_ot_o_r_~--------+-------i--~--+---__ _,_ ___ --+_$ ___ --1
Throat Bli..-.hings $
New
New
1
-------~-------------4-----1-----+-----+--..:;._-i--:-----Throat Bushings no. 5 carbun insem $ -. l
New 2 1----+-=--Timing Gc:ar for fe~dscrew $ New 1
Troughing Roller Assembly 20 deg $ New 23
Troughing Rollers 4" $ New 1
Trunion Rollers downhill $ New 1
Universal Drive Tcnsio~ec for calciner $ New I
Base Support for c~lciner drive ··+---~---1-----+-----+-----i $--------i New 2
F uel Pump tor calciner $ Used l -------------.....----~----+----+----+--,,----· ·-Treated Water Pump $ f------+----------''------------.------------------+-._:_..,,. __ ----; Used 2 -.
Condensate Pump $ Used l ,.
Condensate Control Panel $ U~ed I ---+----+------,------~--Welder/Generator, Miller 4,00Q Watt $ -------+------+--··----------l Used 1
Versainatic Diphragtl! Pumps, 2--_______________ $ _____ _ Used 3
Hie:h ?ressurt! Washe.r:, Aqua Rlast $ Used 1 . -
PIMtml Cutter $
...,_ ___ 5:,_--_Gal Vent System Blower, hos~, Qdis ---~+--~===:==-···============$=-------=--=-----1--1
Used 1
Used l
1 Air Tee Dessicant Drier Used $ ----------------·--------+----------+--· ·---~---+------1 1 Weather Sta!_io_n_S_,)_''S_te_m ________ ---+---___ u_se_d ____ +--____ $ ___ -i
Model ZAG-6L Zero Air Generator Used $ 1
crou SPARE PARTS JTEM#JA ARE NOW INCLUDED IN LOT#l. BID ITEMS #1
AND #lA Jt.fUST BE COMBINED AS A LUMP SUM IN BID ITEM #1.
*The qua11-titie.,; in bid item #JA, the TDU spare parts list, may change. All line itemf must
STILL be bid individually and any changes in quantities prior to release to the successful
bidder will be prorated and adjusted accordingly.
7 Addendum No. 2 -6/28/00
[41008
07 /10/00 16:52 '5'6109419707 ENV SCI ENGINEER
**Please n1Jte that botl, thermal treatment units are being sold as single units. Eac:h 11nit will
include all equipment which belongs to each particular unit. Equipment fron, unit #1 or #2
will not be exchangeable.
g Addendwn No. 2 -6/28/00
07 /10 /00 16:52 '5'6109419707 ENV SCI ENG_!!>!E~~ 14]009
Used
1 Yellow Used l --+-·--=---+-----+----
1-----+-H...i-_ &system --+-y~Te_ll~o~w"'---+---U~s~e~d-+-----1
H Yellow Used 1 --~----+----~-4----V o lc ratiort system Yellow Used 1 ----+----------O il water separator Yellow Used 1
Autc>mutic backwash_in~g._fi_h_enn_·__,g_,___s . ._s ... le_m ___ ---+-_Y_e_ll_o_w __ U_se __ d_+----+----
Sand filter tower Yellow Used ~~-+------+-----!------"---+----+--· Air Compres~<)r, electric Champion Model HR Yellow
10-Dl2 ·2ea.) lus Receiver tank 1) S stem Used
Carbon filter assemblv unit 6000 lb Yellow Used 4 1-----l--R e ·er Yellow Used 1 ---------+-~---+-I Y cllow Used 1 --~--t-----+------+----s ss Yelkn~r Used 1
C.u-bon tN Oxidation reactor Yellow Used l ------~-----Water Meter. brass Ha: .s dial Yellow Used 1 1----;--C u resse.d Air crated Yellow Used 1
S lud T ransfcr pum s ---=Y;..;;c;.;;;ll;.;:.o...:..w:.__+---=U:...:s~e~d--1---+--2--E
Filte Yellow Used I
Sar, ,..__.......... . -1/2 in. Yellow:......._-1----=U=-~se=-=-=d~~---1--=-2---i
1------+--Sand i er dia hra t pump, 3/4 in_ Yellow Used l
2-Sia Yellow Used 2
i------+_G_'o_u_ld_'~-Pump, 2HP.. 3450 RP/vi Yellow Used
--+-·VJ.,,f Diaphragm Pump Yellow Used 2
.Po{ ,Blend Control/Addition Svstem Yellow Used 1 ·--1~~:..;:;;..---l-------l------i.
2
1----+·Sandpiper Model PB, .l-1/2" DiaphgmPum Yellow Used 2
Rosemtmt Mix Reaction Panel Ye11ow Used 1
i-----+--(j_•r_irn_•a_Id 1-1/2'' Pump Ydlow Used 2
Sand i er Model SA2-A, 2'' Dia h Yellow Used I
Water Flow Totalizer, 2" Yellow Used 2 --------------Teel Precharge Tank, 85 Gal Yellow Used 1
Gould's 1,,, % HP Pump YeUow +-_U_s __ e_d----11-----~--l __
1---____ A_ir_C_ompressor, 30 Gal, 1 HP --+-_Y_e_ll-=-o_w_-l--_1'--.Js_·e'--d--1----+---1
Teel Pum , 7.5 HP Yellow Used l ----1-----+----Vacu11m Pum , 2 HP Yellow -l----=U:;..;s;.:_·e-=d---1----+-__ 1 _ _,
1-----+-Moyno Pump,~~ HP, 1725 RPM Yellow Used 2
Eastern .Mixer w/JHP motor Yellow Used 2
Teel Pum , 3/4 HP. 3450 RPiW Yellow Used 1
}.,fixer w/~,~ HP GE A,fotor Yellow Used
fl Control S stem Acid/Caustic Yellow Used 2
1-112 HP Pum , 3450 RPM Yellow Used 1
Electrical Control Panel+ 5 Disconnects Yellow Used 1
A,fotor 1'1.:lfi.fixer, 1-1/2 HP, 3450 RPM Yellow Used l
9 Addendum No. 2 ~ 6/28/00
07 /10 /00 16:53 ENV SCI ENGINEER
Ravwall Gas Heater Used 3
Exhaust Fan Used 1
1 dro en Perr>xide Meterin 'Stem Yellow Used 1
Myers Pressure Tank wll/2 !IP l,,fotor Yellow Used 1
Oil water separator, small Yellow Used l
KMn04 Addition S 'Stem Yellow Used 1
Goulds Pum , 3 HP. 3450 RPM. 3 ., Yellow Used l
Pum . IHP, 172J RPM Yellow Used l
Pum-r:, 3 HP1 3450-RPM Yellow used 2
Addendum No. 2 -6/28/00
14]011
0i /10/00 16: 54 '6'61 09419i 0i ENV SCI ENGINEER
8x20 Trailer Air Conditioned
Emcrgenci lightine fixtures
S uare D 600A. 480V, 3-Ph Panel Board Used
30 ~ Breakers Used
50 Breakers Used -· I 00 Am Brenkcrs Used
_ 200 AmE Brc:akers Used
300 Ani Breakers Used
60 Breakers Used
70 Amp Breakers Used
250A Breakers Used
_ 150 Am,e Bn:ak.ers Used
600 Ara Breakers Used
Square D 400 Amp~ 600V Safety Switch Used I Disconnect
Square D 225 Amp ~ l 20/208V Circuit Breaker U.sc:d l Panel
Warrick Controls Level Alarm Leak Deteclion Used S ~'tern
Cutler Hammer 60 Amp 240V Safety Switch Used I Disconnect
Square D 3~Pbasc Insulated Step~Down Used 1 Transformer, 480V/208V
Cutler Hammer PRL4 Panel Board, 480/277V, Used 1 3-Ph. 600 AmE.4-Wiret NEMA 3R
600 Am Breakers Used 1
200 Arn Breakers Used 2
90 ·0-IDE Breakers Used 1
50Am Breakers Used 2
Square D 30 Amp Lighting Contactor, Type 1 Used 1 Enclosure
Cutler Hammer 27 Amp Motor Starter, Type l Used 1 Enclosure
240 Vult Outlet Used 2
120 Volt Outlet, Internal Used 1
120 Volt Outlet. External Used 1
11 Addendum No_ 2 ~ 6/28/00
(41012
07 /10 /00 16:54 '5'6109419707 ENV SCI ENGINEER
The successful bidder will be notified by letter and is ~sponsible for taking possessioa of property within
fourteeo (14) 2-1-calendar days after notification of availability Being the su«esgful ~idder. The postmark
date on the Notification letter will represent day zero (0).
AU items are sold on an "as is", ~here is", and "as many as" basis. Movement/transportation ofthese
items is the .-esponsibility otthe successful bidder. IT will load items onto the Bidder's vehicle/transport
at a designated staging area. The Unitoo States Army Corp of Engineers (USACE) reserves the right to
accept/reject any or an bids/offers.
BicJ/Offer must be valid for 60 c;alendat< days.
Bidder Signature; __________________ D~te; _________ _
12 Addendum No. 2 ~ 6/28/00
07 /10/00 16 :55 '661094197 07
SECTION "B" -"Revised"
SOLICITATION INSTRUCTIONS
The following instructions are provided to assist in the preparation of the bid.
l. Failure to comply with bid requirements may be cause for rejeetioo of your offer.
2. Complete the. Solkitation sheets including: Name, Company Name, Address, Phone and/or
Fax Number. Insure the Solic:itatk>n sheet is signed and dated.
3. Bids must be received no later than the time ru,d date specified in the Invitation For Bid.
4. Bidders may bid on any eir all bid items.
5. Offers must be valid for 60 calendar days.
6. Section "'C'" is for the purpose of describing tht! property within a lot. Quantities listed under
Section ••c" are estimates only and may not be accurate. Bidders are re:sponsihle for
inspecting the items offered for sale by visiting the site. The items listed are to be sold on an
""As Is", "Where Is", and "As Many As'' basis. ,Y.iewing by appointment only.
7. Complete the Solicitation (Section '"A"), indicating the Bid It~m No_ and price for each Lot
you wish to purcha.::e. Solicitation is to be mailed/delivered in a sealed envelope marked
"SEALED BID" and mailed or delivered to Uoited States Army Corp ofEngiri~en,
Attention: James Hershey, 10 S. Howard St. room 7000, Baltimori!!, MD 21201. Please
insure Bidder's name i~ printed on the scaled envelope. FAXED bids will not be
accepted_
8. Award/sale ofth~ property will be based on the highest bid offered per bid item In the event
of tie offers, a random drawing, witnessed by the Government, will be utilized to select the
successful Bidder.· The USACE reserves the right to accept or reject a.ny or an Bidders.
9. There is a re~rve placed on the two thermal de5:0rption units, therefore the government may
opt to refuse all bids for these two units if an equitable bid bas not been submitted.
10. Movement/Transportation cost of sold items is the sole responsibility of the succe:ssful
Bidder. Items purchased must be removed from the IT work site within fourteen (14)
calendar days after Bidder is notified of an-aweM availability_ Loading onto transport at the
designated staging area will be by IT_ Pick up/Possession will be by appointment only.
ll. Payment must be made prior to, or at the time ofreceipt, of the property. Payment is to be
made in the form of cashier's check or certified check. Personal checks, company checks,
and credit cards will not be a~cepted.
12. Do not send any money with bids.
13 Addendum No_ 2 -6/28/00
141013
Oi /10/00 16:55 '5"6109419i0i ENV SCI ENGINEER
SMWT Government Sale of Surplus Equipment
Bidder's Questions/ Answers
1. (Q) V\i'hat wtre the last months power readioW' for tbe WESP', befo.-e they were rcmo-ved from
Service?
{A) All readings were within expected Manu:fadnrer1s uperating ranges.
(Q) Can the lf>g5 for ~vlta1es Hd amperageg be provided for the last mouth of service, or can
they be made avnilable for tnspectio11 before the bid due date?
(A) NQ records will be provided or made available.
-2• (Q) ~ th~re 1112inteoanec r~otm for the WE.Si•~ and ROI> DECK's internal inspections?
(A) Yes.
(Q) Can the:!le be provided nr made available for inspection?
(A) No, however, the units were maintained continuously as requlred.
3. (Q) Can the maintenance ra:onh tor lhe calcinerfs internal inspections that wooJd identify shell
thickness remaining be provided?
(A) The~ are no maintenance records con~erning the shell thickne.ss. The dnum for both units
consi'it of HA YNES HR-120 ALWY and were Yisually inspected and also usini= an NDT
International, Inc., Model NDT 710, Ser. No. 1278, ultrasonic thickness gQuge. TDU #1 was
inspetted on 27 Septlllmber 1999 and TDU #2 was in.'ipected on 19 OctobeI" 1999. Buth
TDU's Zone #2 tbickDes."! measured 0.51 .. in three places, 120 degrees apart.
(Q) Can records be provide(i or JWade available fol' impectton and be ieorrelat.ed to estimated
tonsprocC$Cd?
(A) No records will be provided or made :1Vailable.
(Q) Is there an estimated final ronna~ to be processed in these u.aio?
(A) Y ~ 265,000 tons of which approltimately 145,000 tons were pr~e!JSed prior to the shell
thickness wpectioa.
(Q) Wbat is the split of tons pr-ocessed through eaeh unjt?
(A) Cl'DU #2 ha<i currently processed 2SOO tons more thnn CTDU #I.
4. (Q) Will tbe systems be di!nnanded by cutting wire11 between junction boxes and panels or will
wiretJ be di3conntcted from terminal blocks?
(A) The wir~ will be cut between junction lk>us and panels keeping the labeling in place at both
ends allowing easy identification for firture connedioo:,.
5. (Q) Will the interconnecting piping and ductwork be included with each l.lystem?
[4]014
07 /10/00 16:56 '5'6109419707 ENV SCI ENGINEER __
(A) lntercoonecting '"field-fit" piping and ductwork will be removed and ducanled.
(Q) If not. what criteria 'Piill be used to detenniue pipe, duct or tQbiag that will be salvaged?
(A) Items will be dlscoooected at the ftaqges where the connecting "field-tlt" piping~
6. (Q) Wbat is the reserve that the Govenunent has establlibed for lot #1 and U2 equip1X1enr?
(A) This figure cau not be disclmed to prospective bidden until after the bid opening.
(Q) If tbe dollar value cannot be provided, what is the basis the government is using to establish
this value?
(A) This \'aloe is dete.-rniacd based on the cmting condition of the llDit!$ including recent
rdurbishrnettts 2nd the cost of spare para tbu.9 allowing the governmHt a minimal return
oo ib investment.
7, (Q) PlC3.5e verify that the pickup notification period for equipment wiU not begin until the
entire Lot is available for pickup.
(A) Pick-up notification will not ~n until the entire Lot is available tor pick-up.
(Q) If one organization is aw:uded more tbao one Lot, c-ao ther,: be a single pick-up date for the
differeot Lots once aU the equipment i, available for pick~op?
(.A) AH Lots must be removed within l➔ d~ys after their pi(!k-up notification date.
8. (Q) Shoald lhe bidder de$ire ooly oqe calci1lcr unit (either L-Ot #1 ot' Lot #2), c.ao. tlwy provide a
bid for both 1111its but only the lowest successful bid be accepted, nullifying the other bid?
(A) The governm.::ot 'Wtll only ac.cept the highest bid per Lot. Each Bidder most specify which
Lot he/she is biddia~ on.
9. (Q) Can the bidder caveat their bid to take ownenhip of only c,ne of the two.
(A) No.
(Q) Can the bidder caveat their bid for the spare parts (Lot #3) cootin2~nt upon beine sn,;tessful
bidder for part or .11ll of the remainioc Lot i~ms?
(A) No, Lot #3 bas been cunged to Lot #lA, see ADDENDUM No. 2. The total for Lot #1
includes Lot #IA. The individual prices for items in Lot #lA must ~till be filled in to allow
for an adjustment to tbe pnr-cbase price io the event the in1/entory chnuges.
10. (Q} Arc maintenance records available f'or r-eview prior to bidding and ownership of the records
if suecessfal bidder tor the filter press. flameless thermal onduers., saud fdters, ~arbon
vessels, attd lNOX system?
(A) No, only available maintenance manua.ls will be furnished to the successful bidder for tb.e
Lot parchased.
2
14]015
1. If the state rooves forward with requiring the use of the equipment from the Southern Maryland Superfund site I
would hope that this would eliminate IT from bidding on the Warren County project. If they are allowed to bid I feel
that they would have a strong competitive advantage and we would seriously need to consider if we would want to
bid . Having operated the equipment for an extended period of time they would have recent working knowledge of
the equipment that none of the other bidders would have. This would put us, and everyone else, at a great
disadvantage. The State could draw protest if IT bids, much less wins, the work.
2. In addition, I do not see how the state could hold the contractors responsible for meeting the soil cleanup levels
if they require the use of the equipment from the Southern Maryland Superfund site. Being that they provided the
equipment they need to guarantee the performance of the equipment relative to meeting the soil cleanup levels.
We can not be on hook for this if it is not our equipment.
3. Also, since none of the bidders, not including IT, have had any experience with the equipment the state would
have to provide information on production rates and guarantee these rates. Without this information, how could
anybody know what their cost would be? The state would then have the liability for any additional cost if the
equipment does not meet the production rates they specify.
4. Another area of concern is the condition of the equipment. Who will pay for maintenance and repairs during
the project? If the equipment has a significant amount of down time and project delays are caused due to
equipment performance issues, who will bear the additional cost for labor, per diems, and other associated
expenses? I do not see how the contractor could be responsible if it is not their equipment. Nothing but headaches
here for both the state and the contractor.
5. Providing a Performance Bond may also be an issue. I think the Bonding Companies would be quite nervous
about providing a bond if the project goes this way. I know that our Bonding Company would be real nervous since
the equipment is not ours and we have no history operating it.
6. If the state says that a contractor could use the Maryland equipment or supply their own, I do not think they
have gained anything. If this means that the state would put all the risk of performance on the contractor, I would
think that everyone would bid using their own equipment since they know what it can do. This would then eliminate
any advantage that the state thought they might get from using the Maryland equipment.
These are just opinions and should be viewed as such. I hope that this helps you in your discussions with Pat.
"' ill
i
:::
..J '.t .. C: ·a,
5
\ ' ~
"
i ~ <t
f (I) ::,
·'= 'O E
~ ;f • 0 .... u
> .. > 0 u
·'= :.. C l! u. ,._
8l g
u u u u
• C" ,1,·,· -~ 01997 Franklin Covey Co. Printed in USA Original-CL 17393
•' ~-, C C C C C c: C C1997 Franklin Covey Co, Printed in USA Original-CL 17393
~-. C C C C C C t&> C (01997 Franklin Covey Co. Printed in USA Original~L 17393
Notes from Investigation of Southern Maryland Equipment
Contacts:
KenSkaln
Ed Hughes
EPA Liaison to Corps of Engineers
Corps of Engineers
Problem with first bid
703-603-8801
301-373-5471
♦ Bids were non responsive due to a fatal flaw. Fatal flaw could be not filling out all the parts of the bid
form, not having the required bids, or bids lower than acceptable.
Miscellaneous Notes:
♦ Superfund owns the equipment
♦ Contact RPM and/or Corps about what went right or what went wrong.
♦ May want to pursue a cooperative agreement with the Corps to manage the construction.
♦ Would take 20 trailers to ship all units with spare parts. Weight of60,000 tons.
♦ Not with a fund-led site (PRPs). State-led and State of Maryland contributed 15%. The State would
have to be embursed.
SOUTHERN MARYLAND EQUIPMENT DECISION
PURCHASE COST OF EQUIPMENT AT SOUTHERN MARYLAND
Equipment Cost
Calciner (The1mal Desorber) $961 ,000
Vapor Recovery System $325,000
Flameless Thermal Oxidizer $119,000
Conveyors $36,000
Radial Discharge $12,000
Continuous Emissions Monitor $52,000
Fuel Tank $25,000
TOTAL $1,530,000.00
CONDITION OF EQUIPMENT?
1. System at Southern Maryland was designed to treat 145,000 tons (two sets of
equipment). At the end, the system will have treated approximately 270,000 tons
or almost twice the desigp amount. Equipment has been operated for ~2½ years.
2. The vapor recovery system is "worn out". In the past year they dete1mined that
the Wet Electrostatic Precipitator was not operating properly resulting in
corrosion problems and carryover of particulates. They also found it wasn't
needed. Operating cost was significantly reduced when this unit was shutdown.
Problems with this unit caused an overpressuring (blowout) of the line to the
flameless the1mal oxidizer. The thermal desorber would have to be overhauled
before it can be used at WaiTen County. In an overhaul they typically change
things like seals and parts that are worn due to friction with soil. The unit also
needs a new gear assembly.
3. Conveyors and radial dischai·ge in pretty good shape.
4. Fuel tank is good shape.
5. Water treatment system in pretty good shape.
6. Transportation of all equipment would cost approximately $40,000-50,000.
..
SOUTHERN MARYLAND EQUIPMENT DECISION
□ Equipment at Southern Maryland is for two processing trains. Warren County only
needs one. The purchase price of one processing train was $1 .5 M.
□ Life of thermal desorbers is based on the amount of material processed and
characteristics of soil not years of service. Each processing line at Southern
Maryland was designer for ~75,000 tons, but have processed~ 140,000 tons.
("Cadillac with 200,000 miles on it.")
□ Thermal desorbers have to be refurbished after each use. They typically change things
like seals and parts that are worn due to friction with soil. These units also needs a
new gear assembly. They do not think they will need anything else, but you won't
really know until equipment goes down and can be inspected.
□ Transportation of all equipment would cost approximately $40,000-50,000.
□ Parts of the vapor recovery system are "shot". Vapor recovery system was designed
for PCP (PCP stands for pentachlorophenol, which is used to preserve utility poles.)
in vapor, not PCB. Terry Lyons of EPA indicated that the vapor recovery system was
the most important part in preventing dioxin formation. It must also work to remove
PCBs, particulates, and other organics on the soil. Would the system be properly
sized for our conditions? Contacts recommended not taking this equipment.
□ Water treatment system has never worked well. It was designed for removing PCPs
not PCBs and for larger water flow . Would it work with our conditions? Contacts
recommended not taking this equipment.
□ Some tanks could be used, but might be a wash considering transportation costs.
□ EPA memo of $3 .5 M based on 10-year straight-line depreciation. Contacts did not
agree with that method of valuation. Bids on equipment have been ~$300,000. So
value would be ~$300,000, not $300,000 per year as might have been suggested.
Considering the equipment we might want to use and the ratio of that new equipment
cost to the total cost, the value would be ~$100,000.
□ If state forces contractor to use equipment, contractor would have a way out of
performance bonding if there are problems. Have had problems with projects where
someone else did design
□ Would contractors agree to language that would hold them responsible for problems?
Would contract language hold up it there is a problem? Is the state putting risk on the
$7M safety net for $200,000?
□ How would community feel if there were problems with the "used" equipment?
Equipment Condition
• The "life" of a thermal desorber is determined by the amount of material processed, not the years of
service. The abrasion of the soil wears down internal parts and drum thickness. The units were
designed to process 145,000 tons of material using two thermal desorbers at the Southern Maryland
site. So far they have treated 225,000 tons and plan to have treated a total of270,000 tons when
complete. When they hit the 145,000-ton mark (~ 70,000 tons per unit) in September of 1999, EPA had
ABB, the desorber manufacturer, inspect the integrity of the desorbers. They found that insulation has
broken free causing several hot spots that led to metal fatigue. EPA was forced to refurbish both units
at a cost of$900,000. ABB also tested the thickness of the metal drum and found that the wall had
worn down to 75-85% of its original thickness. EPA chose to continue with at 75% thickness. By
extrapolation, the thickness may only be 60% at the end of their run. This would not be acceptable.
EPA's remedial project manager believes that a "major" overhaul will be required before the
equipment could be used at Warren County.
• The air pollution control equipment is in good shape, however, it was designed to remove the
contaminants at their site and may or may not be correctly sized for our operation.
• They do have some water treatment equipment, however, that system has never worked as designed.
They have an unused UV/oxidation unit which the wastewater engineer inme would love to have (a
toy), but I doubt it would work at our site for the same reasons they are having trouble.
• Interestingly, the EPA remedial project manager who is familiar with the equipment operation and has
had to keep up with the cost of operating the equipment would prefer that EPA give the equipment to
North Carolina rather than lease it He prefers not to see the equipment come back. The tone of his
voice was the same as the state's when we talk about being able to walk away after the landfill
detoxification is complete.
Real Equipment Value
• The $300,000 in the letter is based on a ten-year life, the original purchase price, and one year of
service. Ironically the "winning" bid for RFP they issued for the equipment this summer was
$300,000. Comparing the two approaches to the value would indicate that the actual value of the
equipment is questionable. The engineer also indicated that the current contractor at the site did not bid
on the desorbers even though that contractor has a couple of upcoming thermal jobs.
• If you assume a $300,000 value and then add in the cost of the overhaul at a minimum of$900,000
based on their previous experience, the state is really paying $600,000 for two desorbers or $300,000
for one desorber. You can also add the cost of transportation from Maryland to North Carolina on top
of that
• The cleanup at the Maryland site is a 90/10 split. Somehow the State of Maryland would need to get
their split. That would also have to be added to the cost.
Contract Concerns/Questions
• EPA has dealt with a lot of contractors on remediation projects. They also pointed out that if the state
agrees to award the remediation contract to a company which will agree to use the equipment provided
by the state, it will be the state's contractual liability if the equipment does not perform to expectation.
He called it a huge "changed condition" which contractor s apparently love to use.
• Would IT and MACTEC-ETG be eliminated from bidding? ETG (now MACTEC-ETG) was the
initial subcontractor operating the Southern Maryland equipment. IT is operating the equipment now.
Using the equipment would give them an advantage over other contractors. Competition might be
reduced because contractors may be reluctant to bid based on that advantage. The state could also
draw protest if the firms are allowed to bid and especially if they win the contract.
• Again, it would be difficult for the state to hold contractors responsible for meeting the soil cleanup
levels if the state requires the use of equipment from Southern Maryland. The offer of equipment is to
the state, not the contractor. The state would be responsible for guaranteeing the performance of the
equipment to meet soil cleanup levels not the contractor. This makes the performance bond moot.
• Again, IT and MACTEC-ETG know how the equipment has operated and have information to make
better estimates on production rates and other information that affects cost How would the state
provide this information to other contractors? Would the state bare the liability for any additional cost
if the equipment does not meet the production rates we specify?
• Who pays for refurbishing the equipment? Who will be responsible and pay for maintenance and
repairs during the project? Keep in mind it will be the state's equipment We don't have the expertise
to make good estimates and ifwe are wrong then we are negotiating with the contractor.
• Getting performance bonds could also be a problem. Bonding companies may not be as forthcoming
to bond a contractor if the contractor does not own or have experience operating the key piece of
equipment.
• If the state says that a contractor could use the equipment or supply their own, the liability still resides
with the state because the state will be the owner of the equipment.
Use of Equipment from Southern Maryland
Equipment
• What was value of the equipment new? What is the value now?
• What repairs might reasonably be expected before equipment can be used on site?
• Would equipment have to be shipped somewhere for repairs?
• What is the cost to transport equipment to site?
• Who would be responsible for getting equipment refurbished and transferred to site?
• How does the "real" value compare with the price a contractor would charge for the use of his
equipment?
Liabilities
• Would the required use of the equipment effect the liability of the contractor to perform to meet the
project requirements?
• This equipment was designed by ETG and operated by both ETG and IT. ETG is now MACTEC
ETG. Some of the ETG personnel stayed with MACTEC-ETG some have reformed as a new ETG
Environmental and will be subcontractors to Weston. Does requiring the use of the Southern Maryland
equipment create an unfair advantage that could be challenged?
• Are there any measures we should take to ensure no problems?
• The owner/operator of the equipment is the entity who prepares the application and receives the TSCA
operating permit? EPA would technically be the owner, but would not be the operator. Who gets the
permit? How do we transfer liability for the permitting to the contractor?
Other
• Would some of the above wind up increasing the cost of the project to the state and reducing
competition for the project?
• We need to have the decision on whether or not to use the equipment and how before going out with
RFQ. Yes?
Bidding/Contracting Questions
• Some parts of the design are very specific, some are not. Some equipment are basically equivalent to
off-the-shelf items, some are not The most costly piece of equipment, the thermal desorber, is not an
off-the-shelf item and the design is not extremely specific. This was done intentionally to allow
competition from firms with different designs. (This was noted in the design/build request) Using
the specifications we have, five firms could come back with five essentially identical or five
significantly different thermal desorbers. If they can all do the job, that's great, but when the bids
come in it would be nice to have some information about this equipment is to ensure that it conforms
to the intention of the design.
• The design and operation of the thermal desorber affects the design and operation of the air pollution
control equipment and the condensate (water) treatment. A firm may already have a system that has
been proven to be successful treating PCB contaminated soil, but that would not have the same
components listed in our air pollution control system. ( An example is Maxymillian, which is the only
firm in the country that has a TSCA permit for thermal desorption to remove PCBs from soil.) Would
different equipment be allowed? Ifwe are going to allow different components, we need to have some
understanding of what it is and why it works better with their desorber. Again, when the bids are
opened it would be nice to know the equipment and operation the bid is based on.
• If the above is part of the prequalification process, does that mean the firm has to bid based on that
what was presented during prequalification? How do we judge whether a bid makes sense or is
responsive without a proposal for the less specific areas as part of the bid ... or do we care?
• What sort of cost breakdown will be required for the bid?
• How will the project be contracted considering tl1e phase-funding approach? How should this we
worded in the RFQ?
• When should the design documents be available for purchase ... at RFQ or later? Will contract
documents be available with RFQ or later?
0 _,,!ic / t.A~ /~a-i-PcB-8C-1) •{~o o
'fn~-
/4 (_ -
A
OU
I I
~ ~ 4-A ~
~~/JJ~~ A,~"
vtkd, &<'-~ 6-JJ (u,-) fa-oY1-='o'
J-~ ~-
Equipment Condition
• The "life" of a thermal desorber is determined by the amount of material processed, not the years of
service. The abrasion of the soil wears down internal parts and drum thickness. The units were
designed to process 145,000 tons of material using two thermal desorbers at the Southern Maryland
site. So far they have treated 225,000 tons and plan to have treated a total of 270,000 tons when
complete. When they hit the 145,000-ton mark(~ 70,000 tons per unit) in September of 1999, EPA had
ABB, the desorber manufacturer, inspect the integrity of the desorbers. They found that insulation has
broken free causing several hot spots that led to metal fatigue. EPA was forced to refurbish both units
at a cost of$900,000. ABB also tested the thickness of the metal drum and found that the wall had
worn down to 75-85% of its original thickness. EPA chose to continue with at 75% thickness. By
extrapolation, the thickness may only be 60% at the end of their run. This would not be acceptable.
EPA's remedial project manager believes that a ''major" overhaul will be required before the
equipment could be used at Warren Omnty.
• The air pollution control equipment is in good shape, however, it was designed to remove the
contaminants at their site and may or may not be correctly sized for our operation.
• They do have some water treatment equipment, however, that system has never worked as designed.
They have an unused UV/oxidation unit which the wastewater engineer in me would love to have ( a
toy), but I doubt it would work at our site for the same reasons they are having trouble.
• Interestingly, the EPA remedial project manager who is familiar with the equipment operation and has
had to keep up with the cost of operating the equipment would prefer that EPA give the equipment to
North Carolina rather than lease it He prefers not to see the equipment come back. The tone of his
voice was the same as the state's when we talk about being able to walk away after the landfill
detoxification is complete.
Real Equipment Value
• The $300,000 in the letter is based on a ten-year life, the original purchase price, and one year of
service. Ironically the "winning" bid for RFP they issued for the equipment this summer was
$300,000. Comparing the two approaches to the value would indicate that the actual value of the
equipment is questionable. The engineer also indicated that the current contractor at the site did not bid
on the desorbers even though that contractor has a couple of upcoming thermaljobs.
• If you assume a $300,000 value and then add in the cost of the overhaul at a minimum of$900,000
based on their previous experience, the state is really paying $600,000 for two desorbers or $300,000
for one desorber. You can also add the cost of transportation from Maryland to North Carolina on top
of that
• The cleanup at the Maryland site is a 90/10 split Somehow the State of Maryland would need to get
their split. That would also have to be added to the cost.
Contract C oncerns/Ouestions
• EPA has dealt with a lot of contractors on remediation projects. They also pointed out that if the state
agrees to award the remediation contract to a company which will agree to use the equipment provided
by the state, it will be the state's contractual liability if the equipment does not perform to expectation.
He called it a huge "changed condition" which contractor s apparently love to use.
• Would IT and MACTEC-ETG be eliminated from bidding? ETG (now MACTEC-ETG) was the
initial subcontractor operating the Southern Maryland equipment. IT is operating the equipment now.
. "
Using the equipment would give them an advantage over other contractors. Competition might be
reduced because contractors may be reluctant to bid based on that advantage. The state could also
draw protest if the firms are allowed to bid and especially if they win the contract.
• Again, it would be difficult for the state to hold contractors responsible for meeting the soil cleanup
levels if the state requires the use of equipment from Southern Maryland. The offer of equipment is to
the state, not the contractor. The state would be responsible for guaranteeing the performance of the
equipment to meet soil cleanup levels not the contractor. This makes the performance bond moot.
• Again, IT and MACTEC-ETG know how the equipment has operated and have information to make
better estimates on production rates and other information that affects cost How would the state
provide this information to other contractors? Would the state bare the liability for any additional cost
if the equipment does not meet the production rates we specify?
• Who pays for refurbishing the equipment? Who will be responsible and pay for maintenance and
repairs during the project? Keep in mind it will be the state's equipment We don't have the expertise
to make good estimates and if we are wrong then we are negotiating with the contractor.
• Getting performance bonds could also be a problem. Bonding companies may not be as forthcoming
to bond a contractor if the contractor does not own or have experience operating the key piece of
equipment.
• If the state says that a contractor could use the equipment or supply their own, the liability still resides
with the state because the state will be the owner of the equipment
PURCHASE COST OF EQUIPMENT AT SOUTHERN MARYLAND
Equipment Cost
Calciner (Thermal Desorber) $961 ,000
Vapor Recovery System $325,000
Flameless Thermal Oxidizer $119,000
Conveyors $36,000
Radial $12,000
Continuous Emissions Monitor $52,000
Fuel Tank $25,000
TOTAL $1,530,000.00
WHAT IS USUABLE?
1. For quantities <100,000 tons, only one unit is needed. Contacts gave mixed
answers, but "experts" said equipment would work after overhaul.
2. Besides condition, the vapor recovery system was designed for vapor stream with
~4-5% PCPs , not PCBs. (PCP stands for pentachlorophenol, which is used to
preserve utility poles.) Terry Lyons of EPA indicated that the vapor recovery
system was the most important part in preventing dioxin formation. It must also
work to remove PCBs, particulates, and other organics on the soil. Would the
system be properly sized for our conditions? Contacts recommended not taking
this equipment.
3. Water treatment system has never worked well . It was designed for removing
PCPs not PCBs and for larger water flow. Would it work with our conditions?
Contacts recommended not taking this equipment.
4. Some tanks could be used, but might be a wash considering transportation costs.
VALUE?
1. EPA memo of $3. 5 M based on 10-year straight-line depreciation. Contacts did
not agree with that method of valuation.
2. Life of equipment is based on amount of mate1ial processed through unit. Bids on
equipment have been ~$300,000. So value would be ~$300,000, not $300,000
per year as might have been suggested.
3. Considering the equipment we might want to use and the ratio of that new
equipment cost to the total cost, the value would be ~$100,000 .
ADVICE AND OTHER COMMENTS/QUESTIONS
1. "A Cadillac with 200,000 miles." "A '73 Chevy Impala"
2. Need cost plus incentives contract to avoid a lot of change orders.
3. Need someone else to worry. Responsibility needs to be on contractor.
4. Who is responsible for overhauling equipment?
5. If state forces contractor to use equipment, contractor would have a way out of
performance bonding if there are problems. Have had problems with projects
where someone else did design
6. Need "right" contractor that can troubleshoot.
7. How would community feel if there were problems with the "used" equipment?
8. Would contractors agree to language that would hold them responsible for
problems? Would contract language hold up it there is a problem? Is the state
putting 1isk on the $7M safety net for $200,000?
9. Who would get the TSCA pe1mit?
Equipment Condition
• The "life" of a thermal desorber is dete1mined by the amount of material processed,
not the years of service. The abrasion of the soil wears down internal parts and drum
thickness. The units were designed to process 145,000 tons of material using two
thermal desorbers at the Southern Maryland site. So far they have treated 225,000
tons and plan to have treated a total of270,000 tons when complete. When they hit
the 145,000-ton mark (~70,000 tons per unit) in September of 1999, EPA had ABB,
the desorber manufacturer, inspect the integrity of the desorbers. They found that
insulation has broken free causing several hot spots that led to metal fatigue. BP A
was forced to refurbish both units at a cost of $900,000. ABB also tested the
thickness of the metal drum and found that the wall had worn down to 75-85% of its
original thickness. EPA chose to continue with at 75% thickness. By extrapolation,
the thickness may only be 60% at the end of their run. This would not be acceptable.
EPA's remedial project manager believes that a "major" overhaul will be required
before the equipment could be used at Warren County.
• The air pollution control equipment is in good shape, however, it was designed to
remove the contaminants at their site and may or may not be correctly sized for our
operation.
• They do have some water treatment equipment, however, that system has never
worked as designed. They have an unused UV/oxidation unit which the wastewater
engineer in me would love to have (a toy), but I doubt it would work at our site for
the same reasons they are having trouble.
• Interestingly, the EPA remedial project manager who is familiar with the equipment
operation and has had to keep up with the cost of operating the equipment would
prefer that EPA give the equipment to North Carolina rather than lease it. He prefers
not to see the equipment come back. The tone of his voice was the same as the state's
when we talk about being able to walk away after the landfill detoxification is
complete.
Real Equipment Value
• The $300,000 in the letter is based on a ten-year life, the 01iginal purchase price, and
one year of service. Ironically the "winning" bid for RFP they issued for the
equipment this summer was $300,000. Compming the two approaches to the value
would indicate that the actual value of the equipment is questionable. The engineer
also indicated that the current contractor at the site did not bid on the desorbers even
though that contractor has a couple of upcoming the1maljobs.
• If you assume a $300,000 value and then add in the cost of the overhaul at a
minimum of $900,000 based on their previous experience, the state is really paying
$600,000 for two desorbers or $300,000 for one desorber. You can also add the cost
of transportation from Maryland to North Carolina on top of that.
• The cleanup at the Maryland site is a 90/10 split. Somehow the State of Maryland
would need to get their split. That would also have to be added to the cost.
Contract Concerns/Questions
• EPA has dealt with a lot of contractors on remediation projects. They also pointed
out that if the state agrees to award the remediation contract to a company which will
agree to use the equipment provided by the state, it will be the state's contractual
liability if the equipment does not perfmm to expectation. He called it a huge
"changed condition" which contractors apparently love to use.
• Would IT and MACTEC-ETG be eliminated from bidding? ETG (now MACTEC-
ETG) was the initial subcontractor operating the Southern Maryland equipment. IT is
operating the equipment now. Using the equipment would give them an advantage
over other contractors. Competition might be reduced because contractors may be
reluctant to bid based on that advantage. The state could also draw protest if the
firms are allowed to bid and especially if they win the contract.
• Again, it would be difficult for the state to hold contractors responsible for meeting
the soil cleanup levels if the state requires the use of equipment from Southern
Maryland. The offer of equipment is to the state, not the contractor. The state would
be responsible for guaranteeing the perf mmance of the equipment to meet soil
cleanup levels not the contractor. This makes the performance bond moot.
• Again, IT and MACTEC-ETG know how the equipment has operated and have
information to make better estimates on production rates and other info1mation that
affects cost. How would the state provide this information to other contractors?
Would the state bare the liability for any additional cost if the equipment does not
meet the production rates we specify?
• Who pays for refurbishing the equipment? Who will be responsible and pay for
maintenance and repairs during the project? Keep in mind it will be the state's
equipment. We don't have the expertise to make good estimates and if we are wrong
then we are negotiating with the contractor.
• Getting perfmmance bonds could also be a problem. Bonding companies may not be
as forthcoming to bond a contractor if the contractor does not own or have experience
operating the key piece of equipment.
• If the state says that a contractor could use the equipment or supply their own, the
liability still resides with the state because the state will be the owner of the
equipment.
USE OF EQUIPMENT FROM SOUTHERN MARYLAND
Equipment
• What was value of the equipment new? What is the value now?
• What repairs might reasonably be expected before equipment can be used on site?
• Would equipment have to be shipped somewhere for repairs?
• What is the cost to transport equipment to site?
• Who would be responsible for getting equipment refurbished and transfeITed to site?
• How does the "real" value compare with the price a contractor would charge for the
use of his equipment?
Liabilities
• Would the required use of the equipment effect the liability of the contractor to
perform to meet the project requirements?
• This equipment was designed by ETG and operated by both ETG and IT. ETG is
now MACTEC ETG. Some of the ETG personnel stayed with MACTEC-ETG some
have reformed as a new ETG Environmental and will be subcontractors to Weston.
Does requiring the use of the Southern Maryland equipment create an unfair
advantage that could be challenged?
• Are there any measures we should take to ensure no problems?
• The owner/operator of the equipment is the entity who prepares the application and
receives the TSCA operating pe1mit? EPA would technically be the owner, but
would not be the operator. Who gets the pe1mit? How do we transfer liability for the
pe1mitting to the contractor?
Other
• Would some of the above wind up increasing the cost of the project to the state and
reducing competition for the project?
• We need to have the decision on whether or not to use the equipment and how before
going out with RFQ. Yes?
Bidding/Contracting Questions
• Some parts of the design are very specific, some are not. Some equipment are
basically equivalent to off-the-shelf items, some are not. The most costly piece of
equipment, the thermal desorber, is not an off-the-shelf item and the design is not
extremely specific. This was done intentionally to allow competition from finns with
different designs. (This was noted in the design/build request.) Using the
specifications we have, five firms could come back with five essentially identical or
five significantly different thermal desorbers. If they can all do the job, that's great,
but when the bids come in it would be nice to have some information about this
equipment is to ensure that it confo1ms to the intention of the design.
• The design and operation of the thennal desorber affects the design and operation of
the air pollution control equipment and the condensate (water) treatment. A film may
already have a system that has been proven to be successful treating PCB
contaminated soil, but that would not have the same components listed in our air
pollution control system. (An example is Maxymillian, which is the only film in the
country that has a TSCA pe1mit for the1mal desorption to remove PCBs from soil.)
Would different equipment be allowed? If we are going to allow different
components, we need to have some understanding of what it is and why it works
better with their desorber. Again, when the bids are opened it would be nice to know
the equipment and operation the bid is based on.
• If the above is pait of the prequalification process, does that mean the film has to bid
based on that what was presented during prequalification? How do we judge whether
a bid makes sense or is responsive without a proposal for the less specific areas as
part of the bid ... or do we cai·e?
• What sort of cost breakdown will be required for the bid?
• How will the project be contracted considering the phase-funding approach? How
should this we worded in the RFQ?
• When should the design documents be available for purchase ... at RFQ or later?
Will contract documents be available with RFQ or later?
::·~•~'Cs;•!f'elf.tt,,~,
WJ;J;;,,,,,rnt,,,~J,l!i,!!l~ I 1111111111111-,~~'~:; ;,,~\i/11:ii
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency• Region Ill• Superfund Fact Sheet• September 199
Equipment Testing Successful!
On June 14, 1998, contractors Maryland's air standards. Water
completed testing on the thermal
desorption units (TDUs) at the
Southern Maryland Wood
Treating Superfund Site.
This work, called Proof-
of-Performance (PoP)
testing, involved processing
contaminated soil through the two
different types ofTDUs at the
site. The PoP testing was
conducted to ensure that the units
effectively remove and capture
contaminants from the soil. Three
tests were performed on both a
batch TDU and a continuous
TDU. During cleanup activities,
the batch TDUs will treat wetter,
more contaminated soil and the
continuous TDUs will treat drier,
less contaminated soil excavated
from the site.
As part of the PoP testing,
workers sampled untreated and
treated soil, as well as the air and
water generated from the
treatment process. Sampling
results indicate that the TD Us met
the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency's (EPA) cleanup levels
for soil, and the air emissions
were within the State of
collected from the thermal
des?rption process and treated in
the onsite water treatment
facility meets all State
discharge standards except
the standard for ammonia.
The treated water is
currently being recycled for use in
the TDU's soil treatment process.
No water from the water treatment
facility will be discharged to the
onsite stream until the ammonia
issue is resolved. EPA anticipates
placing a draft copy of the PoP
Results Report in the site
repository at the St. Mary's
County Library by the end of
September 1998. (See page 2 for
the repository address.) □
# CommandPo ~ SlleT,oilon
Cleanup Progress
and Schedule
Contractors have operated all
four TD Us at the site periodically
since the PoP tests were
completed. During this time, some
minor modifications were made to
the continuous TD Us to allow
them to operate more efficiently.
Currently, all four units are
operating on a routine basis and
will continue to do so until all
contaminated soil has been treated.
To date, approximately 10,000 tons
of contaminated soil have been
excavated from Pit 1 and treated in
the TDUs. (See diagram below.)
After treatment in the TDUs, the
soil is stockpiled on-site and
ccntinued on beck
Site Layout
sampled. In addition, the excavated
areas are sampled to ensure that no
contaminated soil remains. When
samples analyses verify that all
contaminated soil has been
removed, workers will backfill the
excavated areas with the treated
( clean) soil. Workers began
backfilling operations at Pit 1 during
the week of August 24, 1998. EPA
expects that all soil treatment will
be complete by the end of Summer
1999. EPA, the Maryland
Department of the Environment,
and the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (USACE) will continue
to oversee all work at the site to
ensure that cleanup levels and safety
standards are achieved. □
Site Files
EPA's local repository for site
information is available for review
during normal business hours at:
St. Mary's County
Memorial Library
23250 Hollywood Road
Leonardtown, MD 20650
[phone]
& U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Carrie Deitzel (3HS43)
1650 Arch Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103-2029
0 Printed on Recycled Paper
······-·-·.·.·.·.·.·.·.·.·.·.·-·.·.·-· ··············.·.·.·.·.·.·.·.·-·.•-'.::.:.:::::
-
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency• Region Ill• Superfund Fact Sheet• February 1999
i:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:i!i!!i!i!i!!i!i .rrrrrrr
:ru:tHe.sH~> > == ·· ·· .. · ··• ........ , ...... ·
... 111:a:,lJl((l
J::\f'.itlt~iJiifB!t!f:ll 1!111:~t:t
. · Mfand?.ned ~T P!?:P~Uit,ontlie.' ·: ·' · '·'='
!!!El'
11-l!!~IIII
1.1., .••. 1.1.1.1.1.•.1,1.1,1,r.:.:em.;.:l:.:e•.:c.t.i~.;t:r.: •. :.l,:,;·••.:na.:.:.:,1,ri,:1•.im:;:o.·•.•···•·9.fil.•:.: .•. ,:;;.·.•: .•. ' •. c>;·•.:•Mii~lllllll!::JJ}i ~ ~ ·~~ • ,~ ~ iiiiiiliiiii•iiiiiii
Soil Treatment Progress
• To date, approximately 60,000 tons of contaminated soil have
been excavated from Pits 1, 2, and 3 ( see diagram on back )
and treated in the onsite Thermal Desorption Units (TDUs).
Excavation in these pits is expected to be completed in early
February 1999.
• Sixty-thousand tons is approximately 40 percent of the total
volume of soil estimated to be excavated from the entire site,
and about twice the volume estimated for Pits 1, 2 and 3. The
excavation was expanded laterally after unanticipated debris
was discovered buried along the perimeter of the three pits .
• Sampling results verified that all soil treated to date has met
EPA's established cleanup levels .
• Clean, treated soil is currently being backfilled into Pit 1 and
Pit 2.
• Pit 4 excavation will begin in February 1999. Approximately
100,000 tons of contaminated soil will be removed from this pit
and treated in the onsite TDUs.
• A dewatering system was recently installed within the sheet
pile wall surrounding Pit 4. The dewatering system consists
of a series of connected well points and wells. Because the
Pit 4 excavation will be deep, the dewatering system will be
needed to collect excess groundwater and transfer it to the
onsite water treatment systems.
• Excavation, treatment and backfilling of all contan1inated soil
should be completed by the Fall of 1999.
Water Treatment Systems
• The two onsite water treatment systems continue to treat
water from the onsite pond and water generated in the vapor
recovery systems of the TD Us. continued on back ...
... continued from front page
• In February, the water treatment systems will begin treating
groundwater that is generated in the dewatering process from Pit 4.
• All treated water from the two systems is currently recycled back to
the thermal desorption process. The water is used to cool the gases
generated in the TD U systems and to rehydrate treated soil which is
very dry when it comes out of the TD Us.
Other Site Happenings
• The Proof of Perfom1ance Report (October 1998), which presents the
results of tests conducted on the TD Us prior to start-up, is available
for review in the site file located at the St. Mary's County Memorial
Library.
• Regular air monitoring conducted at the site perimeter confimls that no
harmful emissions of dust or other contaminants are migrating off site.
• Quarterly groundwater sampling shows no degradation of grmmdwater
quality in the deeper aquifer which lies below a clay confining layer.
-
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Carrie Deitzel (3HS43)
1650 Arch Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103-2029
O Printed on Recycled Paper
: Hiformatianr n = = "'
lllllilll ■ll:~iil11~:~:::::
::::§•w:~~~f:tPt~1:111m1m
-:-:-:-::::::•:•:•:
!!!!ll1i i~l•l~~ll!~mlil,:,:,::,:,:, !!!!l !llitlt~~I9§£ijffi~ijf§)#@l]J)lj
lllllllilllllllllilllllil:111111
::::::1111\ilt=lil~::::::::
::::tl11::liliiii r,,r
•:•:-:-:-:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:-:•:•:•:-:-:-:-:-:::::::::::-:
Southern Maryland Wood Treating -General Site Information http://www.epa.gov/reg3hwmd/super/smdwood/pad.htm
1 of3
Region 3 Superfund > Superfund Sites > Maryland > Southern Maryland Wood Treating > General Site
Information
SOUTHERN MARYLAND
WOOD TREATING
MARYLAND
EPA ID# MDD980704852
Last Update: April 2000
Current Status
EPA REGION 3
Saint Mary's County
Hollywood
5th Congressional District
The Southern Maryland Wood Treating Site is currently under remediation. Two thermal desorber units are
in operation and are processing contaminated soil on a 24-hour basis. Treated soil, once verified clean, is
being returned to excavated areas on site. Two onsite water treatment plants are also in operation. One
treats contaminated surface water and then discharges it to an adjacent stream. The second water
treatment system processes condensate from the desorber units. Treated condensate is recirculated
through the desorbers where it is used to cool gases resulting from the soil treatment process and to
rehydrate treated soil discharged from the desorbers. When all of the soil has been treated and backfilled,
the site will be regraded and revegetated. It is estimated that this will occur in Summer 2000.
Site Description
The Southern Maryland Wood Treating (SMWT) site is an inactive wood treating facility located in
Hollywood, St. Mary's County, Maryland. From 1965 until 1978, 25 acres of the 96-acre property were
utilized for wood treatment operations using creosote and pentachlorophenol (PCP). Process waste water
was piped into six unlined lagoons located near the process buildings. The soil and ground water in this
area of the site and in an adjacent stream consequently became contaminated with the wood treating
chemicals. In 1982, the State of Maryland ordered the site owner to clean up the site by spraying water
from the lagoons on a wooded portion of the site, and by land farming the lagoon sludge on a 3-acre field
previously used to store untreated wood. The land farming was done improperly, and today shallow soil in
that section of the site is highly contaminated. Other areas of the site were contaminated by drippings from
treated wood , or by spills of wood treating chemicals. The site operators abandoned the site in the early
1980's leaving behind the process equipment, deteriorating tanks of creosote and PCP, and all the
contaminated environmental media. The land immediately adjacent to the SMWT site is mainly forest and
fields. The 1990 Census shows a population of approximately 1000 residents within a one mile radius of
the site. Residents rely on groundwater as a source of potable water; however, residential wells located
downgradient of the site have not been found to be contaminated.
Site Responsibility: Cleanup of this site is the responsibility of Federal and State governments.
NPL Listing History: The site was proposed to the National Priorities List of the most serious
uncontrolled or abandoned hazardous waste sites requiring long term
remedial action on October 1, 1984. The site was formally added to the list
June 6, 1986, making it eligible for Federal cleanup funds.
Threats and Contaminants
08/08/2000 9:27 AM
Southern Maryland Wood Treating -General Site Information http://www.epa.gov/reg3hwmd/super/smdwood/pad.htm
2 of3
The shallow on-site ground water in the former lagoon area is contaminated with volatile organic
compounds (VOCs), pentachlorophenol, and polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), which are
constituents of creosote. Shallow soil in the land farming area and deep soil in the former lagoon area are
also highly contaminated. The primary threats to the public include long-term exposure to shallow soil, and
ingestion of shallow ground water from the former lagoon area, though access to the site is currently
restricted by a locked fence.
Cleanup Progress
Actual Construction Underway
In 1988, EPA selected a remedy to address all of the contamination that remained after the operators
abandoned the site. The first phase of the cleanup involved installation of a barrier wall around the most
highly contaminated part of the site. The barrier wall prevents offsite migration of contaminated ground
water. Construction of the barrier wall was completed in 1990.
The second phase of the cleanup called for onsite incineration of the wastes and contaminated soil and
sediments. The incineration remedy drew strong opposition from the community due to health concerns
and from the State due to high estimated costs. With intensive involvement from the community and the
State, EPA reevaluated cleanup alternatives and selected a new, mutually acceptable, cleanup
technology, thermal desorption, in a September 1995 Record of Decision (ROD).
During the period while the remedy was being reevaluated, EPA conducted an emergency removal action
to address the most immediate threats at the site. This removal action included offsite disposal of
wood-treating chemicals and highly contaminated soil contained in several tanks, offsite disposal of
hundreds of 55 gallon drums of investigation-derived waste, and demolition of onsite buildings in danger of
collapse. A water treatment system has been operating onsite since the spring of 1995. The treatment
system treats contaminated surface water from the onsite pond before it is discharged to the adjacent
stream.
In accordance with the 1995 ROD, two thermal desorbers have been constructed on the site to treat
approximately 245,000 tons of contaminated soil. The desorbers became operational in June 1998 and
continue to treat contaminated soil on a 24 hour per day basis. To date, more than 200,000 tons of soil
have been treated. Two continuous desorbers treat the contaminated soil. A second, larger water
treatment system has also been constructed onsite to treat the contaminated condensate that is generated
in the thermal desorption process. The treated water is then circulated back to the desorbers for reuse in
the gas cooling process and rehydration of treated soil. Treated soil is backfilled into the excavated areas
onsite after testing shows that the soil treatment has met the established cleanup levels and the excavated
areas are clean. The cleanup of the contaminated soil and sediments is slated for completion by the
Summer of 2000.
Contacts
Remedial Project Manager
Eric Newman
[phone]
[e-mail]
Community Involvement Coordinator
Carrie Deitzel
[phone]
[e-mail]
The detailed Administrative Record can be examined at the following location:
St. Mary's County Memorial Library
Route 245
Leonardtown, MD 20650
[phone]
08/08/2000 9:27 AM
Southern Maryland Wood Treating -General Site Information http://www.epa.gov/reg3hwmd/super/smdwood/pad.htm
3 of3
s southern Maryland Wood Treating menu
[ EPA Horne I Region 3 Home I HSCD I Region 3 Superfund I Comments
URL: http://www.epa.gov/reg3hwmd/super/smdwoodlpad.htm
This page last updated on May 23, 2000
08/08/2000 9:27 AM
Record of Decision (ROD) Abstract http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/query/rods/r0395197.htm
1 of2
■L ··1= :. I
Record of Decision (ROD) Abstract
ROD Number: EPA/ROD/R0J-95/197
ROD Date: 09/08/95
Site: SOUTHERN MARYLAND WOOD
TREATING
Location: HOLLYWOOD, MD
Abstract:
EPA ID Number: MDD980704852
Operable Unit: 02
Please note that the text in this document summarizes the Record of Decision for the
purposes of facilitating searching and retrieving key text on the ROD. It is not the officially
approved abstract drafted by the EPA Regional offices. Once EPA Headquarters receives the
official abstract, this text will be replaced. The Southern Maryland Wood Treating Site
(SMWT or site), approximately 25 acres in size, is located west of Maryland Route 235 on a
96-acre parcel of land approximately one mile north of Hollywood, Maryland. The operation
of a pressure treated wood preservation facility on the site for many years resulted in
contamination of soils, groundwater, surface water and stream sediments with wood
preserving chemicals. No wood treating activities are currently performed on site. The site is
bounded by residential, agricultural, and wooded tracts of land. An on-site freshwater pond
discharges to Old Tom's Run, which eventually reaches Breton Bay and finally the Potomac
River. Currently the only building structures left on-site that were once associated with the
wood preservation business are a pole barn previously used for wood storage, and a small
house in the upper site area formerly used as an office. The original process building, which
has since been demolished, housed the wood pressure treatment operations including two
treatment vessels or retorts. Wood and chemical preservatives were introduced into the
vessels which were subsequently pressurized to treat the wood. Several large vertical tanks
previously located next to the process building contained the chemical preservatives
pentachlorophenol (PCP) and creosote, which were used in the wood treating process.
According to the 1990 census, the population of St. Mary's County is approximately 76,000.
Because the county is located along 400 miles of shoreline on the Potomac and Patuxent
Rivers and the Chesapeake Bay, the population increases substantially during the summer.
On a more local basis, there are several residential subdivisions and numerous houses within
a two-mile radius of the site. In 1975, SMWT took over the property. The wood treating
facility was owned and operated by SMWT and subsequently operated by L.A. Clarke and
Son, Inc. (L.A. Clarke), from 1965 to 1978 as a pressure treated wood preservation business.
Creosote and PCP were used as wood preservatives at the site. There are six unlined lagoons
that were used for disposal of liquid waste from the process. As a result of such disposal,
on-site soils and groundwater beneath the lagoons became contaminated. Non-aqueous phase
liquids (NAP Ls) are also found in the subsurface beneath the lagoons and above the
underlying clay layer. Additionally, due to groundwater discharge to the pond from the
lagoon area, surface water and sediment in the on-site pond and sediment in the west
tributary became contaminated. Sediments in the east tributary are also contaminated, most
likely due to surface water runoff from contaminated soils onsite. Storage of treated wood on
site resulted in surface soil contamination in the upper site and northeast tank areas . The
contaminants of concern for this site are polyaromatic hydrocarbons (P AHs ), PCP, and other
organic compounds.
Remedy:
This is the second and final phase of remedial action for the site. This phase addresses soil
and sediment contamination and NAPLs which are the principal threats remaining at the site
and are a source of contamination to the groundwater and surface water. Because the soil and
08/08/2000 9:28 AM
" ~ .Xi> ~
,. EPA e~ ~ ~~
r~~ c ~~r~~
-~~~
~u-t-~~
~~~~,