NCD980602163_19960325_Warren County PCB Landfill_SERB C_RFQ - BCD Pilot Scale Project, 1993 - 1996-OCR

!!!!f!/lall!!!!IIII~ ,:: .... Providing creative environmental solutions
_E_n_v_iro_n_m_e_n_ta_•·-•_n_c_. ____________________________ ,...~i~E~C~v~~
ofid Waste
HAR 28 1996
~ ~6'tMEMi ~~\.
March 25, 1996
Mr. William L. Meyer
Director, Division of Solid Waste Management
North Carolina Dept. Of Environment, Health and Natural Resources
Post Office Box 27687
Raleigh, NC 27611-7687
Subject: Wa"en County Project -PCB Landfill
Dear Mr. Meyer:
ETG Environmental, Inc. (ETG) is pleased to provide this budgetary proposal to perform a
pilot sale demonstration of ETG's Therm-0-Detox® I Base Catalyzed Decomposition (BCD)
technology at the Warren County, NC site.
Scope of Work by ETG (Base Bid):
I. Provide equipment and trained personnel to perform a pilot scale demonstration
of the Therm-0-Detox I BCD process at Warren County.
2. Submit and procure an R & D TSCA permit to perform the demonstration.
3. Provide community relations support to NCDEHNR. Two trips for two people
for two days are included.
4. Provide a comprehensive report on the demonstration. Report plus one revision
is included.
The estimated cost for the base bid items is $187,000.00
Other Scope of Work Items by ETG:
1. Provide all utilities including generators for power, and water. Estimated
cost: $20,200.00
2. Prepare site specific health and safety plans, work plans, and QNQC plans
660 Sentry Parkway, Blue Bell, Pennsylvania 19422 • [phone] • Fax [phone]
Regional Offices: Cincinnati, OH • Lansing, Ml • Philadelphia, PA • Toledo, OH
,
necessary to perform the demonstration. Plan preparation plus one revision is
included. Estimated cost: $44,800.00
3. Provide analytical services for treated and untreated soil and treated and untreated
condensate. Analyticals include method 8290 for dioxins/furans. Estimated cost:
$55,400.00
4. Provide process stack air testing to generate air emissions data. Includes dioxin
air analysis. Estimated cost: $65,600.00
5. Site preparation including trailers, processing pad construction, and fuel storage
area construction. Estimated cost: $12,000.00
Total estimated cost for the other items: $198,000.00
$385 ,000.00 Total estimated cost for all items:
The following assumptions have been made in preparation of this estimate:
1. Access to the site and processing area required for mobilization of equipment will
be provided by others.
2. All residuals from processing will remain on-site.
3. One representative 55 gallon drum of wet soil, and one representative 55 gallon
of dry soil will be provided to ETG by others.
Thank you for the opportunity to submit this estimated cost to you . Please call me at your
convenience should you have any questions.
Very Truly Yours,
G. Steven Detwiler
Director -Market Development
GSD/mls
!!lf!!lll9IIJ!!!!!IIJ~ 1::IIJI
Environmental, Inc.
Name
~ l,v16,,/t..
/4dJ Lorw,'1\
Company &
Address
Vendor
Sign-up Sheet
Phone# and
Fax#
~G ~~\.) ,~~~ef\~\ c~,<:.>> '&~-<.::i,~
Con tact Person
(If other than you)
le ~C) "S;. 'E...Nl"R.\ ~ K.\>S'( t~I.Q) °1>U:s -~'t\1G (r) \:)\<.. ~ \;,_\-~~~~~\\it.~ ~ \ \.)., "e... °b"L.\\ \ ~ \~l.\1..1..
( Cf 1'7)'1&7-JJ.J.7 0r\9uvidwttk Ted~oWtt(,
:i,,c__
J ooo Ptv't1Me-ir A,A~~ or
t;'u 1lk ~-
flP7-zz'!f/ t_t<, -
.l10vv·1sv1l(e,\ /\I v )75~0
Sor c--nsc_w ~ :s YS~ MS :2 fi q1,r, !? 6 s-I
&,1) cfaN:Jv.r.~ 0/LJ!v~ 2-t4 Cf-u r!G 1
Po~JL--,,"Xl-->, '-tl?o'-f
/7-.{?t,1/1~ __n.;c_
~701 /4J4~ 61?6E ie
~~/,/1,/L ;;2..76f'•
(J15) BS"'l-9i1€3 7
S>S7-~930
,
~ Se,f!{tm~ {;v,teo;v,n~
!.10 7 Srvnt -l '-,,.,_ '!"vd < w(!:. f.;-
6~~ e~.lla~o ;.,c ;P.7'-,1(.f
277'0£
Fo" r S'ea...s-c!:>tt .s £11v ~ ro n medJ
9.o. &x_ /b 5 C/0
Gr ee/J s be> r<J I IJ C z?'I/ t -o.s<?o
c~,a) .2?'S-;J.1,y
cJ 7<.f-S17?
Name Address
Visitor
Sign-up Sheet
A' C f) E rl-1L1~ ~ a?aJi c(~Q,(,cs t ~5{~ ~cf~~
' ,S-0 L.<,D WA-f~ ~~e,T10 A./
Phone # & Fax #
(j,c;j 7 ?'5-0 ,q z_--~rl
z6"1
(?o ~ ,j ,)_ :J.._ J 1 r 'f' -,:2. ,;-7 ·II i '?
w~~ !Jc_ :nn!J't
Hw1 1,t l_a ,1ca.:dcr ~ DE HN/?.
-;;B;d 1c}$JJ-stJ/Yl
CHECK
15:15 ·
109 POST VAL IMP
TOTAL \
CASH T
CHANGE --------------------
U.S. POSTAL SERVICE
CAMERON VILLAGE
!MIT FIN 366352
ZIP CODE 27605 9998
ALLEN ff 6
06-23-95 15:15:26
VERSION 24.00
CUSTOMER RECEIPT
109 POST VAL IMP 2.qB
TOTAL
CASH T
CHANGE
THANK YOU
2.98
2.08
.80
fRlm: PAULINE EWALD ECO 0.18: 11128195 Tine: 13:10:42
E 1'1VIRONMENTAL
COMPLIANCE
0 RGANIZATION
Professional Waste Management Consultants
I 06 Robinson Street Ashland, Virginia 23005
TO:
FROM:
RE:
DATE:
ME:MORANDUM VIA FACSIMILE
WORKING GROUP MEMBERS
PAULINE EWALD -ECO
VENDOR SELECTION CRITERIA
JUNE 28, 1995
[phone]
ECO received a certified letter on June 24, 1995, containing a draft document dated
only June 1995, and entitled Technology Screening :Remediation of the Warren
County PCB Landfill. As requested and promised we have reviewed that information
and provide the following comments:
1. This document clearly addresses only technology screening, when the appropriate
issue was the preparation of selection criteria for procuring a BCD vendor to
perform a pilot study at the site. The full Working Group has formally voted on at
least two occasions to prioritize and move ahead with BCD as the preferred
remedial technology, and this document does nothing to further that goal, or to
enable the State to finalize a Request For Proposal (RFP) that is prerequisite to
implementing a pilot study.
2. The information provided in this draft memo is merely a restatement of EPA's
Feasibility Study (FS) screening criteria. Again, in numerous instances before the
assembled Working Group, and in conversations with the Co-Chairs, I have
indicated that allocating time, resources and effort to an FS, or FS type screening
would result in an undue, and unnecessary delay in implementing both the pilot
study and the ultimate remediation, which should not be countenanced in light of
the serious dioxin contamination of ground and surface waters at several locations
on the site.
Page 1 of5
rrom: PAULINE EWALD ECO Dalla: Br2&'95 Time: 13:11:48
JOJJ./T WARREN COUNTY STATE PCB LANDFJU WORKING GROUP AfEAfO
JUNE 28, 1995
PAGE2
The FS process is time and resources intensive, and often after months of time and
money expended yields a preferred remedial technology that commonsense and
experience dictated from the outset. This is so widely recognized to be the case that
even EPA has adopted a Presumptive Remedy policy, whereby sites with a well
understood list of identified contaminants (as is the case with the PCB landfill) will be
tracked towards the appropriate, previously demonstrated technologies in lieu of a full
FS (See. Directive 9355.0-47FS / EPA 540-F-93-047 / PB 93-963345 September
1993).
Furthermore, we seriously question the technology screening and weighting criteria
presented. In our view, Community Acceptability rather than being a single criteria
among many should be considered a threshold determinant. This means that
technologies that are not acceptable to the Warren County residents would be
immediately dropped from further evaluation and consideration.
Additionally, in the provided draft document, all criteria are given equal weighting or
decision making consideration. This is inappropriate in that criteria such as extent of
prior experience, projected duration and estimated cost, are certainly much less
important in real world consequences than criteria such as long term effectiveness
and potential generation of residuals. Again, even EPA recognizes this fact, and
weights cost as a factor only where there is a very wide (magnitudes of order)
discrepancy in projected costs between technologies (See, Guidance For Conducting
Remedial Investigations and Feasibility Studies Under CERCLA, October 1988).
The criteria are also problematic in that they fail to discuss or distinguish the
differences between innovative technologies that have been pilot tested under the
auspices and oversight of EPA versus those that have been performed and the results
reported privately. Obviously, this is not merely a semantic distinction, in that the
incentive for both vendors and responsible parties at waste sites in demonstrating that
a particular technology is effective may influence the reporting of results in a way that
does not provide a comprehensive or accurate picture of technology performance.
This risk is minimized where a standardized protocol in being instituted and where
confirmatory and oversight work is being provided. The draft report is inconsistent
this point, describing and rating some technologies that have been performed only in
private situations, on a par or higher than technologies that have sustained the scrutiny
of EPA and been adjudged effective.
E NVIRONMENTAL
C OMPLIANCE
0 RGANJZA TJON
Page 2of5
r From: PAULINE EWALD ECO Date: 6128195 Tine: 13:12:56
JOINT WARREN COUNTY STATE PCB LANDFIU WORKING GROUP MEMO
JUNE 28, 1995
PAGE3
We noted with particular interest that incineration was given the highest rating of 4
( demonstrated ability to remove 99% of toxic constituents) under the long term
effectiveness criteria. Extensive research and involvement on sites by ECO has not
yielded the same conclusion. In fact incinerators can only meet required performance
standards through manipulation of the testing and data reporting process. The
99.9999% destruction efficiency cited for incineration is also incorrect, in that even
incinerator operators concede that the six nines (99.9999) benchmark represents the
destruction and removal efficiency (DRE) of these units. This means that the
contribution of pollution removing portions of the process which only physically
remove, but do not destroy or immobilize the wastes are counted into the performance
rating for these units, even though they generate residuals that very often contain large
concentrations of metals and halogenated substance such as dioxins and furans. This
draft technology screening makes the same critical error that industry prepared
evaluations suffer from, specifically in unfairly comparing the "reported" Destruction
Removal Efficiency (DRE) of incineration versus the Destruction only Efficiency
(DE) of non-thermal processes.
Subtle, but crucial nuances like that detailed above are another compelling reason why
the Working Group should abandon the attempt to perform an FS, or to adopt an FS-
like report that is unduly brief, and which fails to thoroughly investigate remedial
alternatives rather than merely restating conventional positions, infonnation and
ratings that have been presented in other .feasibility evaluations.
3. The draft report is not inclusive of all technologies appropriate for consideration
at this site.
4. The draft report contains several typographical errors.
ENVIRONMENTAL
C OMPLIANCE
0 RGANIZA TION
Page 3of5
From: PAULINE EWALD ECO Date: 6128195 Tine: 13:13:58
JOINT WARREN COUNTY STATE PCB LANDFIU WORKING GROUP MEA1O
JUNE 28, 1995
PAGE4
RECOMMENDATIONS:
ECO strongly and more urgently repeats our recommendation of past meetings and
memos, that Working Group move immediately forward in completing Vendor
Selection Criteria that is absolutely required prior to the preparation of an RFP, and
selection of a vendor to perform a pilot study at the site. To allow further delays, or
intervening issues and individuals to prevent this from occurring is irresponsible given
the documented threat at the site.
The original criteria presented in a document dated April 11, 1995 and /or a more
simplified version of that criteria which accompanied ECO's last memo on this
subject, should be promptly finalized and formally adopted by the Working Group,
along with directions to the State to move quickly forward in preparing an RFP for the
BCD pilot study.
We would also recommend that any additional , formal inquiry into technologies be
tabled in favor of an informal updating process that will not cause further delays in
this site remediation. ECO has been privileged to be involved with the remediation of
the largest PCB Superfund site in the nation, and has participated in presentations,
demonstrations, and bench testing of numerous non-thermal treatments relevant to
PCBs and dioxins. In addition, ECO recently collaborated on an innovative
technology roundtable sponsored by Senator Edward Kennedy, and attended by major
innovative technology vendors. Although many of the new technologies currently
available appear to have future promise which we would be happy to detail and
discuss with the Working Group or individual members, none are as well documented
or suitable to on-site conditions as the BCD already recommended as a preference.
Finally, we would not recommend that this community offer to become a test location
for a full scale bioremediation pilot study. Such highly experimental treatment is
inappropriate to a site where documented surface and groundwater contamination
already exists, and where there is a potential pathway for human exposure to highly
toxic dioxin and furan family of chemicals.
E NVIRONMENTAL
C OMPLIANCE
0 RGANIZATION
Page 4 of5
From: PAULINE EWALD ECO 0.19: 8QBl95 Tine: 13:15:03
JOINT 'WARREN COUNTY STATE PCB LANDF7U WORKING GROUP MEMO
JUNE 28, 1995
PAGE5
We reiterate that the Working Group must come to a decision on whether to abide by
past votes and move forward with the selection of a BCD vendor, and pilot study, or
whether to become mired in an endless inquiry into criteria and technologies. One
path leads towards a safe, effective detoxification of a landfill that the community
perceives as an economic and social blight, and now, as a potential threat to human
health and the environment. The other path is strewn with meaningless paperwork,
documents, and redtape that will strangle this site remediation in delay. ECO stands at
this juncture as a signpost towards an immediate and uncompromised clean up, and we
are prepared and willing to assist the Working Group down that road should such a
remediation remain your goal.
E NVIRONMENTAL
C OMPLIANCE
0 RGANJZATION
Page 5of5
. SENT BY :_K lpko 's Cop I es 5-30-95 6:51PM Klnko's Durham 14 919 7153060;# 2/ 4
,Pr-~ --
SUMMARY OF CONTACTS WITH POTENTIAL PILOT STUDY VENDORS
As of May 30, 1995
Phone calls have been placed to all vendors who responded to the February 1
Request for Qualifications within the pi<1$t week. The following questions were
asked of each vendor; ·
1) How much soil from the landfill would be needed to demonstrate your
technology in an on-site pilot study? (suggested 5-15 tons as a range)
2) What would be the estimated cost of such a pilot study? What items would not
be included in these costs?
3) How soon would equipment and personnel be available for a pilot study and
how long would it require to complete?
Because of the long holiday weekend and travel schedules of some technical people
at a couple of the companies, we do not have the desired information from all
vendors at this time. It is hoped that this information will be useful in guiding the
Working Group in deciding on the size of the legislative funding request. Vendors
are presented in alphabetical order.
ETG Environmental. Inc.
Contact: Dr. Yei-Shong Shieh (610-832-:-0700)
This company was involved in the pilot study at the Morrisville Koppers
Superfund site and proposes very similar technology for the Warren County
Landfill (thermal desorption and liquid tank reactor BCD). They have made some
improvements on the vapor recovery system since the Morrisville SITE
demonstration and developed a slightly different desorber, which operates under
vacuum, capable of handling more diverse materials.
1) 5-15 tons would be ideal for pilot study.
2) Estimated cost of pilot : $150,000 including generator, manpower, all materials
and fuels, mobilization and decontamination. Does not include any disposal
necessary and water.
3) Pilot could be carried out as soon as one being carried out in Calif. is completed,
about mid•July and could be completed with analysis and report in about 2 months.
Four Seasons Environmental, Inc.
Contact: Albert Lee (910.273-2718)
Four Seasons has now bought the other liscensee for the BCD process, Separation
and Recovery Systems, Inc., which designed the SAREX thermal desorber used for
the Koppers demonstration. They propose a thermal desorber / BCD treatment train
also, but have not completed a pilot such as this before.
• SENT BY:Ktnko's Coples 5-30-95 6:51PM Klnko's Durham 1~ 919 7153060; # ~,
'-,
2
Four Sea.sons Environmental, Inc. (cont.)
1) About 10 tons would be sufficient. · :,
2} Estimated cost $450,000, including all materials and analyses except for stack
testing. Services required: 480V, 3 phase power; 110/220 power for office trailer; 40
gpm water at 60 psi.
3) Would need about 2 months notice to construct a pilot scale BCD unit, thermal
desorbers already available. Demonstration on site would require about 6 weeks
including mobilization and demobilization. Several weeks for analysis and report.
• J )
Groundwat~r IechnoloSY, Inc. ,1 ____ ,. ~ qt·~ lc,00 (SoOfJ.ki..~
Contact: Tom Barbee (919-467-2227) ff~!J(:_j"_1 _. IL -:-fJ_... I ( --'---· · ·~~ '"'1,;;,('gJ~OD /Qµn,ia.,
GTI proposes a soil washing procedure to reduce the volume of landfill contents
requiring treatment (PCB's tend to concentrate on the soil fines which generally
represent about 30% of soil volume}, thus reducing the cost of detoxifying the
heavily contaminated fraction. (My back of the envelope calculations show that the
soil washing would cost about $6.6 M, but could lower the cost of BCD treatment at
$200/ton by about 70%~ a potential savings of almosl $3 M). GTI has not done a
treatment train involving soil-washing followed by BCD and instead recommends
soil washing followed by ozonation and steam stripping. They could not provide
estimates on short notice, but will fax estimate for both a bench scale pilot (under
500 lb), which they recommend and an on-site pilot for 5-15 tons.
International Technology, Im;.
Contact: Mike Barkdoll (615-690-3211)
IT proposes a high temperature thermal desorption (saying that the higher temp is
less likely to produce dio.xins/ furans--they are faxing data about this) followed by
destruction ·of oil condensate by either incineration or BCD. They are not disposed
toward BCD (and have not done that treatment train) and will send information on
the Times Beach incinerator pilot (I ~ve been told by EPA Region IV that the
citizens there will be trying to contact me as they are trying to overturn the Record
of Decision calling for incineration.) They do not have a small transportable pilot
BCD unit and suggest we contact the Navy to see about trying the small unit
currently being used in Guam.
1) Thermal desorption/ BCD pilot of 5-15 tons possible on site.
2) Estimated cost for large pilot! $2-5 M, for smaller pilot at Oak Ridge facility:
$250,00-$.500,000.
3) Pilot available immediatedly at Oak Ridge, one week to complete testing . .
Soil Tech, Inc.
Contact: Joseph H. Hutton (219-929-4343}
~'T ~lnko's Coples l\lnKo s uuruam 1-,
t,
'i)~
3 D ,oo i
Soil Tech also has a higher temperature thermal deso:ber and does all of their BCD ·,f
in the solid phase in the ATP desorber. They are currently working on the Smith ~
Farm, Kentucky site contaminated with PCB's using this technology. . f
1) Bench scale (100 lb), on-site batch (0.5-1 ton) or large scale (5 ton/hr) pilots ·
available .
2) Estimates for bench scale: $100,000. Batch: $250,000. Large scale: $1,000,000
including all utilities.
3) Units are currently available, testing would require 1-2 weeks, 3 weeks for
analytical work and another 3 weeks to finalize a report.
Vesta Technology, Ltd.
Contact Mr. Edwards, CEO (305-978-1300)
Vesta's proposal is for a high temperature rotary kiln (trailer-mounted) with
afterburner. They report 6-7 "nines" destruction of PCB's on two Canadian projects
and no need for disposal of residuals. Mr. Edwards has apparently tried to return
my phone calls, but evidently had used the wrong number. I will attempt to contact
him again on Thursday AM.
jtNI ~y:xerox Telecopier 7020 5-25-95 3:09PM BIOCHEMISTRY DEPT➔ 919 715 3605:# 2
· Hope C. Taylor
Environmental Technical Assistance to Communities
1590 Jack Clement Road
Stem, NC 27581
May 25, 1995
Mr. Bill Meyer, Director
Solid Waste Management Division
NC DEHNR
401 Oberlin Road
Raleigh, NC 27605
Dear Mr. Meyer,
Post-if" Fax Note 7671
Phone#
Fax# 15 30te0
Co.
Phone#
Fax# 7/5 3l~QS
Thank you very much for your helpful discussions yesterday, as well as the
opportunity to see the landfill and observe preparations for sampling of monitoring
wells with Ms. Rogers. I am currently reviewing technology !screening information
and will begin contacting prospective pilot study vendors (RFQ respondants) for cost
estimates by the end of this week. [
I
In response to your request for a summary of costs of servi~es to be provided,
I these are my current rates: I
Technical Services
Clerical/Administrative
Phone, materials, travel
Personal vehicle use
$45.00 /hour
30.00/hour
At cost
0.25/mile
I I would estimate that the work envisioned, including vendor contacts and
selection, monitoring of pilot studies and review of the resulfng data with
recommendations for remediation, would be a maximum of · 00 hours of technical
work and about 20 hours of clerical/administrative work per quarter. This estimate
could be lowered significantly, depending on the amount of ork the Joint Working
Group chooses to delegate to other technical advisors, including an environmental
engineer, hydrogeologist and analytical chemist. I
SENT sy:xerox Telecopier 7020 5-25-95 3:09PM BIOCHEMISTRY DEPT➔ 919 715 3605;# 3
Many thanks for the opportunity to become a science advisor to the Joint
Working Group. I expect that we will work together fruitfully to enlarge the
technical and public understanding of the landfill and the processes occuring within
it as we take committed steps toward its detoxification.
sincerely,
C. Taylor, C / munity Technical Advisor
Copy to Mr. Henry Lancaster
CV attached
Hope C. Taylor
Environmental Technical Assistance to Communities
1590 Jack Clement Road
Stem, NC 27581
SCOPE OF WORK---WARREN COUNTY PCB LANDFILL, MAY-AUGUST, 1995
Follow-up Contacts with Prospective Vendors
All vendors from whom we have received responses to the previous Request for
Qualifications will be contacted by phone to request estimates for an on-site pilot
scale treatment of at least 10 tons of landfill contents and for a bench scale treatability
study, as well as more detailed responses to the Joint Working Group's previous
follow-up questions where needed. If a brief screening process for other applicable
remedial technologies results in an additional RFQ to more prospective vendors,
they will be similarly queried upon receipt of their responses, or sooner if required
in order to have timely estimates for those technologies. A summary of vendor
responses will be presented to the Working Group at its next scheduled meeting.
Development of Vendor Selection Criteria
Starting with the April 11 draft "Criteria for Vendor Selection" from Bill Meyer,
detailed criteria will be developed for each of the general areas articulated in that
draft and a quantitative or semi-quantitative parameter assigned to each item. If,
after screening a variety of remedial technologies, it proves desirable to develop
some technology-specific criteria, such specific criteria will be recommended. This
will necessarily be an iterative process, including an interim draft to the Joint
Working Group in early July, review by an environmental engineer if one has been
retained, ongoing discussions with the previously appointed Subcommittee (or any
interested Working Group members) and incorporating information from
responses to the RFQ's. These criteria may be included in the Request for Proposals
issued, if the Working Group believes them to be sufficiently developed at that
time. Final criteria and any "weighting factors" desired will be approved by the
Working Group before the selection process begins, though possibly after a
preliminary review of proposals received.
Pilot Study Vendor Selection
At the earliest opportunity, an RFP will be drafted and issued to all vendors
responding to RFQ's and not screened out on the basis of qualifications. Proposals
received will be reviewed by the Science Advisor(s) based on the approved selection
criteria within two weeks after the deadline for receipt of proposals. A report
2
consisting of a brief evaluation of each vendor with scores for each parameter and a
summary score, along with overall recommendations for selection of pilot study
vendors will be submitted to the Joint Working Group. Contacts with vendors
whose proposals are selected will be completed within five working days of the final
decision.
PROPOSED TARGET DATES FOR SCIENCE ADVISOR TASKS
May 24 Technology screening criteria and Scope of Work submitted to Henry
Lancaster
June 1 Progress report on database search for other remedial technologies and
screening to Working Group
All vendors responding to previous RFQ contacted for estimates
Preliminary recommendations concerning additional RFQ
June 12 Technology screening complete
Updates to prospective vendor list for new RFQ
June 15 Final report on technology screening and projected pilot study costs
Meet with Rep. Ballance?
June 29 Interim report on vendor screening criteria and review of responses to
new RFQ
Prepare RFP for issuance as soon as all RFQ responses reviewed
July 13 Final Report on vendor screening criteria
July 27 Begin review of vendor proposals
August 10 Pilc;>t study vendor selection completed
3
PROPOSED TECHNOLOGY SCREENING CRITERIA
These criteria are a merging of those proposed for technology evaluation in the
April 11 draft to the Subcommittee with those used by EPA in its Feasibility Study
process.
1. Community acceptibility
2. Extent of prior experience with this technology at similar sites
3. Short term safety and effectiveness, potential for worker exposure, planned and
unplanned releases.
4. Long term effectiveness--extent of reduction of toxicity, mobility or volume
5. Generation of residuals and degree of on-site management
6. Projected duration of full scale treatment from present to completion
7. Availability of pilot scale treatment immediately
8. Implementability at Warren County site, engineering feasibility, infrastructure
requirements, proximity of vendor equipment
9. Cost per unit treated, assuming similar infrastructure costs
With the exception of #9, I would suggest ranking each of these factors on a scale
from 1-4 as follows:
1 = unacceptable
2= marginally or conditionally acceptable
3= satisfactory
4= outstanding
Technologies selected for further consideration and inclusion in a second round
RFQ would have a total score among the top three and no criteria evaluated as
unacceptable.
...
Apri I 11 , 1995
Criteria for Vendor Selection for Warren County
PCB Landfill Detoxification Program
Standard
Technology Proposed
Experience with proposed technology
Safe work practices/OSHA compliance
Standard Evaluation
-Engineering Feasibility
-Potential for unplanned releases, risk,
remediation
-Risk from planned releases
-Efficiency -rate of decontamination
-Effectiveness -the extent of
decontamination
-Residual generation
-Management of residuals on-site, off-
site
-Track record from (all/other)
sources/projects/applications of this
technology
-Extent/degree of permanent
treatment (risk remaining after
treatment for on-site residuals).
-Number of projects initiated,
implemented, completed with same or
similar materials
-Contacts /evaluations from
federal/state/ local oversight agencies
on these projects
-Demonstrate safe work practices,e.g.
confined space entry, noise control
-Site housekeeping/sanitation
procedures
-Health and safety plan enforcement
-On site communication/security
,r
Standard
Personel qualifications
Financial Assurance
Monitoring Capability/Capacity
Public Responsiveness
Previous Cost Exceedances
Project Cost Estimates
Standard Evaluation
-Academic qualifications
-Specific experience of individuals
assigned to projects with similar
contaminants
-Company safety training requirements
-Includes all proposed sub-contractors
-Financial statement on strength of
organization
-Ability to provide performance bond,
letter of credit, trust fund, insurance
-Past enforcemenUutilization
implementation of financial assurance
mechanisms
-Sampling/analysis arrangements
-Ability to monitor releases from
planned and unplanned events
-Soil, air, surface water/groundwater
capability(does state assume this role
or duplicate vendors efforts)
-Experience developing implementation
QA/QC plan
-History of working with community
(proactive communication, handling
complaints)
-Presence of staff/capability for public
relations
-"Desire" commitment to public
relations, before, during, after project
-History of cost over runs on previous
projects
-Basis for cost over runs
-Cost per unit of material
-Cost per unit of decomposition
-Cost of management of residuals
-Site restoration cost estimates
-Off-site/on-site and long term O & M
cost estimates to state.
Subcommittee members should
review this draft and then contact
Sharron Rogers (for Bill Meyer)
regarding setting a date to meet
and expand or modify this outline.
Suggest Monday or Tuesday April
17 or 18.
Recommend beginning to contact
companies who responded to RFQ
to set date and make plans for
formal presentations to this or to
another subcommittee.
I -I ;
~+-~ ~ b"e,K_ w}~¼ a.ix>~+ R
\~c~c)I\I
<.:ii\) C~\{)--.>-(,ll ..S.~.\ei--~
R<. Co~d-P~<S.or-J Rr CC&.-\dl.x..\[ .&~¼
t ~ ~ 13,\~. ~ 'ms. ~\c-kf\.)~,.-,c)v '1 s. 'd~~. or
SF rt ~ +o do v¾ Q¢~ le~\ ~-¼e,
C'---(~ wo---(c ~ ~~i 2-:u\lc:d_ 4~aJ kg tjl , iya I~
5f l<Ll '---''W ~ 1--..-r ~~+<:~<>:c:w ·,s 3,'C>3.
X ~ ,-.,fed {v,.Jg-1-1..·'1 ~ re+-/L,f_
/~
SoilTech
SoilTech ATP Systems, Inc.
800 Canonie Drive
Porter, IN 46304
[phone]
April 5, 1995
Ms. Sharron Rogers
Assistant Director
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources
Division of Solid Waste Management
P.O. Box 27687
Raleigh, NC 2761
Dear Ms. Rogers:
Response to Questions
Warren County PCB Landfill
Detoxification RFQ
05-401
SoilTech ATP Systems, Inc. (SoilTech) is pleased to participate in your Request For
Qualifications (RFQ) for the Warren County PCB Landfill Detoxification. Many of the
questions raised in your March 30, 1995 letter were addressed in SoilTech' s original
submission. In the interest of responsiveness, however, we have addressed all your
questions herein. Provided below are restatements of the questions in your March 30,
1995 letter and SoilTech's Responses.
1. Has your company completed a soil-based PCB clean-up project to clean up
standards at detection limit levels? Please provide brief summary(s).
Soi/Tech has completed four clean-up projects involving successful treatment of
more than 100,000 tons of soil. Summaries of those projects are enclosed as
Attachment 1. Three of those projects involved PCBs (Wide Beach Superfund
Site, Waukegan Harbor Superfund Site, and Smith's Farm Superfund Site). The
required clean-up levels were: Wide Beach -2 mg/kg, Waukegan Harbor-97%
PCB removal and 500 mg/kg, Smith's Farm -2 mg/kg. On the fourth project,
an Ohio Superfund Site, the cleanup level for carcinogenic PAHs was nondetect
at the method detection limit of 0. 33 mg/kg.
PR\H:\MARKET\ROGERS.405 [Apr. 5, 1995[
Ms. Sharron Rogers 2 April 3, 1995
Soi/Tech typically samples and analyses treated soil approximately once for
every 24 operating hours and has never had a treated soil sample fail to pass the
project treatment criteria. In fact, almost without exception, the treated soil
analyses for the Wide Beach Project, Ohio Superfund Project, and Smith's Farm
Project contained no detectable contaminants at detection limits as low as
0.07 mg/kg.
2. Did the above project{s) involve a thermal desorption method?
Yes. Each of the four projects involved use of the Soi/Tech ATP which is a
thermal desorption technology.
3. Did the above project{s) involve a non-thermal desorption method?
Soi/Tech utilized dechlorination chemistry in conjunction with the desorption
equipment on the Wide Beach Superfund Project and the Smith's Farm
Superfund Project to destroy the PCBs.
4. Did the above project{s) involve a patented BCD process?
Yes. The Smith's Farm Project involved use of the EPA patented base catalyzed
decomposition (BCD) process. Soi/Tech owns a license to utilize the BCD
technology from the EPA. The Wide Beach Project was executed using a
different patented dechlorination chemistry.
5. Please briefly state the primary proposed treatment method you recommend at
this time for the Warren County PCB Landfill detoxification initiative.
Soi/Tech proposes to execute the project in the same manner the Smith's Farm
Project was executed using the EPA BCD process in conjunction with the ATP
thermal desorption equipment. Soi/Tech will feed the soil to the ATP in
conjunction with solid BCD reagents. Any unreacted PCBs will be recovered in
the ATP condensing equipment, mixed with additional BCD reagents and
returned to the ATP for additional treatment.
6. Please briefly state the options { 1 ... 2 ... 3) contained in your qualifications
statement or recommended for the Warren County PCB Landfill detoxification
initiative.
Soi/Tech proposes to execute the project as briefly outlined in answer 5 above.
As an alternative, Soi/Tech could treat the soils using thermal desorption alone
with the recovered PCBs being transported off-site for disposal at a TSCA
incinerator.
PR\H:\MARKET\ROGERS.405 (Apr. 5, 19951 s Tech
Ms. Sharron Rogers 3 April 3, 1995
7. What are the lowest achievable clean-up levels for your recommended
detoxification method for Warren County? Are extra costs/time involved in
achieving these levels, beyond normal clean-up levels? Are these lowest clean-
up levels theoretical or have they been achieved in an actual project?
Soi/Tech would readily guarantee clean-up to levels of 1 mg/kg. Soi/Tech would
consider a contract with clean-up levels below 1 mg/kg and has consistently
achieved lower levels (including method detection limits) on similar projects such
as the Smith's Farm Project. At Smith's Farm, treated soils were typically
nondetect for each PCB aroclor with detection limits of 0. 08 mg/kg to 0. 2 mg/kg
for each PCB aroclor. With clean-up levels below 1 mg/kg, Soi/Tech would likely
increase the treatment price as a contingency against the possibility of having
to retreat some soils. Such an increase would be in the range of 5 percent to
10 percent of the unit price. A similar increase in the duration of the treatment
is possible.
8. Please identify all waste streams expected to remain on-site or be shipped off-
site following completion of soil clean-up at the Warren County PCB Landfill
using your recommended method? Please list approximate quantities where
possible at this early stage in the project design.
It is assumed that the treated solids will be backfilled on-site. Assuming this is
true, the only waste stream which is routinely shipped off-site during treatment
is spent personnel protective equipment which is shipped to a licensed off-site
disposal facility (less than 1 ton per month). Soi/Tech treats waste water
generated during treatment and rain water which falls in the treatment area and
uses it as process water, eliminating the need for off-site discharge or disposal
of water.
At the conclusion of the project, there is typically 5 to 10 tons of solids which
are shipped off-site for disposal. These solids include spent filter media (carbon,
sand, etc.) from the water treatment systems and air pollution control systems
and solids emptied from the water treatment system storage tanks during
decontamination and demobilization activities.
9. Please briefly describe how successful or how closed the proposed "Closed
Loop" process would be for Warren County, e.g.% of destruction, air emissions,
and residual wastes.
The Soi/Tech ATP applied in conjunction with BCD is an extremely effective
treatment approach. As indicated in response to question 8 above, there are no
process residuals which require off-site disposal with the exception of spent
personnel protective equipment and 5 to 10 tons of solids generated during
decontamination and demobilization activities. The proposed approach will
PR\H:\MARKET\ROGERS.405 [Apr. 5, 1995]
Ms. Sharron Rogers 4 April 3, 1995
remove PCBs to their method detection limits and have done so on other similar
projects.
With regard to air emissions, the ATP has effectively met air emission standards
in US EPA Region II, Region IV, and Region V and in the states of New York,
11/inois, Ohio, and Kentucky. The ATP has also met the federal TSCA emission
standard of 99.9999% destruction and removal efficiency (DRE) for PCBs and
the federal standard of 30 ng/dscm total tetrachlorinated dibenzo dioxins and
furans. Soi/Tech would expect to demonstrate compliance with the same or
similar standards on the Warren County Landfill Project.
10. Is your organization familiar with NC regulations? Will they be able to meet all
required permits and conditions?
Yes . Soi/Tech typically contracts with its parent company Smith Environmental
Technologies Corp. (Smith) (formerly Canonie Environmental Services Corp.) and
intends to do so on the Warren County PCB Landfill Project. Smith typically
provides material excavation and handling services to augment Soi/Tech 's
treatment services. Soi/Tech and Smith contracted as a team on each of the
projects listed in question 1 above. Smith has completed two projects in North
Carolina (see Attachment 2) and brings to the project familiarity with North
Carolina regulations. We foresee no difficulty in meeting applicable state
regulations.
11. Have you completed a BCD project? How large?
Yes. The Smith's Farm Project completed in December 1994 required treatment
of 34,000 tons of PCB contaminated soils. The treatment component of the
project had an approximate value of $8 million.
12. What performance changes may occur as a result of design modifications
needed to upgrade your system to handle a large project such as ours?
None. The existing Soi/Tech equipment is suitable for your project.
13. Do you have the organizational and technical resources available to devote to
this project?
Yes . The project team which completed the Smith 's Farm Project is available
for the Warren County PCB Landfill Project.
14. If your company is wholly or partly owned, or joint venture, please outline this
relationship and list all related 1st and 2nd and other generation affiliates.
PR\H:\MARKET\ROGERS.405 !Apr. 5, 19951
Ms. Sharron Rogers 5 April 3, 1995
Soi/Tech is owned by equal partners, UMA Group, LTD of Vancouver, British
Columbia, Canada and Smith.
15. Will your organization have a project manager available to answer questions from
working group members, legislators, media throughout the lifetime of this
project?
Yes. A Project Manager would be assigned during the bidding process and that
individual would be expected to be available through the duration of the project.
I would expect to also be involved for the duration of the project.
16. Can you provide references or written statements from citizens at project sites?
We would suggest you contact the EPA Project Manager for one or more of our
more recent projects to learn the name of citizens who lived near the various
project sites and took an interest in the projects. We can provide client and EPA
references directly.
17. Please estimate a net cost per ton for remediation of the 40,000 cubic yards of
contaminated soil at the Warren County Landfill. What items are not included
in this price (e.g., security, mobilization, demobilization, waste disposal)?
Soi/Tech provided an estimate of $150 to $200 per ton of soil treated in our
original submission. That estimate is still valid. Excluded from the unit price is
the cost of workplans, mobilization, erection, startup, demonstration testing,
decontamination, and demobilization. The cost of the items excluded from the
unit cost is estimated to between $1. 1 million and $1. 5 million.
18. Does your company/joint venture have the willingness and/or ability to conduct
a pilot study?
Yes. We have bench and pilot-scale equipment and would be willing to conduct
a study for a fee. We do not need to conduct a study in order to guarantee the
performance of our technology at full-scale, but we would be willing to perform
one if the state required one.
19. If a pilot study is approved, what would be your organizations earliest
availability, and please give a rough time estimate for completion of pilot study?
Soi/Tech is available to begin immediately following execution of a purchase
order or contract. Usual duration of a bench-scale or pilot-scale study is one
week with a report available approximately six weeks after completion of the test.
PR\H:\MARKET\ROGERS.405 (Apr. 5, 19951
Ms. Sharron Rogers 6 April 3, 1995
20. Reference at least two sites where you have successfully utilized the proposed
remedial process.
See question 1 above.
21. Please list any violations or citations related to non-compliance with local, state
or federal environmental regulations in any jurisdiction.
None.
22. Is vendor a minority or women owned firm?
No.
23. Has vendor utilized the proposed remedial process on any CERCLA sites, and it
so, where?
Yes. On four sites as indicated in question 1 above.
24. How long has vendor been in business?
Smith can trace its history back nearly 100 years. Soi/Tech has been m
existence since 1988.
25. Does vendor expect to be able to meet all legal requirements related to public
contracts such as Anti-Bid Rigging Act, Equal Employment Opportunity Act,
OSHA and Debarment in any state?
Yes.
If you should have any additional questions or need additional information, please do
not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
i~1111,Jt
Joseph H. Hutton, P.E.
General Manager
JHH/bas
Enclosures
PR\H:\MARKET\ROGERS.405 (Apr. 5, 1995]
ATTACHMENT 1
Wide Beach Superfund Site
Issue PCBs in soil
Solution Excavate and treat soils by dechlorinating PCBs in SoilTech ATP unit
Client Kimmins Thermal Corporation (Prime Contractor) for U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers
Total Cost:
$8,300,000
Wide Beach, NY
EPA Region 2
Project Started: September 1990
Project Completed: September 1991
* Treatment of 37,200 tons of PCB-contaminated soils in SoilTech
ATP unit; PCBs dechlorinated in process. Resultant soils had non-
detect levels of PCBs.
* Post-treatment and disposal of process water to meet federal, state,
and local requirements.
This Superfund site was created when
treated unpaved roads were treated with
PCB-impacted oil in a residential com-
munity. The PCBs were spread to
lawns, driveways, and elsewhere in the
community.
Kimmins Thermal Corporation (Kimmins)
was contracted by the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers (ACE) to excavate and treat
the soils through dechlorination.
Kimmins retained SoilTech (a Canonie
subsidiary) to treat the soils.
SoilTech treated the soils at rates up to
nine tons per hour using APEG chemis-
try to dechlorinate PCBs within the
SoilTech ATP unit. The soils had high
clay content and were wet.
The SoilTech ATP unit operated reliably
while handling wide differences in soil
characteristics during winter and sum-
mer on the shore of Lake Erie.
This innovative technology has attracted
visits from representatives of ACE
offices, delegates of the USSR and
United States, and Canadian industries.
This project is the first commercial-scale
use of dechlorination chemistry to
destroy PCBs on-site. The treatment
technology complies with EPA guidelines
for Superfund remedial selection. Pro-
cess economics offer a proven, cost-
saving alternative to incineration.
Waukegan Harbor Superfund Site
Issue High level of PCB contamination in the harbor and stream sediments
Solution Thermally separate the PCBs from the sediments using the SoilTech
Anaerobic Thermal Processor (ATP) system
Client Fortune 100 Manufacturing Company
Total Cost:
Confidential
Waukegan, IL
EPA Region 5
Project Started: November 1990
Projected Completion: 1994
* Used the SoilTech ATP system to thermally separate
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) from the harbor's sediments.
* Constructed three TSCA-approved containment cells using HOPE
impermeable caps and 5,000 feet of soil-bentonite slurry wall.
* Controlled hydraulic dredging of contaminated sediments to meet
applicable or relevant and appropriate water quality standards.
The sediments of the Waukegan Harbor
and an adjacent stream were heavily
impacted with PCBs. Concentrations in
excess of 20,000 ppm were found.
Remediation alternatives were limited
due to the harbor's location adjacent to
a public beach used for both
recreational and commercial boating
activities. This site ranked No. 86 on
the National Priorities List for Superfund
sites.
Canonie handled all aspects of the
remediation of the site including the
following activities:
Canonie isolated an old slip by
installing a 300-foot double sheet
pile, 20-foot-wide soil wall. A
three-foot-wide slurry wall was
constructed around the entire slip;
Canonie constructed a new boat
slip to replace the isolated slip;
Canonie removed 6,000 cubic
yards of sediments, with PCB
concentrations greater than
PRIW:IS00\PROJECTS\WAUKEGAN (Aug. 11. 11831
500 ppm, from the old slip using
hydraulic dredging;
Canonie removed and treated the
water from the isolated slip;
Sediments, with concentrations
between 50 and 500 ppm, were
hydraulically dredged from the
upper harbor into the old slip. The
upper harbor was isolated during
dredging operations using silt
curtains and oil booms;
After completion of the dredging,
dewatering of the old slip,
containing the sediments, was
initiated;
Following the dewatering of the old
slip, Canonie will install a TSCA-
approved, impermeable protective
cap over the entire cell.
During the remediation of the harbor,
no interruption of either recreational or
commercial boating activities occurred.
Waukegan Harbor Superfund Site
(Continued)
The remediation of the adjacent stream
area and treatment of the impacted
sediments included the following
activities:
Canonie rerouted the stream and
constructed two containment cells.
One of the cells enclosed the
original stream bed.
13,000 tons of sediments and soil
with an average PCB concentration
of 10,500 ppm were treated using
SoilTech's ATP System to less than
3 ppm. The Processor thermally
separates the PCBs from the soils
and sediments in an oxygen-free
environment.
FLUE GAS
The treated soils and sediments
were placed in TSCA-approved
containment cells, were
constructed by installing soil-
bentonite slurry walls and an HOPE
impermeable cap on each cell.
During this project, Canonie treated
approximately 45 million gallons of
water. Five million gallons were treated
to PCB levels of less than 1 ppb.
An important aspect of this project was
Canonie's effective negotiations with
the agency for approval of this
remediation plan.
llL------r-, ~. ------.L_
-~ --AUXILIARY BURNER
STEAM COOLING ZONE I I COMBUSTION ZONE
11----------, 1-------------;I
I I ............ PREHEAT ZONE I I REACTION ZONE
WAST_E_F_EE_D_-~_+.L.•-•-o~---~' \~IT'" \ i _/ "/: ___ ....___ __ HYD~RO_C_A_RB_O_N VAPOR
, .. ~r' ._ -
•' , .. .. ,._ ....,,,_L.-~ -COMBUSTION AIR
SPENT SAND I I C .. r-L.. ___ ..;_ ______ , .,,., _________ _
FLOW DIAGRAM
PRIW:IS0O\PROJECTS\WAUKEGAN ,Aug. 11, 111131
Ohio Superfund Site Soil Remediation
Issue Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs) and Pesticides in Soil and
Sediment
Solution Thermally desorb contaminants from soil using the SoilTech Anaerobic
Thermal Processor (ATP) system
Client Confidential
Total Cost: Ohio
Confidential EPA Region 5
Project Started: May 1993
Projected Completion: April 1994
* Conducted extensive air modeling and prepared remedial action
work plans.
* Excavation of 13,500 tons of surface soil, including ditch
sediments.
* Thermally desorbed contaminants from soil using the SoilTech
ATP system achieving nondetect concentrations for PAHs and
pesticides.
Surface soils and sediments at the site
were impacted with chemicals from
past liquid waste operations conducted
at the site. Canonie was retained to
remediate the surface soil and sediment
using the SoilTech ATP system.
Canonie's work on the project included
the following:
Air dispersion modeling of the ATP
system stack emissions to verify
minimal impact to ambient air;
Preparation of remedial action work
plans including the ATP system
Proof-of-Process Plan and Quality
Assurance Project Plan to meet
EPA Region V requirements;
Off-site ambient air monitoring to
verify compliance with air quality
standards;
Excavation and screening of
surface soils and sediments and
staging for treatment in a Sprung®
structure;
Upgrading site drainage ditch by
installation of geotextile and
placement of riprap;
Treatment of staged soil and
sediment with the SoilTech ATP
system to meet soil delisting
criteria.
Smith's Farm Operable Unit One
Issue PCB-Contaminated Soil
Solution Thermally separate PCBs from Soil Using the SoilTech Anaerobic Thermal
Processor (ATP) system and dechlorinate them using BCD technology
Client Confidential
Total Cost:
$16,000,000
Bullitt County, KY
EPA Region 4
Project Started: May 1993
Projected Completion: Ongoing
* Separation and dechlorination of PCBs using the SoilTech ATP
system and BCD technology.
* Design/construction of a retaining wall.
* Construction of a RCRA cap and leachate collection system.
This 80-acre site was formerly an
unpermitted drum landfill where soils
and sediment have become
contaminated with polychlorinated
biphenyls (PCBs), polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons (PAHs), and lead.
Canonie is retained to provide the
following services:
Preparation of the site which
included clearing of 20 acres of a
heavily wooded area, installation of
over one mile of fencing for site
security, and construction of over
one mile of paved roadway and
associated culverts and drainage
improvements;
Construction of 1,500 linear feet of
reinforced concrete retaining wall
ranging from 9 to 31 feet in height;
Excavation of 7,000 yards of rock
for retaining wall foundation
footprint;
Excavation of over 17,000 yards of
PCB-and PAH-contaminated soil
designated for thermal treatment;
Overpack 300 drums found during
hazardous excavation. The drums
PRIW:\SOOIPROJECTSISMITHFRM !Mar. 4, 19941
were subsequently buried in a
concrete wall on-site;
Treatment of over 17,000 yards of
PCB-and PAH-impacted soil using
the SoilTech ATP system in
conjunction with BCD;
Potential fixation of 6,000 yards of
lead-impacted soil;
Installation of a leachate collection
system and a landfill gas venting
system;
Construction of a 10-acre RCRA
cap, including subgrade
preparation, barrier, and synthetic
liner, drainage layer, and vegetative
layer;
Construction of a ground water
diversion system upgradient from
the RCRA cap;
This project maintains positive relations
with the residents in the area. Canonie
has taken the responsibility for
maintenance of a secondary public
roadway leading to the project and this
has added to the positive relationship
between the PRPs and local residents.
ATTACHMENT 2
Statesville Ground Water Remediation
Issue Bedrock aquifer impacted with nitrates
Solution Hydraulic control of the nitrate plume using ground water extraction wells.
Direct discharge of extracted ground water to a surface water body.
Client Fertilizer Manufacturing Company
Total Cost:
$1 .3 Million
Statesville, NC
EPA Region 4
Project Started: June 1991
Project Completed: In Progress
* Perform ground water pumping test and design pumping scheme
to extract and control nitrate plume.
* Evaluate applicable treatment technologies for the removal of
nitrates from ground water.
* Pursue a low-cost alternative to ground water treatment with
state agency.
In the past, process water from the
fertilizer manufacturing plant at the site
was discharged to unlined settling
ponds on-site. Leachate from these
ponds has created a plume of nitrate-
impacted ground water in the bedrock
aquifer below the site. The plume
extends to the property boundaries of
the SO-acre site, and to approximately
200 feet below ground surface. The
maximum concentration of nitrates (as
N) in the ground water is approximately
300 parts per million.
Canonie was retained to design and
implement a remediation strategy for
the site which included ground water
extraction, treatment (if necessary),
and discharge. Canonie is
accomplishing the project goals through
a number of activities which include the
following:
Conduct a ground water pumping
test to establish the locations and
extraction rates of several pumping
wells. The required total extraction
rate to control the nitrate plume
was determined to be 100 gallons
per minute.
Perform a focused feasibility study
of denitrification treatment
alternatives for ground water.
Technologies considered included
ion exchange, reverse osmosis, and
biological treatment. Biological
denitrification was established as
the best alternative, should
treatment of the extracted ground
water be necessary.
Negotiate with state agency to
allow direct discharge of extracted
ground water (with no treatment)
to nearby stream.
Apply for NPDES permit to
discharge ground water to the
stream.
Negotiate with adjacent land
owners for right-of-way permits for
discharge piping.
Chemtronics Superfund Site
Issue Former chemical plant site contaminated with wastes from production of
military products
Solution Cap various dump sites (total 11 acres) and construct ground water
extraction and treatment system
Client PRP Group
Total Cost:
$4,200,000
Swannanoa, NC
EPA Region 4
Project Started: January 1992
Project Completed: February 1993
* Cap six separate dump areas with HDPE and a synthetic drainage
composite.
*
*
Drill and install extraction wells, monitoring wells, and piezometers.
Construct two on-site ground water treatment plants.
Six distinct areas of the site,
comprising approximately 11 acres,
require capping. The disposal areas
contain Bz (a psychoactive compound),
CS (tear gas), solvents, acids, volatile
organic compounds, and, potentially,
cyanide.
Canonie is drilled and installed
39 extraction wells, monitoring wells,
and piezometers to measure the extent
of ground water contamination. Nine
existing wells were abandoned. Two
on-site ground water treatment plants
were constructed utilizing computer
controlled data acquisition systems,
including precipitation, air stripping and
carbon adsorption, as well as
installation of a complete data
acquisition and monitoring system.
PR\W:\SOO\PROJECTS\CHEMTRON (Dec. 2, 11941
The capping required excavation and
placement of approximately
80,000 cubic yards of soil. Canonie
installed a 60-mil textured HDPE liner
and synthetic drainage composite.
Completion of the cap included seeding
and securing capped areas with a
six-foot-high chain-link fence.
, ~PR 05 '95 02:51PM FOUR SEASONS ENVIR 910 274 5798 P.1
A ~---pcur sea ns er n v . 1 r · c o m e n T a L
A GREAT LAKES CHS:MfCAL CORPORATION COMPANY
CORPORATE HEADQUARTERS:
3107 South E:Jm-Eusene Street
P. o. Box 18590
GrMI\SborQ, NC 2741G-0590
Phone: (!10) 273-2718
Faes:irril•: (91G) 27.wns
Branch Offices:
Satan Rouge, LA Char1otte, NC NalhviDe, '1M Houston. TX RJc:hmond, VA Columbus. OH
FACSIMILE 71lANSMfTTAL COVER SHEET
To: MS SIWUlQI Roc;ps
Company:. S'fA'l'B OP J(ORT!f CAROLI& DKPAll~ a, BIIVIROl'IKBRT r BBIL'l'B AJm DTORAL
USOORCBS Fax Number: __ 9.,.1 .-9 ... -... 21,..5.,,_-... 1~6;11,0 ... s ..... _______________________ _
From: .AµIQ.T LBB
Date: APRIL Sr 1995
Subject: 11A1UtBN COml'l'Y LAlllDPILL PROJECT
Number of Pages: 6 Orfglnat to be Malled? 'fas No
(lndudes Cover Sheet)
Qzmm,ac1;
J:1RJia.. The infonnation following this c:over shNt ls lntanded to be con(idonlial to tho pe.-.on kl whom it i•
•ddrfs .. d, An'/ infonnalion rolklwing is aubject lo cgpyright prot.eclion. If you are not able to deliver !his
communlc.atllon to the intended recipient or If you are not an agent of tho intended tec:ipitnt, pleaM do 110t
rud, copy, or UM this infonnalion in any way, but oatify tho Nndclr immediately by lelr1ph0na al Iha number
notod above.
, APR 05 '95 02:51PM FOUR SEASONS ENVIR 910 274 5798 P.2
~ CORP0AATE HEACQUARTERS: -pcur ~~a~ ens 3107 SOOTH ELM-EUGENE STREET -=-iiiiiil... iiiiiil P.O. Box 16590 • GREENSBORO, NC 2.7416-0590•[phone] • FAX [phone]B
12 n v I r 0 n m e n T a L -----------------,,. CiREi'IT I..AKE5 CHEM•c:;,,.1. CQRPQRATION COMPANY
April 5, 1995
Ms. Sharron Rogers
North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resourses
Division of Solid Waste Management
401 Oberlin Road, Suite 150
Raleigh1 NC 27605
Via Facsimile: 919-71S-360S
RE: Clarification Questions for Qualifications for Detoxification of PCB-
contaminated Soils at Warren County Landfill.
Dear Ms. Rogers:
Four Seasons Environmental. Inc. (Four Seasons) is pleased to submit the. following
information in response to your letter dated March 30, 1995. Several of the questions are
best answered by the information contained in our original submittal dated February 28,
1995. These items have been noted in our response to the attached questions.
We will be happy to provide the NCDEHNR with any additional information that you
may desire during your review of this submittal. Four Seasons appreciates this
opportunity and is interested in being considered as a possible vendor should a Request
for Proposal be distributed for this site.
Sincerely,
Four Seasons Environmental, Inc.
Albert D. Lee
Corporate Project Development Manager
Enclosure
pc: Q. Barefoot
M:6429_1
B. Miller, SRS
file
, 'APR 05 '95 02=51PM FOUR SEASONS ENVIR 910 274 5798
FOUR SEASONS ENVIRONMENTAL
AND SEPARATION AND RECOVERY SYSTEMSt INC.
Response to
Questions for Respondents on Warren County PCB Landfill
Detoxification RFQ
P.3
1. Has your company completed a soil-based PCB cleanup project to clean up
standards at detection limit levels? Please provide brief summary(s).
Four Seasons has perf onned numerous projects involving handling of PCB-
contaminated material. Most of these projects have involved excavation of
contaminated material to depths that comply with detection limit levels.
Although they have completed many soil treatment projects, Separation and Recovery
Systems, Inc. (SRS) has not yet performed a PCB cleanup project. They have treated
soils containing dioxin/furans, pentachlorophenols, and polynuclear aromatics to
detection limit levels. The substances have molecular structures similar to PCBs.
2. Did the above project(s) involve a thennal desorption method?
Yes, all projects involved thermal desorption.
3. Did the above project(s) involve a non-thermal desorption method?
The projects performed by Four Seasons primarily involved contaminated-material
removal, transportation and disposal.
4. Did the above project(s) involve a patented BCD process?
The projects involving treatment of dioxin/furan and PCP used the BCD process.
5. Please briejly state the primary proposed treatment method you recommend at
this time for the Warren County PCB Landfill detoxification initiative.
The BCD treatment process is recommended for this project based on the site
circumstances and the desired clean-up levels. This method and its benefits are
described in Section 2 of Four Seasons' original submittal dated February 28, 1995.
Please refer to this document for details of the BCD process.
6. Please briefly state the options (1 ... 2 ... 3) contained in your qualifications
statement or recommended for Warren County PCB Landfill detoxification
initiative.
Four Seasons' response discussed only one option, the application of Base-Catalyzed
Dechlorination technology.
'APR 05 '95 02=52PM FOUR SEASONS ENVIR 910 274 5798 P.4
7. What are the lowest achievable clean-up levels for your recommended
detoxification method for Wa"en County? Are extra costs/time involved in
achieving these levels, beyond normal clean-up levels? Are these lowest clean-
up levels theoretical or have they been achieved in an actual project?
Total PCBs < 100 ppb; 99.9999% removal or destruction of PCBs can be achieved, if
necessary. Typically, PCB treatment levels are 1 to 2 ppm and are easily achieved.
The cleanup levels have been achieved in actual projects.
8. Please identify all waste streams expected to remain on-site or be shipped off-
site following completion of soil clean-up at the Wa"en County PCB Landfill
using your recommended method. Please list approximate quantities where
possible at this early stage in the project design.
Waste water from equipment decontamination operations will be shipped off-site for
treatment and disposal. Our recommended method intends to use treated soil as
backfill, eliminating off-site disposal.
9. Please briefly describe how successful or how closed the proposed "Closed
Loop" process would be for Warren County, e.g. % of destruction, air
emissions, and residual wastes.
Percent destruction is explained in the response to question 7. As explained in Four
Seasons' submittal dated February 28, 1995, the BCD process generates no toxic by-
products. The process includes steps that treat air and water before they exit the
system.
10. Is your organization familiar with NC regulations? Will they be able to meet all
required permits and conditions?
Four Seasons has been completing a wide variety of environmental projects throughout
North Carolina for 19 years. Four Seasons uses this accumulated experience toward
ensuring compliance with the applicable Federal, State of North Carolina, and local laws
and regulations, and will obtain all permits required for work on this project. Four
Seasons will also coordinate with appropriate agencies regarding on~site work that may
not require actual permitting.
11. Have you completed a BCD project? How large?
Please refer to the response to question 4 and Section 3 of our original submittal for a
detailed response to this question.
12. What performance changes may occur as a result of design modifications needed
to upgrade your system to handle a large project such as ours?
The system described in the original submittal dated February 28, 1995 is designed to
process soil volumes comparable to those expected from the Warren County Landfill
Project. SRS is currently working on a project in Cincinnati~ Ohio for a confidential
client which involves treating as much as 40,000 C.Y. of soil.
, 'APR 05 '95 02=52PM FOUR SEASONS ENVIR 910 274 5798 P.5
13. Do you have the organizational and technical resources available to devote to
this project?
Both Four Seasons and SRS regularly execute multimillion dollar projects. Sufficient
personnel and equipment resources are. available. In the event that a formal RFP is
issued for this project, Four Seasons and SRS will identify specific individuals to
perform this project.
14. If your company is wholly or partly owned, or joint venture, please outline this
relationship and list all related 1st and 2nd and other generation affiliates.
Four Seasons is a wholly owned subsidiary of Great Lakes Chemical Corporation. Sister
companies under Great Lakes, include Aquaterra, Inc. and Ware Lund Associates. Four
Seasons is directly controlled by OSCA, Inc., which is also wholly owned by Great
Lakes.
15. Will your organization have a project manager available to answer questions
from working group members, legislators, media throughout the lifetime of this
project?
It is Four Seasons' general practice to assign both off-site and on-site project
management. The off~site manager, usually referred to as the Program Manager,
provides guidance and ensures that proper resources are available at all times. The on-
site manager, or Project Manager, works at the job site on a daily basis, and serves as the
leader and company representative. The Project Manager would be available to interact
with interested groups for the duration of the project.
16. Can you provide references or written statements from citizens at project sites?
Four Seasons does not maintain records of this type. However, several client references
are included in the February 28, 1995 submittal.
17. Please estimate a net cost per ton for remediation of the 40,000 cubic yard of
contaminated soil at the Warren County Landfill. What items are not included in
this price, (e.g., security. mobilization, demobilization. waste disposal)?
The original submittal provides a detailed breakdown of costs associated with this
project, including potential additional items such as treatability tests.
18. Does your company/joint venture have the willingness and/or ability to conduct a
pilot study?
Four Seasons is capable of providing a pilot study as part of a contracted agreement
with the NCDEHNR.
19. If a pilot study is approved, what would be your organization's earliest
availability, and please give a rough time estimate for completion of pilot study?
Four Seasons and SRS could mobilize for a pilot study within a few weeks of receiving
notification to proceed. The time required to complete the study would depend on the
volume of soil that the Joint Warren County and State PCB Landfill Working Group
require to be tested. A study involving 20 tons of soil would require between 1 to 2
months and a full-scale study processing 1,000 tons would require 2 to 3 months. The
cost of the study would be affected by the volume of soil to be processed.
APR 05 '95 02:53PM FOUR SEASONS ENVIR 910 274 5798 P.6
20. Reference at least two sites where you have .successfully utilized the proposed
remedial process.
A complete list of sites where the BCD ·process has been or is being used is included in
Section 3 of the original submittal.
21. Please list any violations or citations related to non-compliance with local, state
or federal environmental regulations in any jurisdiction.
No violations or citations have been cited against Four Seasons or SRS.
22. Is vendor a minority or women-owned firm?
Neither Four Seasons Environmental nor SRS qualify as minority or women-owned
firms.
23. Has vendor utilized the proposed remedial process on any CERCLA s.ites, and if
so, where?
SRS is currently applying BCD technology at the Pester Pond NFL Site in El Dorado,
Kansas. This project involves removing and processing 20,000 C.Y. of sludge from
the old refinery lagoons.
24. How long has vendor. been in business?
Four Seasons has been serving clients since 1976 and SRS has over twenty years of
experience providing environmental services.
25. Does vendor ex,pect to be able to meet all legal requirements related to public
contracts such as Anti-Bid Rigging Act, Equal Employment Opportunity Act,
OSHA and Debarment in any state?
Yes.
•
~ CORPORATE HEADQUARTERS: Four Seas ens 3107 SOUTH ELM-EUGENE STREET 1=' P.O. BOX 16590 • GREENSBORO, NC 27416-0590 • [phone] • FAX [phone]
--e n v I r □ n m e n T a L ------------------A GREAT LAKES CHEMICAL C OR PORATION COMPAN Y
April 5, 1995
Ms. Sharron Rogers
North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resourses
Division of Solid Waste Management
401 Oberlin Road, Suite 150
Raleigh, NC 27605
Via Facsimile: 919-715-3605
RE: Clarification Questions for Qualifications for Detoxification of PCB-
contaminated Soils at Warren County Landfill.
Dear Ms_ Rogers:
Four Seasons Environmental, Inc. (Four Seasons) is pleased to submit the following
information in response to your letter dated March 30, 1995. Several of the questions are
best answered by the information contained in our original submittal dated February 28,
1995. These items have been noted in our response to the attached questions.
We will be happy to provide the NCDEHNR with any additional information that you
may desire during your review of this submittal. Four Seasons appreciates this
opportunity and is interested in being considered as a possible vendor should a Request
for Proposal be distributed for this site.
Sincerely,
Four Seasons Environmental, Inc.
Albert D. Lee
Corporate Project Development Manager
Enclosure
pc: Q. Barefoot
M :6429_1
B. Miller, SRS
file
FOUR SEASONS ENVIRONMENTAL
AND SEPARATION AND RECOVERY SYSTEMS, INC.
Response to
Questions for Respondents on Warren County PCB Landfill
Detoxification RFQ
1. Has your company completed a soil-based PCB cleanup project to clean up
standards at detection limit levels? Please provide brief summary(s).
Four Seasons has performed numerous projects involving handling of PCB-
contaminated material. Most of these projects have involved excavation of
contaminated material to depths that comply with detection limit levels.
Although they have completed many soil treatment projects, Separation and Recovery
Systems, Inc. (SRS) has not yet performed a PCB cleanup project. They have treated
soils containing dioxin/furans, pentachlorophenols, and polynuclear aromatics to
detection limit levels. The substances have molecular structures similar to PCBs.
2. Did the above project(s) involve a thermal desorption method?
Yes, all projects involved thermal desorption.
3. Did the above project(sj involve a non-thermal desorption method?
The projects performed by Four Seasons primarily involved contaminated-material
removal, transportation and disposal.
4. Did the above project(s) involve a patented BCD process?
The projects involving treatment of dioxin/furan and PCP used the BCD process.
5. Please briefly state the primary proposed treatment method you recommend at
this time for the Warren County PCB Landfill detoxification initiative.
The BCD treatment process is recommended for this project based on the site
circumstances and the desired clean-up levels. This method and its benefits are
described in Section 2 of Four Seasons' original submittal dated February 28, 1995 .
Please refer to this document for details of the BCD process.
6. Please briefly state the options (1 ... 2 ... 3) contained in your qualifications
statement or recommended for Warren County PCB Landfill detoxification
initiative.
Four Seasons' response discussed only one option, the application of Base-Catalyzed
Dechlorination technology.
7. What are the lowest achievable clean-up levels for your recommended
detoxification method for Warren County? Are extra costs/time involved in
achieving these levels, beyond normal clean-up levels? Are these lowest clean-
up levels theoretical or have they been achieved in an actual project?
Total PCBs < 100 ppb; 99.9999% removal or destruction of PCBs can be achieved, if
necessary. Typically, PCB treatment levels are 1 to 2 ppm and are easily achieved.
The cleanup levels have been achieved in actual projects.
8. Please identify all waste streams expected to remain on-site or be shipped off-
site following completion of soil clean-up at the Warren County PCB Landfill
using your recommended method. Please list approximate quantities where
possible at this early stage in the project design.
Waste water from equipment decontamination operations will be shipped off-site for
treatment and disposal. Our recommended method intends to use treated soil as
backfill, eliminating off-site disposal.
9. Please briefly describe how successful or how closed the proposed "Closed
Loop" process would be for Warren County, e.g. % of destruction, air
emissions, and residual wastes.
Percent destruction is explained in the response to question 7. As explained in Four
Seasons' submittal dated February 28, 1995, the BCD process generates no toxic by-
products. The process includes steps that treat air and water before they exit the
system.
10. Is your organization familiar with NC regulations? Will they be able to meet all
required pemzits and conditions?
Four Seasons has been completing a wide variety of environmental projects throughout
North Carolina for 19 years. Four Seasons uses this accumulated experience toward
ensuring compliance with the applicable Federal, State of North Carolina, and local laws
and regulations, and will obtain all permits required for work on this project. Four
Seasons will also coordinate with appropriate agencies regarding on-site work that may
not require actual permitting.
11. Have you completed a BCD project? How large?
Please refer to the response to question 4 and Section 3 of our original submittal for a
detailed response to this question.
12. What performance changes may occur as a result of design modifications needed
to upgrade your system to handle a large project such as ours?
The system described in the original submittal dated February 28, 1995 is designed to
process soil volumes comparable to those expected from the Warren County Landfill
Project. SRS is currently working on a project in Cincinnati, Ohio for a confidential
client which involves treating as much as 40,000 C.Y. of soil.
I 3. Do you have the organizational and technical resources available to devote to
this project?
Both Four Seasons and SRS regularly execute multimillion dollar projects. Sufficient
personnel and equipment resources are available. In the event that a formal RFP is
issued for this project, Four Seasons and SRS will identify specific individuals to
perform this project.
I 4. If your company is wholly or partly owned, or joint venture, please outline this
relationship and list all related I st and 2nd and other generation affiliates.
Four Seasons is a wholly owned subsidiary of Great Lakes Chemical Corporation. Sister
companies under Great Lakes, include Aquaterra, Inc. and Ware Lund Associates. Four
Seasons is directly controlled by OSCA, Inc., which is also wholly owned by Great
Lakes.
I 5. Will your organization have a project manager available to answer questions
from working group members, legislators, media throughout the lifetime of this
project?
It is Four Seasons' general practice to assign both off-site and on-site project
management. The off-site manager, usually referred to as the Program Manager,
provides guidance and ensures that proper resources are available at all times. The on-
site manager, or Project Manager, works at the job site on a daily basis, and serves as the
leader and company representative. The Project Manager would be available to interact
with interested groups for the duration of the project.
I 6. Can you provide references or written statements from citizens at project sites?
Four Seasons does not maintain records of this type. However, several client references
are included in the February 28, 1995 submittal.
I 7. Please estimate a net cost per ton for remediation of the 40,000 cubic yard of
contaminated soil at the Warren County Landfill. What items are not included in
this price, (e.g., security, mobilization, demobilization, waste disposal)?
The original submittal provides a detailed breakdown of costs associated with this
project, including potential additional items such as treatability tests.
I 8. Does your company/joint venture have the willingness and/or ability to conduct a
pilot study?
Four Seasons is capable of providing a pilot study as part of a contracted agreement
with the NCDEHNR.
19. If a pilot study is approved, what would be your organization's earliest
availability, and please give a rough time estimate for completion of pilot study?
Four Seasons and SRS could mobilize for a pilot study within a few weeks of receiving
notification to proceed. The time required to complete the study would depend on the
volume of soil that the Joint Warren County and State PCB Landfill Working Group
require to be tested. A study involving 20 tons of soil would require between 1 to 2
months and a full-scale study processing 1,000 tons would require 2 to 3 months. The
cost of the study would be affected by the volume of soil to be processed.
. .
20. Reference at least two sites where you have successfully utilized th e proposed
remedial process.
A complete list of sites where the BCD process has been or is being used is inciuded in
Section 3 of the original submittal.
21. Please list any violations or citations related to non-compliance with local, state
or federal environmental regulations in any jurisdiction.
No violations or citations have been cited against Four Seasons or SRS .
22. ls vendor a minority or women-owned firm?
Neither Four Seasons Environmental nor SRS qualify as minority or women-owned
firms .
23. Has vendor utilized the proposed remedial process on any CERCLA sites, and (f
so, where?
SRS is currently applying BCD technology at the Pester Pond NPL Site in El Dorado,
Kansas. This project involves removing and processing 20,000 C . Y. of sludge from
the old refinery lagoons.
24. How long has vendor been in business?
Four Seasons has been serving clients since 1976 and SRS has over twenty years of
experience providing environmental services.
25. Does vendor expect to be able to meet all legal requirements related to public
contracts such as Anti-Bid Rigging Act, Equal Employment Opportunity Act,
OSHA and Debarment in any state?
Yes.
I
PRELIMINARY DESIGN
OF
DRAFT
WPIL -DUP
PILOT SCALE STUDY FOR DETOXIFICATION OF
WARREN COUNTY PCB LANDFILL
By
Division of Solid Waste Management
North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
March 31, 1995
..
Preliminary Design of Pilot Scale Study
for Detoxification of the Warren County PCB Landfill
1. Introduction
Background -The Joint Warren County and State PCB Working Group
is currently evaluating qualification statements from potential vendors for
remediation processes ranging from thermal and non-thermal declorination with
or without base-catalyzed dechlorination(BCD) to on-site mobile incineration.
These qualification statements were received in response to a Request for
Qualifications (RFQ) released by the North Carolina Department of Environment,
Health, and Natural Resources on behalf of the Working Group.
As a part of the State's commitment to perform a pilot scale evaluation of
a potentially successful technology, this Pilot Scale Plan is underdevelopment.
When one or more technologies, or variations on technologies, is selected by the
Secretary this Plan can be finalized and tailored to the specific details of the
process and unique environmental monitoring requirements in a more timely
way.
Site Status -_ The Warren County PCB Landfill is owned by the State of
North Carolina. The landholding is administered by the Department of
Administration, the facility is operated by the Department of Environment, Health,
and Natural Resources, and routine maintenance is performed by the
Department of Transportation.
The PCB Landfill contains approximately 40,000 cubic yards of soil
contaminated by 300 to 350 ppm of polychlorinated byphenyls (PCBs). This
material was collected from along approximately 240 miles of eastern North
Carolina road rights-of-way where used transformer oils were illegally dumped.
The design, siting, construction, and closure of this landfill was conducted under
the Federal Superfund program. Because PCB are the primary hazardous
constituent in the landfill, the facility is permitted and operated under the
authority of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), regulations administered
by the US EPA. No other hazardous constituents are present, with the exception
of the levels of dioxins and dibenzofurans typically associated with the
production of PCBs of this level of contamination.
Description of new monitoring wells and general state of facility need to be
added to this section.
2
Objectives -
1. Evaluate safety of detoxification method(s) tested by pilot scale.
2. Establish efficacy of detoxification method(s) under test.
3. Establish clean up standards (How clean is clean?) for any future
detoxification project based upon levels achieved in pilot test.
4. Determine type and amount of any waste materials requiring special
handling, such as offsite disposal.
5. Tailor final engineering design for detoxification project to the site and
materials in Warren County.
6. Determine public acceptability of detoxification process being tested in
pilot level testing.
Above objectives required as support to developing engineering and
performance specifications for a potential bid package for general landfill
detoxification package.
3
2. Project Schedule
Months
4
...
3. Cost Estimates
••••Pg$¢t@tiprj ? TQ!J~•Htity••>
•••••~tll••l,1~••••••••••••••••
Public > ••••g~lij11S0Mt•••• >
•• fih~l •R~p§rt • ? Siii:liti~ednci•• >
subtotals > --t------t-----t------t------t------t---------1
Tt:>tal$ <>••••·•·•
5
4. Technology Description
5. Environmental Permit Status / Regulatory Jurisdiction Review
6. Site Safety Plan
Normal Operations
Emergency Contingency
Personal Training Requirements
Personal Protection Requirements
Insect Vector Management (e.g.,Ticks/Rocky Mountain Spotted Fever)
7. Environmental Monitoring Plan
Initial Groundwater/Surface Water Monitoring
Initial Air Monitoring
Continual Monitoring Requirements
Periodic Monitoring Requirements
Use and Maintenance of Survey Equipment
8. Quality Assurance/ Quality Control Plan
9. Site Control Plan
Security
Communications
Complaints
10. Community Response/Coordination Plan
11. Site Operating Procedures
Chain of Authority
Safe Work Practices
Confined Space Entry
Noise Exposure
Illumination
Sanitation
Site Housekeeping
Personal and Equipment Decontamination
Health and Safety Plan Enforcement
6
12. Procedures and Plans for Mobilization
13. Handling of Condensate
14. Treatment System Monitoring
15. Pilot Test Findings Report
Treatability Findings
Cleanup Target Goal for Full Scale Detoxification
Environmental Monitoring Report
Normal Environmental Releases
Unplanned Events & Corrective Actions
16. Procedures and Plans for Demobilization
17. Pilot Closure and Restoration
Exhibits
A. Site Layout Diagram
B. Process Flow Diagram
C. Air Pollution Control Diagram
D. Personal Training and Compliance Agreement Form
E. Daily Site Log
F. Material Safety Data Sheets
G. Equipment Maintenance Log
H. Accident Report Form
Other Forms and Logs as developed in individual plans
7
State of North Carolina
0epartment of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Solid Waste Management
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
William L. Meyer, Director
March 30, 1995
Dear Vendor:
The Joint Warren County and State PCB Working Group has requested
that all organizations submitting responses to the RFQ for Detoxification of the
Warren County PCB Landfill be asked to respond to the attached list of
questions . The intent of these questions is to fill in gaps that individual
companies may not have responded in the first submission, and to get very clear
responses to several key questions of particular interest to the citizen members
of the Working Group. You will be receiving this request by fax.
Your response should be returned to this address no later than five (5)
working days following receipt. Fax transmission of your response is
acceptable due to this tight time frame. My fax number is 919-715-3605.
In addition to the formal written responses requested, the Working Group
has instructed their Independent Technical Advisor to contact the potential
vendors to make some additional oral inquiries. You should expect a phone
inquiry from Ms . Pauline Ewald of ECO , Ashland, VA The state supports this
contact as part of the cooperative nature of this proposed project with the
citizens of Warren County and the grassroots environmental groups in North
Carolina. We appreciate your cooperation.
Please contact me at any time if you require additional clarification on
these instructions or on the scope and nature of the project.
Assistant Director
for Policy. Planning and Development
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ l 0% post-consumer paper
Questions for Respondents on Warren County PCB Landfill
Detoxification RFQ
March 30,1995
Please respond to the following questions clarifying and/or
extending your responses to the RFQ. You may submit additional
documentation at this time as well; however, no additional
responses are required.
FROM: Sharron Rogers
NCDEHNR, Division of Solid Waste Management
1. Has your company completed a soil-based PCB clean-up project
to clean up standards at detection limit levels? Please
provide brief summary(s).
2. Did the above project(s) involve a thermal desorption
method?
3. Did the above project(s) involve a non-thermal desorption
method?
4. Did the above project(s) involve a patented BCD process?
[Questions 2,3,4 may be answered in combined schematic or as separate descriptions at your preference]
5. Please briefly state the primary proposed treatment method
you recommend at this time for the Warren County PCB
Landfill detoxification initiative.
6. Please briefly state the options (1 ... 2 ... 3) contained in
your qualifications statement or recommended for the Warren
County PCB Landfill detoxification initiative.
7. What are the lowest achievable clean-up levels for your
recommended detoxification method for Warren County? Are
extra costs/time involved in achieving these levels, beyond
normal clean-up levels? Are these lowest clean-up levels
theoretical or have they been achieved in an actual project?
8. Please identify all waste streams expected to remain on-site
or be shipped off-site following completion of soil clean-up
at the Warren County PCB Landfill using your recommended
method? Please list approximate quantities where possible
at this early stage in the project design.
9. Please briefly describe how successful or how closed the
proposed "Closed Loop" process would be for Warren County,
e.g. % of destruction, air emissions, and residual wastes.
10. Is your organization familiar with NC regulations? Will
they be able to meet all required permits and conditions?
11. Have you completed a BCD project? How large?
12. What performance changes may occur as a result of design
modifications needed to upgrade your system to handle a
large project such as ours?
2
13. Do you have the organizational and technical resources
available to devote to this project?
14. If your company is wholly or partly owned, or joint venture,
please outline this relationship and list all related 1st
and 2nd and other generation affiliates?
15. Will your organization have a project manager available to
answer questions from working group members, legislators,
media throughout the lifetime of this project?
16. Can you provide references or written statements from
citizens at project sites?
17. Please estimate a net cost per ton for remediation of the
40,000 cubic yards of contaminated soil at the Warren County
Landfill. What items are not included in this price(e.g.,
security, mobilization, demobilization, waste disposal)?
18. Does your company/joint venture have the willingness and/or
ability to conduct a pilot study?
19. If a pilot study is approved, what would be your
organizations earliest availability, and please give a rough
time estimate for completion of pilot study?
3
20. Reference at least two sites where you have successfully
utilized the proposed remedial process.
21. Please list any violations or citations related to non-
compliance with local, state or federal environmental
regulations in any jurisdiction.
22. Is vendor a minority or women owned firm?
23. Has vendor utilized the proposed remedial process on any
CERCLA sites, and if so, where?
24. How long has vendor been in business?
25. Does vendor expect to be able to meet all legal requirements
related to public contracts such as anti-Bid Rigging Act,
Equal Employment Opportunity Act, OSHA and Debarment in any
state?
4
ATLANTIS ENVIRONMENTAL SYSTEMS, LLC.
1108 Regal Row, Austin, Texas 78748
[phone]
March 24, 1995
North Carolina Department of Environmental, Health,
and Natural Resources
Division of Solid Waste Management
401 Oberlin Road , Suite 150
Raleigh, NC 27605
Attn: Sharron Rogers
Subject: Request for Qualifications: Potential Sources of Technical and Engineering Expertise
on the Base-Catalyzed Dechlorination (BCD) Method for Detoxification of PCB-
Contaminated Soils.
Dear Ms. Rogers,
In accordance with our conversation today I would like this letter to confirm that Atlantis Environmental
Systems requests that its response to the above RFQ , dated March 19, 1995, be withdrawn from
consideration. 'v\lhile we are confident of the soil recycling technology we proposed, it is our feeling
that we should conduct further research on PCB remediation at our own facility before proposing to
conduct a pilot test at the Warren County Landfill.
I assure you that we will have a continuing interest in this project and at such time as we have
successfully completed additional bench and pilot scale testingy, we will contact you.
We appreciate your time and courtesy.
Sincerely,
... . ~
j
ENVIRONMENTAL
FACSIMILE COVER PAGE
To: SHARRON ROGERS From: PAULINE EWALD
Time: 14:40:11 Date: 4/24/95
Pages (including cover): 7
ECO ~□QUARTERS
E NVIRONMENTAL
COMPLIANCE
0 RGANIZATION
ECO HEADQUARTERS
Professional Waste Management Consultants
106 Robinson Street Ashland, Virginia 23005 [phone]
TO:
FROM:
RE:
DATE:
MEMBERS OF THE JOINT WARREN COUNTY STATE PCB
LANDFILL WORKING GROUP
PAULINE EWALD, ECO
GENERAL ISSUES -MEMORANDUM DATED 4/7/95
4/20/95
I want to begin my expressing my sincere concern about the failure for this
project to progress in a manner that is necessary for ensuring that a pilot project is
implemented expeditiously. It is very troubling to me that a memo containing hvo
pages of motions and "tasks",focuses solely on issues tlu,t have already been
touched upon and discussed, while failing to make any reference to beginning to
utilize the vendor information which the State insisted needed to be collected.
I remind committee members that ECO requested to perform telephone
interviews of the vendors for the purpose of preparing a comprehensive report on the
availability of vendors and likely cost for proceeding with a full scale pilot study. Had
we been allowed to proceed with this work, we would already be in the process of
negotiating the actual work. Instead, we are back to a point, where I am being asked
to justify, once again, the choice of BCD for the remediation of this landfill. To
repeat, BCD is the only non-incineration treatment method suitable for treatment of
halogenated waste streams, that has been demonstrated and approved to ·work in
North Carolina sites by EPA Region IV, and shown to have wide community
acceptance. In point of fact, at two other sites with waste streams similar to the PCB
landfill, NCDEHNR wrote to EPA actively in support of choosing and implementing
BCD.
ECO J-iEADQUARTERS
PCB Working Group lvf emo
April 20, 1995
Page 2
ECO HEADQUARTERS
Despite references to the contrary by State personnel, ECO staff are very
familiar with a wide range of innovative technologies. Attached as Table 1, is a
comparison chart of all technologies that have been EPA full scale demonstrated for
use in treating PCB contaminated soils. Innovative technologies that have not yet
undergone full scale, EPA approved demonstrations were excluded from
consideration.
As to Motion 3 of the Memorandum, We are not in possession of Bill Meyer's
memorandum on Koppers or FCX. The fact is that the Koppers demonstration project
did experience several start up difficulties, and two minor air releases were noted.
These releases were rectified, and the entire BCD process as it is being offered by the
industry has been greatly refined since the Koppers demonstration project , and even in
its earlier format as implemented in Morrisville, the project was considered a success
by the State, EPA and the community. If the State had large concerns regarding the
use and/or implementation of BCD as a remedial alternative at either of these sites,
then those concerns should have been voiced during the remedy selection process. I
was present at all meetings for each of these sites, and had the oppo11unity to review
the entire public record regarding site determinations, and North Carolina made no
attempt to indicate concerns that would have warranted the selection of some remedy
other than BCD.
Again, Motion 5, is inappropriate at this stage of this process. The
chairpersons of the working group were provided with staff resumes and credentials
nearly a year before I was brought onto this project. Additionally, all my attempts to
have this contract awarded to ECO were rejected in favor of this proceeding as a
personal services contract which included only myself Therefore, attempts to provide
information on ECO staff and to have them included in this contract have been
rejected by the State. Additionally, I would expect that the State to reciprocate on
this Motion by providing the names and credentials of both State and outside
personnel, who have prepared and/or reviewed information pertinent to this project.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, ECO personnel are more than adequately qualified for
work on this, or any other project, and a brief organizational chart is attached to this
memo.
ECO ~EADQUARTERS
PCB T,Vorking Group Memo
April 20, 1995
Page 3
ECO HEADQUARTERS
Additionally of critical concern, is the plan to handle this site remediation under
the authority of TSCA (PCB law), rather than RCRA ( hazardous waste law), or
CERCLA (Superfund). Remediation of this site under TSCA ignores the contribution
of dioxin/furans to the existent contamination, and will allow the State to proceed in a
maimer that is less formalized, and does not require community or citizen input. A
comparison of the proposed cleanup under different regulatory authorities is attached
as Table 2 .
Finally, I am very concerned that ECO continues to be assigned and scheduled
for work tasks which are essentially meaningless. As already noted, none of the
issues that I was "required" to address in this memo deal with the substantive
challenge at hand, which is the implementation of the pilot study. It is my sincere
judgment that all members of the committee who are dedicated to fulfilling the
promise of detoxification of this landfill must resist any and all future attempts to
distract the group's focus from this one clear, concise and crucial goal.
PME/winword/ms/attchs. 4
ECO J,~EADQUARTERS ECO HEADQUARTERS
TABLE 1: FULL SCALE DEMONSTRATIONS OF PCB TREAT~IENTS
TECHNOLOGY TECHNOLOGY FUNCTION COMMUNITY FULL SCALE PCB
CLASS APPROVAL DEMONSTRATION
(I'HRESHOLD
DECISION)
LOCATION iENDOR
THERMAL Thermal Desorption Separation Possible Outboard Canonie
TREATMENT Marina / Environmental
Waukegan Services / Soil
Harbor, IL. Tech ATP
Services
(Anaerobic
Themml
Processor)
Wide Beach Soil Tech ATP
Development, Services
NY
ReSolve RUST Remedial
Superfund Site, Services
MA (XTRAXJ
Middleground ELI EcoLogic
Landfill, MI
Vitrification Destruction Possible Site yet to be
completed
Mobile Incineration Destruction No NIA N/A
CHEMICAL Dechlorination Destruction Yes Wide Beach Soil Tech ATP
TREATMENT Dehalogenation Development, Services
NY (APEG)
Koppers Site, EPA RREL
Morrisville, NC (BCD)
Solvent Extraction Separation New Bedford CF Systems
Harbor, MA (Propane
Extraction)
Grand Calumet Resources
River Site, IN Conservation
Company
(BEST)
Solidification Immobilization Possible No sites
completed to
date
PHYSICAL Soil Washing Physical/ Possible Refinery site, BioGenesis
TREATMENT chemical MN (Soil Washing)
separation
MacGillis and BioTrol
Gibbs (Soil Washing)
Superfund site,
MN
Saginaw Bay Bergmann USA
Facility, MI (Soil Washing)
• ECOJ-tEADQUARTERS
ACADEMIC CREDENTIALS:
PAULINE EWALD, B.S., J.D. -Engineering/Law
SANDRA MORSE, B.S., M.S. -Biology/Education
BRENDA SAHLI, B.S., M.S., Ph.D. -Toxicology
JOHN SCHUBERT, B.S., M.S., P.E. -Engineering
STEVEN FRAZIER, B.S. -Analytical Chemistry
ECO HEADQUARTERS
ADDITIONAL NON-MANAGEMENT STAFF WITH HOURS TOWARDS
THE \VARREN COUNTY REPORT:
JOSEPH HAILER, B.S., M.S., P.G. -Geology/Chemistry
SEAN DAVIS, B.S. -Geology
RUSS BILLMEYER, B.S., M.S. -Geology
GREGORY SMITH, B.S. -Chemistry
(/) 0:: UJ ~ <C :::> a ~· ::c: 0 (.) UJ (/) 0:: UJ ~ <C :::> a Cl ~ :I;, 0 (.) UJ TABLE 3: COMPARISON OF REGULATORY ENVIRONMENTS Does the regulation emphasize on-site treatment? Does regulation require application of technologies that reduce, immobilize or destroy wastes? Are public com,nent and community relations required? Is regulation applicable to PCBs, dioxins and furans? Does the regulation require consideration of im10vative technologies? Does regulation provide grant funding for community technical assistance? Does regulation require human health risk assessment and risk driven clean up standards? SUPERFUND TSCA yes no yes 110 yes 110 yes no yes 110 yes no ves ., 110
~ U.J ~ <( :::, a Cl ~ :I: 0 (.) U.J ~ U.J ~ <( :::, a Cl ~ :I: 0 (.) U.J ECO MANAGEMENT Key Staff JOHN SCHUBERT Director of Engineering RICHARD TURI Director of Planning Chief Chemist PAUUNE EWALD Compliance Director SANDRA MORSE Dir~or ';f RCRA and Training BRENDA SAHLI Chief Toxicologist ;!;! ,::W::\:<::J,:;,c[c•!/i Asbes~os Abatement Manager
C ...
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Solid Waste Management
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
William L. Meyer, Director
March 10, 1995
TO: Pauline Ewald
~ROM: Sharron Roge~i--
MEMO
SUBJECT: Transmittal of 6 Responses to RFQ for Warren County
PCB Landfill Detoxification
Enclosed are copies of six (6) qualifications submitted in response to the RFQ for
the Warren County PCB. They are being transported by overnight courier in one
box and your company acknowledgment is required for their delivery. Dollie
Burwell is responsible for communicating to you your responsibilities and the
time frame for reviewing these documents.
The companies qualifications enclosed include:
1. ETG, Inc
2. Four Season Environmental, Inc
3. Groundwater Technology, Inc
4. IT Corp
5. Soil Tech, Inc
6. Vesta, Inc
1) , s--t h . Vv-,,f, . .-..,, .'
;+lwv--~1/
8 rn,,-<.-y,'.,,,,.
l).~~
f<.. 4 £.A/v.-<-<-<-,~
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper
I I \,,._,,
Ms. Pauline Ewald
ECO
106 Robinson Street
Ashland, VA 23005
Dear Pauline:
April 7, 1995
The Joint Warren County and State PCB Landfill Working Group met at
the Warren County Court House on April 6, 1995. The working group made
and unanimously approved several motions that affect you. I was asked to
convey those motions to you.
Motion 1
That the Division of Solid Waste Management move forward in developing
and providing (a) a generic overview of the PCB landfill, and (b) a safe and
effective engineering design to breach the PCB landfill liner system in
anticipation of a pilot scale test and future remediation.
Motion 2
That by April 20, Pauline Ewald provide the working group with a
comparative analysis of the technologies that she considered for the PCB
landfill and state why she chose the BCD process over the other technologies.
Motion 3
That a subcommittee composed of Sharron Rogers, Bill Meyer, Billie
Elmore, Jim Warren, and Nan Freelon will review criteria for site remediation/
detoxification put together by the Division of Solid Waste Management. The
criteria will then be presented to Pauline Ewald for review. The state will also
suggest other technologies that might meet the criteria after the criteria is
developed.
Motion 4
That Pauline Ewald respond in writing by April 20 to Bill Meyer's
memorandum of March 2 on BCD tests on the Koppers Site and FCX thermal
desorption.
Motion 5
That Pauline Ewald provide the working group by April 20 with a list of
ECO staff who have worked on the PCB landfill project, the credentials of those
staff, and an organizational chart of ECO.
Motion 6
That by May 1, 1995, Pauline Ewald respond specifically to each item in
the state's review of her Final Report.
Motion 7
That the three co-chairmen of the working group go to a meeting with
John Hankinson in Atlanta on April 13, 1995, at 2:30 p .m .
You should send the information/ responses in the above motions to
Sharron Rogers, Division of Solid Waste Management, 401 Oberlin Road, Suite
150, Raleigh, NC 27605.
The PCB working group also asked me to inform you that the next
meeting of the group is on April 27 at 4 p .m. in the Grand Jury Room of the
Warren County Court House, Warrenton. You or a professional member of
your staff are expected to be at that meeting. During the course of the April 27
meeting, the group will set future meeting dates at which you are to be present.
If you have any questions concerning the motions, please contact me at
919-715-4149.
Sincerely,
Henry Lancaster
Co-Chariman
PCB Working Group
.,. ~,c-' (
Pe(~ .C'C'l
CJ.(~ C' ( oer c·.c,: oe cc c
C• e C C C~:
9 • C (_ C ce,cc : .. ____ _
NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF E!\'VIRONMENT, HEALTH, AND NATURAL
RESOURCES
William L. Meyer
Director, Solid Waste Management Division
To: ])t/lie Ba.vu.ve.d Date: ____ _
Please:
Remarks:
Ftvf q,q-;i.{'/}-/~2</
Draft a reply for my signature.
Take appropriate action.
Approve.
For your information
Note and return attached material to me
See me about attached
Handle and report to me
Df~u~-~
~ ~ ~ ~ -h
~-
~Cn<.f-lD-'15 cJ:, I 0'-4a\.o..rn. ~ ~~ ~ ~-~l0~d . ..... .._ · ~dbi ~ ~~ ~ ~-~-q s oX l d-" .,cU) (S>"-'
April 7, 1995
Pauline Ewald
ECO
106 Robinson Street
Ashland, VA 23005
Enclosed are copies of the set of questions sent to the 6 potential vendors for
the Warren County PCB Landfill remediation and copies of the responses from
each. Do not give any attention to print quality in your assessment as vendors
were encouraged to fax their responses in order to prevent delay.
Sharron Rogers
919-733-4996
SENT BY :I.T. CORP. KNOXV ILLE 4-7-95 9:01AM ;I.T. CORP. KNOXVILLE~
rn INTERNATIONAL TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION
TELECOPY REQUEST
919 715 3605;# 1/ 1
TELECOPY NUMBER: ____ 91 __ 9.._V ...... 71-,;.5_-__ 3 __ 60 __ 5 ___________ _
TO: SHARRON ROGERS
DEHNR
FROM: MIKE BARKDOLL 7()/{3
KNOXVIU.,E
DATE: APRIL 7, 1995
NUMBER OF PAGES __ t~_(INCLUDING COVER SHEET)
REMARKS: This fax is in response to your letter dated 03/30/95. IT is
currently managing a project where BCD is being used to decontaminate PCB
sediments. We are not able to respond to all of your 25 questions without getting
the ability to release project information. Our client is the U.S. Navy and our
project manager, Warren Neiderhut, is working with the Navy to get the necessary
information you requested. We expect to have the release by early next week. We
will respond to your questions as quickly as possible.
IT Corporation
312 Directors Drive
Knoxville, TN 37923
Phone: [phone] Fax: [phone] OR 690-4652
IF ALL PAGES ARE NOT RECEIVED, PLEASE ASK FOR FXTENSION 2303 AT THF.
ABOVE NUMBER. THANK YOU
Regional Otflce
312 Directors Drive • Kno.xv1Jle. Tennessee 37923 • 615-690-32 I l
IT Corporattoh Is a wholly ownt'ld subsidiary of lnternattorial Technoloov CMnn""'"""
SENT BY: ETG ENVIRONMENTAL, I NC; 4-6-9 5 ; 11 : 2 SAM
ETG
Environmental, Inc.
Sharron Rogers
Assistant Director for Policy,
Planning and Development
State of North Carolina Department of
Environment, Health and Natural Resources
Division of Solid Waste
PO Box 27687
Raleigh, NC 27611-7687
Dear Ms. Rogers:
BLUE BELL, PA➔ 919 715 3605;# 2
Providing crezitive environmental solutions
April 6, 1995
Pursuant to your March 30, 1995 letter requesting responses to a list of twenty-
five questions, ETG Environmental has completed the enclosed questionaire for
review by the Joint Warren County and State PCB Working Group and their
independent technical advisor.
In addition to the responses contained in the attached document, feel free to
contact Dr. Yei-Shong Shieh or me with any further questions that the Working
Group or their technical advisor may have.
In closing, we look forward to speaking with you and your associates soon and
suggest that, at a date in the near future, respresentatlves from ETG come to your
offices to present an overview on our THERM-O-DETOX® indirect thermal
desorption technology and the BCD process.
Very truly yours.
ETG ENVIRONMENTAL ,INC.
L~artin
Vice President, Business Development
660 Sentry Park'vyay, Blue Bell, Pennsylvanla 19422 • (6 10) 832-0700 • Fax [phone]
Regional Offices: Cincinnati, OH • Lansina, Ml • Philadelohia. PA • Toledo. OH
SENT BY: ETG ENVIRONMENTAL, I NC ; 4-6-9 5 ; 11 : 2 SAM BLUE BELL, PA➔ 919 715 36 05 ;# 3
Questions for Respondenls on Warren County PCB Landfill Detoxification RFQ
March 30, 1995
flease respond to the following questions clarifying and/ or extending your responses to the
RPO. You may submit additional documentation at this time as well; no additional
responses are required.
fROM: Sharron Rogers
NCDEHNR, Division of Solid Waste Management
· 1. Has your company completed a soil-bared PCB clearNip project to clean-up standards
at detection lbnit levels? Please provide brief summary(s).
BTG has completed several projects with contaminants having a similar boiling point
as PCBs (e.g. PAHs) at a CERCIA Superfund site; PCP and PCDD/PCDF were
treated to clean-up standards.
2 Did the above proj«t(s) involve a thermal deso,ption method?
Yes, indirect heat thermal desorption was used.
3. Did the above project(s) Involve a non-thermal desorption method?
No .
. 4. Did the above project(s) involve a patented BCD proce.u? (Questiom 2, 3, 4 may be
answered in combined schematic or as separate descrlptlons at your preference).
Yes, BCD reagent was utilized in the thermal desorption (solid phase BCD). Organic
condensate from the soil phase BCD process was collected and treated in the liquid
phase by the EPA patented, ETG licensed BCD process in a liquid tank reactor.
· 5. Please briefly state the primary proposed treatment method your recommend at this time
for tM Warrm County PCB Landfill detaxijication initiative.
The combination of BCD and indirect heat thermal desorption process will be used
to treat PCB contaminated wastes from the Warren County PCB Landfill. See attached
SITE technology profile.
· 6. Please briefly state the options (1 ... 2 .. 3) contained in your qualifications statement or
recommended for the Warren County PCB Landfill detaxijication initiative.
See response under item S above.
Warren County PCB Landfill Questionnaire Responses I
SENT BY: ETG ENVIRONMENTAL, INC; 4-6-95 ; 11: 30AM BLUE BELL, PA➔ 919 715 36 □5;# 4
7. What me the lowest achievable clean-up leveb for your recommended detoxification
method for Wmren County? Are extra com/time involved in achieving these levels, beyond
nonnal clean-up levels? Are these lowest clean-up levels theonmcal or have they been
achieved in an actual project?
The lowest achievable clean~up levels is estimated at 50 ppb level for each PCB
congener based on treatability studies for other PCB projects. Extra costs/time are
dependent upon waste type, contaminant level and site conditions.
8. Please identify all waste streams expected to remain on-site or be shipped ojJ-siJe following
completinn of soil clt!an-u.p at he Wanm County PCB Landfill using your recommended
method. Please list approximate quantities where possilile at this early stage in the project
design.
Treated wastes (soils) -Backfill on-site.
Treated water -Reuse for soil conditioning -backfill on-site.
Treated organic condensate -Off-site recycling (non-hazardous after BCD treatment).
Off-gas -Less than 200 CFM discharge emission will meet applicable standards.
9. Please briefly describe how successful or how closed the proposed •cJosed loop• process
would be for Wam,a County, e.g. percenJage of destructio11, air t!11li.mons, and residual
waster.
The proposed process should be nearly •ctosed loop• with all residual and water
combined for on-site backfill. Air emissions should be negligible from the process (200
cfm) and will be treated to applicable standards by an extensive vapor recovery system.
10. Is your organization frlmiliar with NC ~? Will they be able to meet all ~
permits and conditions?
Yes, the system will meet the required permitting and conditions.
11. Have you completed a BCD project? How large?
Yes. An EPA SITE demonstration project was conducted at the Koppers Superfund
site in Morrisville, NC in September, 1993.
12 What JJD!ormance changes may occur as a result of design modifications needed to
upgrade your system to handle a large project such as ours?
The off-gas system has been modified based on the state-of-the-art approach to meet
the most stringent air emission standards.
13. Do you have the o,ganizational and technical TeSOUrees available to devote to this project?
I
Yes. ETO is a hazardous waste management company with more than thirty-five (35)
years experience in field waste processing and remediation services, including a well
trained field operatinos staff and headquarters technical support.
~lllTtn County PCB Landfill Questionnaire &sponses
SENT BY:ETG EN VIRONMENTAL, me; 4-6-95 ;11:31AM BLUE BELL, PA➔ 919 71 5 360 5:# 5
14. If your Company is wholly or partially owned, or joint venturt; please outline this
relation.thip and list all related 1st and 2nd and other generation affiliates.
ETG is a privately owned company backed up by Charterhouse International, an
investment company located in New York, NY.
15. Will your organization have a project mano,er available to answer questions from working
group members, legislators, media throughout the ljfetime of this project?
Yes.
16. Can you provide n:/t!Tf!IICt!'l or writtt:n statt:rnents from citizem at project sites?
I
This technology was advocated for utilization at the following Superfund sites by the
citizens groups (1) New Bedford Harbor (MA): Neil Balboni (508-748-0099), (2)
Koppers Superfund site (MorrisvilleJ NC).
~7. Please estimate a net cost per ton for reme.diation of the 40,()()() cubic yards of
! contaminated soil at the Wanffl County Landfill. What items are not included in this
i price (e.g., security, mobilization, demobilization, waste disposal)?
$150 -$200/Ton for turn-key responsibility including excavation, mob/demob,
processing, waste disposal and security as required.
1i8. Does your company/jolnJ venture have the willingn,,.fS and/or ability to conduct a pilot
study?
Yes. Pilot and full-scale units are available to conduct an on-site demonstration.
~9. If a pilot study is approved, what would be your organizations earliest availability, and
please give a rough time e.mmate for completion of the pilot study?
The pilot unit will be available in June and the pilot study can be completed in 3 -4
weeks (including set-up, processing and demobilization).
~O. Reference at least two sites where you have successfully utilized the proposed remedial
I process.
The thermal desorption process has been used at several refineries in Ohio and Puerto
Rico. The thermal desorption/BCD process has been demonstrated at the Koppers
Superfund site in Morrisville, NC.
*· Please list any violations or citations related to non-compliance with local, state or federal
environmental regulations in any jurisdiction.
None
' lf an-en County PCB Landfill Questionnaiffl Responses
SENT BY:ETG ENV IRONMENTA L, INC: 4-6-95 ;11:31AM BL UE BELL, P A➔ 919 715 36 05:# 6
22 Is vendor a minority or woman owned jinn?
No.
23. Has vendor uti1iz.ed the proposed remedial process on any CERCLA. sites, and if so,
where?
Yes. The Koppers Superfund site.
24. How long has vendor been in business?
More than thirty-five (35) years.
25. Does vendor expect to be able to meet all 1e,pl requimmmts mated to public contmcts
such as anti-Bid Rigging Act, Equal Employment Opportunity Act, OSHA and Debarment
in any state
Yes.
Wamm County PCB Landfill Questionnaire Responses •Ques . .LAM9
SENT BY: ETG ENVIRONMENTAL, INC; 4-6-95 ; 11: 32AM BLUE BELL, PA➔ 919 715 3605;# 7
Siif'I!
Technology Profile DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM
RISK REDUCTION ENGINEERING LABORATORY
(Base-Catalyzed Decomposition Process)
TECHNOLOGY DESCRIPI'ION:
The base-catalyzed decomposition (BCD) pro•
cess is a chemical dehalogenation technology
developed by the Risk Reduction Engineering
Laboratory in Cincinnati, Ohio. BCD is
initiated in a medium temperature thermal
desorber (MTTD), at temperatures ranging from
600 to 950 degrees Fahrenheit (0F). Chemicals
are added to contaminated soils, sediments, or
sludge matrices containing hazardous chlorinated
organics including polychlorinated biphenyls
(PCB) and polychlorinatcd dioxins and furans.
BCD then chemically detoxifies the condensed
organic contaminants by removing chlorine from
the contaminant and replacing it with hydrogen.
Because the chlorinated organics have some
volatility, there is a degree of volatilization that
takes place in parallel with chemical dechlori-
nation. The result is a clean, inexpensive,
CONTAMl~T!D w.mtw.s 0R SCIIU,iED SOILS
pennanent remedy where all process residuals
(including dehalogenated organics) are recyclable
or recoverable.
ETG Environmental, Inc. (ETG), and Separation
and Recovery Systems (SRS) developed the
THERM-a-DETOX~ and SAREX~ systems and
combined them with the BCD process chemistry .
The combined process begins by initiating solid
phue dechlorination in the MTTD step (see
figure below). Organics are thennally desorbed
from the matrix, and are condensed and sent to
the BCD liquid tank reactor. Reagents are then
added and heated to 600 to 650 °P for 1 to 3
hours to dechlorinate the remaining organics.
The treated residuals are recycled or disposed of
using standard, commercially available methods,
including solvent reuse and fuel substitution.
Treated, clean soil can be recycled as on~site
backti:'
r--------------------------------, I V~ R!C!MIW tl'1'S'llM TO I
I •TMO!l'l-i!l'U!: I
I I
I ~l_____J I VAPO" DISCHAAQli:sl I ,,,.__ I r------+--.....__ I
I'
BCD SOUOS l<l"ACTOl'I M.:01UM TtMPEAAT\JIIP.: TllERMA!,. DESOl'IPTION (Mffll)
01'(-$rt\: Wll<l"ll.l.
01! -----i on'-IIT! Ol!SP~
W.t.TEl't
I
I
I I .
I
I
I
I ~------------
,__,s~--'" .... ~ ........... ----1 1:~
I
I
I
I
I I I
I -------___________ J
Base-Catalyzed Dechlorination (BCD) Process
Page 106 I
Th• SITI Progr1m ........ but dOH not
,ppro111 or endarH t1chn01ocit1111,
SENT BY:ETG ENVIRONMENTAL, INC; 4-6-95 ;11 :33AM
WASTE APPLICABILITY:
The BCD process can treat soils, sediments, and
sludges contaminated with the following chlori-
nated compounds:
• Halogenated volatile organic compounds
• Halogenated semivolatile organic com-
pounds, including herbicides and pesti-
cides
• PCBs
• Pentachlorophenol (PCP)
• Polychlorinated dioxins and furans
STATUS:
The combined BCD process was successfully
demonstrated at the Koppers Company
Superfund Site in Morrisville, North Carolina,
ftom August through September 1993 . The
p,rocess removed PCP and polychlorinated
ioxins and furans from clay soils to levels well
elow those specified in the Record of Decision.
s a result, EPA Region 4 approved BCD for
e full-scale site remediation.
~or information on the SAREX11 systemt see the
~RS profile in this document. _
~EMONSTRATION RESULTS:
1 he demonstration consisted of four replicate
trst runs in the MTTD and two replicate test 11\W in the liquid tank reactor (L TR). Feed soil
tnsisted of a dry, clayey silt which was pro-
ssed at a rate of 250 pounds per hour in the
TTD at 800 °F; retention time was approxi~
rpately one hour. The oil in each L TR test run
t as batch-processed for six hours at 650 °F.
$ased on preliminary analytical results, key
findings from the SITE demonstration are swn-f arized as follows:
BLUE BELL, PA➔ 919 715 36 05;# 8
November 1994
Completed Project
• The MTTD removed 99 percent of
penta-chlorophenol (PCP), and 92
percent of dioxins and furans in the soil .
• Treated soil met the cleanup goals of 95
parts per million for PCP and 7 parts
per billion for dioxins and furans.
• All semivolatile organic compounds
were well below toxicity characteristic
leaching procedure limits in treated soil,
• The L TR batch tests reduced PCP
concen-trations by 97 percent, and
dioxin and furan concentrations by 99
percent.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION:
EPA PROJECT MANAGER:
Terrence Lyons
U.S. EPA
Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
26 West Martin Luther King Drive
CinciMati, OH 45268
513-569-7589
Fax: [phone]
TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPER CONT ACTS:
Carl Brunner
U.S. EPA
Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
26 West Manin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, OH 45268
S 13-.569-7655
Fax: S 13-569-7787 or 7677
Yel-Shong Shieh or Steven Detwiler
ETO Environmental, Inc.
660 Sentry Parkway
Blue Bell, PA 19422
610-832-0700
Fax: [phone]
The SITE Program 11888BHI but doe, not
approve or endorse technologlH. Page 107
E ~VIROXVIE~T AL
C O.\lPLIA~CE
0 RGA~IZATIO~
Professional \Vaste Management Consultants
106 Robinson Street Ashland, Virginia 23005 [phone]
TO:
FROM :
RE:
DATE :
\IE\IOR--\:\DC\I YI.-\ F.--\CSI\IILE
CO-CHAIRS -JO INT \VAR.REN COUNTY AND STATE PCB
LANDFILL WORKING GROUP
PAULINE E\VALD -ECO
VENDOR SCREENING
April 5. 1995
As I understand that the responses to the list of supplementary questions faxed
by the State should be back as of this date. I ,,ould like to propose a plan for 1110,·ing
forward to \\·ards implementation of the actual on-site pilot study.
I would like to be immediately copied ,,ith the ans\\·ers to the supplemental
questions. I will ha,e ECO staff re,ie\\~additional i1:1formation, and prioritize it on
the basis of \'endors responding that they mterest and ability in participating in a pilot
study. I \Yill ha,·e staff prepare comprehensi\'e summaries of all. but on!:·• those
,endors ,d10 meet this c-ritical threshold requirement. Depending on the number of
potential \'endors left for consideration after this threshold screening. ,,e can either
discuss the summaries \'ia conference calL or plan one all day "orking session to
resol\'e the matter.
ECO staff ha Ye done a great deal of work with the vendor information, and
some independent research into matters of compliance history, and the like. We are
ready to mo,e forward with this ,,ork, and \Ye should be able to complete summaries
and make clear recommendations ,Yithin 5 ,vorking days of receiving the \'endor
responses.
I believe, the above outlined streamlined schedule must be adhered to in order
to meet the committee's goal of implementing a pilot study at this site in an expedited
manner. We await further instructions from the committee authorizing us to proceed.
ti ..
Companie! Responding toRequrst for qunlifir11tion (RFQ)
for BRSed -Catalyzed Dechlorination
Companies that re!lponded
Barbee, Thomas
Groundwater Technology Inc
I 000 Perimiter Park Drive(Suite I)
Morrisville, NC 27560
Phone# [phone]
Fax# [phone]
Hutton, Joe
Soil Tech
800 Canonie Drive
Porter, IN 46304
Phone# [phone]
Fax# [phone]
Martin, Loren
ETG Environmental, Inc.
660 Sentry Parkway
Blue Bell, PA 19422
Phone# [phone]
Fax# [phone]
Lee, Albert
Four Seasons Env, Inc.
3107 South Elm Eugene St.
Greensboro, NC 27604
Phone# [phone]
Fax# [phone]
Companies that did not respond
Stanley, Bob
Solid Management
PO Box 1676
Oakdale, CA 95361
1-800-847-3959
Fax# [phone]
Robinson, Dave
Vesta, LTD
1670 West McNab Road
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33309
Phone# [phone]
Fax# [phone]
Mitchell, Alicia
IT Cooperation
3710 University Drive(Suite 201)
Durham, NC 27707
Phone# [phone]
Fax# [phone]
Joint Bid
Miller, Brad
Seperation and Recovery System
1762 McGaw Ave .
Irvine, CA 92714
Phone# [phone]
Fax# [phone]
Swanberg, Chris
01-Thf Remediation Services
911 Lockhaven Drive
I louston, TX 77073
. A}/f1lf i,,
.? • , ' • /. -2 ,... 7 ~ -,, --:----; .I . ~ ....._ / ' '/c...<. 7
4f~, l)~fJ -01'-/'1
/1 J--;lJ-7-j:c.// $'
<9)~ -73'Y-J,'99?
j I 7 ,.2, S'7 , 5 I I '7
;If· 2S7 --2~
91 ? ./57-5:2C:_5
7 / 7 -~ f '7 ":it O '-I
(g!J) 715"-911/1
q19-73~ -L/99b
APR-5-95 WED 12:28
. . .
' . . . _April 5, 1995 ·
Via Facsimile~ 919~715-3605 . . . ~ . . .
~tate of North Caroli~a · :· . . . . ·;· ... •,,: .. --.. · .. : . pcparti11ent of Eny1to:nrnent
·.·· Health & Natural Resources
Division of Solid Waste ..
,·
Attei1tion: . Ms . Shan\)~ Rodgers
. Dear Sharron:
,: ·. ,• . . . . . . .
P.01
Pleas~ :fi,r1d ~ttached o* response to your questionnaire received by this. office on M~rch, 30,
)995. We have ;irisw.ered all lhe questions and look forward to ptoviding any fu1thcr ·
• infot'mation yotJ may require.
Sincerely,
. . .: .
:J)-7~·
David O. Robinson
·._Manager .
Environmental Services
APR-5-95 WED 12:28 P.02
Wan-en County Questionnaire
I. If as yo~r company completed a soil-based PCB clean-up project to vlean up standards at
dete¢tiori Iirnit levels? Please provide brief summary(s).
Yes -Please see Attacltment #1.
2. Did the above project(s) involve a thermal desorption method?
No
3. Did th.e above project(s) involve a non~thermal desorption method?
Ye.s
4. Did the above project(s) involve a patented BCD process?
(Questions 2,3,4 r11ay be ~nswered in combined schematic or as separate descriptions at yoo.r preference)
No
5. Please briefly state the primary proposed treatment method you recommend at th.is time for
the Warren County PCB Landfill detoxification initiative.
On-site high t1niperature thermal proce.~sing of materials using a trailer mounted rot my
kiln with an.afterburner. ·
6. Please bri~fly $tate the options (1...2 ... 3) contained in your qualifications statement or
recommended for the Warren County PCB Landfill detoxification initiative.
In our opinion, there is only one option. The use of a mobile on site /tlgh tnnperature
incinerator fol complete destruction of all hazardo11s materials. · . .
7. What are thel<;)\vest achievable clean-up levels for your recommended detoxification method
for Warren County? Are extra costs/time involved in achieving these leyels, beyond nor mal
clean-up le\'els? Are these lowest clean-up levels theoretical or have they been achieved in
an actual project?
a) See A ttaclmumt # 1
b) No
c) Thes.e l~vels have been achieved in actual projects
1
APR-5-95 WED 12:29 P.03
VESTA
TechnolC•Qy, Ltd.
8. Please identify all waste streams expected to remain on-site 9r be shipped off-site following
completion pf soil clean-up at the Warren County PCB Landfill using your recommehdcd
method? Please list approximate quantities where possible at this e4rly stage irt the project
design.
None
9. Please briefly describe how successful or how closed the proposed ''Closed Loop" procei-s
would be for Warren County, e.g. % of destmction, air emissions~ ancl residual '1/~stes.
See Ath1chment #2
10. Is yotir organi~ation familiar with NC regulations? Will they be able to meet all required
permits and conditions?
Yes; Yes
11 . Have you completed a BCD project? How large?
No
12. Wh~t pc:rfonnance changes may occur as a result of design modifications needr4 to upgrade
your system to handle a large project such as ours?
None
13 . Do you have the organizational and technical resources available to devote to this project?
Yes
14 . If your con1pany is wholly or partly owned, or joint venture, ple.-se outline this relationship
ad list all relat~d 1st and 2nd and other generatio11 affiliates?
Wholly owned by Browning Ferris Industries
15. Will yoµr prganization have a project manager avaifable to answer questions from working
group men,bers, legislatures, media throughout the lifetime of this project? .
Yes ·
16 . Can you provide references or written statements from citi:i'.',ens at project sites?
Yes
2
APR-5-95 WED 12:29 P.04
lf'EST4
TechM IC•(l\l, Ltd.
17. Please estimate :a net cost per ton for remediation of the 40,000 cubic yards of contaminated
soil at theWarr~n County Landfill. What items are not included in this price (e.g., seclirity,
mobiliiation, demobilization. waste disposal)? -
Net co.st per to11: $245.17
Excliu1es: Mobilization @
Set-up@
Demobilization @
There will he no waste disposal.
$150,000
$215,000
$150,000
18. Does your company1oint venture have tl1e willingness and/or ability to c~nduct a pilot study?
Yes
19. If a pilot stµdy i~ approved, what would be your organization~ earliest availability, and please
give a rmigh time estimate for completion of pilot study? . . . . .
.
Earliest «vail,1/Jility is within three months. Pilot study will require a total of two mo11tlu.
20. Reference at lyast two sites where you have successfillly utilized the proposed remedial
process.
Baie Comeau,· Cmtatla
FftfC Yaklma1' Washiltgton
J11ly1 1992
!.fay, 1993
2 l. Please list any violations or citations related to non-compliance with local, state or federal
environmental regulations in any jurisdiction. ·
None
22. Is vendor a minority or woman owned firm?
No
23 . Has vendor util~zed the proposed rem~dial process on any CERCLA sites> and if so, where? ' .
See Altaclimeilt #2
24 . I-low long has vendor been in business?
JO years
3
APR-5-95 WED 12:30
25. Docs vendor expect to be able to meet alt legal requirements related to public contracts such
as anti-Bid Rigging Act, Equal Employment Opportunity Act, OSHA and De~arment ih any
state?
Yes
4
APF-:-5-'35 ~-JED
PCB DRE(¾)
Combustion Efficiency(%)
Stutk P~rticu!:ite (mg/Nm')
Stack HCI (mg/Nm')
St,1ck CO (m_g/Nni))
Blowdo\\'Jl ?CB (0.2 ug/1)
B1owd~wu 2,3,7,8 TCOD TCDF (ng/1)
A~h PCB (ni~g)
A~h 2,3, 7 .8 TCDD (ug!kg)
1 2 : 3 0
Attacllnient # I
HYDRO QUEBEC -PCB TEST BURN
SERJESA. rnsr RJ:.,SlJLTS
. Waste Pee.cl to Primary Combustion Chamber= Soil Spiked to l % PCB.
TESTDAlE
Al A2 A3
Mav 13 Moy 14 Mny ,s
99.99998.9 99.999949 99.999979
99.9916 99.9%3 99.9!>18
0.8181 1.0123 0.6827
ND ND ND
11.79 6.73 11.32
ND ND ND
ND ND ND
ND ND ND
ND ND ND
SfiRlr-:S B • TE'>T RESULTS
Wa~te Fcod to Primar,' Combustion Chamber"" Soil Spiked to l¾ PCB.
Waste Feed to Secondary C<Jmbu~tion Chamber -Mineral Oil Spikc.:l to lo/, PCB.
PCB DRE(%)
Combosti<m Efficiency(%)
Sfod; Particulate (mg/Nm')
St3ck !◄Cl (mg/Nm')
St.1ck CO (mg!NmJ)
Blowd9\\11 PCB (0.2 ug/1)
Blowdown 2.3,7,8 TCDD tcDF (ng/1)
Ash PCB (mg/kg) ·
Ash 2,3,7,8 TCDD (ug/kg)
PCB DRE(¾)
Combustion Efficiency(%)
St,ick Particultrte (mg/Nm')
Sta~k HCI (mg/Nm')
St.1ck CO (mg!Nm•)
Blowdo\\11 PCB (0 2 ugtl)
Bfowdo}Vn 2,3,7,8 TCDD TCDF (ng/1)
Ash PCB (mg/kg)
Ash 2,3,7,8 TCDD (ug/kg)
ND= Nol)e Detectable
TEST DATE
Bl 82 B3
Ma}'.23 May24 Mny2S
99.999993 99.999990 99.999195
99.9889 99.9968 99.9922
5.89 3.72 0.349
ND ND ND
16.2 4.51 U .08
ND ND ND
ND ND ND
ND ND ND
ND ND ND
SERJES C-TEST RF...SULTS
Waste Feed to Secondary Combustion Chnmbor PCB Liquid o.t 40'¼ PCB'S;.
TEST DATE
Cl C2 C3
June 3 June 11 Juno 12
99.999993 99.999998 99.999998
99.9963 99.9990 99.9974
1.890 2.652 3.127
ND ND ND
7.7 7.0 7.5
ND ND ND
ND ND ND
ND ND ND
ND ND ND
··•-..-.,.-. •. , .. '··--··------~
~.-...~,.-,:.-, .. , . ....:. .. , ..... __,,_,..._..........__
Rcg\J)(ltory
· Limit
99.9999
99 .9
50
75
114
0.2
0.12
0.5
I
Rcgulntory
Limit ._.., ____ ,., ..... ,, ___ ._,....., ... ---
99.9999
99 9
so
15
)14
0.2
0.12
0.5
I.
-Reg;i1;;tt,ry ~ .
J.irnit
99.9999
99.9
50
75
114
0.2
0.12
0.5
1 ---· ·-· ----•· .... ~-~--
HQPCBTB.XI .S
i . I ( I l PROJECT THE PIT ABERDEEN, NC NYANZA, ASHLAND. MA SOUTHERN CROP SERVICES DELRAY BEACH, FL AMER CROSS ARMS SITE CHEHALIS, WA FORT AP. Hil.,L ROCKY BOY POST & POLE SITE ROCKY BOY, Mf ENVIRONMENT CANADA SWAN HILLS, ALBERTA BLACKFEET POST & POLE SITE BROWNING, Mf FMC PESTICIDE FORMULATION FACILITY YAKIMA. WA PROJECT HYDRO QUEBEC -MANIC 2 • PriDcipaL OcgarucJi.az.aroous.Coostituent Attaclunent #2 VESTA TEClll'{OLOGY, LTD. PERFORMANCE HISTORY POHC• Pesticides 10% Carbon Tetrachloride Nitro benzene Pesticides DRE STANDARD 99.99 99.99 99.99 99.99 llll\t.f.l~lf 4tll ,,, PARTICULATE STANDARD GRAINS/DSCF O.Q8 0.08 0.08 0.08 Dioxins & Penta.chlorophenoI 99.99 0.(18 111111 Dioxins Dio..,,_i.ns & Pcntachlorophen.ol 1%pCB Dioxins& PentachlorophenoJ Pesticides POHC* l%PCB Soil l % PCB SoilfW• PCB !vfine:ral Oil 40% PCB Liquid 99.99 99.9999 99.99 99.~ CANADIAN STANDARDS 99.9999 9-9.9999 99.9999 Standard trial bum waived based upon past incinerator perf oonance. All ash samples showed non--Oetect. 0.08 0.04 .I [CCK 0.08 II --0.02 ,, llllllllltlll 50mg1Nm' 50 ~ PERFEJST.Xl..S I:• 1J ;1J I en I 1,J) en ·-r 111 lj ~ ~) II (il ~ 1J ~I -,J
219'32'31 776
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
FAX NUMBER:
Soi I Tech ATP Sy s tems F-447 T-704 P-001
SoilTech
SoilTech ATP Systems, Inc.
800 Canonie Drive
Porter, IN 46304
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
TELEPHONE NUMBER:
PROJECT NUMBER:
NUMBER OF PAGES:
~ YtJ ~ 'zluL r ~.
APR 05 '95 15:25
2199291776 Soi I Tech ATP Sy s tems F-447 T-704 P-002
SoilTech ATP Systems, Inc.
800 Canonie Drive
Porter, IN 46304
[phone]
April 5, 1995
Ms. Sharron Rogers
· · Assistant Director
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources
Division of Solid Waste Management
P.O. Box 27687
Raleigh, NC 2761
Dear Ms. Rogers:
Response to Questions
Warren County PCB Landfill
Detoxification RFO
05-401
APR 05 '95 15 :25
SoilTech ATP Systems, Inc. (SoilTech) is pleased to participate in your Request For
Qualifications (RFQ) for the Warren County PCB Landfill Detoxification. Many of the
questions raised in your March 30, 1995 letter were addressed in SoilTech' s original
submission. In the interest of responsiveness, however, we have addressed all your
questions herein. Provided below are restatements of the questions in your March 30,
1995 letter and Soi!Tech's Responses.
1 . Has your company completed a soil-based PCB cleanwup project to clean up
standards at detection limit levels? Please provide brief summary(sl1.
Soi/Tech has completed four clean-up projects involving successful treatment of
more than 100,000 tons of soil. Summaries of those projects are enclosed as
Attachment 1. Three of those projects involved PCBs (Wide Beach Supertund
Site, Waukegan Harbor Superfund Site, and Smith's Farm Superfund Site). The
required clean-up levels were: Wide Beach -2 mg/kg, Waukegan Harbor-97%
PCB removal and 500 mg/kg, Smith's Farm -2 mg/kg. On the fourth project,
an Ohio Superfund Site, the cleanup level for carcinogenic PAHs was nondetect
at the method detection limit of 0. 33 mg/kg.
PR\H:\MARKET\ROGE:~$.405 [Apr. 5, 1995]
2199291776 Soi I Tech ATP Systems F-447 T-704 P-003 APR 05 '95 15:26
Ms. Sharron .Rogers 2 April 3, 1 995
Soi/Tech typically samples and analyses treated soil approximately once for
every 24 operating hours and has never had a treated soil sample fail to pass the
project treatment criteria. In fact, almost without exception, the treated soil
analyses for the Wide Beach Project, Ohio Superfund Project, and Smith's Farm
Project contained no detectable contaminants at detection limits as low as
0.07 mg/kg.
· 2. Did the above project(s} involve a thermal desorption method?
Yes. Each of the four projects involved use of the Soi/Tech ATP which is a
thermal desorption technology.
3. Did the above project(s) involve a non-thermal desorption method?
Soi/Tech utilized dechlorination chemistry in conjunction with the desorption
equipment on the Wide Beach Superfund Project and the Smith's Farm
Superfund Project to destroy the PCBs.
4. Did the above project(s) involve a patented BCD process?
Yes. The Smith's Farm Project involved use of the EPA patented base catalyzed
decomposition (BCD) process. Soi/Tech owns a license to utilize the BCD
technology from the EPA . The Wide Beach Project was executed using a
different patented dechlorination chemistry.
5. Please briefly state the primary proposed treatment method you recommend at
this time for the Warren County PCB Landfill detoxification initiative.
Soi/Tech proposes to execute the project in the same manner the Smith's Farm
Project was executed using the EPA BCD process in conjunction with the ATP
thermal desorption equipment. Soi/Tech will feed the soil to the ATP in
conjunction with solid BCD reagents. Any unreacted PCBs will be recovered in
the ATP condensing equipment, mixed with additional BCD reagents and
returned to the ATP for additional treatment.
6. Please briefly state the options (1 ... 2 ... 3) contained in your qualifications
statement or recommended for the Warren County PCB Landfill detoxification
initiative.
Soi/Tech proposes to execute the project as briefly outlined in answer 5 above.
As an alternative, Soi/Tech could treat the soils using thermal desorption alone
with the recovered PCBs being transported off-site for disposal at a TSCA
incinerator.
PR\H;\MARKETIROGERS.405 (A~r. 5, 19951
21 '39291 776 Soi I Tech ATP Sy s tems F-447 T-704 P-004 APR 05 '95 15:26
Ms. Sharron Rogers 3 April 3, 1995
7. What are the lowest achievable clean-up levels for your recommended
detoxification method for Warren County? Are extra costs/time involved in
achieving these levels, beyond normal clean-up levels? Are these lowest clean-
up levels theoretical or have they been achieved in an actual project?
Soi/Tech would readily guarantee clean-up to levels of 1 mg/kg. Soi/Tech would
consider a contract with clean-up levels below 1 mg/kg and has consistently
achieved lower levels (including method detection limits) on similar projects such
as the Smith's Farm Project. At Smith's Farm, treated soils were typically
nondetect for each PCB aroclor with detection limits of 0. 08 mg/kg to 0. 2 tng/kg
for each PCB aroclor. With clean-up levels below 1 mg/kg, Soi/Tech would likely
increase the treatment price as a contingency against the possibility of having
to retreat some soils. Such an increase would be in the range of 5 percent to
10 percent of the unit price. A similar increase in the duration of the treatment
is possible.
8. Please identify all waste streams expected to remain on-site or be shipped off-
site following completion of soil clean-up at the Warren County PCB Landfill .
using your recommended method? Please list approximate quantities where
possible at this early stage in the project design.
It is assumed that the treated solids will be backfilled on~site. Assuming this is
true; the only waste stream which is routinely shipped off-site during treatment
is spent personnel protective equipment which is shipped to a licensed off-site
disposal facility (less than 1 ton per month). Soi/Tech treats waste water
generated during treatment and rain water which falls in the treatment area and
uses it as process water, eliminating the need for off-site discharge or disposal
of water.
At the conclusion of the project, there is typically 5 to 10 tons of solids which
are shipped off-site for disposal. These solids include spent filter media (carbon,
sand,, etc.) from the water treatment systems and air pollution control systems
and solids emptied from the water treatment system storage tanks during
decontamination and demobilization activities.
9. Please briefly describe how successful or how closed the proposed "Closed
Loop" process would be for Warren County, e.g.% of destruction, air emissions,
and residual wastes.
The So11Tech ATP applied in conjunction with BCD is an extremely effective
treatment approach. As indicated in response to question 8 above, there are no
process residuals which require off-site disposal with the exception of spent
personnel protective equipment and 5 to 7 0 tons of solids generated during
decontamination and demobilization activities. The proposed approach will
PR\H:IMARKET\ROGERS.406 [Apr. 5, 1995)
219'32'31 776 Soi I Tech ATP Sy stems F-447 T-704 P-005 APR 05 '95 15:26
Ms. Sharron Rogers 4 April 3, 1995
remove PCBs to their method detection limits and have done so on other similar
projects.
With regard to air emissions, the ATP has effectively met air emission standards
in US EPA Region II/ Region IV, and Region V and in the states of New York,.
Illinois, Ohio, and Kentucky. The ATP has also met the federal TSCA emission
standard of 99.9999% destruction and removal efficiency (DRE) for PCBs and
the federal standard of 30 ng/dscm total tetrachlorinated dibenzo dioxins and
furans. Soi/Tech would expect to demonstrate compliance with the same or
similar standards on the Warren County Landfill Project.
10. Is your organization familiar with NC regulations? Will they be able to meet all
required permits and conditions?
Yes. Soi/Tech typically contracts with its parent company Sinith Environmental
Technologies Corp. (Smith) (formerly Canonie Environmenta/Services Corp;) and
intends to do so on the Warren County PCB Landfill Project. Smith typically
provides material excavation and handling services to augment Soi/Tech's
treatment services. Soi/Tech and Smith contracted as a team on each of the
projects listed in question 1 above. Smith has completed two projects in North
Carolina (see Attachment 2) and brings to the project familiarity with North
Carolina regulations. We foresee no difficulty in meeting applicable state
regulations.
11. Have you completed a BCD project? How large?
Yes. The Smith's Farm Project completed in December 1994 required treatment
of 34,.000 tons of PCB contaminated soils. The treatment component of the
project had an approximate value of $8 million,
12. What performance changes may occur as a result of design modifications
needed to upgrade your system to handle a large project such as ours?
None. The existing Soi/Tech equipment is suitable for your project.
13. Do you have the organizational and technical resources available to devote to
this project?
Yes. The project team which completed the Smith's Farm Project is available
for the Warren County PCB Landfill Project.
14. If your company is wholly or partly owned, or joint venture, please outline this
relationship and list all related 1st and 2nd and other generation affiliates.
PR\H:\MARKET\ROGERS.405 [Apr. 5, 19951
21 '39291 775 Soi /Tech ATP Sy s tems F-447 T-704 P-005 APR 05 '95 15:27
Ms. Sharron Rogers 5 April 3, 1995
Soi/Tech is owned by equal partners, UMA Group, LTD of Vancouver, British
Columbia, Canada and Smith.
15. Will your organization have a project manager available to answer questions from
working group members, legislators, media throughout the lifetime of this
project?
Yes. A Project Manager would be assigned during the bidding process and that
individual would be expected to be available through the duration of the project.
I would expect to also be involved for the duration of the project.
16. Can you provide references or written statements from citizens at project sites?
We would suggest you contact the EPA Project Manager for one or more of our
more recent projects to learn the name of citizens who lived near the various
project sites and took an interest in the projects. We can provide client and EPA
references directly.
17. Please estimate a net cost per ton for remediation of the 40,000 cubic yards of
contaminated soil at the Warren County Landfill. What items are not included
in this price (e.g., security, mobilization, demobilization, waste disposal)?
Soi/Tech provided an estimate of $150 to $200 per ton of soil treated in our
original submission. That estimate is still valid. Excluded from the unit price is
the cost of workplans,, mobilization, erection, startup, demonstration testing,
decontamination, and demobilization. The cost of the items excluded from the
unit cost is estimated to between $1. 1 million and $ 7. 5 million.
18. Does your company/joint venture have the willingness and/or ability to conduct
a pilot study?
Yes. We have bench and pilot-scale equipment and would be willing to conduct
a study for a fee. We do not need to conduct a study in order to guarantee the
performance of our technology at full-scale, but we would be w!lling to perform
one if the state required one.
19. If a pilot study is approved, what would be your organizations earliest
availability, and please give a rough time estimate for completion of pilot study?
Soi/Tech is available to begin immediately following execution of a purchase
order or contract. Usual duration of a bench-scale or pilot-scale studyis one
week with a report available approximately six weeks after completion of the test.
PR\H:\MARKET\ROGERS,40S [Apr.~-1995]
2199291776 So i I Te c h ATP Sy s tems F-447 T-704 P-007 APR 05 '95 15:27
Ms. Sharron Rogers 6 April 3, 1995
20. Reference at least two sites where you have successfully utilized the proposed
remedial process.
See question 1 above.
21. Please list any violations or citations related to non-compliance with local, state
or federal environmental regulations in any jurisdiction.
None.
22. ls vendor a minority or women owned firm?
No.
23. Has vendor utilized the proposed remedial process on any CERCLA sites, and it
so, where?
Yes. On four sites as indicated in question 1 above.
24. How long has vendor been in business?
Smith can trace its history back nearly 100 years. Soi/Tech has been in
existence since 1988.
25. Does vendor expect to be able to meet all legal requirements related to public
contracts such as Anti-Bid Rigging Act, Equal Employment Opportunity Act,
OSHA and Debarment in any state?
Yes.
If you should have any additional questions or need additional informat ion, please do
not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
. ;~t;-11.JI\
Joseph H. Hutton, P.E .
. General Manager
JHH /bas
Enclosures
Pf1\l-i:\MAl'tK£T\ROGeRS.405 {Apr. S, 19%)
219'3291776 Soi I Tech ATP Sy s tem s F-447 T-704 P-008 APR 05 '95 15:27
ATTACHMENT 1
2199291776 Soi I Tech ATP Sy s tems F-447 T-704 P-009 APR 05 '95 15:27
Wide Beach Supertund Site
lss-..e PCBs in soil
Solution Excavate and treat soils by dechlorinating PCBs in SoilTech ATP unit
Client Kimmins Thermal Corporation (Prime Contractor) for U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers
Total Cost:
$8,300,000
Wide Beach, NY
EPA Region 2
Project Started: September 1990
Project Completed: September 1991
* Treatment of 37,200 tons of PCB-contaminated soils in SoilTech
ATP unit; PCBs dechlorinated in process. Resultant soils had non-
detect levels of PCBs.
* Post-treatment and disposal of process water to meet federal, state,
and local requirements.
This Superiund site was created when
treated unpaved roads were treated with
PCB-impacted oil in a residential com-
munity. The PCBs were spread to
lawns, driveways, and elsewhere in the
community.
Kimmins Thermal Corporation (Kimmins)
was contracted by the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers (ACE) to excavate and treat
the soils through dechlorination.
Kimmins retained SoilTech {a Canonie
subsidiary) to treat the soils.
SoilTech treated the soils at rates up to
nine tons per hour using APEG chemis-
try to dechlorinate PCBs within the
SoilT ech ATP unit. The soils had high
clay content and were wet
The SoilTech ATP unit operated reliably
while handling wide differences in soil
characteristics during winter and sum-
mer on the shore of Lake Erie.
This innovative technology has attracted
visits from representatives of ACE
offices, delegates of the USSR and
United States, and Canadian industries.
This project is the first commercial-scale
use of dechlorination chemistry to
destroy PCBs on-site. The treatment
technology complies with EPA guidelines
for Superfund remedial selection. Pro-
cess economics offer a proven, cost-
saving alternative to incineration.
219"3291771::, Soi \Tec h ATP Sys tems F-447 T-704 P-010 APR 05 '95 15:28
Waukegan Harbor Superfund Site
Issue High level of PCB contamination in the harbor and stream sediments
Solutlon Thermally separate the PCBs from the sediments using the SoilTech
Anaerobic Thermal Processor (ATP) system
Client Fortune 100 Manufacturing Company
Total Cost:
Confidential
Waukegan. IL
EPA Region 5
Project Started: November 1990
Projected Completion: 1994
* Used the SoilTech ATP system to thermally separate
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) from the harbor's sediments.
.. Constructed three TSCA-approved containment cells using HOPE
impermeable caps and 5,000 feet of soil-bentonite slurry wall.
* Controlled hydraulic dredging of contaminated sediments to meet
applicable or relevant and appropriate water quality standards.
The sediments of the Waukegan Harbor
and an adjacent stream were heavily
impacted with PCBs. Concentrations in
excess of 20,000 ppm were found.
Remediation alternatives were limited
due to the harbor's location adjacent to
a public beach used for both
recreational and commercial boating
activities. This site ranked No. 86 on
the National Priorities List for Superfund
sites.
Canonie handled all aspects of the
remediation of the site including the
following activities:
Canonie isolated an old slip by
installing a 300-foot double sheet
pile, 20~foot-wide soil wall. A
three.foot-wide slurry wall was
constructed around the entire slip;
Canonie constructed a new boat
slip to replace the isolated slip;
Canonie removed 6,000 cubic
yards of sediments, with PCB
concentrations greater than
PR\W,\SQQ\PI\OJECT'S\WAUKEGAN I~. t1, 19'1lll
500 ppm. from the old slip using
hydraulic dredging;
Canonie removed and t reated the
water from the isolated slip;
Sediments, with concentrations
between 50 and 500 ppm, were
hydraulically dredged from the
upper harbor into the old slip. The
upper harbor was isolated during
dredging operations using silt
curtains and oil booms;
After completion of the dredging.
dewatering of the old slip,
containing the sediments, was
initiated;
Following the dewatering of the old
slip, Canonie will install a TSCA-
approved. impermeable protective
cap over the entire cell.
During the remediation of the harbor,
no interruption of either recreational or
commercial boating activities occurred.
21 •3g2g 1 776 So i I Tec h ATP Systems F-447 T-704 P-011 APR 05 •g5 15:28
Waukegan Harbor Superfund Site
(Continued)
The remediation of the adjacent stream
area and treatment of the impacted
sediments included the following
activities:
Canonie rerouted the stream and
constructed two containment cells.
One of the cells enclosed the
original stream bed.
13,000 tons of sediments and soil
with an average PCB concentration
of 10,500 ppm were treated using
Soi!Tech's ATP System to less than
3 ppm. The Processor thermally
separates the PCBs from the soils
and sediments in an oxygen-free
environment.
FLUE GAS
The treated soils and sediments
were placed in TSCA-approved
containment cells, were
constructed by installing soil-
bentonite slurry walls and an HOPE
impermeable cap on each cell.
During this project, Canonie treated
approximately 45 million gallons of
water. Five million gallons were treated
to PCB levels of less than 1 ppb.
An important aspect of this project was
Canonie' s effective negotiations with
the agency for approval of this
remediation plan.
IL-------r . ..,.... ------.L,_
l ---4-+
COOLING ZONE: I I
I
I
I I
----AUXILIARY BURNER
. COMBUSTION ZONE
"'-._ PREHE:A 'f ZONE I I ~£ACTION ZONE
WAST_E_F_EE_D_-_-_+~•_!'"_0~.,._~' ~\/OLVED Sl'E,u.1 :
1
:: "✓~---'---------
# ' \' ,.,. -r-HYDROCARBON VAPOR '-. \ : : /4 COKED ~~ ., ~ -~~~~
FLOW DIAGAAt.4
PR\W:\SOO\PROJlaC'1'$\W,.Ul(.£<iAH 1""-'0-11. 18931
219"32':H 776 Soi I Tech ATP Sy s tems F-447 T-704 P-012 APR 05 '95 15: 2::::
Ohio Superfund Site Soil Remediation
1$sue Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs} and Pesticides in Soil and
Sediment
Solution Thermally desorb contaminants from soil using the SoilTech Anaerobic
Thermal Processor (ATP} system
Client Confidential
Total Cost: Ohio
Confidential EPA Region 5
Project Started: May 1993
Projected Completion: April 1994
Conducted extensive air modeling and prepared remedial action
work plans.
• Excavation of 13,500 tons of surface soil, including ditch
sediments.
Thermally desorbed contaminants from soil using the SoilTech
ATP system achieving nondetect concentrations for PAHs and
pesticides.
Surface soils and sediments at the site
were impacted with chemicals from
past liQuid waste operations conducted
at the site. Canonie was retained to
remediate the surface soil and sediment
using the SoilTech ATP system.
Canonie' s work on the project included
the following:
Air dispersion modeling of the ATP
system stack emissions to verify
minimal impact to ambient air;
Preparation of remedial action work
plans including the ATP system
Proof-of-Process Plan and Quality
Assurance Project Plan to meet
EPA Region V requirements;
Off-site ambient air monitoring to
verify compliance with air quality
standards;
Excavation and screening of
surface soils and sediments and
staging for treatment in a Sprung®
structure;
Upgrading site drainage ditch by
installation of geotextile and
placement of riprap;
Treatment of staged soil and
sediment with the SoilTech ATP
system to meet soil delisting
criteria.
2199291776 Soi I Tech ATP Systems F-447 T-704 P-013 APR 05 '95 15:28
Smith's Farm Operable Unit One
Issue PCB-Contaminated Soil
Solution Thermally separate PCBs from Soil Using the SoilTech Anaerobic Thermal
Processor (ATP} system and dechlorinate them using BCD technology
Client Confidential
Total Cost:
$16.000.000
Bullitt County, KY
EPA Region 4
Project Started: May 1993
Projected Completion: Ongoing
4 Separation and dechlorination of PCBs using the SoilTech ATP
system and BCD technology.
* Design/construction of a retaining wall.
Construction of a RCRA cap and leachate collection syst em.
This 80-acre site was formerly an
unpermitted drum landfill where soils
and sediment have become
contaminated with polychlorinated
biphenyls (PCBs), polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons (PAHs), and lead.
Canonie is retained to provide the
following services:
Preparation of the site which
included clearing of 20 acres of a
heavily wooded area, installation of
over one mile of fencing for site
security, and construction of over
one mile of paved roadway and
associated culverts and drainage
improvements;
Construction of 1,500 linear feet of
reinforced concrete retaining wall
ranging from 9 to 31 feet in height;
Excavation of 7,000 yards of rock
for retaining wall foundation
footprint;
Excavation of over 17,000 yards of
PCB-and PAH-contaminated soil
designated for thermal treatment;
Overpack 300 drums found during
hazardous excavation. The drums
PRIW:\SOO\l'ROJ£CTS\SMffl-lfRM lM•r-4, 19941
were subsequently buried in a
concrete wall on-site;
Treatment of over 17,000 yards of
PCB-and PAH-impacted soil using
the SoilTech ATP system in
conjunction with BCD;
Potential fixation of 6,000 yards of
lead-impacted soil;
Installation of a leachate collection
system and a landfill gas venting
system;
Construction of a 10-acre RCRA
cap, including subgrade
preparation, barrier, and synthetic
liner, drainage layer, and vegetative
layer;
Construction of a ground water
diversion system upgradient from
the RCRA cap;
This project maintains positive relations
with the residents in the area. Canonie
has taken the responsibility for
maintenance of a secondary public
roadway leading to the project and this
has added to the positive relationship
between the PRPs and local residents.
21 '3"3291776 Soi I Tech ATP Systems F-447 T-704 P-014 APR 05 '95 15:29
ATTACHMENT 2
21 '39291775 So i I Tech ATP Sys tems F-447 T-704 P-01 5 AF"R 05 ''35 15: 2'3
Statesville Ground Water Remediation
Issue Bedrock aquifer impacted with nitrates
Solution Hydraulic control of the nitrate plume using ground water extraction wells.
Direct discharge of extracted ground water to a surface water body.
Client Fertilizer Manufacturing Company
Total Cost:
$1.3 Million
Statesville, NC
EPA Region 4
Project Started: June 1991
Project Completed: In Progress
Perform ground water pumping test and design pumping scheme
to extract and control nitrate plume.
* Evaluate applicable treatment technologies for the removal of
nitrates from ground water.
* Pursue a low~cost alternative to ground water treatment with
state agency.
In the past, process water from the
fertilizer manufacturing plant at the site
was discharged to unlined settling
ponds on-site. Leachate from these
ponds has created a plume of nitrate-
impacted ground water in the bedrock
aquifer below the site. The plume
extends to the property boundaries of
the 80-acre site, and to approximately
200 feet below ground surface. The
maximum concentration of nitrates (as
N) in the ground water is approximately
300 parts per million.
Canonie was retained to design and
implement a remediation strategy for
the site which included ground water
extraction, treatment (if necessary),
and discharge. Canonie is
accomplishing the project goals through
a number of activities which include the
following:
Conduct a ground water pumping
test to establish the locations and
extraction rates of several pumping
wells. The required total extraction
rate to control the nitrate plume
was determined to be 100 gallons
per minute.
Perform a focused feasibility study
of denitrification treatment
alternatives for ground water.
Technologies considered included
ion exchange, reverse osmosis, and
biological treatment. Biological
denitrification was established as
the best alternative, should
treatment of the extracted ground
water be necessary.
Negotiate with state agency to
allow direct discharge of extracted
ground water {with no treatment)
to nearby stream.
Apply for NPDES permit to
discharge ground water to the
stream.
Negotiate with adjacent land
owners for right-of-way permits for
discharge piping.
2199291775 Soi I Te ch ATP Systems F-447 T-704 P-015 APR 05 '95 15:29
Chemtronics Superfund Site
Issue Former chemical plant site contaminated with wastes from production of
military products
Solution Cap various dump sites (total 11 acres) and construct ground water
extraction and treatment system
Client PRP Group
Total Cost:
$4,200,000
Swannanoa, NC
EPA Region 4
Project Started: January 1992
Project Completed: February 1993
Cap six separate dump areas with HOPE and a synthetic drainage
composite.
Drill and install extraction wells, monitoring wells, and piezometers.
Construct two on•site ground water treatment plants.
Six distinct areas of the site,
comprising approximately 11 acres,
require capping. The disposal areas
contain Bz (a psychoactive compound),
CS (tear gas), solvents, acids, volatile
organic compounds, and, potentially,
cyanide.
Canonie is drilled and installed
39 extraction wells, monitoring wells,
and piezometers to measure the extent
of ground water contamination. Nine
existing wells were abandoned. Two
on-site ground water treatment plants
were constructed utilizing computer
controlled data acquisition systems,
including precipitation, air stripping and
carbon adsorption, as well as
installation of a complete data
acquisition and monitoring system.
PR\W:\SOQ\PRO.JlaCTS\OIEMTRON 10.C. 2, 1111141
The capping required excavation and
placement of approximately
80,000 cubic yards of soil. Canonie
installed a 60-mil textured HOPE liner
and synthetic drainage composite.
Completion of the cap included seeding
and securing capped areas with a
six-foot-high chain~link fence.
APR 05 '95 02: 51PM FOUR SEASONS Ef'NIR 910 274 5798
A ~:~en Vul r.f• sea ns ... cnmenTaL
A GREAT LAKES CHEMfCAL. CORPOftATION COMPANY
CORPORATE HEADQUARTERS:
3107 South Elm-Eugene Street
P.1
P. 0. Box 16590
Gntensbot'o, NC 'Zf41G-0590
Phone: (910) 27:)-%118
Facsirril•: (910) 27,4;,57'9S
Branch Offlces:
S11t0n Rouge. LA Char1otte, NC Nashvine, TN Houston. TX FUc:hmond, VA Columbus, OH
FACSIMILE TRANSMtTTAL COVER SHEET
To: MS SHARRQH ROGBRS
Company:. STATE OP HOR'l'H CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF EHVIRONMBRT, HEALTH MID NATURAL
RESOURCES
Fax Number: --9.i.J 9~-=-7i..il..:;5--=:-:.;i3.r;i6,1,1,0;;1.5---------------·-----------
From: .ALBEijT LBE
Date: APRIL s, 1995
Subject: WARREN COUNTY LANDPILL PROJECT
Number of Pages: 6
(lndudes Cover Sheet)
Original to be Malled? 'f~ No
~ The information following this -::over ahNt ls ln\anded ta ba confidontiaJ to tho pel"SOn ta whom it la
•ddte$~d. Any information rolklwing is ■ubject le copyright protection. If yoo are not able to deliver this
communlcatllon to tho intended recipient or If you are not ■n ■gent of the intended tec:ipient, plHM de not
n:iad, copy, or LIH this inforTT\AtiDn in ■ny w11y, but notify lhe sendor immediately by 1.ehlphcna at the number
notod above.
APR 05 '95 02=51PM FOUR SEASONS ENVIR 910 274 5798 P .2
~ CDRF'O~ATe HEACQUARTERS: \ ~ ~~~rr ~~!~~r'?L -3-10·7-SO·U-TH·E-LM--f::-UG-EN_e:_ST-RE-E:T ______ ....,. _________ _ '---
1 1
_ ._ "" P,O. Box 16590 • GREENSBORO, NC 27416-0590 • (91 O) l 7'3-27 18 • FAX (91 O) 274-5798
A GRE:AT L.AKii:S CHE:Ml<;AL. CORPORAT ION COMF'AN V
April 5, 1995
Ms. Sharron Rogers
North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resourses
Division of Solid Waste Management
401 Oberlin Road, Suite 150
Raleigh! NC 27605
Via Facsimile: 919-715-3605
RE: Clarification Questions for Qualifications for Detoxification of PCB-
contaminated Soils at Warren County Landfill.
Dear Ms. Rogers:
Four Seasons Environmental, Inc. (Four Seasons) is pleased to submit the following
information in response to your letter dated March 30, 1995. Several of the questions are
best answered by the information contained in our original submitt,Ll dated February 28 ,
1995. These items have been noted in our response to the attached questions.
We will be happy to provide the NCDEHNR with any additional information that you
may desire during your review of this submittal. Four Seasons appreciates this
oppcrtunity and is interested in being considered as a possible vendor should a Request
for Proposal be distributed for this site.
Sincerely,
Four Seasons Environmental, Inc.
Albert D. Lee
Corporate Project Development Manager
Enclosure
pc: Q. Barefoot
M:6429_1
B. Miller, SRS
file
HPR [15 ' '35 [12: 51 F'M FOUR SEHSONS EN\/ IR 91[1 27 4 5798
FOUR SEASONS ENVIRONMENTAL
AND SEPARATION AND RECOVERY SYSTEMS, INC.
Response to
Questions for Respondents on Warren County PCB Landfill
Detoxification RFQ
P.3
1. Has your company completed a soil-based PCB cleanup project to clean up
standards at detection limit levels? Please provide brief summary(s).
Four Seasons has performed numerous projects involving handling of PCB-
contaminated material. Most of these projects have involved excavation of
contaminated material to depths that comply with detection limit levels.
Although they have completed many soil treatment projects, Separation and Recovery
Systems, Inc. (SRS) has not yet performed a PCB cleanup project. They have treated
soils containing dioxin/furans, pentachlorophenols 1 and polynuclear aromatics to
detection limit levels. The substances have molecular structures similar to PCBs .
2. Did the above project(s) involve a thermal des01ption method?
Yes, all projects involved thermal desorption.
3. Did the above project(s) involve a non-thermal des01ption method?
The projects performed by Four Seasons primarily involved contaminated-material
removal, transportation and disposal.
4. Did the above project(s) involve a patented BCD process?
The projects involving treatment of dioxin/furan and PCP used the BCD process.
5. Please briefly state the primary proposed treatment method you recommend at
this time for the Warren County PCB Land.fill detoxification initiative.
The BCD treatment process is recommended for this proJect based on the site
circumstances and the desired clean-up levels. This method and its benefits are
described in Section 2 of Four Seasons' original submittal dated February 28, 1995.
Please refer to this document for details of the BCD process.
6. Please briefly state the options (1 ... 2 ... 3) contained in your qualifications
statement or recommended for Warren County PCB Landfill detoxification
initiative.
Four Seasons' response discussed only one option, the application of Base-Catalyzed
Dechlorination technology.
AF'F' [15 ''35 02: 52PM FOUR SEASONS ENVIR 910 274 5798 P.4
7. What are the lowest achievable clean-up levels for your recommended
detoxification method for Warren County? Are extra costs/time involved in
achieving these levels, beyond nonnal clean-up levels? Are these lowest clean-
up levels theoretical or have they been achieved in an actual project?
Total PCBs < 100 ppb; 99.9999% removal or destruction of PCBs can be achieved, if
necessary. Typically, PCB treatment levels are 1 to 2 ppm and are easily achieved.
The cleanup levels have been achieved in actual projects.
8. Please identify all waste streams expected to remain on-site or be shipped off-
site following completion of soil clean-up at the Warren County PCB Landfill
using your recommended method. Please list approximate quantities where
possible at this early stage in the project design.
Waste water from equipment decontamination operations will be shipped off-site for
treatment and disposal. Our recommended method intends to use treated soil as
backfill, eliminating off-site disposal.
9. Please briefly describe how successful or how closed the proposed "Closed
Loop" process would be for Warren County, e.g. % of destruction, air
emissions, and residual wastes.
Percent destruction is explained in the response to question 7. As explained in Four
Seasons' submittal dated February 28, 1995, the BCD process generates no toxic by-
products. The process includes steps that treat air and water before they exit the
system.
10. Is your organization familiar with NC regulations? Will th,ry be able to meet all
required pennits and conditions?
Four Seasons has been completing a wide variety of environmental projects throughout
North Catolina for 19 years. Four Seasons uses this accumulate:d experience toward
ensuring compliance with the applicable Federal, State of North Carnlina, and local laws
and regulations) and will obtain all permits required for work on this project. Four
Seasons will also coordinate with appropriate agencies regarding on-site work that may
not require actual permitting.
11. Have you completed a BCD project? How large?
Please refer to the response to question 4 and Section 3 of our original submittal for a
detailed response to this question.
12. What performance changes may occur as a result of design modifications needed
to upgrade your system to handle a large project such as ours?
The system described in the original submittal dated February 28, 1995 is designed to
process soil volumes comparable to those expected from the Warren County Landfill
Project. SRS is currently working on a project in Cincinnati~ Ohio for a confidential
client which involves treating as much as 40,000 C.Y. of soil.
RPR 05 '95 02=52PM FOUR SERSONS ENVIR 910 274 5798 P.5
13. Do you have the organizational and technical resources available to devote to
this project?
Both Four Seasons and SRS regularly execute multimillion dollar projects. Sufficient
personnel and equipment resources are available. In the event that a formal RFP is
issued for this project, Four Seasons and SRS will identify specific individuals to
perfonn this project.
14. If your company is wholly or partly owned, or joint venture, please outline this
relationship and list all related 1st and 2nd and other generation affiliates.
Fout Seasons is a wholly owned subsidiary of Great Lakes Chemical Corporation. Sister
companies under Great Lakes, include Aquaterra, Inc. and Ware Lund Associates. Four
Seasons is directly controlled by OSCA, Inc., which is also wholly owned by Great
Lakes.
15. Will your organization have a project manager available to answer questions
from working gro'tlp members, legislators, media throughout the lifetime of this
project?
It is Four Seasons' general practice to assign both off-site and on-site project
management. The off-site manager, usually referred to as the Program Manager,
provides guidance and ensures that proper resources are available at all times. The on-
site manager, or Project Manager, works at the job site on a daily basis, and serves as the
leader and company representative. The Project Manager would be available to interact
with interested groups for the duration of the project.
16. Can you provide references or written statements from citizens at project sites?
Four Seasons does not maintain records of this type. However, several client references
are included in the February 28, 1995 submittal.
17. Please estimate a net cost per ton for remediation of the 40,000 cubic yard of
contaminated soil at the Warren County Landfill. What items are not included in
this price, (e.g., security. mobilization, demobilization. waste disposal)?
The original submittal provides a detailed breakdown of costs associated with this
project, including potential additional items such as treatability tests.
18. Does your company/joint venture have the willingness and/or ability to conduct a
pilot study?
Four Seasons is capable of providing a pilot study as part of a ,;ontracted agreement
with the NCDEHNR.
19. If a pilot study is approved, what would be your organization Is earliest
availability, and please give a rough time estimate for completion of pilot study?
Four Seasons and SRS could mobilize for a pilot study within a few weeks of receiving
notification to proceed. The time required to complete the study would depend on the
volume of soil that the Joint Warren County and State PCB Landfill Working Group
require to be tested. A study involving 20 tons of soil would require between 1 to 2
months and a full-scale study processing 1,000 tons would require 2 to 3 months. The
cost of the study would be affected by the volume of soil to be prm;essed.
RF'R [15 '95 [12: 53F'M FOUR SERSONS Et'NIR 91[1 274 5798 F'. E,
20. Reference at least two sites where you have successfully utilized the proposed
remedial process.
A complete list of sites where the BCD process has been or is being used is included in
Section 3 of the original submittal.
21. Please list any violations or citations related to non-compliance with local> state
or federal environmental regulations in any jurisdiction.
No violations or citations have been cited against Four Seasons or SRS.
22. Is vendor a minority or women-owned.firm?
Neither Four Seasons Environmental nor SRS qualify as minor"ty or women-owned
firms.
23. Has vendor utilized the proposed remedial process on any CERCLA sites, and if
soi where?
SRS is currently applying BCD technology at the Pester Pond NPL Site in El Dorado,
Kansas. This project involves removing and processing 20,000 C.Y. of sludge from
the old refinery lagoons.
24. How long has vendor been in business?
Four Seasons has been serving clients since 1976 and SRS has over twenty years of
experience providing environmental services.
25. Does vendor expect to be able to meet all legal requirements related to public
contracts such as Anti-Bid Rigging Act, Equal Employm,ent Opportunity Act,
OSHA and Debannent in any state?
Yes.
Groundwater Technology, Inc.
1000 Perimeter Park Drive, Suite I, Morrisville, NC 27560 USA
Tel: [phone] Fax: [phone]
April 4, 1995
North Carolina Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources
Division of Solid Waste Management
401 Oberlin Road, Suite 150
Raleigh, NC 27605
ATTN: Sharron Rogers
RE: Response to Questions for Respondents on Warren County PCB Landfill Detoxification RFQ
Dear Ms. Rogers,
We are pleased to submit the following responses to your request for additional information
regarding our qualifications and experience:
1. Has your company completed a soil-based PCB clean-up project to clean up standards at
detection limit levels? Please provide brief summary(s).
Our company has completed several PCB soil cleanup projects using excavation. However,
rarely has a detection limit been the established cleanup goal for soils. Typically, this
cleanup level is stipulated by the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) as 1 o mg/kg in soil.
However, we have met detection limit goals for treated waters using filtration at two
locations.
2. Did the above project(s) involve a thermal desorption method?
No
3. Did the above project(s) involve a non-thermal desorption method?
Yes -see response to 1. above.
4. Did the above project(s) involve a patented BCD process? (Questions 2, 3, 4 may be
answered in combined schematic or as separate descriptions at your preference)
No
5. Please briefly state the primary proposed treatment method you recommend at this time for
the Warren County PCB Landfill detoxification initiative.
8:PCB.MEM
Offices throughout the U.S., Canada and Overseas
Response to Questions on Warren Co. PCB Landfill Detoxification
NCDEHNR, Div. of Solid Waste Mgmt, Raleigh, NC
2
April 4, 1995
As an alternative to processing all of the impacted soil, a volume reduction approach may
reduce overall project costs substantially. We suggest serious consideration of reducing the
volume of soil to be treated using soil washing pretreatment. This process employs screens
and hydrocyclones to separate the fine fraction < 200 mesh) from the rest of the soil matrix.
This process is capable of separating a fines fraction from coarser materials and can result
in a significant reduction (up to 70% based on the soil data provided) in the total volume of
soil that requires treatment. The process requires a soil slurry which would be facilitated by
the existing high water table within the cell.
Once a final volume of soil requiring treatment can be estimated, appropriate technologies,
including solidification and or simple off site disposal in a licensed, PCB landfill may be the
most economical and technically feasible approach for the reduced volume of fines to be
treated. The technology for removing PCB from the water used to slurry the soil is well
established -filtration with the filtrate going to the fines fraction to minimize off site water
disposal costs.
An inexpensive pilot test on representative soil samples could generate sufficient data to
plan and cost this simple option.
6. Please briefly state the options (1 ... 2 ... 3) contained in your qualifications statement or
recommended for the Warren County PCB Landfill detoxification initiative.
We recommend the following options be considered:
Pretreatment using a hydrocyclone to separate fine grained soils and reduce the
volume of soils requiring treatment;
On site treatment of the fine soil slurry with ozone;
On site treatment of the fines with pozzolonic materials to immobilize PCB prior to
off site disposal.
On site treatment of fines fraction using steam stripping.
7. What are the lowest achievable clean-up levels for your recommended detoxification method
for Warren County? Are extra costs/time involved in achieving these levels, beyond normal
clean-up levels? Are these lowest clean-up levels theoretical or have they been achieved in
an actual project?
The lowest achievable cleanup levels are unknown without completing a pilot test using
representative samples of the soil to be treated.
8. Please identify all waste streams expected to remain on-site or be shipped off-site following
completion of soil clean-up at the Warren County PCB Landfill using your recommended
method? Please list approximate quantities where possible at this early stage in the project
design.
B,PCB.MEM
The only materials to remain on site include the coarse fraction of the soils (this fraction,
estimated to be up to 70% of the total volume (28,000 cubic yards) is not expected to
contain significant concentrations of PCB).
~ GROUNDWATER ODD TECHNOLOGY "
Response to Questions on Warren Co. PCB Landfill Detoxification
NCDEHNR, Div. of Solid Waste Mgmt, Raleigh, NC
3
April 4, 1995
9. Please briefly describe how successful or how closed the proposed •aosed Loop" process
would be for Warren County, e.g.% of destruction, air emissions, and residual wastes.
The most relevant experience we have with ozonation is a pilot scale test on destruction of
pentachlorophenol (PCP) In soils for another project. The results indicate up to a 87%
reduction of PCP concentration Is a soil slurry. The full scale process would be enclosed
with the exception of sou excavation activities. Air emissions are not expected to include
PCB -Our experience In Canada has indicated that due to the wet soils, no PCB bearing
particulate was emitted from our site which Included excavation of over 7000 cubic meters
of soil.
1 O. Is your organization familiar with NC regulations? Will they be able to meet all required
permits and conditions?
Yes, we are intimately familiar with North Carolina regulations. Our NC office prepares air
quality, water discharge (industrial pre-treatment and NPDES) permits on a daily basis, and
follows the provisions of solid and hazardous waste permits for numerous customers in
North Carolina.
11. Have you completed a BCD project? How large?
No
12. What performance changes may occur as a result of design modifications needed to
upgrade your system to handle a large project such as ours?
The pilot test results will be used to specify equipment for the full scale operation.
13. Do you have the organizational and technical resources available to devote to this project?
Yes
14. If your company is wholly or partly owned, or joint venture, please outline this relationship
and list all related 1st and 2nd and other generation affiliates?
Not Applicable -GTI is a stand alone corporation.
15. Will your organization have a project manager available to answer questions from working
group members, legislators, media throughout the lifetime of this project?
Yes -Tom Barbee
16. Can you provide references or written statements from citizens at project sites?
Yes
17. Please estimate a net cost per ton for remediation of the 40,000 cubic yards of contaminated
soil at the Warren County Landfill. What items are not included in this price (e.g., security,
mobilization, demobilization, waste disposal)?
B,PCB.MEM
0Dm GROUNDWATER ODD TECHNOLOGY "
Response to Questions on Warren Co. PCB Landfill Detoxification
NCDEHNR, Div. of Solid Waste Mgmt, Raleigh, NC
4
April 4, 1995
$300 /ton for fines materials only -approximately $40 /ton for coarse materials remaining on
site. This price does not include security, waste disposal (should stabilization and off site
disposal be required), mobilization, demobilization, or compliance/health monitoring.
18. Does your company/joint venture have the willingness and/or ability to conduct a pilot
study?
Yes. We strongly recommend a pilot scale demonstration using representative soil from the
site.
19. If a pilot study is approved, what would be your organizations ear1iest avaUabUity, and please
give a rough time estimate for completion of pilot study?
6 weeks after receiving authorization to proceed.
20. Reference at least two sites where you have successfully utilized the proposed remedial
process.
Please note we are currently scheduled to complete pilot testing of our proposed approach
within the next 60 days at a site in Canada. Two sites where our excavation and disposal
have successfully been completed are the Federal Pioneer, Granby, Quebec, Canada and
also at a transformer manufacturing facility in Clearwater Florida.
21. Please list any violations or citations related to non-compliance with local, state or federal
environmental regulations in any jurisdiction.
None
22. Is vendor a minority or women owned firm?
No
23. Has vendor utilized the proposed remedial process on any CERCLA sites, and if so, where?
No
24. How long has vendor been in business?
20 years
25. Does vendor expect to be able to meet all legal requirements related to public contracts
such as anti-Bid Rigging Act, Equal Employment Opportunity Act, OSHA and Debarment in
any state?
Yes.
B,PCB.MEM
~ GROUNDWATER DDD TECHNOLOGY "
Response to Questions on Warren Co. PCB Landfill Detoxification
NCDEHNR, Div. of Solid Waste Mgmt, Raleigh, NC
5
April 4, 1995
We trust the responses presented above fulfill your requirement for additional information. Should
you desire, we would be happy to meet with you to discuss our experience.
Sincerely,
GROUNDWATER TECHNOLOGY, INC.
1 ~75~
Tom Barbee
Operations Manager
cc: Jim Garrett
B,PCB.MEM
~ GROUNDWATER DOD TECHNOLOGY •
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Solid Waste Management
James B. Hunt, Jr ., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
William L. Meyer, Director
March 30, 1995
Dear Vendor:
The Joint Warren County and State PCB Working Group has requested
that all organizations submitting responses to the RFQ for Detoxification of the
Warren County PCB Landfill be asked to respond to the attached list. of
questions . The intent of these questions is to fill in gaps that individual
companies may not have responded in the first submission, and to get very clear
responses to several key questions of particular interest to the citizen members
of the Working Group. You will be receiving this request by fax.
Your response should be returned to this address no later than five (5)
working days following receipt. Fax transmission of your response is
acceptable due to this tight time frame. My fax number is 919-715-3605.
In addition to the formal written responses requested, the Working Group
has instructed their Independent Technical Advisor to contact the potential
vendors to make some additional oral inquiries. You should expect a phone
inquiry from Ms. Pauline Ewald of ECO, Ashland, VA. The state supports this
contact as part of the cooperative nature of this proposed project with the
citizens of Warren County and the grassroots environmental groups in North
Carolina. We appreciate your cooperation.
Please contact me at any time if you require additional clarification on
these instructions or on the scope and nature of the project.
Assistant Director
for Policy. Planning and Development
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611 -7687 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 101, post-consumer paper
Questions for Respondents on Warren County PCB Landfill
Detoxification RFQ
March 30,1995
Please respond to the following questions clarifying and/or
extending your responses to the RFQ. You may submit additional
documentation at this time as well; however, no additional
responses are required.
FROM: Sharron Rogers
NCDEHNR, Division of Solid Waste Management
1. Has your company completed a soil-based PCB clean-up project
to clean up standards at detection limit levels? Please
provide brief summary(s).
2. Did the above project(s) involve a thermal desorption
method?
3. Did the above project(s) involve a non-thermal desorption
method?
4. Did the above project(s) involve a patented BCD process?
(Questions 2,3,4 may be answered in combined schematic or as separate descriptions at your preference]
5. Please briefly state the primary proposed treatment method
you recommend at this time for the Warren County PCB
Landfill detoxification initiative.
6. Please briefly state the options (1 ... 2 ... 3) contained in
your qualifications statement or recommended for the Warren
County PCB Landfill detoxification initiative.
7. What are the lowest achievable clean-up levels for your
recommended detoxification method for Warren County? Are
extra costs/time involved in achieving these levels, beyond
normal clean-up levels? Are these lowest clean-up levels
theoretical or have they been achieved in an actual project?
8. Please identify all waste streams expected to remain on-site
or be shipped off-site following completion of soil clean-up
at the Warren County PCB Landfill using your recommended
method? Please list approximate quantities where possible
at this early stage in the pro ject design.
9. Please briefly de sc ribe how successful or how c losed the
proposed "Closed Loop" process would be f o r Warren County,
e~g. % of destruction, air emissions, and residual wastes.
10. Is your organization familiar with NC regulations? Will
they be able to meet all required permits and conditions?
11. Have you completed a BCD project? How large?
12. What perfo rmance changes may occur as a result of design
modifications needed to upgrade your system to handle a
large project such as ours?
2
13. Do you have the organization a l and technic al resources
available to devote to th i s project?
14. If your company is wholly or partly owned, or joint venture,
please outline this relationship and list all related 1st
and 2nd and other generation affiliates?
15. Will your organization have a project manager available to
answer questions from working group members, legislators,
media throughout the lifetime of this project?
16. Can you provide references or written statements from
citizens at project sites?
17. Please estimate a net cost per ton for remediation of the
40,000 cubic yards of contaminated soil at the Warren County
Landfill. What items are not included in this price(e.g.,
security, mobilization, demobilization, waste disposal)?
18. Does your company/joint venture have the willingness and/or
ability to conduct a pilot study?
19. If a pilot study is approved, what would be your
organizations earliest availability, and please give a rough
time estimate for completion of pilot study?
3
20. Reference at least two si tes where you have successfully
utilized the proposed remedi a l process.
21. Please list any violations or citations related to non-
compliance with local, sta te or federal environmental
regulations in any jurisdi ction.
22. Is vendor a minority or women owned firm?
23. Has vendor utilized the proposed remedial process on any
CERCLA sites, and if so, where?
24. How long has vendor been in business?
25. Does vendor expect to be able to me et all l egal requirements
related to public contracts such as anti-Bid Rigging Ac t,
Equal Employment Opportunity Act, OSHA and Debarment in any
state?
4
Companies Responding toRequrst for qunlification (RFQ)
for Based -Catalyzed Dechlorination
Companies that responded
Barbee, Thomas
Groundwater Technology Inc
I 000 Peri miter Park Drive(Suite I)
Morrisville, NC 27560
Phone# [phone]
Fax# [phone]
Hutton, Joe
Soil Tech
800 Canonie Drive
Porter, IN 46304
Phone# [phone]
Fax# [phone]
Martin, Loren
ETG Environmental, Inc.
660 Sentry Parkway
131ue Bell, PA 19422
Phone# [phone]
Fax# [phone]
Lee, Albert
Four Seasons Env, Inc.
3107 South Elm Eugene St.
Greensboro, NC 27604
Phone# [phone]
Fax# [phone]
Companies that did not respond
Stanley, Bob
Solid Management
PO Box 1676
Oakdale, CA 95361
1-800-847-3959
Fax# [phone]
Robinson, Dave
Vesta, LTD
1670 West McNab Road
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33309
Phone# [phone]
Fax# [phone]
Mitchell, Alicia
IT Cooperation
3710 University Drive(Suite 20 I)
Durham, NC 27707
Phone# [phone]
Fax# [phone]
Joint Bid
Miller, Brad
Seperation and Recovery System
1762 McGaw Ave.
Irvine, CA 92714
Phone# [phone]
Fax# [phone]
Swanberg, Chris
OHM Remediation Services
911 Lockhaven Drive
I louston, TX 77073
Co name
St address
City
Zip_code
Contact
Phone no
Fax no
No items
Co name
St address
City
Zip_code
Contact
Phone no
Fax no
No items
Co name
St address
City
Zip_code
Contact
Phone no
Fax no
No items
Co name
St address
City
Zip_code
Contact
Phone no
Fax no
No items
Co name
St address
City
Zip_code
Contact
Phone no
Fax no
No items
Co name
St address
City
Zip_code
Contact
Phone no
Fax no
No items
03/08/95
Warren County PCB Landfill RFQ Respondants
March, 1995
::;01.1 Teen, .1nc
800 Canonie Drive
Porter, IN
46304
Joseph Hutton
219-929-4343
219-
4
ETG Environmental,
660 Sentry Parkway
Blue Bell, NJ
19422
Loren Martin
610-832-0700
610-829-6976
1
Inc
Four Seasons Environmental, In
3107 S. Elm-Eugene St
Greensboro,NC
27416
Albert D. Lee
910-273-0590
910-274-5798
1
Groundwater Technology, Inc
1000 Perimeter Park Dr, I
Morrisville, NC
27560
Thomas F. Barbee
919-467-2227
919-467-2299
1
Vesta, Inc
1670 West McNab
Ft. Lauderdale,
33309
Gregory Edwards
305-978-1300
305-973-4837
1
IT Corp
Rd
312 Directors Drive
Knoxville, TN
37923
Alicia Mitchell
615-690-3211
615-690-3626
1
Page 1
{!!\ CORPORATE HEADQUARTERS: \:._:'. FCUr seasons ~~07s~~~~H5~~"'~~UR~~:~:~=~E~c 27416-0590 • (910) 273-271B • FAX [phone]B
e n v I r o ,n m e n T a L ---------------------~1»!!1111--
A GREAT LAK ES CHEMIC A L C O RPO RA T IO N C O MPAN Y '-1.:
February 28, 1995 5301 ~:n~!~d. ·
Ms. Sharron Rogers
North Carolina Department of Envjronment, Health, and Natural Resourses
Division of Solid Waste Management
401 Oberlin Road, Suite 150
Raleigh, NC 27605
Sanford. NC 27330 /
RE: Request for Qualifications for detoxification of PCB-contaminated soils at
Warren County Landfill.
Dear Ms. Rogers:
Four Seasons Environmental, Inc. (Four Seasons) is pleased to submit the
following information in response to your Request for Qualifications dated February 1,
1995. Four Seasons, together with Separation and Recovery Systems, Inc~ (SRS), of
Irvine, California, offer the NCDEHNR a team that combines Four Seasons' extensive
experience providing turnkey environmental services with SRS' ability to apply Base-
Catalyzed Dechlorination (BCD) technology and equipment to this project. This unique
combination of local presence and state knowledge with innovative, evolving technology
provides the NCDEHNR with the flexibility and resources needed to effectively
complete the proposed project.
We will be happy to provide the NCDEHNR with any additional information that
you may desire during your review of this submittal. Four Seasons appreciates this
opportunity and is most interested in being considered as a possible vendor should a
Request for Proposal be distributed for this site.
Sincerely,
Four Seasons Environmental, Inc.
Albert D. 'Lee
Corporate Project Development Manager
Enclosure
pc:
M:6277_1
Q. Barefoot
B. Miller, SRS
file
\;~f~~r r ~~~!!i~r~
A GREAT.LAKES CHEMICAL CORPORATION COMPANY
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR
QUALIFICATIONS FOR PERFORMANCE OF
BASE-CATALYZED DECHLORINATION
OF PCB-CONT AMINA TED SOILS
AT WARREN COUNTY LANDFILL
Prepared for
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT, HEALTH
AND NATURAL RESOURCES
Division of Solid Waste Management
Raleigh, North Carolina
Prepared by
Four Seasons Environmental, Inc.
Greensboro, North Carolina
February 28, 1995
M:6277_1
Four Seasons' authorized agent with authority to bind the firm is listed below.
Mr. Quint M. Barefoot
Vice President, Business Development
Four Seasons Environmental, Inc.
3107 South Elm-Eugene Street
P.O. Box 16590
Greensboro, NC 27416-0590
[phone]
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section
1.0 Team Overview
2.0
1.1 Four Seasons Environmental, Inc.
1.2 Separation and Recovery System, Inc.
Base-Catalyzed Dechlorination Technology
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
BCD Historical Development
BCD Technology Description
BCD Applications
BCD Benefits
3.0 Base-Catalyzed Dechlorination Project Experience
4.0 . Activities Required for Warren County Landfill Project
5.0 References and Professional Registrations
5.1
5.2
References
Professional Registrations
Attachment 1. Four Seasons' General Statement of Qualifications
Attachment 2. Certificates of Insurance for Four Seasons and Separation
and Recovery Systems, Inc.
Attachment 3. Flow Diagrams of BCD Treatment Processes and Equipment
Information
LIST OF TABLES
Number
1
2
Present SRS Experience, as of December 1994
Budget Estimate for Warren County PCB Soil Remediation
LIST OF FIGURES
Number
1 Sample Project Schedule
Page
1
1
1
3
3
3
5
5
7
9
13
13
14
Page
8
11
Page
10
1.0 TEAM OVERVIEW
1.1 Four Seasons Environmental, Inc.
Four Seasons is an environmental remediation and construction contractor with
over 19 years of service to clients nationwide. A North Carolina Corporation, Four
Seasons is headquartered in Greensboro with regional offices in the following locations:
Baton Rouge, Louisiana
Charlotte, North Carolina
Columbus, Ohio
Houston, Texas
Nashville, Tennessee
Four Seasons is a wholly owned subsidiary of Great Lakes Chemical Corporation,
a Fortune 500 company with over $2.2 billion in annual revenues and an asset base of
over $ 1 billion. Four Seasons offers the benefits of extensive experience, equipment and
personnel resources; enhanced by corporate stability and fiscal responsibility.
Presently, Four Seasons employs over 300 personnel in seven offices. Our scope
of services is described · in detail in the General Statement of Qualifications (SOQ)
provided as Attachment 1 of this letter. In addition to describing services and corporate ·
structure, . the SOQ provides personnel resumes and abstracts of representative projects
performed by Four Seasons.
Four Seasons' parent company, Great Lakes Chemical Corporation, currently
holds a Dunn and Bradstreet rating of 5Al. The Four Seasons Federal Identification
Number is 56-1353587. Our insurance coverage is provided by Niagara Insurance, Old
Republic Insurance Company, Planet Insurance Company, and National Union Pacific
Insurance Company~ Four Seasons is. covered for commercial general liability,
automobile liability, workers' compensation and employers' liability,· and contractor's
pollution liability. Additionally, Four Seasons carries a $23,000,000 umbrella policy. A
copy of our insurance certificate is provided in Attachment 2 of this document. Four
Seasons has bonding capability of up to $15,000,000 per project, and $50,000,000
aggregate.
1.2 Separation and Recovery Systems, Inc.
SRS, with over 20 years of experience providing environmental services, is a leader in
on-site treatment of difficult to manage hazardous wastes using mechanical and thermal
separation processes. SRS' core business is providing hazardous waste treatment services
for petroleum refinery wastestreams and remediating organic contaminated soils.
SRS developed the MX-3000 high capacity thermal desorber in 1993 to complete large
remediation projects involving heavy hydrocarbons such as PNAs, PCBs, dioxin/furans
and pesticides. SRS is a licensee of the EPA-based BCD process.
SRS has dewatered/deoiled over 1,500,000 tons of oily sludges using its SAREX MX-
1500 three phase centrifuge, and dried and detoxified over 200,000 feed tons of wet
solids and soil using its SAREX MX-2000 thermal dryer. Additionally, SRS owns and
1
operates eight medium temperature (300-600") MX-2500 and a MX-3000 thermal
desorbers for heavy hydrocarbon remediation activities. SRS is the leader in treating
RCRA refinery hazardous wastes to land disposal restriction (LDR) BDAT standards.
SRS has been using the MX-2500 in refineries since 1991. This system presently has an
operating up-time efficiency of over 90 percent Five of the six units are presently
working on treating oily waste materials across the U.S. and in Australia.
SRS in insured for general liability, automobile liability, excess liability, workers
compensation and employers' liability, and personal property liability. A sample
. Certificate of Insurance for SRS is provided in Attachment 2.
2
2.0 BASE-CATALYZED DECHLORINATION TECHNOLOGY
2.1 BCD Historical Development
The BCD Process was developed by the U.S. EPA RREL in 1989 after initial full-
scale testing of the Alkaline Polyethylene Glycolate (APEG) treatability testing of PCB-
impacted soil at a Navy base in Guam. The BCD Process was developed to eliminate
processing problems experienced during the Guam field test of APEG. Some of the
drawbacks to the APEG-KPEG process that needed overcoming included (1) eliminating
the need to recover expensive chemical reagents, (2) minimizing the soil pretreatment
such as screening and crushing, (3) reducing the retention time needed for effective
dechlorination from hours to minutes, and (4) achieving complete dechlorination of
heavy hydrocarbons.
With the assistance of Wright State University, the EPA RREL conducted
numerous bench-scale tests on soil and liquids impacted with PCBs, dioxins, PCPs, and
herbicides to confirm that the BCD Process has wide ranging applicability. Most of these
tests indicated that the BCD Process could treat the heavy hydrocarbons with efficiencies
rivaling incineration. In January 1990, the EPA RREL was able to confirm that BCD
resulted in complete dechlorination of contaminants. In one test, Aroclor 1260 was
mixed with a high boiling point oil, and BCD reagents, and heated to about 650°F for
about 60 minutes. · Treated samples were analyzed for PCB cogeners and biphenyl. The
results indicated that all 1260 Aroclor was dechlorinated to aliphatic hydrocarbons and
biphenyl. Based on this test and others, EPA applied for and received three U.S. patents
for the BCD Process in 1990 and 1991.
Since about 1991, the U.S. Navy and the EPA RREL have been working together
on BCD testing. .The Naval Civil Engineering Laboratory (NCEL), Port Huenume,.
California, contracted Battele Memorial Institute to design a 1-ton per hour rotary reactor
to be used along with the BCD Process to treat PCB-impacted·soils at the Public Works
Center (PWC) site in Guam. The PWC site contains about 5,000 tons of soils impacted
with 25 to 6,500 ppm of PCBs. The NCEL anticipates that 120 tons of soil will be
processed per week during the pilot testing.
2.2 BCD Technology Description
The BCD Process is a thermal-chemical treatment process. The reaction
chemistry (described in the following paragraphs) occurs with a halocarbon such as PCB
as illustrated in Equation 1.
EQUATION 1
Na+
PCB + Hydrogen Donor > Biphenyl + NaCl + Aliphatic
Heat Hydrocarbon
Catalyst (if needed)
The PCB reacts with a hydrogen donor (aliphatic hydrocarbon) in the presence of heat
(650° to 800°F), a base (typically sodium bicarbonate, NaHCO, and/or sodium hydroxide,
NaOH), and a proprietary carbonaceous catalyst. The chemical reaction involves a
catalytic transfer of hydrogen from a hydrogen donor to a hydrogen acceptor, thereby
causing the nucleophilic stripping of halogen atoms from the PCB molecule to a biphenyl
molecule. The biphenyl molecule and the aliphatic hydrocarbon are then thermally
desorbed from the soil and captured in the vapor recovery system.
3
Simplified process flow diagrams of the BCD Process and equipment brochures
are provided in Attachment 3. The BCD treatment process includes the following
components:
1. The excavated soil or sludge is prescreened to a nominal particle size of
less than one inch. ff necessary, a crusher or shredder is utilized to reduce
particle size. Additionally, soils containing high clay content may require
amendment of minor amounts of lime or cement kiln dust (CKD) to render
the material friable for BCD processing.
2. The prescreened soil is blended, as necessary, with dry BCD reagents in a
pug mill or similar mixing device. The blended soil or sludge is then
introduced into a feed hopper. ff the material moisture is greater that 20
percent, it may be necessary to pre-dry the material through a low
temperature steam or hot-oil heated thermal processor like the SAREX
MX-2000 thermal dryer.
3. The solid phase BCD reaction occurs in a medium temperature thermal
processor like the SAREX system where the impacted soil or sludge are
subjected to temperatures between 650° and 800°F. The SAREX is an
indirect-heated thermal screw processor.
Oxygen levels are accurately monitored and controlled in the SAREX
MX-3000 to minimize the potential for autocombustion. Nitrogen gas or
steam can be carefully metered into the system to control oxygen levels.
The SAREX MX-3000 is also equipped \\ith a hydraulic backdrive that if
used, can increase the effective retention time of difficult to treat .
materials.
The impacted materials are scrolled up through the inclined SAREX MX-
3000 and exit through an air-tight transition into a water-cooled screw
conveyor for cooling. Following cooling, the treated material drops into a
discharge conveyor where additional cooling and dust control are added.
The treated solid is then discharged into customer-supplied disposal
containers.
· 4. The vapors (particulates, water vapor, dehalogenated hydrocarbon, and
halogenated hydrocarbon [if any]) exit the SAREX MX-3000 into a
specially designed air pollution control.(APC) system. The APC includes
particulate removal (rotaclone), direct contact gas cooling, demisters, a
positive displacement blower, a condenser (if needed), and vapor phase
carbon for polishing. Desorbed soil moisture and dechlorinated and
chlorinated organics are condensed in the gas coolers. Any
noncondensible vapors that pass through the demisters and condenser (if
needed) will be polished on activated carbon before exiting the process.
5. The condensate is routed to a separator system where the organic phase is
separated from the aqueous phase materials. The organic phase is stored
in an intermediate tank before being charged into the batch BCD liquid
treatment (MTR) reactor for final dechlorination. The BCD liquid reactor
is comprised of a jacketed, electrically-heated liquid reflux reactor. BCD
reagents (base arid proprietary catalyst) are added to the oil mixture and
the mixture is heated and continuously stirred at about 600°F for a
4
prescribed retention time (4 to 8 hours). Vapors from the process are
condensed and refluxed back into the liquid reactor.
6. Once the liquid BCD reaction is completed, the dehalogenated oil is either
reused as a hydrogen donor oil or stored pending disposal as a fuel
supplement in an industrial boiler such as a cement kiln.
7. The aqueous phase materials from the separator are filtered, cooled, and
returned to the APC gas coolers. Some of the water is treated using liquid
phase carbon and disposed of via sanitary sewer, deep well injection; or
surface water (if an NPDES permit can be used or obtained).
Ultrafiltration or photoxidation are two alternative technologies which
could be used for polishing the wastewater instead of carbon.
2.3 BCD Applications
The BCD Process has already been demonstrated to successfully remediate
halocarbons contained in a number of media. These media include wastewater, rinsate
fluids, oils, condensates, sludges, sediments, and soils. Additionally, the BCD Process
has been demonstrated to effectively dehalogenate fluids containing over 300,000 ppm of
halocarbons.
A summary of some of the potential PCB Process applications is listed below:
• Detoxifying pesticide/herbicide rinsates
• Detoxifying transformer oils impacted with PCBs
• Detoxifying· condensates containing halocarbons, such as condensates
from vapor recovery systems of soil vapor extraction and air strippers
• Treating PCBs contained in soils/sludges
• Treating pesticides/herbicides contained m soils/sludges (i.e., lindane,
toxaphene DDT, DDE, 2,4-D, 2,4,5-T)
• Treating wood-stabilizing compounds such as pentachlorophenols (PCPs)
contained in sediments, sludges, and soils
• Treating dibenzo-p-dioxins (PCDDs) and polychlorinated dibenzofurans
(PCDFs) in sediments, sludges, and soils
• May be applicable for treating organophosphorous, sulfur, and/or nitrogen
compounds originating mainly from weapons production activities
• Treating heavy halogen compounds contained in mixed waste
2.4 BCD Benefits
The process has a number of benefits as listed below:
1. Eliminates the need to recover and recycle costly chemical reagents
2. Results in complete dechlorination and contaminant detoxification
5
3. Provides flexibility and can treat a wide range of halocarbons in a wide
range of matrices (e.g., fluids, oil, sludges, sediments, and soil)
4. Generates no toxic by-products
5. Is both short-and long-term effective
6. Reduces toxicity, mobility, and volume of contaminant
7. Is easy to implement; process can be set up and operating within about 6
working days
8. Meets or exceeds necessary ARAR criteria
9. Proven in both bench-and pilot-scale
10. BCD Process is cost effective
In the event that NCDEHNR selects BCD to be implemented at the Warren
County landfill, Four Seasons and SRS will develop specific operating parameters for
this site if so requested by the RFP.
6
3.0 BASE-CATALYZED DECHLORINATION PROJECT EXPERIENCE
SRS and its former joint venture partner, ETG Environmental, were involved in
the EPA Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation (SITE) program at the Koppers
Superfund Site, Morrisville, North Carolina. The field demonstration was conducted in
August 1993. The soils treated contained concentrations of pentachlorophenols (PCPs) at
up to 10,000 PPM and total dioxin/furans at up to 500 ppb. SRS utilized its SAREX
MX-2500 for this project. The BCD LTR system used at the site was a joint EPNETG
design.
Preliminary results of the SITE demonstration are encouraging. The final report
should be completed and publicly available in the Spring of 1995.
Other BCD testing programs SRS is presently involved with are described below.
• SRS is working as a subcontractor to Metcalf & Eddy at this Myers Property
· Superfund Site impacted with pesticides and dioxins/furans.
• SRS is currently exploring a possible Cooperative Research and Development
.. Agreement (CRDA) with the U.S. Navy in Port Huenueme, California.
• SRS was accepted into the State of California's Center for the Evaluation of New
Environmental Technologies (CENET). This program was developed to promote
California technology companies. SRS is one of the six grant recipients. The
testing will include optimizing the cost-effectiveness of the BCD liquid treatment
process on pesticide residuals.
Other thermal desorption and chemical fixation projects performed include the
following.
SRS thermally processed over 20,000 feed tons of fuel hydrocarbon-impacted
soils using its MX-2000 for a major oil company's fuel loading terminal in Newark, NJ.
SRS processed this material at a rate of up to 120 tons per day. The treatment goal was
500 ppm total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH). One of the keys to the success of this
project was reusing the desporbed soil water and process water to the fullest extent. SRS
specially designed a closed loop process water recycling system, which included water
chillers and an infiltration system. The ultrafiltration system successfully removed
petroleum from the process water to levels low enough to be reblended into the treated
soils for dust control.
SRS is in the process of remediating solvent impacted soils that contain low
levels of radionuclides at a former aerospace site in central New Jersey. The treatment
objective for the soils is 0.1 ppn of tetrachloroethene (PCE), and trichloroethene (TCE),
so the treated soil can be disposed of at a specially permitted facility in Utah. This
facility will accept the treated soils as a naturally occurring radioactive material (NORM)
if the treatment standard for the halogenated solvents is met. A specially designed MX-
2000 is being utilized to process an estimated 3,000 tons of material.
To illustrate their diversity and experience, Table 1 provides a list of additional
work that SRS has recently performed or is currently performing.
7
TABLE 1. PRESENT SRS EXPERIENCE, AS OF DEC. 1994 LOCATION CUSTOMER EQUIPMENT DESCRIPTION LENGTH OF SERVICE CARSON, ARCO PRODUCTS 2 MX-1500'$ DEWATER AND DRY 30,000 TO 50,000 BBLS OF K-WASTES PER CONTINUOUS CALIFORNIA BOBZATO 2 MX-2000'$ MONTH. WASTES PRESENTLY DISPOSED OF AT CEMENT KILN. SINCE ABOUT 8/90 310-816-8181 GARYVILLE, MARATHON OIL COMPANY 1 MX-1500 TREAT ABOUT 20,000 BBLS OF K-WASTES TO BOAT STANDARDS CONTINUOUS LOUISIANA JIM WILKINS 1 MX-2000 PER MONTH. SOLIDS ARE DISPOSED ON SITE. SINCE ABOUT 12/91 504-535-2241 2 MX-2500'S TOLEDO, SUN OIL 1 MX-1500 TREAT ABOUT 20,000 BBLS OF K-WASTES PER MONTH. SOLIDS ARE CONTINUOUS OHIO LARRY CLERE 1 MX-2000 DISPOSED OFFSITE. SINCE ABOUT 10/91 419-698-6660 1 MX-2500 MARTINEZ, TOSCO 1 MX-1500 DEWATER K-WASTE SLUDGE AND RESLURRY SOLIDS WITH SLOP CONTINUOUS CALIFORNIA AVON REFINERY OIL AND INJECT INTO ONSITE COKER FEED SINCE ABOUT 12/93 ZABI BAGHERI 51 Q-372-3088 TETERBORO, ALLIED SIGNAL 1 MX-2000 TREAT 1,000 • 3,000 TONS OF SOLVENT-IMPACTED MIXED WASTE BEGAN IN NEW JERSEY AEROSPACE SOILS. SITE IS AN ECRA SITE. MIXED SOILS ARE DISPOSED IN 9/93, JUST COMPLETING MARK SCHWIND UTAH. PROJECT 00 201-393-2452 ARTESIA, NAVAJO 1 MX-1500 SHORT-TERM PROJECT. PROCESSING ABOUT 30,000 BBLS OF TANK SEMI• NEW MEXICO REFINING 1 MX-2000 BOTTOMS TO BOAT STANDARDS. CONTINUOUS SINCE 10/93 LYNN STRINGHAM 1 MX-2500 EL DORADO, PESTER POND NPL SITE 1 MX-1500 SUPERFUND SITE. 20,000 C.Y. SLUDGE REMOVAL AND PROCESSING FINAL STAGES OF KANSAS JAMES MAHON 1 MX-3000 FROM OLD REFINERY LAGOONS. RECOVER AND REUSE OIL, STARTUP. FINISH IN 4/95. FINA OIL THERMAL PROCESS RESIDUAL SOLIDS TO BOAT STANDARDS. 214-890-1231 CINCINNATI, CONFIDENTIAL REMEDIATION 3 MX-2000s OHIO EPA SITE. THERMAL DESORPTION OF UP TO 40,000 C.Y. OF IN WORKPLAN/ REMEDIAL OHIO PROJECT FOR MAJOR ORGANIC-IMPACTED FIL TEA CAKE FROM LAGOON CLOSURE DESIGN STAGE. BEGIN REMEDIATION CONTRACTOR ACTIVITIES. MAIN CONTAIMINANT IS CHLOROBENZENE. MOBILIZATION IN 5/95. SOUTHEAST CONFIDENTIAL MAJOR 1 MX-3000 THERMAL SEPARATION OF OILY TANK BOTTOMS COLLECTED BEGAN 9/94 ASIA PORT INTERNATIONAL ENGINEERING DURING CLEANING ACTIVITIES. SAS IS MANUFACTURING UNIT FOR COMPANY. RESALE. PROCESS 30,000 FEED TONS EACH YEAR. MX-1500 -solid bowl centrifuge MX-2000 -low temperature thermal dryer MX-2500 & MX-3000 • medium temperature desorbers Note: Project costs are available upon customer's request. Seoaration and Recovery Systems, Inc,
4.0 ACTIVITIES REQUIRED FOR WARREN COUNTY LANDFILL PROJECT
To assist NCDEHNR to estimate potential resources required by this project in
the event that it is undertaken, Four Seasons has outlined the activities involved. A
complete, detailed discussion would be provided in a formal response to a request for
proposal.
Four Seasons and SRS would mobilize to the site, executing the following
activities:
• Install temporary facilities
• Install temporary roads and entrances
• Install soil and erosion control devices
• Delineate area to be excavated
• Delineate stockpile area
Once mobilization and site set-up operations are complete, a petformance test will
be conducted. Four Seasons will petform all excavation activities and SRS will process
the contaminated soils using BCD technology. Once the results from the performance
test are complete and approved, full scale operations can begin.
Four Seasons will remove and stockpile topsoil and clean soils from the top of the
landfill. Contaminated soils will be excavated, transported to and fed into the BCD units.
For the purpose of this schedule, it is assumed that two units will operate 24 hours per
day, 7 days per week. Treated soils will be stockpiled, sampled and analyzed to ensure
the predetermined contaminant levels have been achieved.
The treated soil will then be used to backfill the excavated landfill. Any
stockpiled clean fill and topsoil will be used to complete the backfill process. The area
will then be hydroseeded.
All temporary .facilities will be removed. All personnel and equipment will·
demobilize from the site.
Figure 1 is a sample schedule for this project. A preliminary cost estimate is
provided in Table 2. Four Seasons anticipates subcontracting the laboratory analyses, the
hydroseeding, and the utility hookups. In addition, the office trailer and office equipment ·
will be rented.
9
I--' 0 r-----~-----ACT:\i!. :-~ ~i.i:-'.3!.R j DSSC?.1?:":(..;:,; ! ORtG DUR MONTHS 1 j2 j3 I 4 Is 16 [-i Is 19 Mobilize and Site Setup ; cco :-:obilizll? and SltQ Setup 21 R Performance T•ut 2CCO ?e:fcrma!"lce Test 21 -(2) Units-Process 40,000 cy/5-6,000 tons )CCC (2) Units-?rocess ~O, 000 cy/56,000 tons 181 Backfill Processed Material ~ ooc 3ack!!ll Processed Matgrlal ll2 Cleanup/Demob soco C !Ra nt:p/Demob1l 1 ze 21 -----------------~-----------------------~------------------~------------------------o::s: LS i'"LOAT l] ~ D MILSSTO!,E ~ CRITICAL -PROGRESS -PLANNED l•p•r1tl1fl ,,.., '•-=•••ry lyn.0111., In,. 11,1 ••,.t.-t1.--tw9•~• ltr••t RUN DATE 25FEB95 START DATE 01MAY95 DATA DATE 01MAY95 FINISH DATE 21JAN96 SURETRAK FIGURE 1. SAMPLE PROJECT SCHEDULE State of North Carolina Joint Warren County & State PCB Landfill Working Group Base-Catalyzed Dechlorination I
TABLE 2. BUDGET ESTIMATE FOR WARREN COUNTY PCB SOIL
REMEDIATION
Item Cost Remarks
Option 1: w/BCD
Prefield activities $75,000. Includes deliverables
preparation, air permitting,
community meetings
Mobilization $401,000. Includes $40,000 for site
preparation. Customer builds
treatment pad. Does not include
stack testing or performance testing
costs: could be an extra $150,000.
Demobilization $235,000. May increase depending upon
equipment decontamination
requirements
Treatment cost $155.00/feed ton Includes equipment,·material, labor
to meet treatment standards.
)' J f.R (01 /f()D Assumes 24 hr./day, 7 day/wk.
operations. Average processing rate
of 150 tons each day. Level C PPE
Residuals disposal $10.00/feed ton Disposal of 50 tons dechlorinated
organic phase material at RCRA
5f.lb,01JO industrial boiler at $250/ton,
treatment and sewer disposal of
process water.
Sampling/analysis $7.50/feed ton Assumes sampling/analysis of PCBs
.if ~I tY{)Q in feed, treated soil, process water,
organic residual.
Option 2: wlout BCD
Prefield activities $70,000. Includes deliverables preparation,
air permitting, community meetings.
Mobilization $356,000. Includes $40,000. for site
preparation. Customer builds
treatment pad. Does not include
stack testing or performance testing
costs: could be extra $150,000.
(Continued)
11
lo 137~ tr0u
TABLE 2. BUDGET ESTIMATE FOR WARREN COUNTY PCB SOIL
REMEDIATION (Continued)
Item
Demobilization
Treatment cost
Residuals disposal
Sampling/analysis
Cost
$215,000.
$115.00/feed ton
$10.50/feed ton
$5 .50/feed ton
'$,tr!)~()!)
Remarks
May increase depending upon
equipment decontamination
requirements.
Includes equipment, material, labor
to meet treatment standards.
Assumes 24 hr/day, 7 day/wk.
operations. Average processing rate
of 150 tons each day. Level C PPE.
Disposal of recovered 30 tons of
PCB soil at a TSCA incinerator at
$1,500./ton, treatment and sewer
disposal of process water.
Assumes sampling/analysis of PCBs
in feed, treated soil, process water,
organic residual. 7 9 7 7) tJ ()O
Treatability test for thermal desorption with BCD -$45,000.
Treatability test for thermal desorption without BCD -$20,000.
12
5.0 REFERENCES AND PROFESSIONAL REGISTRATIONS
5.1 References
Four Seasons is proud of the successful and effective services that we provide.
We have received numerous letters of commendation from our clients, expressing their
satisfaciton with our performance. The following are client representatives who are able
to attest the quality and timeliness of our work.
Private Industry Client References
Mr. Ted LeJeune
Burlington Industries, Inc.
Corporate Engineering
P.O. Box 21207
Greensboro, NC
919-379-2943
(SVE/GW)/2-88 to present
Pat Harrison
Manager -Operating Practices
Hazardous Materials
CSX Rail Transport
1590 Marietta Blvd., N.W.
Atlanta, GA 30318
[phone]
(Emergency Response )n-93
Greg Rhodes
CSX Transportation
500 Water Street
Jacksonville, FL 32202
[phone]
(Emergency Response)/ 8-88 to 10-88
Gilbert Turner
Norfolk Southern
312 West Liddell Street
Charlotte, NC 28206
[phone]
(Emergency Response )/10-88 to 11-88
13
James E. Hoy ill
Environmental Engineer
Appalachian Power Company
P.O. Box 21207
Roanoke, VA 24022-2121
(Dump site remediation and
capping)/9-90 to 10-90
Daniel Sheilds
Law Environmental
1410 Commonwealth Drive,
Suite 110
Wilmington, NC 28403
[phone]
(MTU)/12-92 to 5-93
Government Client References
Steven R. Spilman
Project Engineer
US Anny Corps of Engineers
O'Hare Resident Office
O'Hare International Airport
P.O. Box 66926
Chicago, IL 60666-0926
[phone]
(UST and MTU)
(contract# DAC-A-27-93-C-0007)
2-93 to 5-94
Ms. Lee Crosby
Head, Superfund Branch
Department of Environment, Health,
& Natural Resources
P.O. Box 2091
Raleigh, NC 27602
919-733-2108
(Pesticide Remediation)/10-90 to present
5.2 Professional Registrations
Matthew Monseese
USEPA Region IV
345 Courtland A venue
Atlanta, GA 30365
404-347-3931
(CERCLA)(Emergency Response)
multiple
Kerry Kennedy
Wright Patterson AFB
P.O. Box 31039
Airway Finance Post Office
Dayton, OH 45437
[phone]
(MTU)/8-94 to present
Four Seasons holds the following North Carolina licenses:
•
•
Contractor License
Transporter Permit
NC25564
NCD991277732
Four Seasons frequently works with our sister company, Aquaterra, Inc., which is
also a wholly owned subsidiary of Great Lakes Chemical Corp. Aquaterra, with three
offices in North Carolina, one in Louisiana and one in Tennessee, offers complete
engineering services. Aquaterra's Professional Engineers and Geologists regularly work
with Four Seasons and are available for a variety of projects. The unique capabilities of
Aquaterra as an environmental consultant and Four Seasons as an environmental
contractor have been combined to provide turnkey environmental services for many
clients.
14
ATTACHMENT 1
FOUR SEASONS' GENERAL STATEMENT OF QUALIFICATIONS
STATEMENT
OF
QUALIFICATIONS
Prepared by:
Four Seasons Environmental, Inc.
Greensboro, North Carolina
M:3218 1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION .................................... .1
1.1 FOUR SEASONS SCOPE OF SERVICES ................. .1
1.2 THEFOURSEASONSADVANTAGE ................... 2
1.3 FOUR SEASONS FINANCIAL INFORMATION ............ 2
2.0 SCOPE OF SERVICES DESCRIPTIONS
2.1 INDUSTRIAL SERVICES .......................... 3
2.1.1 Industrial Cleaning Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.1.2 Treatment, Recycling and Disposal Operations
2.2 REMEDIAL SERVICES ............................. 4
2.2.1 Landfill and Lagoon Closures . . . . . . . . . . ........... 4
2.2.2 Excavation and off-Site Waste Disposal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.2.3 Chemical Spill Remediation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.2.4 Explosive Shock-Sensitive Chemical Handling .......... 5
2.2.5 Facility Decontamination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.2.6 Drum Removal and Disposal ...................... 6
2.2.7 Volume Reduction/Dewatering ................... 6
2.2.8 Aboveground and Underground Storage Tank Management. .8
2.3 ON-SITE TREATMENT SERVICES .................... 9
2.3.1 Solidification and Stabilization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
2.3.2 Thermal Treatment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
2.3.3 Vapor Extraction ............................ 10
2.3.4 Air Stripping and Ground Water Treatment. .......... 11
2.3.5 Ground Water Sparging ....................... 11
2.3.6 Product Recovery ............................ 12
2.4 EMERGENCY RESPONSE SERVICES .................. J 2
2.4.1 24-Hour Emergency Response .................... 12
2.4.2 Drum Overpacking ........................... 12
2.4.3 Tank Truck Rolloverffrain Derailments ............. 12
2.4.4 Large-Scale Spill Containment ................... 13
2.4.5 Toxic Chemical Containment and Decontamination ...... 13
2.4.6 On-Site Emergency Response and Safety Training ....... 13
2.5 TECHNICAL SERVICES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 13
2.5.1 Project Engineering, Design and Project Management. .... 13
2.5.2 PRP Project Planning and Formulation .............. 13
2.5.3 Treatment Technologies Development ............... 13
2.5.4 SPCC Planning and Review ..................... 14
3.0 HEALTH AND SAFETY GUIDELINES ...................... 15
3.1 MEDICAL/HEALTH MONITORING AND SUBSTANCE ...... 15
ABUSE
3.2 EMERGENCY PROCEDURES AND EQUIPMENT .......... 15
3.3 JOB HAZARD ANALYSIS .......................... 16
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE2
3.4 EMERGENCY RESPONSE PLAN ..................... 16
3.5 WORK ZONES ................................. 17
3.5.1 Exclusion Zone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .......... 17
3.5.2 Support Zone .............................. 18
3.5.3 Contamination-Reduction Zone ................... 18
3.6 PERSONAL PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT. ............... 18
4.0 PROJECT MANAGEMENT AND COST CONTROL PROGRAM .... .19
4.1 PROJECT ORGANIZATION AND STAFFING ............. 19
4.2 PROJECT PLANNING ............................ 21
4.3 PROJECT CONTROL ............................. 22
4.4 PROJECT PERFORMANCE ......................... 23
4.5 CLIENT CONFIDENTIALITY ....................... 23
APPENDIX A -INDUSTRIAL SERVICES PROJECT SUMMARIES
APPENDIX B -REMEDIAL SERVICES PROJECT SUMMARIES
APPENDIX C -ON-SITE TREATMENT PROJECT SUMMARIES
APPENDIX D -EMERGENCY RESPONSE PROJECT SUMMARIES
APPENDIX E-KEY PERSONNEL RESUMES
APPENDIX F -EQUIPMENT RESOURCES
APPENDIX G -INSURANCE CERTIFICATE
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Statement of Qualifications
3218 1
Page 1 of 23
Four Seasons Environmental, Inc. (Four Seasons) is an environmental
remediation and construction contractor with over 18 years of service to clients
nationwide. A North Carolina Corporation, Four Seasons is headquartered in Greensboro
with regional offices in the following locations:
• Baton Rouge, Louisiana;
• Charlotte, North Carolina;
• Columbus, Ohio;
• Houston, Texas; and
• Nashville, Tennessee
Four Seasons is a wholly owned subsidiary of Great Lakes Chemical Corporation-
a Fortune 500 company with over $2.2 billion in annual revenues and an asset base of
over $ 1 billion. The depth of Four Seasons' remedial experience coupled with the
overall financial strength of Great Lakes results in a client-service oriented firm
dedicated to providing innovative remedial solutions.
Presently, Four Seasons employs over 300 personnel in seven offices. Our scope
of services is provided below.
1.1 FOUR SEASONS SCOPE OF SERVICES
Four Seasons' scope of services includes the following:
• Industrial Serl'ices
Tank Cleaning, Decontamination, and Disposal
Tank Removal and Closure
Transport Tanker Cleaning
Permitted Hazardous Waste Transportation
• Remedial Services
Landfill and Lagoon Closures
Haz and Non-haz Waste Removal and Disposal
Chemical Spill Remediation
Explosive Shock-Sensitive Chemical Handling
Facility Decontamination
Drum Removal and Disposal
Excavation
Dredging and Dewatering
• On-Site Treatment Services
Solidification and Stabilization
Thern1al Treatment
Vapor Extraction
13iove ntin g
Air Sparging
Air Stripping
Ground Water Recovery and Treatment
Product Recovery
• Emergency Response Services
24-Hour Emergency Response
Drum Overpacking
Tank Truck Rollover/frain Derailments
Large-Scale Spill Containment
Statement of Qualifications
3218 l
Page 2 of 2J
Toxic Chemical Containment and Decontamination
On-Site Emergency Response and Safety Training
To facilitate review of our services, we have provided specific project
descriptions for each of four categories listed above in Appendices A through D,
respectively. Resumes of selected key staff are included in Appendix E. Our extensive
equipment list is provided in Appendix F.
1.2 THE FOUR SEASONS ADVANTAGE
What sets Four Seasons apart from other environmental remediation firms? Four
Seasons offers commitment, experience, state-of-the-art technology and equipment, as
well as strong financial resources. These attributes coupled with over 18 years of proven
field experience, make for a comprehensive firm that is capable of offering complete
turnkey services in virtually every service arena.
1.3 FOUR SEASONS FINANCIAL INFORMATION
Four Seasons is a growing and financially secure environmental-services firm.
Four Seasons' parent company, Great Lakes Chemical Corporation, currently holds a
Dunn and Bradstreet rating of 5Al. The Four Seasons Federal Identification Number is
56-1353587.
Our insurance coverage is provided by Niagara Insurance, Old Republic
. Insurance Company, Planet Insurance Company, and National Union Pacific Insurance
Company. Four Seasons is covered for commercial general liability, automobile liability,
workers' compensation and employers' liability, and contractor's pollution liability.
Additionally, Four Seasons carries a $23,000,000 umbrella policy. A copy of our
insurance certificate has been provided in Appendix G of this document. Four Seasons
has bonding capability of up to $15,000,000 per project, and $50,000,000 aggregate.
Statement of Qualifications
3218 I
Page 3 of 23
2.0 SCOPE OF SERVICES DESCRIPTIONS
2.1 INDUSTRIAL SERVICES
2.1.1 Industrial Cleaning Services
The primary focus of Four Seasons' industrial services business is industrial and
environmental cleaning and transport tanker cleaning. Four Seasons provides industrial
and environmental cleaning services to refining, petrochemical, chemical, utility, pulp
and paper, and other process industries. Industrial cleaning services generally involve the
removal of deposits or wastes from process equipment and storage facilities to improve
operating efficiency and to satisfy safety requirements. Environmental cleaning services
typically involve the maintenance of a customer's waste treatment or recovery facilities,
the removal of hazardous or other materials to comply with environmental requirements,
and the cleanup or containment of industrial and environmental accidents or spills. Four
Seasons primarily uses the following three methods to accomplish industrial cleaning.
• Industrial Vacuuming
• Hydroblasting
• Chemical Cleaning
Four Seasons' industrial and environmental cleaning services are based out of the .
Patton Avenue facility in Greensboro, North Carolina. Four Seasons' ability to offer a
variety of services on a turnkey basis enables us to attract customers desiring a single
source of industrial and environmental cleaning services. This ability also enables the
company to serve customers having a preference for a particular cleaning method when
alternatives exist. In addition , certain jobs can only be accomplished using a
combination of cleaning methods; Four Seasons is able to perform such tasks without
subcontracting.
2.1.2 Treatment, Recycling and Disposal Operations
As part of Four Seasons' Patton A venue Facility operations, fuel/water mixtures are
brought into the facility and processed to render an off-specification fuel for consumption
in steam generation equipment, both internal to the Patton A venue Facility as well as off
premises. The following is a description of the treatment process for fuel/water mixtures.
Material Acceptance Prior to acceptance of all fuel/water mixtures into the Pattern
Avenue Facility a written agreement or contract must be in place
between Four Seasons and the generator describing the tenns and
conditions under which such fuei/water mixtures are generated,
handled, and transported to the Four Seasons' Patton A venue
Facility. Fuel/water mixtures generation falls into one of two
categories: ( l) generated by a continuous production process; or
(2) generated by a one-time process. These materials are also
profiled into the facility based on the generator's knowledge of the
tank or vessels use. No material classified as a hazardous waste is
accepted into the facility.
Manifesting
Processing
Disposition of
Fuel Blend
Statement of Qualifications
3218 I
Page 4 of' 23
All fuel/water mixtures received at the Patton Avenue Facility
must be manifested prior to transponation from the generator's site.
Upon delivery to the Patton Avenue Facility, the material is off·
loaded directly into the primary product separation vessel or into
holding tank storage for subsequent batch processing.
The first step is performed in a batch thermally enhanced
separation vessel. After separation of the fuel component from the
mixture as determined by pre-established parameters for the
particular fuel, the lighter phase (fuel) is withdrawn into separate
storage tanks for subsequent blending with other fuels to meet a
broad range specification as "off-specification" boiler fuel.
The heavier phase (water) is withdrawn from the separation vessel
and further treated for subsequent discharge to the municipal
POTW. For fuel/mixtures containing lighter end fuels, an air
stripper in conjunction with carbon adsorption polishing is used for
final treatment of the light phase water prior to discharge. For
heavier ends, oil/water separation is adequate to meet the discharge
conditions
Solid material or sludge which accumulates in the bottom of the
separation vessel over time is removed and analyzed for Toxicity
Characteristic Leachate Procedure (TCLP) constituents. Solids
which are within the TCLP limits are stabilized with kiln dust and
transponed to an approved facility for disposal as an unregulated
waste. Solids which exceed the criteria for classification as a
characteristic waste are containerized and disposed of at an off-site
TSO facility. Four Seasons accepts generator status for both of the
above described waste streams.
Fuels generated from this separation process are utilized as boiler
fuel for steam generation in Four Seasons' Transport Tanker
Cleaning Operation located on the premises of the Patton A venue
Facility. Quantities of fuel generated in excess of the boiler
requirement at Patton are consumed as boiler fuel by an off-site
facility.
2.2 REMEDIAL SERVICES
2.2.1 Landfill and La~oon•Closures
As a result of previous waste storage, waste disposal and process liquid runoff
storage, many sites have landfills and or lagoons that require permanent closure. Four
· Seasons provides services to permanently close these facilities. Often times the specific
work tasks involve waste excavation, waste segregation, sampling and analysis, volume
reduction via dewatering, waste transportation and disposal, RCRA cell construction, site
restoration and capping. Four Seasons maintains the personnel and equipment internally
to perfonn turnkey services for landfill and lagoon closures, includin g regulatory
interfacing and reporting.
2.2.2 Waste Removal and Disposal
Statement of Qualifications
3218 I
Page 5 of 23
One option for site remediation often incorporates waste removal followed by
waste transportation and disposal. If waste characterization is necessary to determine the
proper disposal procedures for the waste, Four Seasons coordinates sampling and
analysis as well as disposal site approvals. Four Seasons owns and maintains an
extensive equipment inventory, including excavators, backhoes and trackhoes and
employs experienced OSHA 1910.120 trained equipment operators to perform the work.
2.2.3 Chemical Spill Remediation
Chemical spills, while undesirable, unfortunately occur from time to time. When
such a spill occurs, Four Seasons can respond on an emergency basis to prevent
migration of contamination. Initial spill remediation procedures may include absorbent
application, venting of the impacted area, containment and/or pumping of the chemicals.
Four Seasons maintains a crew on-call 24-hours per day to respond to unanticipated
. spills. Four Seasons also provides remediation services for sites in which chemicals have
been spilled or leaked over a long period of time.
2.2.4 Explosive Shock-Sensitive Chemical Handlinc
As a result of chemical spills and/or various past disposal practices by both
private organizations and the government, sites exist that have un-detonated components
or chemicals present that pose risk of explosion. Four Seasons employs personnel that
have specialized Surface Blasting and Explosives Training as well as a Certified
and Licensed Explosives Engineer to undertake projects involving the detonation,
recontainerizing, transportation and disposal of exothermically reactive chemicals.
2.2.5 Facility Decontamination
When structures at a facility are found to be contaminated with hazardous
substances and require remediation, Four Seasons can provide the necessary
decontamination services. We have established a successful record in all aspects of
facility decontamination. Our restoration programs for unique and complex
environmental problems have turned once useless facilities into operational locations
available for production or resale.
Four Seasons has decontaminated facilities contaminated with a variety of
materials including to following:
PCBs
• Dioxins
Process chemicals/intermediates/by-products
Pesticides/herbicides
Hydrocarbons
Cyanides
Mercury
Radioactive materials
Arsenic
Other metals and organics
Statcmcn t of Qualifications
3218 1
Page 6 of 23
Depending upon the nature of the structure and the contaminants, Four Seasons
typically uses company-owned equipment such as high-pressure washers, steam jennies,
pumps, sand blasters, jackhammers, and aqueous solutions containing detergents or
solvents.
Through the execution and completion of many decontamination projects, Four
Seasons has developed successful decontamination techniques including the following:
• Sol vent application/extraction
• High-pressure surfactant cleaning
• Hydroblasting
• Steam-cleaning
• Sandblasting and scarification
• Various wet/dry abrasive non-destructive cleaning techniques
2.2.6 Drum Removal and Disposal
Previous operations and waste disposal practices have left numerous sites with
unknown quantities of buried drums, both intact and decomposed. Four Seasons
maintains the resources for site characterization, excavation of buried containers, and
identification and consolidation of waste material. As an example of our extensive
experience in this area, Four Seasons has performed numerous projects under its ERCs
Region IV contract which have required the remediation of sites with up to 7,500
uncharacterized drums.
2.2.7 Volume Reduction/Dewatering
With ever increasing waste disposal costs and regulatory constraints, volume
reduction services provide industry with a cost-effective means to clean and/or remediate
tanks, wastewater treatment basins, settling ponds. lagoons, and ditches. These services
can significantly reduce the volume of sludges and other contaminated materials for final
disposal, and therefore reduce the overall costs associated with the remediation project.
Four Seasons offers complete volume reduction services utilizing company-
owned equipment and highly experienced personnel. The services offered include:
• Sampling and profiling
• Dewatering analyses
• Pilot study testing (mini-press)
• Dredging and material transfer
• Pre-treatment
• Filter press dewatering
• Dryers
Four Seasons' laboratory dewatering analyses and highly experienced technical
personnel ensure each volume reduction project is pe1t·ormed in a professional, efficient
and cost-effective manner. Prior experience and training allows the supervisor and
operating staff to optimize operations including materials removal, mixing, dewatering
and preparation for final disposal. Several of these operations are described in detail in
the followin g sections.
Bench-scale Treatability Study
Statement of Qualifications
3218 1
Page 7 of 23
In order to determine the most appropriate methodology to treat lagoon sludges, a
bench-scale treatability study is often performed. Sludge treatment (primarily
dewatering) is usually performed using one of the following proven technologies:
• Filter Press (recessed chamber)
• Filter Press (belt-press)
• Centrifugation
A bench-scale analysis of a representative sludge sample from the subject site can
be utilized to determine which of the above technologies is the most technically feasible
and cost-effective. Four Seasons has the in-house capability to perform the necessary
bench-scale testing.
Dredging
Four Seasons typically utilizes an 8-by 20-foot pumping barge, equipped with an
electrically powered centrifugal, 6-inch diameter pump and cutterhead to remove sludge
from the impacted areas. The sludge is pumped from the lagoon through a floating 6-
inch line to the dewatering site. Prior to being discharged into the blending tanks, the
sludge passes through a shale shaker to remove trash and debris.
De watering
Four Seasons usually evaluates several treatment technologies prior to selection
of a dcwatering method. For each technique, the final dewatered sludge characteristics
are compared to the cost per pound to dewater the material. The following are among the
methods routinely evaluated:
• Gravity Dewatering
• Solidification
• Centrifuging
• Belt Press Dewatering
• Recessed Chamber Press Dewatering
Four Seasons determines the appropriate method of waste volume reduction based
upon the results of the treatability study. The selection is made on a process which yields
the greatest cost-effective volume reduction and the highest production rates. Sludges
pumped from the pond pass through shaker screens into a 500-bbl tank. The sludge is
allowed to settle, and "clear" water decanted. The sludge is then transferred to an
intermediate surge tank and then to a third tank for maximum settling time.
Material Handling
The resulting filter cake is discharged at the rear of the filter press onto a cake
handling system. One system utilizes an inclined loading conveyor capable of moving
the filter cake from the rear of the filter press to a height necessary to be discharged into a
dump trailer. This system requires the dump trailer to be spotted under the discharge end
of the conveyor. The trailer has to be moved throughout loading to ensure proper weight
Statement of Qualifications
3218 I
Page 8 of 23
distribution. The conveyor loading system requires a truck/tractor to be available at all
times to move the trailers when needed.
Non-pumpable Sludge Stabilization
A percentage of the sludge being treated is often non-pumpable. This non-
pumpable sludge can be stabilized with different stabilization technologies such as:
• Mechanical mixing/stabilization with a backhoe
• Pugmill mixing
• Specialized equipment such as a "Brown-Bear" or sludge injector
2.2.8 Aboveground and Underground Storage Tank Management
Four Seasons maintains a fully staffed Underground Storage Tank (UST)
department committed to providing clients with comprehensive UST management
services in accordance with all federal and state regulations. Four Seasons routinely
provides the following services:
Residual Product
Re111011al
Tank Removal
Closure Assessment
Backfill and
Site Restoration
Residual petroleum products are removed with a vacuum truck and
the petroleum liquids and sludges are disposed of in a manner
consistent with all applicable local, state, and federal regulations.
Prior to tank removal, the atmosphere within the tanks is tested for
flammability. Any tank registering over 10 percent of the Lower
Explosive Limit (LEL) is inerted. Four Seasons excavates the
tank, removing soil, asphalt, and concrete as necessary. During
excavation, Four Seasons examines the soil for contamination.
Soil suspected of contamination is appropriately segregated and
stockpiled 011 site in a bermed area lined and covered with
polyethylene sheeting. To minimize the hazards associated with
the excavated pit, the disturbed regions are secured by enclosing
the area with barricades and safety ribbon.
After tank removal, soil samples are obtained from the bottom of
the excavation and submitted to an EPA-approved laboratory and
analyzed based on the prior contents of the vessel. The analytical
results from these samples are be used to provide documentation of
"clean closure."
Backfill materials can consist of stockpiled excavated materials
which do not indicate the presence of contamination. Additional
backfill equivalent to the tank volumes can be provided and is
predominantly granular, friable soil, (free from stones larger than 4
inches), frost, roots, sod, muck, marl, organic matter, or other
materials unsuitable for proper compaction. Backfill is placed and
compacted by mechanical methods to the specified grade.
Excavated areas are resurfaced, when required.
Tank Disposal
Remediation Plan
Statement of Qualifications
3218 t
Page 9 of 23
Following the removal of the storage tank, the vessel is subjected
to an appropriate decontamination procedure followed by a
thorough visual inspection. Following completion of the cleaning
and decontamination process, the tank is cut into scrap pieces and
subsequently transported to a metal recycling facility. The client
always receives a tank disposal manifest listing the disposal
procedures and dates.
In the event contamination is encountered, the client is notified.
Four Seasons can implement a remedial action plan based on
federal and state guidelines. Four Seasons offers a varied array of
soil disposal options and treatment technologies which alleviate
client liabilities while providing cost-efficient, technically
advanced disposal methodologies.
2.3 ON-SITE TREATMENT SERVICES
In the early years of the Superfund program, the primary method for handling
hazardous waste was land disposal, which can be cost effective in the short run, but can
create greater long-tenn problems and costs due to potential liability issues. When
CERCLA was amended in 1986 by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act
(SARA), an emphasis was placed on achieving long-term effectiveness and permanence
of remedies at Superfund sites. The revised National Oil and Hazardous Substances
Pollution Contingency Plan promulgated in March 1990, provides the regulatory
framework for implementing this concept and emphasizes the use of "permanent
solutions and alternative treatment technologies or resource recovery technologies to the
maximum extent practicable" and to prefer remedial actions in which treatment
"permanently and significantly reduces the volume, toxicity, or mobility of hazardous
substances, pollutants, and contaminants as a principal element." As a consequence of
this directive in conjunction with the continued development of alternative treatment
technologies, Four Seasons has made a concerted effort to develop alternative
technologies. Brief overviews of these are provided below.
2.3.1 Solidification and Stabilization
Certain hazardous wastes (particularly, those exceeding TCLP values for heavy
metals contamination) require solidification and/or stabilization because they cannot be
treated on-site by any other method or directly landfilled. This type of treatment can
render hazardous wastes non-toxic by binding the toxic components into a form within
the solid matrix of chemical agents or by encapsulating the toxic components into a solid
form. A variety of chemical fixation and stabilization processes can be used, however,
the particular type will depend on the physical and chemical characteristics of the waste.
Four Seasons has the capability to evaluate the characteristics of the waste to dete1mine
the proper additives for chemical stabilization and carry out the full scale remediation.
2.3.2 Thermal Treatment
On-site or off-site thermal desorption is one of several options available to treat
and remove volatile organic contamination as opposed to excavating and transporting
material to a hazardous or non-hazardous landfill. One of the most common applications
Statement of Qualifications
3218 1
Page 10 of 23
for them,al desorption is for the on-site thermal treatment of petroleum-contaminated
soils resulting from leaking underground storage tanks (USTs) and large fuel oil tank
farms. In addition to treatment of petroleum-based contaminants, thermal desorption has
been proven effective in the treatment of other volatile and semi-volatile hazardous waste
constituents at numerous Superfund sites.
Four Seasons has designed and constructed a mobile thermal desorption unit that
treats soil effectively on site using a modified rotary kiln process technology. The Four
Seasons mobile thermal desorption unit (FS-500) is a transportable, trailer-mounted,
thermal processing unit designed for removing petroleum hydrocarbons (e.g., gasoline,
diesel, and kerosene) from soil. It is also effective in removing other volatile and semi-
volatile organics, such as benzene, toluene, xylene, methyl ethyl ketone, cyclohexane,
acetone, naphthalene, cresols, and phenols. Unlike some thermal desorption
technologies, the FS-500 not only removes the volatile contaminants using a catalytic
reactor from the soil, but destroys the volatilized contaminants so air emissions are not a
problem. The FS-500 is used on site and can process a variety of soils containing varying
levels of voes at a throughput capacity of up to 20 tons per hour. The FS-500 is
designed such that the processed soil and air emissions meet applicable federal and state
regulatory requirements. Variable operation parameters allow flexibility to ensure that
waste residuals from the treatment achieve state and local requirements.
In addition to the FS-500, Four Seasons has a larger thermal unit, the FS-TTS,
which is a transportable, multi-trailer mounted unit for removing and destroying
numerous compounds, including pesticides, PNAs, PAHs, TPHs (e.g., gasoline, diesel,
fuel oil, and kerosene) and other contaminants from soil. The physical dimensions of the
unit are approximately 185 feet long, 30 feet high, and 130 feet wide. The unit can
process a variety of · soils containing varying levels of contaminants at a throughput
capacity of up to 60 tons per hour. The unit is designed such that the processed soil and
air emissions meet applicable regulatory requirements. Variable operation parameters
allow flexibility to ensure that discharges from the treatment are well below specific state
and/or any local requirements. The efficiency rating for the unit is >99.99% total
contaminant destruction.
The unit is modular and completely self-contained; therefore, only minimal set up
is required. The unit operates semi-automatically once warm-up and initiation
procedures are completed and control variables set. The comprehensive safety controls
and automatic monitors make machine operation relatively uncomplicated. Automatic
safety controls and temperature gauges are designed to allow the unit to operate only
within a group of strict parameters to ensure proper soil treatment.
2.3.3 Vapor Extraction
Soil vapor extraction is an in-situ remedial technique that uses air movement
through volatile organic compound (VOe)-contaminated soil to enhance volatilization of
soil contaminants. Air movement is typically induced by the application of a vacuum to
the subsurface soil; vacuuming may also be used in conjunction with the injection of air
into the soil. Vapor extraction can be used for the cleanup of soil contaminated with
voes including many solvents and petroleum hydrocarbons.
Four Seasons has developed a patented horizontal vapor extraction (HYE) system
for the in-situ cleanup of soil contaminated with voes. HYE creates a vacuum to induce
Statement of Qualifications
3218 1
Page 11 of 23
air flow through the soil matrix and vaporize volatile contaminants. These vapors are
collected along with the air and discharged appropriately. Unlike costly treatment
methods that involve excavation of contaminated soil and simply transfer the problem,
HYE cleans the soil on site. The horizontal design makes the system extremely effective
for a wide variety of site conditions, including many locations that are difficult to treat by
other methods. Four Seasons also has a patent pending system entitled V Ae-U-Pll..,E, for
vacuum recovery of voes by increasing surface area in vadose zone and avoiding
upwelling of shallow perched ground water. The apparatus consists of a pre-fabricated
vacuum piling constricted by sandwiching two perforated sheet pilings together with a 2"
void space.
Four Seasons custom designs HYE systems to meet the individual needs of each
site. Qualified, trained technicians assemble and install each system according to
stringent quality control and performance standards. Systems include fully automated
controls and housing for aboveground components to protect against weather and
vandalism, while also reducing annual operating and maintenance expenses.
2.3.4 Air Stripping and Ground Water Treatment
Air stripping is a mass transfer process that removes voes from contaminated
water. In a packed column or shallow tray system, a countercurrent air flow transfers
contaminants from the water phase flowing down through the column or over baffles to
the vapor phase. The contaminated airstream can be discharged to the atmosphere or
delivered to a secondary treatment system, when required. Depending on the
concentration levels of remaining contaminants in the treated water; the water can either
be directly discharged or further polished by liquid phase activated carbon.
Four Seasons designs and builds air stripping systems for maximum removal
efficiency, based on site .:onditions. Our trained, qualified technicians build, install, and
can also maintain these systems. Both batch and continuous air stripping systems are
available. All Four Seasons' air stripping systems include safety features and automated
controls, and can be protected against freezing temperatures for year-rouAd operation.
2.3.5 Ground Water Sparginc
The USEPA has been the driving force for development of in-situ technologies to
restore ground water/and soil effected by voe contamination. Viable alternatives to soil
excavation (soil) and conventional pump and treat (water) are strongly desired. Vapor
extraction of enhanced volatilization is one proven method of voe recovery in vadose
zone soils. This technology has been successful in a wide range of soils and for a variety
of chemicals.
Air sparging (ground water aeration) in combination with vapor extraction is an
additive or alternative technique for achieving removal of dissolved voes in the aquifer
or saturated zone. The term "sparging" refers to the injection of hydrocarbon-free air into
the aquifer to strip dissolved voes. Equilibrium conditions are .disturbed and the
dissolved voes shift from the liquid and aqueous phase to the vapor phase. Once
mobilized, voes have an affinity to transport upward into the vadose zone. Effective air
sparging technology is a function of an active vapor extraction (recovery) system in the
unsaturated zone above the ground water plume. In addition to the physical transport
Statement of Qualifications
3218 1
Page 12 of 23
phenomena of air sparging, ambient air injection also stimulates micro-bacteriological
activity within the capillary fringe and upper saturated zone. Consequently, increased
aerobic conditions will aid in the enhanced biodegradation of dissolved hydrocarbons.
Four Seasons has the in-house capabilities to design, install and operate ground water
sparging systems.
2.3.6 Product Recovery
Active product recovery systems can be installed when compounds lighter than
water have been spilled and are present on the water table. Free-product recovery
systems can be integrated with on-going ground water recovery systems to expedite site
remediation. A free-product recovery system usually is effective on free floating
products (such as fuel) having a greater than .5-inch thickness and entails use of a ground
water depression pump combined with an oil skimmer for collection cf the free product.
Four Seasons has the in-house resources to design, install and operate such systems.
2.4 EMERGENCY RESPONSE SERVICES
2.4.1 24-Hour Emeri:ency Response
Four Seasons has developed response procedures and project management
methods designed for rapid effective responses to both hazardous and non-hazardous
substance releases. Four Seasons maintains a fully equipped Emergency Response Yan
which is available for use during emergency response actions. Four Seasons can be
reached 24 hours per day, 7 days per week .by calling any one of the Four Seasons offices
below:
Greensboro, North Carolina 800-868-2718
Charlotte, North Carolina 800-782-0263
Nashville, Tennessee 800-848-8720
2.4.2 Drum Overpackini:
Drum overpacking incorporates transfer of a leaking drum or container into a
drum overpack. Four Seasons often undertakes this procedure in Level A or Level B
PPE due to the unknown hazards associated with the drum contents. Following
overpacking, the drum can be sampled and characterized and disposed of appropriately.
2.4.3 Tank Truck Rolloverrrrain Derailments
Tanker rollovers and train derailments often result in the release of hazardous
materials to surrounding environment. Four Seasons can respond to such a site with
emergency response personnel; vacuum trucks; and heavy equipment and spill
containment equipment such as sorbents, patching equipment, overpack drums, booms,
neutralizing agents, shovels, and sandbags. Using proper safety equipment and
procedures, Four Seasons response personnel quickly take the necessary actions to
contain, minimize, and recover the released substances; work to patch leaking tankers or
containers; or act to reduce the threat of release or minimize the impact of a threatened
release that appears inevitable (due to weather, etc.) to mitigate the immediate effects of
the spill. Following the initial response, the Four Seasons remedial group is available to
perform additional tasks, such as excavation, transportation and disposal of contaminated
soil.
2.4.4 Large-Scale Spill Containment
Statement of Qualifications
3218 l
Page 13 or 23
Four Seasons responds to large scale spills of chemicals in a similar manner to
tanker rollovers. Containment materials such as diking/containment equipment, sorbent
materials and booms are mobilized to prevent further migration of the spill and to contain
the spilled materials. Four Seasons also maintains a multitude of corrosion-resistant
pumps and hoses for transfer of the spilled materials to appropriate containers.
2.4.5 Toxic Chemical Containment and Decontamination
As described in Section 2.4.4 above, Four Seasons maintains the equipment and
resources to contain large-scale spills of toxic materials. Following containment, Four
Seasons can provide site decontamination by pressure washing and or flushing the
affected area and collecting the resulting rinsate.
2.4.6 On-Site Emergency Response and Safety Training
If requested by a client, Four Seasons has the personnel and resources to provide
in-house training for · emergency response procedures. . This training would not be
provided in lieu of the necessary 40 hour OSHA 1910.120 Hazardous Waste training, but
would be given to provide a client with the proper procedures to.follow in the event of an
emergency situation.
2.5 TECHNICAL SERVICES
2.5.1 Project Engineering, Design and Project Management
Four · Seasons has the in-house capabilities to design and engineer remedial
systems. Most ground water recovery and soil vapor extraction projects require detailed
project engineering and planning prior to implementing system construction. Four
Seasons uses its in-house resources, including two AutoCad Version 12 systems and
operators to perform the design work.
2.5.2 PRP Project Planning and Formulation
If requested by a client, Four Seasons will act as a consultant to the PRP for
project planning and formulation. This service is often required when a site has been
identified as needing remediation, however many options are available for implementing
the cleanup. In this case, Four Seasons can evaluate the site and associated data and
recommend the most appropriate and most cost effective remedial solution.
2.5.3 Treatment Technologies Development
If a client has an unusual problem requiring special treatment alternatives, Four
Seasons has the in-house resources and capabilities to develop new technologies for a
specific site.
2.5.4 SPCC Planning and Review
Statement of Qualifications
3218 I
Page 14 of 23
If requested by the client, Four Seasons can assist in preparation of an SPCC Plan.
This would entail performing a walk-through of the facility, review of the types of
products kept on site, and routes of egress, and identification of the location of safety
equipment.
Statement of Qualifications
3218 I
Page 15 of 23
3.0 HEALTH AND SAFETY GUIDELINES
All projects performed by Four Seasons are executed in compliance with ail
OSHA standards with special emphasis on Hazardous Waste Operations and Emergency
Response, 29 CFR 1910.120.
The objective of our safety program is to preclude exposure of our personnel to
hazardous situations found at project sites. Through careful planning, hazard recognition
and control, safety indoctrination and training, and rigorous attention to safety
procedures, we have ensured and will continue to ensure the health and safety of
personnel at our work sites and the public adjacent to our work sites.
The health and safety staff is composed of multi-disciplined personnel. The
primary strength of Four Seasons Health and Safety Department is the accumulated
experience these professionals have gained working specifically on remedial and
emergency response projecL<; involving hazardous substances. The primary functions of
this department are to:
• Verify OSHA and USEPA regulatory compliance
• Prepare site safety plans
• Provide safety training and record maintenance
• Administer medical surveillance programs
• Maintain OSHA accident investigations and records
• Promote health and safety within Four Seasons
• Provide internal health and safety consultation
Four Seasons maintains one of . the industry's strictest personnel medical .
surveillance programs. This program is designed to ensure that the health of the
operations staff is not compromised by potential exposure to chemical and physical
agents.
Four Seasons employs a full-time staff of training professionals who administer
all OSHA and company-required safety and hazardous waste training. Refresher and site
supervision training courses are also provided.
3.1 MEDICAL/HEALTH MONITORING AND SUBSTANCE ABUSE
All Four Seasons personnel participate in a medical • and health monitoring
program. The medical surveillance program consists of initial and annual examinations .
to establish medical and work histories and includes:
• Visual acuity
• Pulmonary functions
• Electrocardiogram/stress and audiometry tests
The program also determines the individual's physical condition through chest
X-rays, complete blood count and blood chemistry analyses, urinalysis, and dennatology
examinations. Substance abuse screening is also a part of our testing.
Statcmcn t of Qualifications
3218 1
Page 16 of 23
At those sites where there is a high potential for workers to be exposed to
contaminants, a specific medical and exposure monitoring program may be initiated. The
results of this program (physicals) are reviewed by the health and safety officer and a
physician.
3.2 EMERGENCY PROCEDURES AND EQUIPMENT
Standard emergency procedures are established at all Four Seasons' work sites.
They include procedures for fires, medical emergencies, and chemical exposures. At
sites where required, site safety procedures are established for toxic vapor releases, liquid
spills, and site emergency evacuations.
Even when a careful hazard evaluation and control program is being followed by
trained and skilled personnel, the potential for an accident exists and must be considered.
Therefore, Four Seasons' work sites are provided with einergency equipment to
appropriately handle all unforeseeable accidents.
3.3 .JOB HAZARD ANALYSIS
Before beginning site work, Four Seasons' project manager and/or health and
safety officer will address particular concerns associared with the work area, including
the following:
• Physical hazards--uneven or soft earth on roads, stones, exposed
power lines or sources, and other obvious hazards
• Chemical hazards--emissions/odors, eye or respiratory irritations, and
airborne particulate problems
• Traffic and personnel access and egress routes
• Evacuation plan for personnel and residents
• Other concerns such as weather conditions (e.g., lightning, severe
wind, etc.)
This job hazard analysis will be submitted as part of the site-specific safety plan
before initiation of the project.
3.4 EMERGENCY RESPONSE PLAN
In the unlikely event of an emergency response situation, the following
procedures will be implemented:
• The project manager will be immediately notified.
• The project manager will evaluate the emergency and notify the
following agencies, if necessary.:
-Client representatives
-Local fire and police departments
3.5
Statcmcn t of Qualifications
3218 l
Page 17 of 23
-Local environmental officials
-Local emergency management personnel
-Residents adjacent to the site
• A record of telephone numbers and contacts will be posted at the
office trailer.
• When necessary, all personnel will be evacuated from the site and
issued additional safety equipment as required. A signal for site
evacuation will be established at the onset of site activity.
• The following fire-control equipment will be maintained on site at all
times:
Equipment to move dirt to smother fires when appropriate
Type A, B, and C fire extinguishers
A constant water source or evidence of coordination with
the local fire department
• Local hospitals and emergency units will be identified with all
telephone numbers posted in the command center.
• Other emergency response situations will be addressed in consultation
with Four Seasons' project manager, client representatives, and local
authorities.
WORK ZONES
One method of reducing the potential for transfer of contamination is to delineate
zones or work areas within the vicinity of the incident, based on expected or known
levels of contamination. Within these zones, prescribed operations occur and appropriate
personnel protective equipment used: Movement between three zones is controlled at
checkpoints. The three zones are:
• Exclusion Zone
• Support Zone
• Contamination-Reduction Zone
3.5.1 Exclusion Zone
The exclusion zone is considered contaminated, and within it, prescribed levels of
protection must be worn by all entering personnel. An entry checkpoint is established at
the periphery of the exclusion zone to control the flow of personnel and equipment and to
ascertain that established procedures for entering and exiting the zones are followed. The
boundary should be physically secured, fenced, posted, or well defined by geographical
boundaries. Basic air monitoring and site sample analyses are the governing factors for
determining the range of specific boundary perimeters.
3.5.2 Support Zone
Statement of' Qualifications
3218 I
Page 18of'23
The support zone is the outermost area of the site and is considered a "clean"
zone. It is designated as a controlled traffic area for authorized support personnel and the
location for support equipment. Since nonnal work clothes are the appropriate apparel
within this zone, potentially contaminated personnel, clothing, equipment, etc., are not
permitted.
3.5.3 Contamination-Reduction Zone
The contamination-reduction zone provides an area to prevent or reduce the
transfer or contaminants that may have been picked up by personnel or equipment
returning from the exclusion zone. All decontamination activities occur in this zone.
The boundary between the support zone and contamination-reduction zone is the
"contamination control line." This boundary separates the possibly contaminated area
from the clean zone. Entry into the contamination-reduction zone from the support zone
is through an access control point.
At the boundary between the contamination-reduction zone and the exclusion
zone is the "hot line" and access control station. At a point close to the "hot line," a
personnel .and/or equipment decontamination station is established for those exiting the
exclusion zone. In some cases, another decontamination ·station is needed closer to the
contamination control line for those working only in the contamination-reduction zone.
3.6 PERSONAL PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT
Four Seasons owns and maintains an extensive array of health and safety
equipment. The specific level of personal protective equipment used is established based
on the chemical and physical nature of the contaminants, their toxicity, physical location
of the work area, material used as cleaning agents, and other chemicals present in the
work area. The level of protective equipment required for each task is specified in the
site-safety plan and conforms with USEPA guidelines.
Statement of Qualifications
3218 I
Page 19 of 23
4.0 PROJECT MANAGEMENT AND COST CONTROL PROGRAM
Professional and effective project management procedures are the key to meeting
client objectives for successful project completion within prescribed cost and time limits.
The Four Seasons project management structure is broken down into elements of project
organization, and staffing, project planning, project control, project performance, and
client confidentiality. Our project ,management program combines all the functional
areas performing work on a project into a coordinated team reporting directly to the
project manager.
Four Seasons has the proven ability to offer clients a project management
approach that will ensure the safe, timely, and cost-effective completion of their project.
We understand the need for maximum economy and efficiency and are confident our
experience, knowledge, and flexibility will meet our clients' project goals.
Four Seasons commits its management effort• to the following key areas:
• Ensure that the quality of Four Seasons' service, commitment, and
personnel is the best possible and remains so throughout the life of the
project.
Take responsibility for actions and ensure safe, economical,
competent, and timely project completion.
• Exert comprehensive team efforts among field and administrative
personnel, subcontractors, and client personnel.
• Implement cost control procedures at all levels of project operation.
4.1 PROJECT ORGANIZATION AND STAFFING .
Central to Four Seasons' project management approach is the assignment of a
dedicated project team staffed with qualified and experienced personnel. For most
projects, the project team consists of several functions that can include, but are not
limited to, the following:
• Project Management
• Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC)
• Health and Safety
• Field Operations
• Project Chemistry
• Project Administration
Project Engineering
Project Accounting
Contract Administration
Project Purchasing
4.1.1 Project Manager
Four Seasons' project managers are highly experienced and trained in project
management and the methods of project execution for hazardous waste emergency
respon se and remediation projects.
Statement of Qualifications
3218 I
Pa~e 20 of 23
The project manager serves as the single point of contact and coordinates all
project activities. In addition, the project manager is responsible for monitoring and
controlling the overall project scope, cost, and schedule; administering the field work
order system; providing overall project direction, overview, and coordination; interfacing
with the client representative; issuing progress and status reports, as necessary;
conducting interim project reviews as required; and assisting in matters relating to
permits, licensing, and/or regulatory compliance issues as may be required to maintain
timely and cost-effective project progress.
To assist the project manager, a management committee is available to provide
guidance and technical services on project execution issues and problems which may
arise. Members of this committee are called upon on an as-needed basis to assist in
smooth project execution.
4.1.2 OA/OC Officer
The QA/QC officer verifies compliance of work performed with the contract
requirements. The QA/QC officer also provides day-to-day liaison with both the client
and Four Seasons project manager on matters relating to verification that work performed
meets the contract requirements.
4.1.3 Health and Safety Officer
The health and safety officer is primarily responsible for assessing the potential
health and safety hazards at the site and developing site-specific health and safety plans
when needed. Other responsibilities include conducting site-specific training programs
and periodic audits. This individual also defines, implements, and enforces the site safety
program, conducts safety meetings, and interfaces, as required, with the project manager
to assist in coordinating all safety aspects of the project.
4.1.4 Field Operations
The field operations personnel are responsible for organizing, leading, and
executing the day-to-day field activities. In addition, this group, headed by the site
supervisor, coordinates and provides daily liaison with the project manager regarding the
details of the field work progress.
4.1.5 Project Chemist
The project chemist is responsible for defining and implementing the chain-of-
custody and laboratory QA/QC programs. In addition, the chemist directs field sampling
and ensures the appropriate subsequent analyses are performed. It is also the direct
responsibility of the chemist to ensure that all analytical results and sampling point
locations are duly recorded and reported to Four Seasons' project manager.
4.1.6 Project Administrator
The project administrator is responsible for tracking the daily costs of the project.
These daily cost figures represent the key data for Four Seasons' management effort.
4.1.7 Project En~ineer
Statement of Qualifications
3218 I
Page 21 of 23
The project engineer is responsible for ensuring the technical excellence of any
engineering effort required on the project. The project engineer also provides the
direction and leadership for all engineering activities and ensures that these activities are
in compliance with the approved project work plan.
4.1.8 Project Accountant
The project accountant is responsible for the preparation, review, accuracy, and
timely submittal of all project invoices. This individual also maintains project financial
records and files.
4.1.9 Contract Administrator
The contract administrator is responsible for negotiation and . acceptance of the
contract. A field work order, being a contractual document, is formally accepted by Four
Seasons only if it bears the signature of the contract administrator or other designated
representative.
4.1.10 Purchasing Administrator
The purchasing administrator is responsible for bidding, awarding, and
contractual direction relative to subcontract field work orders affecting subcontractor
scope, schedule, and/or cost.
4.2 PROJECT PLANNING
. The project planning phase provides the basis for establishing the project
. requirements consistent with Four Seasons' project management program. Interaction
between Four Seasons and the client during the planning stage serves to avert problems
and misinterpretations as the project evolves. A work plan for the entire project or
specific project tasks may be prepared. The work plan is the principal project planning
document whose purpose is to:
• Establish the background for the project or task to be performed.
• Identify the problems to be addressed in terms of project objectives.
• Develop, in detail, the technical scope of work required to satisfy the
project or task objectives.
• Define the project organization and project management system for
controlling and executing the work.
• Present the budget and schedule corresponding to the scope of work.
Durin g the development of a project work plan, a complete and accurate
description of the scope of work, including deliverables, is established. The element used
in both the planning phase and the tracking and control phase is the Work Breakdown
Structure (WBS), a prioritized breakdown of project activities. The WBS prc)vides an
Statement of Qualilications
3218 I
Page 22 of 23
integrated framework for planning and assigning management and technical
responsibilities as well as for monitoring and reporting the progress and status of all site
activities.
4.3 PROJECT CONTROL
Project control guidelines allow the Four Seasons project manager to effectively
manage the project in accordance with cost and schedule requirements.
4.3.1 Cost Control
The Four Seasons method of budget and cost control involves checks and
balances between the project manager and the project task budgets. Cost data are entered
into the Four Seasons project management accounting system to provide management
information on project expenditures as compared to project budgets.
4.3.2 Schedule Control
During the WBS planning phase of the project,· each element of the WBS is
established. The WBS identifies the duration of each activity and the sequence of
activities that will take place to accomplish each of the project tasks. The WBS can be
used to determine activities on the critical path of executing the project and for assisting
the project manager in keeping the overall project on schedule.
4.3.3 Equipment
An extensive equipment inventory is· available within Four Seasons to serve the
majority of field requirements for hazardous waste projects. This equipment is provided
· to projects on an as-needed basis. In the event additional equipment is needed for a ·
project, the project manager evaluates the necessity of purchasing or leasing the item and
uses competitive bidding of qualified suppliers to procure the item.
4.3.4 Subcontractor Selection and Performance
If subcontractors are needed, we prepare procurement packages and technical
specifications for the work to be subcontracted. To expedite this process, the
qualifications of subcontractors who have performed successfully on past Four Seasons -
projects and who maintain acceptable health and safety and QA/QC programs are
reviewed.
Four Seasons maintains full responsibility for the administration of its
subcontractors in accordance with the terms and conditions of the contract. To
successfully achieve and maintain control over subcontractors'· -performance,
subcontractors are required to adhere to the same requirements Four Seasons follows.
These requirements include QA/QC, health and safety, cost and schedule control, and
financial responsibility. We also conduct field quality checks, inspections, quality tests,
and source audits to verify that subcontractor performance meets project quality
requirements.
4.3.5 Sample Analysis and Data Management
Four Seasons uses subcontract laboratories to analyze samples and manage
analytical data as th e need arises or as requested by the client. The selected an alytical
Statement of' Qualifications
3218 l
Page 23 of 23
laboratory services are designed to assist project managers and clients in evaluating and
managing their environmental risks and liabilities. The laboratory QA/QC program
selected is designed to produce credible, legally defensible data which meet and/or
exceed regulatory requirements.
4.4 PROJECT PERFORMANCE
Project performance focuses on the mechanisms to ensure a high degree of
technical quality within the constraints imposed by budget, schedule, and site conditions.
Achieving technical quality, including quality and credibility of project data, findings,
conclusions, and recommendations, is Four Seasons' top project priority.
4.4.1 Project Communication
Professional management of a project requires communication among all parties
to ensure uniformity of approach and control of costs and schedule. The Four Seasons
project manager directly communicates with the client's representative and manages
internal project communication between Four Seasons management and technical staff
and subcontractors.
4.4.2 Reportine
Project management deliverables typically provided by Four Seasons include
status reports on technical, schedule, and cost progress, and technical deliverables
including reports containing the results and findings of project tasks and papers analyzing
specific project issues such as regulatory compliance. During project planning, Four
Seasons works with the client to establish the types and frequencies of deliverables
required.
4.4.3 Field Work Order Control
The goal of project management is to safely produce quality work in conformance
with prescribed requirements. Changes in technical scope, budget, and/or schedule
represent changes . in project requirements that must be documented, approved,· and
controlled. The Four Seasons project manager maintains close communication between
the client representative and Four Seasons' technical .and management staff. Requested
changes in technical direction, budget, and schedule are documented and handled, (via a
Field Work Order), in a timely manner.
4.5 CLIENT CONFIDENTIALITY
Because we respect the rights of our clients, all work performed by Four Seasons
is treated with the highest regard for maintaining client confidentiality. Four Seasons
also understands the public scrutiny with which many of our clients are faced and as
such, Four Seasons personnel will do nothing to jeopardize a client's confidentiality. For
this reason, our personnel do not give press comments. If ever approached by the media,
· our personnel will refer any questions to the client on-site representative.
APPENDIX A.
INDUSTRIAL SERVICES PROJECT SUMMARIES
Project
Client
Contact
Performance
Period
PROJECT ABSTRACT
Clean No. 6 Fuel Oil Storage Tank
Amoco Oil Company -Yorktown Refinery
2201 Goodwin Neck Road
Grafton, Virginia 23692
Dave Cambellich
[phone]
July to September 1992
AB133
Four Seasons cleaned a 275-foot diameter No. 6 fuel oil storage tank with a
·floating roof. The capacity of the tank was approximately 26,000,000 gallons.
Pumpable sludge in the tank had previously been removed by another contractor, leaving
approximately 85,000 gallons of a difficult sludge to remove and process into a useable
fuel.
A self-propelled sludge auger machine was used to remove the sludge from the
tank. No. 2 fuel oil was used as a cutter stock and added to the sludge by . the auger
machine to facilitate sludge removal. The sludge mixture was then heated, blended with
additional cutter stock and filtered to yield a useable fuel. Following the removal of the
sludge the tank was stripped with cutter stock and cleaned with high-pressure washers.
· Four Seasons estimated that approximately 85 volume percent of the sludge
material could br-recovered as fuel from testing samples of the material. At the end of
the project, less than 3,000 gallons of the original waste sludge required disposal off-site.
Greater than 95 percent of the sludge material was processed into usable fuel for Amoco.
B:2759 I
Project
Client
Performance
Period
PROJECT ABSTRACT
Tanlc Pit Cleaning and Stabilization
Peterbilt Motor Company
Madison, TN
Quarterly (1993 -present)
AB158
Four Seasons is routinely contracted by Peterbilt to clean out and stabilize
approximately 12,000 gallons of water-based paint waste from two tanlc pits at the
Madison, Tennessee facility. A Vac Truck and Guzzler Supersucker is used to remove
the subject waste. Following removal, the waste is transported to an adjacent area for
transfer to on-site roll-off boxes. The waste is then stabilized using . approximately 50
tons of kiln dust which is mixed with a backhoe:
This project is completed in Level D PPE, ususally over a 14-hour time frame,
using a total of six personnel. A ramp is constructed to allow the Super sucker vacuwn
truck to unload the waste into the roll-off containers. Following completion of waste
handling activities, all equipment is decontaminated. All• waste is left on-site for final
disposition by the client.
B:4289 1
Project
Client and
Contact
Performance
Period
PROJECT ABSTRACT
Decontamination of Process Equipment and Tanks
Digital Equipment Corporation; Greenville, SC
Steve LaForest, 803-279-4100
March to April 1991
AB52
In February of 1991, Four Seasons prepared and submitted a proposal to Digital
for the decontamination of various process equipment (contaminated with lead, chrome,
permanganate, cyanides, hydrochloric acid, sulfuric acid, and nitric acid) and tanks at
their facility in Greenville, South Carolina. Upon negotiation of a mutually acceptable
agreement, Digital authoriz.ed Four Seasons to proceed with the project in March of
1991.
The scope of this project involved decontamination of the following:
• An electroless plating area including tanks, piping, exhaust system,
and framing.
• A chrome treatment area including tanks, piping, exhaust system, and
framing.
• Four tin/lead copper treat tanks.
• A strip etch line including vessels, pipes, and frames.
• A gold plating line including vessels, pipes, and frames.
• Copper lancing including vessels, pipes, and frames.
Four Seasons mobiliz.ed from its Charlotte and Greensboro, North Carolina
offices. The project team consisted of one project manager, one foreman, and two
technicians. Equipment consisted of the following:
• Two Pressure Washers
• One Field Services Vehicle
• One Pick-up Truck
• One 1,000-gallon Poly Tank
• One Pneumatic Pump
• Level B and C Protection with Acid Gear
• Open-top 17-H Drums
(Decontamination of Process Equipment and Tanks) Page2
Prior to on-site operations, the project manager met with the Digital safety
director for review •Of the facility safety protocol and the Four Seasons site-specific health
and safety plan. Also, to protect the area in close proximity to the decontamination work,
visqueen curtains were placed around the work areas to maintain overspray during
decontamination activities.
Subsequent to material removal from the tanks, Four Seasons used a 2,000-psi
pressure washer unit with a mild acid solution. Both bottom tank valves and a pneumatic
pump were used to remove rinsate from the tanks. The resultant wastewater was routed
to the Digital on-site wastewater treatment plant. The solid contamination removed from
the tanks was drummed and labeled by Four Seasons' technicians. The material was
staged on site for ultimate disposal by Digital. During all tank cleaning operations, the
appropriate confined-space entry protocols were adhered to.
Four Seasons used a combination of system recirculation and pipe isolation to
achieve the pipe cleaning task. The system was recirculated with an acid solution in
place of the system's normal fluids. Each pipe, valve, and fitting was monitored to ensure
· that the solution introduced into the pipe traveled through the piping and returned to the
established recovery point.
All process equipment bodies, supports, frames, and floors were scrubbed and
pressure washed with the acid solution. Ri.11sate from this operation was squeegeed into
the collection points for routing to the Digital wastewater treatment system.
After decontamination of the tin/lead copper treat tanks, they were cut and all
associated pipes and vents removed. It was necessary to cut the tanks to facilitate their
removal from the facility. Once dislodged from the building and cut, the tanks were
loaded onto Four Seasons' flatbed trailer and transported to a · recycling center for
recycling.
All other items decontaminated during this project were properly staged for
ultimate disposal.
B:138 1
Project
Client and
Contact
Performance
Period
PROJECT ABSTRACT
Tanlc Cleaning
E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Company, Inc.;
Fayetteville, NC,
Ernest Harrelson, 919-678-1217
August 1991
AB43
In June of 1991, Four Seasons responded to a request from du Pont to complete a
tank cleaning project in Fayetteville, North Carolina. To prepare for the project, Four
Seasons visited the site location on three occasions to establish the safety requirements
for the endeavor. After the site tours and discussions with du Pont representatives, Fluor
Daniel, du Pont's in-house contractor, Four Seasons prepared and submitted the site-
specific health and safety procedures required for the project. Upon confirmation to
proceed, Four Seasons mobilized seven personnel ( one health and safety officer, one
foreman, one project manager, and four . technicians) to commence cleaning of a
1,100-gallon fluorinated waste tank with 300 gallons of waste at the du Pont facility.
The project evolved as a result of du Pont's fluorination process. A reactor vessel,
used to contain fluorinated waste materials, required cleaning and replacement because
the copper lining of the tank had deteriorated.
To execute the project, Four Seasons used a pump truck and high-pressure
washing (2,500-psi) techniques. As an initial measure, the tank was pumped of product.
As the pump truck emitted vapor during pumping, the resultant discharged vapor was
passed through a pre-fabricated potassium hydroxide fume scrubber. Once pumping
proved no longer effective, a Four Seasons technician, in Level B protection, entered the
tank to complete bulk cleaning and commence high-pressure water washing. This tank
entry was performed in compliance with OSHA confined-space entry and permitting
procedures. Once the tank was squeegeed and pressure washed, the accumulated
washwater was pumped from the tank and placed into DOT drums for disposal by du
Pont. The material in the vacuum truck was also placed into drums for disposal.
The cleaning procedure was a delicate operation due to the inherent corrosive
nature of fluorinated materials as they contact moisture, thus creating hydrofluoric acid.
Medical monitoring was performed for the duration of the project. The project was
conducted on schedule and to du Pont's satisfaction.
B:129 1
Project
Client
Performance
Period
PROJECT ABSTRACT
Tank Cleaning and Demolition
DuPont Environmental Remediation Services
Belle, WV
April 1994
$118,000.00
AB149
Four Seasons was awarded a contract by DuPont Environmental Remediation
Services to clean waste sludge from three 250,000-gallon carbon steel tanks and
dismantle and remove the three tanks and three additional 250,000-gallon tanks at the
Belle, West Virginia Facility. Each tank was 35 feet in diameter and 35 feet high with a
concrete foundation. The tanks were accessible by a 26-inch manway located
approximately 1.5 feet from the tank floor.
The waste contained in the tanks consisted of free standing contaminated water,
free flowing organic slurry and viscous tarry sludge from various plant processes. The
waste material carried EPA hazardous waste code numbers of FOOS and DOO 1.
A Project Manager and four Site Technicians were dedicated to the site. The
equipment used for project implementation included a vacuum truck, a power washer, an
air compressor, intrinsically safe ventilation, and EPA level Band C Personal Protective·
Equipment
All personnel working in the tanks were equipped with Level B PPE utilizing in-
line air (ALE's). In addition, decontamination and support personnel were equipped with
Level C PPE utilizing full face respirators, for use as determined by air monitoring
performed.
A site safety meeting and job site safety inspection were performed prior to the
start of tank cleaning. All lines and connections to the tanks were locked and tagged. An
eductor or air powered blower exhaust system was set up to prevent fumes from escaping
through access manways. A confined space entry permit was issued and cleaning
conducted in accordance with confined space entry procedures.
Trained recovery technicians equipped with the appropriate protective clothing
and safety equipment entered the tanks to remove the sludge and to clean the tanks. A
vacuum truck designed for the removal of solids was used to remove the materials from
the tanks. The vacuum truck was located adjacent to the diked area and manned by a
recovery technician. The materials contained in the vacuum truck were subsequently
transferred into drums using an integral auger system. DuPont supplied drums to
containerize the waste materials.
Following sludge removal, the tanks were power washed to remove any residual
material remaining in them. The rinse water and residual materials resulting from this
operation were collected with the vacuum truck. These materials were then containerized
in drums.
(Tanlc Cleaning and Demolition) Page2
Decontamination of personnel included a decontamination line in which the outer
garments were removed and containerized for disposal. Setup, operation and breakdown
of the decontamination facilities was overseen by the Project Manager/Site Safety
Officer.
Demolition of the tanlcs was subcontracted to a licensed qualified demolition
contractor.
B:3864 1
Project
Client
Performance
Period
AB136
PROJECT ABSTRACT
Service Contract for Non-Hazardous Fuel/Water Mixtures
and Drill Cuttings Collection, Recycling, Treatment and/or
Disposal
Exxon Company
C.H. Cruchfield [phone]
1992 -present
Four Seasons has been contracted by Exxon to provide on-going services for
collection, transportation, recycling, treatment and disposal of small volumes of
fuel/water mixtures and petroleum-contaminated water and drill cuttings from gas
stations and terminals in the southeastern United States. Exxon contacts Four Seasons
when a pickup is required, and Four Seasons dispatches the necessary personnel and
equipment. The volume of material collected varies from 10 gallons to 30,000 gallons.
Once the liquid has been collected, it is returned to Four Seasons Patton A venue facility
where it is treated and discharged or recycled.
Four Seasons has serviced an average of 100 sites per year for the four years that
this contract has been active. The majority of this service has been for locations in North
Carolina, Virginia and West Virginia.
B:3127 I
APPENDIXB
REMEDIAL SERVICES PROJECT SUMMARIES
Project
Client
Performance
Period
PROJECT ABSTRACT
Soil Removal/On-Site Stabilization and Placement
Smith Metal and Iron Site Remediation
City of Charlotte, North Carolina
Engineer -HDR
Charles Lee -[phone]
October 1994 -present
AB174
Four Seasons was chosen to perform site remediation activities at this former
industrial site. The City of Charlotte has chosen this particular location for the Carolina
Panthers Football NFL francise Practice Field. Due to the presence of elevated levels of
PCBs and lead in soil at the site, various remedial techniques were required. Following
preparation of a detailed work plan, Sediment and Erosion Control Plans and a site-
specific Health and Safety Plan, site construction activities began. The project activities
are briefly described as follows.
• Mobilization/Site Set-up, including establishing office trailer,
installation of temporary facilities, fence erection and access road
improvements;
• Construction of a 2,000,000 gallon bermed sedimentation basin
(w/dimensions of 200'xl50'xl0') to capture stormwater run-off during
site operations;
• Construction of a waste cell in which to place lead-stabilized soil and
soil having less than 50 ppm PCBs
• Construction of an equipment and rubble decontamination pad, as
well as a stabilization pugmill pad;
• Clearing and grubbing of the six designated areas to expose affected
soils, and disposal of the associated rubble and miscellaneous debris.
• Demolition, decontamination and disposal of various structures
including brick, masonry and concrete retaining walls, footings and
foundations slabs, totalling approximately 17,200 cubic feet
• Excavation of a total of 14,500 cubic yards of lead-contaminated soil,
followed by on-site stabilization and placement into the waste cell
• Excavation of a total of 10,400 cubic yards of Type II ( <50ppm
PCBs) contaminated soil, and on-site placement
(Soil Removal/On-Site Stabilization and Placement)
• Excavation and on-site stabilization of 4,000 cubic yards of PCB/lead
contaminated soil;
• Rail transportation and disposal of PCB/lead TSCA-regulated waste
materials to the Envirosafe landfill, located in Idaho.
• Backfilling of excavations with imported soils to the designated
grades.
• Topsoil application, seeding and mulching of disturbed areas
requiring revegetation followed by removal of erosion control devices
after establishment of vegetative layer.
• Removal of temporary utilities, facilities and demobilization.
Page2
As many as 12 equipment operators are working at one time on excavation,
stabilization and waste placement activities.
8:5694_1
Project
Client
Performance
Period
PROJECT ABSTRACT
Emergency Remedial Contract Services
(ERCS -Region IV)
USEPA
Various Locations -Southeast United States
August 1991 -present
AB106
Four Seasons was awarded a five-year, multi-task order Emergency Remedial Cleanup
Services (ERCS) contract with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) for
emergency remedial cleanup services throughout Region IV. Under this contract, which
has a ceiling dollar value of $25 million, Four Seasons has conducted 28 projects with a
total dollar value of almost $13 million within the last four years. Work conducted under
this contract requires extensive task sequencing to ensure smooth project execution and
cost accounting. These projects are very diverse• and complicated, ranging from
contaminated soil removal to the detonation of shock-sensitive chemicals.
All of the ERCS work is stringently tracked by the USEPA. Accordingly, all of the Four
Seasons field efforts and management activities are clearly documented and consistent
with all federal requirements. Projects which have been completed under the ERCS
contract to date include solvent, drum and soil removal; PCB soil removal; pesticide soil
removal; lead-contaminated soil removal; explosives removal; reactive waste removal;
and several unknown drum removals.
Several of these sites required major mobilization and quick, effective planning. Some
individual sites have required efforts approaching $2 million. Four Seasons' performance
on several ERCS task orders has resulted in letters of commendation from the EPA
Region IV office. The following table lists ERCS projects that have been awarded to
Four Seasons.
FOUR SEASONS ERCS DELIVERY ORDER SUMMARY
Site Desii;:nation Actual EPA/On-Scene Performance Service
and Location Spent Coordinator Period Provided
East Tennessee Chair Site s 253,445 Mall Taylor 9/91 10 4/92 Solvent, Drum,
El i1.abethton. TN & Soi] Removal
Oak I lill PCB Site (1) s 850,000 Jim Webster I 0/9 I 10 Present PCB Soil
Lenior, NC (2) s 987,527 Removal
(Emergency Remedial Contract Services -Region IV) Page2
FOUR SEASONS ERCS DELIVERY ORDER SUMMARY (cont)
Site Designation ArtY!l EPA/Qg-Scme ferfQCmance ~
and Location ~ Coordinator Period Provided
FCXSite $ 589,119 Oiuck McPherson 1/92 to 2f)2 Pesticide Soil
Washington, NC Excavation
fo11CS Tire & Battery Site $1,145,393 Paul Peronard 3/92 to Present Lead Soil&
Birmingham, AL Debris Rcmovd
Aqua-Tech Site $ 857,431 Wam:nDixon 1/92 to 5/92 Drum Sampling
Grecr,SC &Removal
Maryland Assemblies Site $ 107,068 Don Rigger 3/92 to Present Explosives/Soil
Perry,FL Removal
NOAT Farm Site $ 18,150 Paul Peronard 4/92 to Present ReactivesDct.
Gowansville, SC & Waste Excav.
Stoney Fork Creek Drum $ 29,644 Ouistie Ulmer 5/92 to B/92 Drum R=oval
Dump Site
Willces County, NC
Gamewell Drum Site $ 25,000 Francis Garcia 6/92 to3/93 Drum Removal
Gamewell, NC
Melhorn Silver Recovery $ 34,634 Francis Garcia 6/92 to 10/1}2 Cyanide&
Site Metal Soil
Oliver Springs, TN Removal
Western Plating Company $ 418,204 Matthew Monsees 8/92 to2/93 Electroplating
Owensboro, KY Oeanup
Kannapolis Perk Wells $ 23,969 Tony Moore 9/92 to Present Alternate Water
Kannapolis, NC Supplies
80% Complete
Oierokee Oil Resources $ 1,430,892 Matt Taylor 9/92 to 3/1}3 Drum Removal
Oiarloae, NC
Carolina Creosote Corp. $ 417,187 Samantha Oements 10/92 to Present Soil/waste identi-
Leland,NC fication and
83% Complete disposal
(Emergency Remedial Contract Services -Region IV) Page 3
FOUR SEASONS ERCS DELIVERY ORDER SUMMARY (cont)
Site Dcsii:nation Actual EPA/On-Scene Performance Service
and Location Spent Coordinator Period Provided
Enterprise Recovery Sys. $ 95,134 Robert Rosen 11/92 to 12/93 Disposal of
Byhalia, MS drums & solvents
8 I% Complete
Manasota Plating, Inc. (I) $ 679,328 Ma1thew Monsees 3/93 to 3/94 Electroplating
Sarasota, FL (2) 581,161 waste disposal;
(3) 240,826 Groundwater
remediation
Ulah Battery Site. $ 724,270 Matthew Taylor 9/93 Lo Present Lead soil and
Asheboro, NC debris removal
Summit Resource Management $ 1,737,536 Michael Taylor 9/93 to Present Drum sampling,
Charlotte, NC waste disposal
91 % Complete
Dynatech Industries s I l'.!,931 Bill Joyner 9/93 Lo Present HazCat, Dmm
Matthews, NC waste dispo.al
Royal Chrome Bumper s I 16,575 f-rancis Garcia 4/94 to Present MC!als
Tampa.FL Remediation
Chemical Cartage Co. s 33,723 Samantha Urquhart 4/94 to Present f-acility
Leland.NC Remediation
. 88% Complete
Rouse Steel Drum s 341,605 Mauhew Monsees 6/94 Lo Present Drum Disposal
Jacksonville, f-L
W&R s 640,0()J Paul Peronard 7 /94 Lo Present Drum Bulking,
Memphis, TN Characterization/
Disposal
Crestline Community $ 5,000 Art Smith 5/93 to Present Soil And
Aberdeen, NC Groundwater
20% Complete TreaLmmL
System
l.nstaUalion
11: 1667 I -
Project
Client
Performance
Period
PROJECT ABSTRACT
Surface hnpoundment Closure
AT&T Nassau Metals Corporation; Gaston, SC
Mark Gaeth, 404-798-2292
January to May 1990
AB36
In December 1989, Four Seasons prepared and submitted a proposal to address
the closure of AT&Ts Storm Water A Pond. Four Seasons' technical team recommended
three remedial approachs to minimize the financial and environmental impact of the
action and to expedite the overall closure. The remedial options proposed were as
follows:
1. General excavation and off-site disposal as both hazardous and non-
hazardous waste materials; dependent upon final segregated stockpile
analysis.
2. Excavation and off-site disposal of hazardous waste material; general
treatment of remaining impacted soil and disposal as non-hazardous
waste.
3 .. · Soil treatment of lead-impacted soil and disposal as non-hazardous
waste material; waste treatment until EP-Toxicity analysis is passed
for lead.
The client selected Option 3.
A detailed site reconnaissance was conducted to determine the optimum regions
in which to initiate excavation. During excavation, a· geologist assisted in determining
regions of potential contamination using field observations, a field Pb coloration test, and
laboratory analysis to inspect the soil. The soil was treated with an admix material that
created a lead-silicate bond, passing the EP-Toxicity test standards. Each sample was
collected, stored, and analyzed in complete accordance with all USEP A requirements for
the identification and listing of hazardous waste.
Stockpiled lead-contaminated soil was loaded onto trucks and appropriately
manifested and transported to the selected disposal facility as a non-hazardous waste.
Authorization to dispose of such waste at the facilities was received from the respective
facility and the State of South Carolina
Upon completion of the excavation, samples of the remaining in-situ soil were
collected. All samples were labeled with a tag identifying the sample number, date, time,
location, method of collection, analysis to be conducted, samplers and remarks. The
samples were kept in a cooler, chilled at approximately 4°C and transported to the
analytical laboratory under USEPA-approved chain-of-custody procedures.
The extracted samples were analyzed for heavy metal lead using the Appendix II
EP-Toxicity Procedure, with the characteristic defined in 40 CPR 261.24.
Project
Client and
Contact
Performance
Period
PROJECT ABSTRACT
RCRA Impoundment Closure
Transcontinental Gas Pipeline; Mooresville, NC
Richard Lutz, 804-973-4384
May to June 1991
AB45
In February 1991, Four Seasons received a request from Radian Corporation to
provide a proposal for surface impoundment closure services required in Mooresville,
North Carolina.
For this project, Four Seasons mobilized a crew of five personnel to the site to
commence activities for the closure of a surface impoundment. Personnel included one
project manager, one equipment operator, one survey engineer, and one field technician.
In addition to the on-site crew, equipment mobilized included the following:
• One tracked excavator
• One rubber-tire backhoe
• One utility vehicle
• Bobcat trencher
• One vibratory roller
• Surveying equipment
• Modified Level D protective clothing
• Hot water steamer
• Miscellaneous Tools and Supplies
Four Seasons constructed a decontamination pad in the vicinity of the excavation
limits. The pad was constructed of polyethylene sheeting and the existing site soil. For •
pad construction, Four Seasons leveled an area and gently. sloped the grade toward a pre-
determined comer. A hole was created in the sloped comer and was used as a sump to ·
recover the rinse water. Visqueen was placed over the pad and secured with the existing
site soil. When decontaminating activities commenced, a small sump pump was placed
in the sump to perform recovery.
Using a tracked excavator, Four Seasons excavated · the soil within the
impoundment. The tracked excavator allowed for better control during digging and
direct loading of outgoing transportation vehicles, and enabled excavation to occur
without entering the impoundment. Excavating from the perimeter of the impoundment
also limited the amount of rinse water generated for decontamination of the machine.
Backfill material provided was predominantly granular, friable soil (free from
stones larger than 6 inches in the greatest dimension); frost; roots; sod; muck; marl; and
organic matter or other unsuitable materials.
The final phase of the project consisted of the closure certification. Contaminated
soil that could not be removed to the designated cleanup levels was examined further.
Four Seasons performed additional environmental assessments to determine the vertical
and horizontal extend of contamination. The appropriate documentation, including
details of completed work tasks and laboratory results, was submitted to the appropriate
local, state and/or federal regulatory agencies.
11:122 1
(RCRA Impoundment Closure) Page 2
Stockpiled soil was kept within the limits of the excavation. When off-site
transportation units arrived on site, the operator ceased excavation and assisted with
loading the stockpiled soil on the vehicles. This measure, coupled with the joint
scheduling efforts of the consultant, Transcontinental Gas, and Four Seasons personnel,
helped minimize demurrage charges.
The equipment operator used a Bobcat tracked excavator/trencher equipped with
a 1-foot wide cribbing bucket to excavate a trench around the perimeter of the
impoundment.
Four surveys were performed during the project at the following designated
stages:
• Survey 1 -After excavation.
• Survey 2 -After clay liner installations.
• Survey 3 -After 40-mil liner installations.
• Survey 4 -After topsoil installation.
After excavation was completed and the soil was loaded and removed from the
site, the first of the four surveys was conducted.
During the course of excavation and backfilling activities, water entering the
impoundment was recovered and put into DOT-approved drums. The drummed water
was loaded and taken to a predetermined on-site location identified by Transcontinental
Gas.
The clay material for the liner was provided by Transcontinental Gas and staged
in an area adjacent to the impoundment. Two 6-inch lifts of clay were installed by Four.
Seasons. Four Seasons maintained a 2 percent slope towards the northwest comer for
water drainage purposes. -After the upper layer of clay was installed and the compaction
criteria achieved, the area was surveyed.
The lower and upper liner systems were installed by Four Seasons according to
the specifications established by the consultant. Four Seasons inserted a 6-inch sand
layer between the lower and upper liner systems. A smooth drummed self-propelled
vibratory roller was used to make several passes across the lift before installing the upper
liner system. After the liner systems were tied in, a 2-inch slotted PVC pipe was placed
in the trench. As a final measure, imported aggregate was placed in the trench
surrounding the slotted PVC pipe. Survey 3 was completed once the upper liner and the
drainage system was in place.
Four Seasons placed a layer of clay followed by a layer of topsoil over the upper
liner. Survey 4 was completed and the entire area was seeded according to the
specifications.
B:131_1
Project
Client and
Contact
Performance
PROJECT ABSTRACT
Removal of USTs under the Storage Tank Removal
and Installation Program; State of Kentucky
US Army Corps of Engineers -Louisville District
Marilyn Lewis, USACOE, [phone]
September 1993 -November 1993
AB162
Four Seasons has a I-year, multi-task order contract with the US Army Corps of
Engineers -Louisville District for Storage Tank removal and installation at various
locations throughout the State of Kentucky. Four Seasons received a delivery order for
permanent closure of three underground storage tanks containing petroleum products at
the Naval Ordnance Station in Louisville, Kentucky.
The storage vessels at the site ranged in size from 1,000 to 5,000 gallons. They
were contained within three separate pits, each containing gasoline and/or diesel fuel.
The procedures utilized for the closure of the three UST systems followed the
guidelines in the Underground Storage Tank System(s) Closure Outline for Collection of
Samples and Laboratory Analysis for Underground Storage Tanks in Kentucl..y,
published by the Natural Resources and Environmental Protection, Division Cabinet,
Division of ·Waste Management, Underground Storage Tank Branch, dated December 1,
1992.
A vacuum truck was used to remove all residual virgin petroleum products from
the three storage vessels. During tank removal operations, water was noted entering the
excavations, and the vacuum truck was also used to collect the accumulated pit water. A
total of 2,811 gallons of residual product/pit water was transported to an approved
disposal facility in Cincinnati. An additional 2,863 gallons of accumulated pit water were
routed through Four Seasons' facility in Brentwood, Tennessee for ultimate disposal at
Four Seasons' Patton Avenue facility located in Greensboro, North Carolina. The
material transported to the Patton A venue facility was subjected to a recycling process
which reduced the contaminant levels in the water phase to the low parts per billion
range, thereby allowing discharge into· the local Publicly Operated Treatment Works
(POTW).
Prior to removal, a combustible gas indicator (CGI) was used to monitor the
interior of each tank for the presence of flammable vapors. Those tanks with excessive
vapor concentrations were inerted by applying carbon dioxide in the form of dry ice
spread evenly throughout the interiors. Upon achieving acceptable levels, the tanks were
removed from the three pits. The interiors of the tanks were cleaned and all
sludge/rinseate was containerized within drums and sampled.
After removal, the tanks were externally cleaned of soil in order to detect any
abnormalities. The vapor-free tanks were rendered inoperable by removing each end and
were subsequently transported to a metal recycling facility for disposal.
At the start of tank removal operations, the soils were noted to have been stained,
exuded strong petroleum odors and registered PID readings in excess of 2,500 parts per
million. Based upon this obvious evidence of contamination, the Corps elected to
commence overexcavation of the tank pits in an attempt to achieve clean closures.
During excavation, soils suspected of gasoline contamination were screened
visually and with a PHOTOV AC MP-1000, Photoionization Detector (PID) to
differentiate and segregate impacted and nonimpacted soil. Those soils suspected of
diesel fuel contamination were screened visually and with an immunoassay field test for
PAH constituents. Soils exhibiting excessive readings were segregated, stockpiled on
site and secured with polyethylene sheeting. A total of 450 cubic yards of petroleum
contaminated material was handled in this manner.
Upon completion of the excavation operations, composite soil samples were
collected from the side walls of each excavation to document conditions. Representative
samples were also collected from the drums of tank sludge/rinseate and from deep within
the soil stockpile.
Four Seasons made_ arrangements _ with a local landfill for disposal of the
contaminated soil. The nonhazardous waste stream was loaded onto dump trucks and
subsequently transported to a facility located in Louisville, Kentucky operated by Waste
Management of Kentucky, Incorporated.
Following completion of all site work, a final report was compiled and submitted
to the Corps representative.
8:4349 I
Project
Client and
Contact
Performance
Period
PROJECT ABSTRACT
Drum Sampling and Disposal
Cherokee Oil Drum Site; Charlotte, NC
USEPA, OSC-Michael Taylor
September 1992 to March 1993
ABI 19
This site was an active hazardous waste storage facility for drums and bulk tanks,
determined in 1990 by EPA to have a considerable potential for release of hazardous
substances from corroded, decaying drums stored on the site. A Consent Order to clean
up the site was refused by the site operators. EPA began a removal action in 1991 to
overpack, stage, and sample the drums. Four Seasons was requested to continue the
removal action and undertake limited sampling in order to conduct the drum disposal
activities.
Approximately 6,200 drums of hazardous waste; including 17 drums of cyanide
wastes, 63 drums of PCB wastes, 24 overpack drums of epoxys and mercaptans, six
tanker loads of high-BTU liquids, 24 tankers of wastewaters, 71 roll-off boxes of
solidified sludges, 37 roll-off boxes of crushed empty drums, and five roll-off boxes of
wood and debris were removed from the site for treatment or disposal. Four USTs and
three over-the-road tanker-trailers abandoned on-site were also removed, cleaned, and cut
for scrap recycling.
Four Season completed working on bulking drums of liquid and sludge/solid
wastes by the end of the first week of March 1993, then decontaminated and crushed the
emptied drums for disposal. The primary wastes bulked for off-site shipment were tars
and oils, and decon wastewaters. The wooden pallets that held the drums on-site, as well
as various debris from the site, were broken up for off-site transport and disposal. Four
Seasons shipped lab-packed drums, bulked liquid hazardous wastewaters, solidified
. hazardous waste sludges, emptied crushed drums, and crushed wood pallets and debris
from the site over a I-month period.
Following the completion of drum pumping, rinsing, and crushing, Four Seasons
began site restoration. The site fence was repaired, barricades were placed around the
tank removal excavations, and paved surfaces on-site were washed down. Equipment
and crew were demobilized as appropriate, and the final utilities cut-off and command
post demobilized in mid-March.
11:2014 I
Project
Client and
Performance
Period
PROJECT ABSTRACT
PCB Remediation at Six Satellite Sites
Confidential Client
September 1993 -July 1994
AB140
Four Seasons was chosen to be the contractor for remediation of this Superfund
site based on our experience with projects of similar size, our attention to the
requirements of maintaining a "low profile" appearance, our ability to provide the
necessary manpower and equipment resources, and the innovative techniques
implemented for minimizing the amount of waste for off-site disposal. This project
involved one plant site and six satellite sites.
The major products previously manufactured at this Superfund site included foil
capacitors, mica capacitors, power factor capacitors, and potentiometers. PCBs were
used as the dielectric fluid in power factor capacitors. Waste material from past
manufacturing activities and off-specification capacitors were deposited at a number of
areas at the site as weU as six additional satellite sites. Due to the varying topography
and other logistical considerations, each of the six sites required a well conceived
approach to determine appropriate access for equipment and vehicles.
Based on the results of engineering studies, the types of waste were determined to
fall into three categories: Waste Material (i.e. debris, metal parts, trees), < 10 ppm PCB
contaminated material and, > 10 ppm PCB-contaminated material. Each of the three
types of materials was. slated to have a different final destination.
The amounts of waste at each of the sites varied from 33 cy to 1,695 cy, with a
total expected breakdown of materials as follows:
Debris:
<10 ppm Material:
> 10 ppm material:
3,200 cubic yards
3,400 cubic yards
4,500 cubic yards
The following activities were outlined in the scope of work:
• Mobilize, provide bonding insurance, demobilize and provide
warranty of construction.
• Prepare and obtain approval of all submittals, including Project
Schedules, Temporary Utilities and Facilities Plan, Decontamination
Plan, Material Handling Plan (including Spill Control Plan), Site-
Specific Health and Safety/Contingency Plan, Dust Control Plan, Air
Monitoring Plan, and Erosion and Sediment Control Plan
• Provide construction and maintenance related to access roads for
excavation and transportation of soil and debris, including all satellite
sites and the Plant site.
(PCB Remediation)
B:3131_1
• Construct a temporary storage facility and stockpile at the Plant site
for the storage of the three categories of materials from the satellite
sites.
• Prepare sites for excavation, including the construction of
decontamination facilities, staging areas, and security measures;
installation of air monitoring equipment; delineation of Exclusion
Zone (EZ), Contamination Reduction Zone (CRZ), and Support
Zones; and installation of erosion control devices.
• Clear areas requiring excavation of vegetation (up to 4-foot diameter
trees required removing) as well as domestic waste materials,
including old machinery parts and car bodies.
• Survey all sites to designate the depth and areas of respective
excavation.
• Transport materials from each of the satellite sites to the main site and
deposit in appropriate stockpile or area.
• Demolish and dispose of the existing decontamination pad and
underground storage tank at one of the satellite sites.
• Remove existing clean soil cap from one of the satellite sites and
stockpile soil for backfilling after excavation is complete and
performance standards have been met. Dispose of the geotextile
cover beneath the soil cap.
• Excavate soil, debris and waste materials from all satellite sites in
accordance with the designated locations specified on the Contract
Drawings.
• Transport PCB-contaminated soils from the satellite sites to. the
temporary storage facility or stockpile location at the Plant site.
• Select mine, and transport borrow material from approved off-site
borrow sites.
• Regrade the satellite sites following excavation, using borrow
materials as necessary.
• Re-vegetate the satellite sites with appropriate materials.
• Cover the temporary storage facility with an anchored geomembrane
liner system.
Page2
Project:
Client and
Contact:
Performance
Period
PROJECT ABSTRACT
Sludge Lagoon Closure
LTV Steel
Hennepin, Illinois
Jim Moore, [phone]
August 1993 through October 1993
AB145
Four Seasons was contracted by LTV Steel to solidify and remove approximately
22,000 cubic yards of oily sludge contained in a two-acre settling pond. The solidified
sludges were transported to an on-site landfill for final closure.
Four Seasons utilized long-reach excavators to mix the oily sludges with a
pozzalonic reagent, drying the sludges to meet paint filter requirements. The pH was
adjusted to ensure at least 50% solids in the resulting solidified sludge. A field
laboratory and on-site QNQC personnel were used to analyze and confirm the percent
solids of the solidified sludge. Upon completing removal of the solidified sludge, the
former sludge lagoon was backfilled with approximately 28,000 cubic yards of native fill.
The backfill was placed under strict compaction criteria to ensure minimal post-closure
subsidence. Placement of 2,000 cubic yards of topsoil and installation of approximately
3.5 acres of native grasses completed the sludge lagoon closure.
Four Seasons completed this project without change orders, lost time accidents, or
project delays; meeting an October 1st Illinois EPA "Sludge Placement Deadline."
B:3617_1
Project
Client and
Contact
Performance
Period
PROJECT ABSTRACT
RCRA Surface Impoundment Restoration
and On-Site Dewatering/Solidification
Exxon Refining Company, USA, Baytown, TX
Andrea Cherne, [phone]
December 1993 -July 1994
Dewatering, Solidification, Waste Transportation
AB153
Exxon Company, U.S.A. contracted Four Seasons to perform the dredging,
dewatering, hydroblasting, nad solidification, as well as transportation management of
approximately 150,000 in-situ cubic yards of F027 listed hazardous waste.This was the
largest trunaround project conducted to date at this Baytown, Texas refinery.
Prior to award of this project, Four Seasons conducted extensive sludge
treatability studies which involved dewatering analyses of various technologies. This,
combined with solidification analysis, enabled Four Seasons to offer Exxon the most
economical and beneficial volume reduction/solidification options. Maximum
consolidation of dry solids provided Exxon with tremendous savings relative to
transportation and off-site landfill costs.
Four Seasons dewatered, solidified, and shipped 94,295 tons of F037 material for
placement into the designated landfill on schedule and prior to the June 20, 1994 Land
Ban deadline. Project completion quantities exceeded Exxon's original proposed volume
estimated by approximately 6%.
The major portion of this project involved the dredging and dewatering of F037
solids contained within Exxon's 31-acre Stormwater Retention Basin~ Four Seasons
accomplished this task while dredging at depths of 40 feet. Accumulated F037 solids
entering and exiting the stormwater Retention Basin through a 2-mile series of upper and
· lower Outfall Canals were removed using specialized equipment along with up to date
solidification techniques.
Hydroblasting was also performed on various structures throughout the project.
Four Seasons hydroblasted approximately 200,000 square feet of contaminated pipelines,
weir walls, containment sumps and separators located throughout Exxon's Wastewater
· Treatment System. Several key milestones were accomplished during this project, as
listed below.
• Exxon's RCRA project award for safe work days without a recordable
injury
• Four Seasons Guaranteed 61 % net dry weight origin solids (NDWOS) on
prcxluced filtercake, but delivered 68% NDWOS on dewatered filtercake,
therefore substantially decreasing Exxon's transportation and disposal
costs.
• Guaranteed 42 to 47% NDWOS on solidified material but delivered 74%
NDWOS on solidified material
RCRA Surface Impoundment Restoration
and On-Site Dewatering/Solidification
• Met USEPA mandatory landfill disposal deadline
• Material passed landfill disposal facility solids and compaction
requirements
• Implementation and management of a project-specific QA/QC program
• Established a repeat business relationship through a quality project
management team that delivered ultimate customer satisfaction
Page 2
These were essential elements which Four Seasons ranked as items of major
importance. Identifying key client goals during the bidding and project startup process
provided Four Seasons will the focus to deliver project performance and total client
satisfaction.
Four Seasons' teaming relationship with Exxon project personnel on all
operational aspects also played a major role in the performance of this landmark project.
B:4093 l
Project
Client and
Contact
Performance
Period
PROJECT ABSTRACT
Drum Sampling and Excavation
Federal Paper Board, Elkhart, IN
AB62
(Radian Corporation) Andrew Morecraft, 919-541-9100
January to April 1992
Four Seasons was contracted by Federal Paper Board's environmental consultant
to remove and characterize the contents of drums at Federal Paper Board's Elkhart,
Indiana facility. To Federal Paper Board's knowledge, the facility's previous owners
were primarily in the ink and printing industry. Federal Paper Board, finding that drums
had been buried in site by previous owners, voluntarily determined to investigate and
remove the material.
Four Seasons excavated, inspected, documented, staged, and sampled the buried
drums. Drum excavation was performed in USEPA Level D and C protection. Each
drum, empty or containing material, was assigned a unique drum number. Empty drums
were taken to an area for crushing. After a full or partially full drum was excavated and
documented, it was taken to a designated drum staging area where it was sampled.
Upon completing removal of known drum areas, Four Seasons proceeded with an
extensive test excavation program to thoroughly investigate and characterize the landfill
area. Four Seasons conducted soil sampling and prepared scaled documentation of all
excavations. Based on field activities, Four Seasons calculated the total amount of fill in
the burial area.
Compatibility testing was conducted. Compatible wastestreams were designated
and composite samples were sent to a certified laboratory for disposal profile analysis.
At the conclusion these activities, Four Seasons secured the site and demobilized.
Once all the analytical results were available, Four Seasons proposed disposal options
and pricing for the staged wastes.
11:148 I
APPENDIXC
ON-SITE TREATMENT PROJECT SUMMARIES
Project:
Client:
Contact:
Performance
Period
PROJECT ABSTRACT
Thermal Desorption of Contaminated Soils
Union Carbide Corporation
(Reich Fann Superfund Site, Toms River, NJ)
Joe Smith [phone]
May 1994 to Present
AB170
Four Seasons was contracted by Union Carbide Corporation (Union Carbide) to
perform the USEPA selected remedy thermal desorption on approximately 13,500 cubic
yards of contaminated soil at the Reich Fann Superfund site in Toms River, New Jersey.
The Reich Fann Superfund site is located in a light industria]/residential area near
Toms River, NJ. 111e following principal contaminants were identified in the site soils:
Methylene chloride
1,1,1 Trichloroethane
Ethyl Benzene
Tolulene
Styrene
1,4 Dichlorobenzene
B utylbenzylphthalate
Trichloroethene
Chlorobenzene
Xylene
2-Butanone
1,2 Dichlorobenzene
Bis(2 ethylhexyl)phthalate
The remediation of the Reich Fann site involves sheet piling of three areas of
contaminated soil identified for excavation and treatment by the remedial investigation of
the site. Excavation of soils within the sheet piling ranges in depth to 26 feet The
excavated soils are being thermally desorbed in Four Seasons' FS-TTS unit and
subsequently sampled to assure compliance with clean-up criteria prior to backfilling at
the excavation locations. Upon completion of all site activities, the site will be regraded
and seeded to original conditions. Extensive on-site and off-site monitoring for various
items (i.e. VOCs, particulates, noise) is being conducted during the course of the project
to ensure compliance with the HASCP and all OSHA and NIOSH standards.
The operation of the FS-TTS unit at the Reich Farm site required approval of the
New Jersey State Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) under a permit
equivalency status. This entailed assuring compliance with all NJDEP air quality
standards, including control devices for off-gas destruction and acid gas removal. Four
Seasons worked closely with Union Carbide, NJDEP, USEPA, Malcolm Pirnie (client
oversite contractor), local officials and site tenants to develop and implement a work plan
and community relations program to meet all public and regulatory concerns.
Four Seasons began on-site activities in July of 1994 and expects to be completed
with all excavation, treatment, backfilling and sheet piling removal operations by early
1995.
B:5473 1
Project
Client and
Contact
Performance
Period
PROJECT ABSTRACT
Soil Vapor Extraction
SMS Instruments Superfund Site;
Deer Park, Suffolk County, NY
CDM Federal Programs Corporation; (USEP A)
George Asimenios, (CDM), 212-393-9634
December 1991 to September 1993
AB51
Four Seasons was awarded a contract from CDM Federal Programs Corporation
and the USEP A to perfonn soil vapor extraction services at the SMS Instruments
Superfund Site in Deer Park, Suffolk County, New York. The SMS project was executed
as part of the ARCS II program. A Horizontal Vapor Extraction (HVE) system was
designed and constructed for the removal of both halogenated and non-halogenated,
volatile and semivolatile organic compounds from the site soil. The complete system
included catalytic oxidation and wet scrubber units for vapor emission control.
The system consisted of two 2-foot wide vapor extraction trenches (16 feet deep)
connected to a single vacuum pump with remote control features for adjusting system
operation. The contamination resulted from leaks in an underground solvent storage tank
and improper disposal practices. The system is controlled to maximize contaminant
extraction from each 75-foot trench on a weekly alternating cycle. The average VOC
removal rate for the system is approximately 0.15 pounds per hour. The vacuum system
was integrated with the catalytic oxidation and scrubber units to address site remediation
air emission requirements. The various components were computer-linked to each other
and to the Four Seasons Greensboro, North Carolina office for total remote monitoring
and control. The state-of-the-art monitoring/control system was designed and
constructed by Four Seasons.
Various items were computer monitored during system operation including vapor
stream contaminant load, separate trench vacuums, air flows, temperatures, manometer
well vacuum pressures, weather conditions, and other various system operating
conditions. The system was designed for continuous year-round operation. A monthly
report on all operating conditions was forwarded by Four Seasons to the USEPA and
CDM as part of the contract requirements.
This project was originally scheduled to be completed in 1995. Due to detailed
system monitoring and manipulation of air flows during the course of the project, the soil
was remediated much quicker than anticipated. Post treatment soil sampling and analysis
showed that levels of target compounds were below the following established closure
levels.
t-1,2, dichloroethene
2-Butanone
2-Hexanone
Tetrachloroethene
Toluene
Trichloroethene
Total Xylene
500 ug.kg
500 ug/kg
700 ug/kg
1,500 ug/kg
1,500 ug/kg
1,000 ug/kg
1,200 ug/k:g
(Soil Vapor Extraction)
Ethylbenzene
Chlorobenzene
1,4 dichlorobenzene
1,3 dichlorobenzene
1,2 dichlorobenzene
Napthalene
1,2,4 Trichlorobenzene
2-Methylnapthalene
Phenol
2-Methylphenol
bis (2-ethylhexyl)
phthalate
5,500 ug/kg
1,600 ug/kg
1,000 ug/kg
1,500 ug/kg
1,500 ug/kg
1,000 ug/kg
2,300 ug/kg
2,000 ug/kg
330 ug/kg
2,600ug/kg
4,500 ug/kg
page2
Due to the early project completion, Four Seasons calculates that a cost savings of
$ 63,000 (associated with system operation and maintenance) was realized due to not
operating the-system for an additional 18 months as originally anticipated. Additionally,
an estimated$ 18,000 savings in associated electrical bills was recognized.
B:137 1
Project
Client and
Contact
Performance
Period
PROJECT ABSTRACT
Soil Vapor Extraction and Ground Water Treatment
General Electric Company; Wilmington, NC
Tom Beckingham, 919-675-5754
November 1991 to Present
AB54
For this project, GE contracted Four Seasons to perform on-site . treatment of
contaminated ground water and soil at their facility in Wilmington, North Carolina. The
site was contaminated as a result of a leaking petroleum underground storage tank (UST).
The affected area contained volatile and semi-volatile organic compounds including
benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, xylene, and naphthalene. Contaminant levels ranged
from 120 to 6,000 ug/1. For remediation efforts, Four Seasons developed a ground water
and soil Remedial Action Plan which consisted of a carbon adsorption filtration system
for the treatment of ground water and a horizontal vapor extraction system for the
treatment of soil.
Prior to site work activities, Four Seasons placed caution tape around the work
areas and checked with GE's on-site representative to ensure that all electrical
connections and power were located and locked out. In addition, all underground piping
was traced and marked prior to trenching. The necessary electrical utilities (40-amp,
220-volt, three~phase, 4 wire) were also located to make connections to the on-site
ground water and soil treatment equipment no greater than 50 feet from the system.
To commence on-site work, the crew began excavating the infiltration trench (15
feet long by 7 feet wide by 5 feet deep) and installing the system. The infiltration trench
was then backfilled with 3 feet of gravel and a 3-inch diameter perforated pipe installed
and placed in the trench above the gravel backfill. An additional 12 inches of gravel
were then added when the drain pipe was installed, resulting in a total thickness of gravel
. measuring 4 feet from the bottom of the trench. The gravel was covered with a 30-mil.
geotextile fabric and compacted topsoil.
The ground water treatment system was designed for a flow rate of less than 1
gpm using a Grundfos stainless steel submergible pump installed in the recovery well.
The contaminated ground water was pumped to a 500-gallon surge tank and then through
two carbon units providing a greater than 98% removal efficiency prior to being
discharged to the infiltration gallery. Based on contaminant levels outlined in the
assessment report, carbon consumption is estimated to be less than 200 pounds per year.
The vapor extraction system was contained in a wooden insulated building along
with the ground water treatment system and was delivered on site and set up for
operation. A leak detector was also placed in the building. A pneumatic vacuum pump
was also used and rated for 100 cfm at 3 inches Hg. The unit was also equipped with a
noise suppressor to reduce operation noise and a Four Seasons moisture trap for the
collection of moisture and/or water. An automated phone dialer was also installed to
alert Four Seasons and GE of any system operation problems.
(Vapor Extraction and Ground Water Treatment) Page 2
For system startup, Four Seasons connected all associated p1pmg, electrical
components, and the activated carbon canisters arranged in series. The recovery well and
infiltration trench, for recovery and discharge of contaminated products, was connected
to the ground water treatment/vacuum extraction building. As a final measure, the
system was activated for fine tuning procedures.
The vapor extraction system guarantees to reduce VOCs in the soil, produces a
continuous vacuum on the trench, and is monitored through discharge air sampling.
Four Seasons is currently providing annual sampling and maintenance of the
entire system.
It: 140 I
Project
Client
Performance
Period
PROJECT ABSTRACT
Mobile Thermal Treatment of Soil
Springs Industries, (Wamchem)
Alan McManus, 803-547-1500
Beaufort County, SC
June 1993 -August 1993
AB25
Four Seasons was contracted by Springs Industries to perform Mobile Thermal
Treatment on approximately 1,800 cubic yards of contaminated soil at the Wamchem
Superfund site in Beaufort County, South Carolina. This project is significant in that an
existing Record of Decision (ROD) was reversed in order to accommodate use of an
innovative soil treatment technique. The site is located on a small island in the midst of a
salt marsh near the upper reach of a tidal stream. The site was originally a small
intermediate dye products research and production facility which was constructed in the .
late 1950s and operated until 1981.
The W am chem plant was built by Beaufort Chemical and Research Company
(BCRC), which operated the site until 1972. The principal types of syntheses conducted
at the Wamchem site were nitrations, catalytic hydrogenations (principally of aromatic
nitro functions to the corresponding amines), oxidations, aminations, amidations,
esterfications, condensations, low pressure reactions, and sulfonations. A 1978 initial
Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) inventory cited the following chemicals a:; being
the major products used and/or manufactured at the Wamchem site:
• 3-amino, 4-methylbenzamide
• 4-aminobenzamide (P-136 base)
• 3-nitro, 4-methylbenzonic acid
• 3-nitro, 4-methylbenzamide
• 4-nitrobenzamide
• Secondary-butyl, nitrobenzene (78 to 85% 12, 12 to 18% Q, 1 to 4% m)
• 4-nitrobenzoic acid
Most of these compounds degraded into more basic units, some of which include
the "contaminants of concern", including acetone, toluene, xylenes and small amounts of •
napthalene, 1,2 dinitrotoluene, methylene chloride, tetrachloroethane and chlorobenzene.
Since Four Seasons already had an existing state-wide SCDHEC air discharge
permit in the state of South Carolina for our mobile thermal desorption unit, we were able
to simply transfer the permit to the Beaufort County site.
Four Seasons' scope of work for this project entailed the following:
• Site preparation, including construction of access roads, storage areas,
operational areas, and soil storage areas.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
B:111 1
(Mobile Thermal Treatment of Soil)
Mobilization of the desorption unit and necessary personnel,
equipment, and materials to the site from our operations headquarters
in Greensboro, North Carolina.
Installation of site environmental protection systems including
stonnwater/ground water/pile run-off collection, treatment, and
disposal systems; storage systems; impervious liners, etc.
Excavation of the affected soils (batch basis); testing each soil batch
for the presence of contaminants of concern.
Thermal treatment of the soil (approximately 1,800 yards or 2,520
tons) on site in order to achieve final concentrations of benzene in soil
of <5 ppm benzene.
Stockpiling and testing (on a batch basis) of the treated soil .
Backfilling and compacting the treated soil, following receipt of
analytical results.
Site restoration (placement of final covering, topsoil, and seeding) .
Demobilization of all personnel, equipment, and materials from the
site back to the Greensboro, North Carolina operations facility.
Page2
Project:
Client
Performance
Period
PROJECT ABSTRACT
Thermal Soil Treatment
BP Oil Alliance Refinery; Belle Chase LA
May 1993 -August 1993
AB109
Four Seasons was contracted by British Petroleum (BP) Oil to thermally treat
2,000 -4,000 tons of diesel-and gasoline-contaminated soil at the BP Oil Alliance
Refinery site. The soil, which had been previously excavated and stockpiled on the BP
property, exhibited up to 2,100 ppm TPH. As part of the scope of work (SOW), the
following activities were required:
• Provide in-depth information describing our Health and Safety
Program, and submit a comprehensive site safety plan for BP Oil's
review and approval.
• Apply for the required air permit and "crafts" permit for our mobile
thermal desorption unit. Based on the data presented to the air quality
department on our unit, the Louisiana DEQ granted Four Seasons a
temporary exemption from obtaining any sort of discharge permit
• Mobilize the unit and necessary crew to the site from our operations
headquarters in Greensboro, North Carolina
• Set up the unit and prepare the site for treatment of the soil
• Transfer stockpiled soil which was dumped from containers (by BP
Oil) to the thermal treatment unit
• Thermally treat the soil such that the contaminant levels were reduced
to < 1 ppm TPH and < 50 ppb benzene
• Demobilize from the site following successful treatment of all
contaminated soil
Mobilization for this project took place in May 1993. Production rates averaged
15 tons per hour over the course of this project.
B:1836_1
Project
Client and
Contact
Performance
Period
PROJECT ABSTRACT
Mobile Thermal Soil Treatment
Law Environmental (Exxon Chemical);
Wilmington, NC
Daniel Shields (Law), 919-256-2007
Rick Adams (Exxon), [phone]
December 1992 -May 1993
AB63
Law Environmental and Exxon, USA contracted Four Seasons to excavate and
thermally treat approximately 10,000 tons of soil contaminated Vvi.th diesel and other
petroleum related fuels at Exxon's terminal in Wilmington, North Carolina. Original
laboratory analysis of contaminated soil indicated that some of the soil was contaminated
in excess of 13,000 ppm TPH, with average contamination approximately 3,500 ppm. An
air discharge permit was required by the State of North Carolina and secured prior to
project commencement. This project was mobilized in two stages; Stage 1 included
mobilization of Four Seasons' excavation resources and Stage 2 involved mobilization of
the Mobile Thermal Unit.
Starting in December, 1992, excavation of contaminated soil was performed via a
tracked excavator and a front-end loader. Following excavation, all soil was stockpiled
on visqueen, adjacent to the MTU, awaiting subsequent treatment. A processing rate of
approximately 170 tons/day was realized over the course of this five month project. Four
Seasons completed site activities in early May 1993 .
Once all contaminated soil was processed, the treated soil was backfilled and the
area graded and re-seeded. Four Seasons had a crew consisting of a Project Manager, two
equipment operators, and a thermal treatment technician on site for the duration of this
project.
B:768 1
Project
Client and
Contact
Performance
Period
PROJECT ABSTRACT
Mobile Thermal Soil Treatment
CET Environmental Services, Inc. (USEPA);
Drexler-RAMCOR Superfund Site; Orting, WA
Chris Fields, (USEPA) 206-553-1674
January to September 1992
AB60
Four Seasons was awarded a subcontract to thermally treat excavated soil with
high levels of petroleum contamination at the former Puget Sound Oil. Site in Orting,
Washington. This site is a Superfund removal action funded by USEPA Region X. Prior
to mobilizing to the site, Four Seasons prepared a site-specific Health and Safety Plan, a
Performance Test Plan, a Finalized Work Plan, an SPCC/Contingency Plan, and a
Sampling, Analysis, and QA/QC Plan.
Four Seasons then mobilized its mobile thermal treatment unit from Greensboro,
North Carolina to Orting, Washington to undertake a performance test, which was
initially stymied by the previously undetected presence of decayed cedar wood chips in
the soil. The wood chips caught fire in the heat of the rotary drum and were carried with
the particulate-laden air stream to the baghouse where active flames burned holes in the
bag filters. This caused system breakdown.
As a result, Four Seasons demobilized and reconfigured the mobile thermal soil
treatment unit to include a cyclonic mechanical separator to remove the burning embers
prior to reaching the baghouse. The new unit was re-mobilized to the site and completed
three 3-hour performance test runs. During the performance test, the soil was sampled
and tested before and after the1mal treatment for the following constituents:
• Total petroleum hydrocarbons (Method 418.1)
• Total priority pollutant metals (ICP/AA-SW-P46)
• Volatile organic compounds (Method 8240)
Stack emissions were tested by a certified independent air testing laboratory for:
• Particulates
• Hydrogen chloride
• Total non-methane hydrocarbons
• Priority pollutant metals
• Volatile organics (VOST Method)
Contaminated soil treated during the performance test was found to have
petroleum contamination levels averaging 7,200 ppm, primarily as heavy oils. It was
also determined that the soil or material fed to the thermal treatment unit consisted
primarily of 50% to 70% river rock, with the remaining 30% to 50% comprised of very
fine glacial volcanic ash consistency material. This soil combination resulted in the
generation of an extremely high level of fine particulate matter which had to be removed
(Mobile Thermal Soil Treatment) Page 2
by use of a mechanical collector and baghouse. Our mobile thermal treatment unit was
able to demonstrate and meet the stringent USEPA requirements for all soil cleanup and
air emissions parameters. All soil on the site was treated to less than 200 ppm as
confirmed by Method 418.1 prior to backfilling. Air sampling results confirmed an
average emission rate of 0.24 pounds per hour of non-methane hydrocarbon. Method
0030 Volatile Organic Sampling Train (VOST) samples were collected to determine the
emission of other VOCs from the stack. All measured VOCs, with the exception of
benzene, and all metals, with the exception of copper, lead, mercury, and nickel, met the
Washington State Tier II Clean Air Act limits at the stack. Modeling of these
constituents showed that the maximum concentration in the plume was below the Tier II
limits.
During full-scale treatment of contaminated soils at the site, daily testing showed
treatment of the soil achieved an average of less than 120 ppm TPH. Approximately 100
tons per day of soil were treated over the course of 6 weeks of full-scale operation,
including down time and maintenance.
Due to the heavy oil contamination in the soil, it was necessary to operate the
thermal treatment unit at temperatures higher than .are required to treat soils contaminated
with petroleum fuels (gasoline, diesel, etc.). The soil discharge temperature from the
rotary drum dryer was maintained at between 750° and 800°F. In order to prohibit
condensation of contaminants from the air stream in the ductwork, mechanical collector,
and baghouse, air temperatures w~re maintained near 400°F prior to entrance to the
catalyst.
B:146 I
Project
Client
Performance
Period
PROJECT ABSTRACT
Soil Vapor Extraction and Air Sparging
Confidential; North Aurora, IL
January 1993 to Present
AB98
The client was responsible for the environmental cleanup of one of their formerly
owned properties located in North Aurora, Illinois. An environmental consultant
confirmed the long-term release of a wide array of chlorinated solvents and fuel.
Records showed that PCE, TCE, TCA, and several other solvents were used in the
construction machinery washing practices. The property became contaminated when
various voes including chloromethane, xylenes, dichlorobenzene, and vinyl acetate
entered soil and ground water via several pathways surrounding a former truck washing
facility during its period of operation in the mid-to-late 1980s.
Four Seasons was contracted to evaluate the results of site analytical data and a
previously implemented air sparging pilot study to develop a full-scale remediation plan
for the site. Based on review of the existing data, Four Seasons designed an air sparging
and vapor extraction system to simultaneously remediate the affected soil and ground
water. The vapor extraction system consisted of a horizontal trench design installed in
strategic locations on the site. Nine sparging wells were installed to encourage the
transfer of dissolved voes into the upper vadose zone soil. Four Seasons installed
horizontal vapor recovery wells within the 2-acre plume to recover contaminants from
both soil and ground water.
Approximately 150 cubic yards of contaminated soil excavated from the vapor
extraction trenches could not be backfilled (into the trenches) due to the placement of pea
gravel surrounding the collection pipe. The soil was stockpiled on site and treated using
ex-situ vapor extraction techniques instead of employing expensive disposal techniques.
A vapor collection pipe was run through the center of the stockpiled soil and the
stockpile was encapsulated with a 10-mil polyethylene liner to promote the effectiveness
of the vacuum. The in-situ and ex-situ vapor collection pipes were manifolded into a
common collection pipe connected to a 750-cfm blower. The vapor extraction and
sparging system began operating in January of 1993.
Four Seasons provided operation, maintenance, and sampling services for the
system. The monitoring requirements involved sampling voe emissions on a monthly
basis to determine removal rates and efficiencies as well as taking periodic soil-gas
samples. Routine maintenance of the system was provided by Four Seasons on a
monthly basis. The most recent off-gas sample results indicate that state closure levels
may be achieved in less than 10 months. Four Seasons credits this rapid contaminant
recovery to strategic placement of wells and trenches in complex and irregular soil and
hydraulic conditions.
(Soil Vapor Extraction and Air Sparging) Page2
In the first 4 weeks of operation, over 55 pounds of contaminant (mostly
1,1,1,-TeA) were recovered from the ground water. Reduction of voe levels in the
ground water ranged from 10% to 80% The remaining dissolved voes took
approximately 50 weeks to achieve closure levels. To date, most of the observation
wells have "passed" the State of Illinois clean-up criteria.
,
B:1130 1
APPENDIXD
EMERGENCY RESPONSE PROJECT SUMMARIES
Project
Client and
Contact
Performance
Period
AB107
PROJECT ABSTRACT
Emergency Response to a 14,000 Gallon #6 Fuel Oil Spill
Oxford, NC;
March -April 1993
Four Seasons was contacted to respond to a 14,000 gallon # 6 fuel oil spill which
resulted from a tank rupture at a Cosmetics warehouse facility. The oil was spread over
the adjacent land and a nearby lagoon. The initial response took place over a weekend
and involved the mobilization of 14 men. As an initial response to the spill, Four
Seasons employed 2,200 yards of absorbent material and 6 sorbent booms. The type of
equipment used for the response included a John Boat, Backhoe, Trackhoe, Pump
Trucks, Tanker and Steam Cleaner. Level D protective clothing was used by all on-site
personnel during the response.
Approximately 1,000 tons of contaminated soil were excavated along with 40 -60
yards of bushes and trees. The contaminated soil was transported to a fuel blending kiln
for recycling. Approximately 11,000 gallons of the 14,000 gallons of fuel were
recovered from the adjacent lagoon using pumping and absorption techniques along with
an oi.Vwater separator for fuel recovery. No fuel was allowed to migrate off-site. The
shoreline of the lagoon was also cleaned. This response effort required a total of 6 days .
B:1791_1
Project
Client and
Locations
Performance
Period
PROJECT ABSTRACT
Emergency Response to Tote Tank Leak
Confidential Pharmaceutical Manufacturer
Greensboro, NC
September 1993
AB143
Four Seasons responded to this site in which a 275 gallon phenol (a Poison B) tote
tank was leaking. The liquid was initially contained in a sump area which had been
constructed by the client. Four Seasons was contracted to transfer to contents of the
sump area into 55 gallon drums for subsequent disposal.
The emergency work was performed by a five-member crew in high Level B
PPE. The phenol that remained within the tote tank was transferred to six 17H steel
drums using an intrinsically safe electronic drum pump. The phenol from the
containment area was collected with a vacuum truck and then transferred to 17H steel
drums. The vacuum truck and the tote tank were then decontaminated via high pressure
flushing, with · the residual rinse water containerized. The resulting drums of product.
· rinsate and PPE were left on site for disposal by the client
B:3183 1
Project
Client and
Locations
Performance
Period
PROJECT ABSTRACT
Train Derailment Emergency Response
Confidential
Greensboro, NC
September 1993
AB142
Four Seasons responded to a train derailment in Greensboro, North Carolina in
which a truck was hit by a train, pinning the truck driver. Two of the train engines were
derailed and spilled diesel fuel. Due to Four Seasons' close proximity to the accident site,
we were able to mobilize within 30 minutes of receiving the initial call.
Our response team and equipment, consisting of the Emergency Response van,
two service trucks, a backhoe, a trackhoe, a pump truck and dump truck, were mobilized.
Four Seasons pumped out the railcar of mineral spirits/resins and pumped off any visual
puddled diesel fuel. All emergency work was performed initially using Level B PPE
which was eventually downgraded to Level C.
Following the iI'Jtial emergency response, Four Seasons' remedial group took
over to , finish the remediation. Additional remedial work included excavation,
transportation and disposal of approximately 390 tons of diesel-contaminated soil.
B:3182 1
Project
Client and
Contact
Performance
Period
PROJECT ABSTRACT
Train Derailment Involving Hazardous Chemicals
CSX Transportation, Inc.; Union, SC
Patrick Harrison (CSX), 404-350-5355
June 1993
AB141
Four Seasons responded to a seven car train derailment in northwestern South
Carolina which resulted in the release of hydrochloric acid, ethylene glycol and
methanol.
Four Seasons mobilized and arrived at the site within 4.5 hours of notification.
Our response teams monitored the ambient air to determine the boundaries of the hot
zone, then began to plug and patch the leaking tank cars. Once the site had been
stabilized, the acid was neutralized using sodium hydroxide and lime. Approximately
· 10,000 gallons of hazardous chemicals had spilled from the ruptured rail cars down a 30-
foot embankment and into a forest.. After three days of around the clock work, Four
Seasons stabilized the site .
. Four Seasons returned to the site to transfer the contents of the damaged rail cars
to usable cars provided by the railroad. Utilizing diaphragm pumps set in stages, Four
Seasons transferred 50,000 gallons of hazardous chemicals. Once the transfer operation
was finished, lime was added to the contaminated soil until all hazardous constituents
could be neutralized. SCDHEC did not allow excavation of the soil because the location
of the spill was within a National Forest. These efforts took an additional five days.
B:2453 1
j.
Project
Client
Performance
Period
AB81
PROJECT ABSTRACT
Response to an MEK and Ethyl Alcohol Tanker Accident
Krajack; Henderson, NC
March 1992
Four Seasons was contacted by the North Carolina Department of Emergency
Management to respond to a tanker accident in Henderson, North Carolina.
To respond to the call, Four Seasons mobilized 14 personnel and various transfer,
emergency response, and excavation equipment. Prior to actual on-site activities, Four
Seasons conducted a site reconnaissance.
Approximately 4,000 gallons of MEK and-ethyl alcohol were pumped from the
tanker into Four Seasons' tanker. This initial pumping was critical to prevent the
chemicals from entering a nearby tributary which led to a lake providing drinking water
to the cities of Raleigh and Durham. Containment included diking and damming using
on-site soil.
Four Seasons then pumped the tributary water into the company's tanker. Once
all affected water was pumped, the tanker was transported to a permitted wastewater
treatment facility where it was treated.
Soil excavation was necessary in the affected areas. Contaminated soil was
excavated and stockpiled on site on polyethylene sheeting. The soil was subsequently
sampled and analyzed and profiled into a disposal facility. Once the soil was disposed
of, Four Seasons conducted a final sampling effort to confinn·clean closure. This $1.2
million dollar project lasted for 10 days.
B:167 l
Project
Client
Performance
Period
PROJECT ABSTRACT
Response to a Chemical Fire and Explosion
Confidential; Charlotte, NC
May 1992
AB82
The Charlotte Fire Department contacted Four Seasons to respond to a chemical
fire and off-site chemical release at a chemical company in Charlotte, North Carolina.
The company is a bulk repackaging facility of virgin chemicals including ammonium
hydroxide, alcohols and glycols, various acids, and unknowns.
The fire was caused by a 35% hydrogen peroxide solution that leaked from a
staged drum. The 35% solution ignited a wooden pallet and the fire spread to numerous
other nearby drums containing nitro cellulose. The nitro cellulose drums exploded from
the extreme heat of the fire.
Four Seasons mobilized within 1 hour. of the call and quickly performed a site
reconnaissance to assess the fire water run-off (generated as a result of the Fire
Department's initial fire fighting efforts) and to assess damage to the drums and damage
caused by the release of chemicals on the site.
Containment and pumping operations began immediately off site to prevent the
spread of contaminated run-off water downstream and thus impacting the nearby
residential community and aquatic life.
Four Seasons pumped, contained, sampled, and treated numerous chemicals and
contaminated water. •Wastewater was treated at a local pennitted treatment facility.
The project was executed in Level B protection and was completed in six days.
B:168 1
APPENDIXE
KEY PERSONNEL RESUMES
ACADEMIC BACKGROUND
PROFESSIONAL
AFFILIATIONS
EXPERTISE
PROFESSIONAL PROFILE
JOHN A. HOYLE, PH.D.
President
Ph.D., Engineering Physics
University of Virginia, 1973
M.S., Engineering Physics
University of Virginia, 1970
B.S., Physics and Mathematics
Appalachian State University, 1968
Member, Alpha Chi National Honorary Scholastic Society
Member, Sigma XI National Research Honor Society
Engineering and Operations General Management
Dr. Hoyle joined Four Seasons in 1990 as Vice President of Operations. He has over
21 years of experience in engineering operations. with both government and private
industry. His experience ranges from bench level research engineering to multimillion
dollar project management requiring multi-disciplined knowledge in chemical, thermal,
fluid dynamic process, and other engineering disciplines. The past 10 years of his career
have been in corporate management of environmental and energy matters requiring
--extensive regulatory interface with the USEPA and numerous State agencies including
North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia, Tennessee, Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi,
Texas, New Jersey, West Virginia, and Pennsylvania. As President of Four Seasons, Dr.
Hoyle has responsibility for corporate management of -operational performance of the
company's business units.
PREVIOUS EXPERIENCE
Prior to joining Four Seasons, Dr. Hoyle held various positions as indicated in the
following paragraphs.
Corporate En~neerine Manaeer, Burlinefon Industries; 1984-1990 -Dr. Hoyle was
responsible for overall corporate environmental compliance management for all
manufacturing facilities throughout the United States and Canada (85 plants) including
hazardous waste management, remedial activities, and all plant air and water discharge
permitting. All interface with state and federal regulatory agencies was handled by
Dr. Hoyle.
Corporate En2ineerin2 Mana~r of Processin2 Control and Ener2y Services,
Burlinefon Industries; 1980-1984 -Dr. Hoyle was responsible for overall corporate
energy management including purchasing, distribution and allocation of all energy
resources. Additional responsibilities included energy technology identification and
capital planning and their implementation in all energy areas including electrical, fossil
fuels, etc. He was also responsible for corporate process control technology development
and implementation.
(John A. Hoyle, Ph.D.) Page2
Associate Professor of Mechanical En2ineerin2, Auburn University Faculty; 1977-
128.(! -In this position, Dr. Hoyle engaged in graduate and undergraduate teaching and
research in the various mechanical engineering disciplines including thermodynamics,
heat transfer, mechanics, and power generation/power plant design.
As Director of the Alabama Energy Extension Service, Dr. Hoyle's responsibilities
included the direction and management of a $1.5 million pilot energy extension program
which included such areas as boiler efficiency optimization; utilization of alternative
fuels; and other residential, industrial, and agricultural energy projects.
Research Physicist, United States Army Mis,5ile Command; 1974-1977 -Dr. Hoyle
was the systems engineer and project manager for the development and testing of the
Army's first field-configured, high-energy laser test bed (Mobile Test Unit). Dr. Hoyle
directed a team of 25 to 60 engineers on various design, fabrication, testing and
optimization efforts encompassing the areas of electro-optical engineering,
aerodynamics, heat transfer, quantum mechanics, power conditioning, electron beams,
laser device/systems engineering, and a number of other laser technology-related areas.
Researcher, Research Laboratories for Eneineerin2 Sciences, University of Vireinia; 1968-1974 -While working for this research organization, Dr. Hoyle gained
extensive experience in cryogenic physics, superconductivity, atomic and molecular
collisions, gas-surface interactions, atomic beams, stability and control of aircraft, and
numerous other areas.
PERSONAL ACHIEVEMENTS
• Served as consultant to United States Army, MIT Lincoln Laboratories,
Rocketdyne Division of Rockwell International, Ballistic Missile Defense
Company, the BMD Corporation '
• Conducted numerous technical and program overview briefings for
high-level DOD and DA command officials including the Chief of Staff,
United Stated Army, and numerous DOE and DOD officials.
• Recipient NDEA Title IV Research Fellowship.
• Department of the Army, Research and Development Achievement Award
for high-energy laser development, November 1977.
• Commendation for successful MTU demonstration from Lieutenant
General Howard H. Cooksey, Deputy Chief of Staff for Research,
Development, and Acquisition, July 1976.
• Recipient of Sigma XI Allan Talbott Gwathney Award, for Most
Outstanding Research in a Fundamental Problem of the Physical Sciences,
University of Virginia, 1973.
(John A. Hoyle, Ph.D.) Page3
PUBLICATIONS
"Echo I Satellite Drag Coefficient Due to Monotonic Oxygen," Proceedings of the
Virginia Academy of Science, April 1970.
"A Superconducting Thin-Film Low-Energy Particle Detector," IEEE (Magnetic
Transactions), March 1975.
"Analysis of Closed-Cycle Electron-Beam Sustained CO2 Electric Discharge Laser with
Air Contaminant," Proceedings of AIAA 9th Fluid and Plasma Dynamics Conference,
November 1976.
"Superconducting Detector for Low Energy Atoms and Molecules," 1976, (Patent).
"Genesis 1976," Classified Paper, Proceedings of 2nd DOD High-Energy Laser
Conference, November 1976.
"Triggering of Phase-Slip in · Superconducting Microbridges," Physics Letters, April .
1980.
Numerous Reports on the Alabama Energy Extension Service.
B:200 1
ACADEMIC
BACKGROUND
EXPERTISE
PROFESSIONAL PROFILE
LEE C. CLEVELAND
Corporate Vice President
B.S., Civil Engineering
Duke University
Corporate Environmental Engineering Management
Mr. Cleveland joined Four Seasons in 1994 bringing over 20 years of experience in
corporate environmental, remediation and waste management Some of Mr. Cleveland's
experience entails business and operations planning, organization development,
engineering construction management, environmental management, environmental safety
and health compliance management and public and regulatory relations. Mr. Cleveland's
experience follows.
EXPERIENCE
Mr. Cleveland was responsible for directing and managing client development for
remedial operations in the Eastern United States. Mr. Cleveland improved the region's
business by offering cost effective and technological solutions for complex hazardous
waste problems, while improving service quality and responsiveness. Mr. Cleveland also
managed a $30 million project to its successful completion.
Mr. Cleveland has served as a Director of Remediation Services, where he was
responsible for the preparation and implementation of business and marketing plans for
the organization's entry into the remediation and waste minimization services. Mr.
Cleveland subsequently managed business development, engineering, construction and
remedial field operation services.
Mr. Cleveland has provided management for a newly developed business unit offering
augmented turnkey waste management services for hazardous, industrial and municipal
wastes.
Mr. Cleveland held several positions during his 15-year career with a large
environmental services provider. Some of his responsibilities are outlined below.
• In his capacity as Vice President/General Manager Mr. Cleveland was responsible
for the general management, operation and the Profit and Loss (P&L) of two
commercial TSD facilities handling RCRA and CERCLA wastes. He also
implemented and managed the permitting process for several facilities involving
technical design, public participation programs and agency negotiations resulting
in the issuance of RCRA and TSCA permits. Additional responsibilities included
contracting and P&L operational control. Mr Cleveland established the
remediation business for Envirosafe's Western Region. Envirosafe's remedial
operations included soil and groundwater cleanups, drum exhumation and
treatment and the decontamination and closure of several facilities and sites.
• As Director of Operations, Mr. Cleveland managed the engineering and
construction of multiple hazardous waste management facilities including
multimedia treatment systems and secure chemical landfills. He was responsible
for the management of 100 engineering personnel and a procurement and
B:5462 I
construction management division that designed and manufactured 20 waste
processing facilities.
ACADEMIC
BACKGROUND
SPECIALIZED
TRAINING
EXPERTISE
PROFESSIONAL PROFILE
JAMES V. NOLES
Group Manager, Remedial Operations
BS Environmental Engineering
LaSalle University/ Northern Virginia Community College
USEPA Response Manager (1982 -Current)
USEPA Removal Cost Management System (RCMS)
40 Hour OSHA Hazardous Materials Training
Hazardous Materials Control, Texas A&M
Oil Spill Control, Texas A&M
Radiological Health and Safety
U.S .. Marine Corps, Military Chemistry Program
Explosives Safety I and II
Explosives Licensed Blaster; GA, LA, and WV
USEPA-Response Manager, and
Project Management and Regulatory Compliance Professional
Mr. Noles joined Four Seasons in 1987 bringing with him over 16 years of direct
experience in hazardous waste management, -environmental assessment, remediation, and
emergency response activities. He has managed and permitted various hazardous waste
treatment, storage, and disposal (TSD) facilities and supervised in excess of 400 remedial
and emergency response projects. Mr. Noles also served as a response manager for over
30 Superfund sites and hundreds of emergency response projects in four USEPA regions.
In addition to being a certified and licensed explosives engineer, he has extensive
knowledge in reactives and explosives deactivation. Presently Mr. Noles manages Four
Seasons' Removal and Remedial Services Group, with responsibility for all private and
governmental removal contracts administration and operations, including USEPA;
US COE; States of North Carolina, South Carolina, and Tennessee; and Chem net.
FOUR SEASONS EXPERIENCE
Since joining Four Seasons, Mr. Noles has been involved with many projects, some of
which are briefly highlighted herein.
PCB Removal Project, McMinnville, TN; Mr. Noles served as Senior Project Manager
for this soil removal project. Mr. Noles was responsible for directing the on-site project
manager, coordinating .· subcontractors in the site preparation phases, which included
fencing, sheetpiling and paving work.
Illegal Explosives Landfill, Greenville. SC -Mr. Noles directed and served as Senior
Response manager for a emergency remedial/removal action involving the excavation,
identification, collection, and deactivation treatment of an estimated 12,000 pounds of
explosives and explosive articles. Project performed under adverse conditions in
downtown location, and completed without incident.
Aquatech, Greer, SC -Mr. Noles directed remedial efforts at this RCRA Treatment and
Storage Facility Closure. This project involved sampling and categorizing 1,710 drum s,
id entifying 24 different waste stream profiles before halting waste profiling activities .
Gas cylinders and lab packs were removed for off-site treatment and disposal, including
mu stard gas, lithium drums in volved in a site fire, nitric/methanol drums, and
deteriorated oxygen candles. Additionally, Four Seasons constructed a remote drum
opening pad and bunker, and treated 774,000 gallons of accumulated rainwater
TSO Facility Closure • .Jamestown. NC -Project manager for the emergency closure of
a prominent TSD (solvent recovery/fuels blending) facility closed by the state of North
Carolina. The site had over 40 large aboveground storage tanks, 18 process vessels, and
16 waste handling units. that required decontamination, and over 400,000 gallons of bulk
wastes that required disposal. Project duration was approximately 100 days, operating
12 hours per day. Mr. Noles supervised an 18-member, on-site remedial staff that
sampled, analyzed, containerized, decontaminated, transported, and disposed of over 4.2
million pounds of drummed and bulk wastes.
Chemical Warehouse Drum Handlini:, Charlotte, NC -Project Manager for a private
response action involving a major chemical warehouse facility. Response action
included handling 4,500 drums of chemical products and 330 pallets of bagged chemicals
at a facility that burnt to the ground. Mr. Noles' first-response activities included fire
suppression, water control, collection, and disposal. Project duration was approximately
80 days, operating 18 hours per day. Mr. Noles supervised a 17-member, on-site
remedial staff that sampled, analyzed, containerized, transported, and disposed of over
4.5 million pounds of drummed and bulk wastes.
Train Derailment, Elberton, GA -Response manager for a 64-car train derailment .
involving the release of approximately· 2.5 million pounds of various bulk chemicals.
Emergency response activities involved the collection and recontainerization of the entire
load of explosives. The response team deployed rapidly and mobilized 405 miles under
emergency escort. Mr. Noles supervised a 20-member response team that excavated,
pumped,. handled, stabilized, recontainerized, and loaded in excess of than 16 million
pounds of contaminated wastes for transportation.
RCRA TSDF lJST Closures, Winston-Salem, NC -Mr. Noles was the project manager
for a project involving the RCRA TSDF closure of two 5,000-gallon USTs containing
solvents. This $250,000, 4-month project required a 6-member crew for remediation. To
remediate the site, Four Seasons excavated the tanks which leaked solvent products in the
surrounding soil and groundwater. Subsequent to excavation, the tanks were
decontaminated and cut. Due to heavy pitting and oxidation, the scrap steel was sent to
an appropriate landfill. To address the soil and groundwater contamination, Mr. Noles
oversaw the installation of a rainwater run-off system during soil excavation.
Approximately 1/2 million pounds of soil were excavated and transported off site.
For final closure, a liner and cap were installed where the tanks had been removed. This
project required extensive sheeting and shoring of the tank excavation (18 1/2 feet and
24 feet) as the geology was extremely fluid. Remote-controlled equipment was used to
aid in the excavation process. This project was performed in Level B with the exception
of entry into a small vault area in the tank which contained a great deal of product (acid
atmosphere requiring sampling and analysis).
PREVIOUS EXPERIENCE
From 1979 to 1985, Mr. Noles was employed with Triangle Resources Industries, SCA
Chemical Services, and GSX Services (Laidlaw). During his tenure, he was a TSDF
Manager and Senior Project/Response Manager. Selected projects directed by Mr. Noles
included the following:
Aberdeen Pesticide Landfills, EPA-ERCS, Aberdeen. NC -Response manager for a
USEPA (Zone II) ERCS response action at a abandoned landfill. The emergency action
involved excavating and stockpiling approximately 10 million pounds of buried
hazardous waste solids at three locations. The project duration was approximately 55
days, operating 10 hours per day. Mr. Noles supervised an 8-member, on-site remedial
staff that sampled, containerized, stabilized, transported, and disposed of over 12.5
million pounds of wastes.
Macon Farms ERCS Response, Rockingham, NC -Response manager for a USEPA
(Zone II) ERCS response action at a farm site near Rockingham, North Carolina. The
emergency removal action involved approximately 3,500 drums of hazardous waste and
petroleum hydrocarbons and the closure of 13 surface lagoons. The project duration was
approximately 45 days, operating 14 hours per day. Mr. Noles supervised a 16-member,
on-site remedial staff that sampled, spot-tested, recontainerized, stabilized, transported,
and disposed of over 6.5 million pounds of wastes.
Interstate Explosives·Incident, Central VA -Response manager for a fatal truck wreck
involving 42,000 pounds of containerized solid explosives on Interstate 95 in central
Virginia. Emergency response activities involved the collection and recontainerization of
the entire load of explosives. The project team mobilized a distance of 235 miles, under
emergency escort. Mr. Noles supervised a IO-member explosives response team that
handled, stabilized, recontainerized, and loaded more than 61,000 pounds of explosives
and contaminated debris for transportation.
Virginia State Crime Laboratory, Richmond, VA -Mr. Noles managed the
decontamination of explosive peroxides and perchloric acid crystals from a 20-unit fume
hood and 1,300 feet of air handling system ductwork, including the treatment
decontamination process solutions at a Richmond, Virginia laboratory. He directly
supervised an 8-member decontamination/response team on a 24-hour-per-day operation,
over a period of 3 days.
US EPA Response Action, Hampton, VA -Mr. Noles was the project control officer for
an emergency response action involving 3,500 large cylinders of various hazard classes
of compressed gas. Emergency response activities encompassed the collection, transport,
off-site storage, and disposal of the gas cylinders. Due to an exceptionally crucial time
schedule and personnel performing in Level A and B protection, this project was difficult
and dangerous. The team rapidly mobilized a distance of 335 miles in less than 3 hours.
Mr. Noles supervised a 20-member response team that handled, stabilized,
recontainerized (when necessary), and loaded more than 14 truck loads of gas cylinders
for transportation.
CERCLA Remediation, Rock Hill, SC -Mr. Noles was the project control officer for a
PRP CERCLA remedial action involving 2,700 drums of hazardous waste including
1,200 drums of highly chlorinated solvents, and 500 drums of hard still bottom wastes,
and a lagoon. Project duration was approximately 85 days, operating 18 hours per day,
6 days per week. Mr. Noles supervised a 16-member remedial team that sampled,
analyzed, recontainerized, transported and disposed of more than 1.2 million pounds of
drummed wastes and the closure of an on-site impoundment resulting in the disposal of
over 2.5 million pounds of sludge.
Bluff Road Remediation, Columbia, SC -Control officer and project manager for a
PRP remedial action involving 7,500 drums of hazardous waste including 3,300 drums of
labpacks of gas cylinders, explosives, chemical reagents, and radioactive materials.
Project duration was approximately 180 days, operating 24 hours per day. Mr. Nol es
supervised a 26-member, on-site remedial staff that sampled, analyzed, recontain eri zed,
transported and disposed of over 3.5 million pounds of drummed wastes. He also
managed the deactivation of more than 3,400 pounds of deadly gases and shock-sensitive
chemicals.
Chemical Control Site, Drum Removal, Elizabeth, NJ -Managed the removal and
disposal of over 40 drums of unstable contaminated benzol peroxide from a heavy
populated industrialized area. He supervised a 6-member response team that overpacked,
transported, and disposed of 14,300 pounds of peroxide.
PERSONAL ACCOMPLISHMENTS
• Received North Carolina's Governor's Award for Excellence in Waste
Management, Honorable Mention, for developing · disposal process
technologies for sensitive explosive chemicals and reactive gases.
• Served on the USEPA panel for small generators and laboratory
generators, and developed regulations specific to these hazardous waste ·.
generators.
• Served on a USEPA panel for the development of land disposal
regulations; the panel's primary focus was prohibitions for ignitable and
solvent wastes.
B:208 1
ACADEMIC BACKGROUND
SPECIALIZED
TRAINING
EXPERTISE
PROFESSIONAL PROFILE
R. MICHAEL McCLUNG
Group Manager, Thermal Treatment
M.A., Environmental Biology
University of North Carolina, 1981
B.S., Chemistry and Biology
Glenville State College, 1977
40-Hour OSHA Hazardous Materials Training
Critical Issues in Underground Storage Tanks
Explosives Safety I and II
Operations Management and-Project Development
Mr. McClung joined Four Seasons in 1991 bringing over 14 years of environmental
experience in numerous areas of site remediation. As Manager of Four Seasons' Thermal
Treatment Group, Mr. McClung is responsible for the overall operation, administration,
and business development of the group.
Since joining Four Seasons, Mr. McClung has secured and managed 17 thermal treatment
projects in North Carolina, South Carolina, Louisiana, Georgia, Virginia, WestVirginia,
and Washington.· His role for these projects is typically management and administrative
in nature, from conducting site visits, preparing cost estimates and proposals, and
managing field operations personnel, to having profit and loss responsibility for the entire
thermal treatment business unit. In addition to the thermal treatment projects, Mr.
McClung has been instrumental in various other projects involving soil and groundwater
remediation. His experience in directing over 250 site remediations has . resulted in ·
exposure to a wide range of technologies used for site cleanup. Mr. McClung has worked
with local, state,. and federal regulatory agencies on a nation-wide basis and brings a
wealth of permitting and regulatory knowledge.
FOUR SEASONS EXPERIENCE
Among others, the following key thermal treatment remediation projects were directed by
Mr. McClung.
Fuel Tank Removal and Thermal Soil Treatment; O'Hare Airport, IL -Mr.
McClung is the Project Director for this multi-task project for the US Army Corps of
Engineers -Louisville District, in which Phase I consisted of cleaning and disposal of
various storage tanks and disposal of the contents. Phase II consists of petroleum
contaminated soil excavation and on-site thermal treatment of the soil. It is expected that
up to 17,000 cubic yards of soil will be treated on site. Sampling and analysis will be
performed for every 200 tons treated. Successful soil remediation will be achieved if the
treated soil meets the criteria set forth by IEPA-LUST Soil Sampling Requirements. Pre-
project activities undertaken by Mr. McClung involved preparation and submittal of a
site-specific Health and Safety Plan, a Final Design Work Plan, and a Sampling, Analysis
and QNQC Plan. Additionally, an Illinois Air Discharge Permit was secured.
(R. Michael McClung) Page2
Thermal Soil Treatment, Ortina=, WA; Mr. McClung was the Project Manager for this
project which involved thermal treatment of excavated soil with high levels of petroleum
contamination at the former Puget Sound Oil site in Orting, Washington. This site was a
Superfund removal action funded by USEP A Region X. Prior to mobilizing to the site,
Four Seasons was responsible for preparing and submitting a site-specific Health and
Safety Plan, a Performance Test Plan, a Finalized Work Plan, an SPCC/Contingency
Plan, and a Sampling, Analysis and QNQC Plan. Contaminated soil treated during the
Performance Test was found to have petroleum levels averaging 7,200 ppm, primarily as
heavy oils. The mobile thermal soil treatment unit met the stringent USEPA
requirements for all soil cleanup and air emissions.
Thermal Soil Treatment, Wilminl:fon, NC; Mr. McClung served as Project Director
for the remediation of 10,000 tons of excavated 1PH-contaminated soil at a Wilmington,
North Carolina petroleum refinery. Mr. McClung was responsible for all administrative
duties associated with this project, including regulatory agency liaison, troubleshooting,
client communications, reporting and project management. The primary contaminants at
this site were diesel fuel and gasoline. Four Seasons obtained a North Carolina air
discharge permit to operate the unit A processing rate of approximately 170 tons/day
was realized over the course of this five month project.
Thermal Soil Treatment. Martinsbura:, WV; . Mr. McClung directed the· remediation
of 4,400 tons of excavated 1PH-contaminated soil at a West Virginia fuel station. The
primary contaminants were diesel fuel and gasoline,. up to 366 ppm TPH. Mr. McClung
was instrumental in obtaining a West Virginia air permit to operate the unit. Composite
· soil samples were collected and analyzed to confirm that the treated soil met applicable
closure levels. West Virginia air officials monitored a stack test of the unit using site soil
spiked to 5,000 ppm TPH, which confirmed that catalyst stack emissions of NOx, SOx,
CO, VOCs and particulates met state limits.
Seymour .Johnson Air Force Base Goldsboro. NC: Mr. McClung served as Project
··Director for this project in which 1PH-contaminated soil was thermally treated. The
USAF contracting officer restricted treatment operations to a 40-hour work week to
assure USAF oversight. Over a 4-week period, Four Seasons treated all 1,700 tons of
contaminated soil. After confinnation samples determined levels to be below detection
limits for TPH, the soil was backfilled into the original excavation.
Thermal Soil Treatment. Belle Chase, LA; Mr. McClung was the Project Manager for
this mobile thermal treatment project at an oil refinery in Belle Chase, Louisiana.
Specific project duties included permit acquisition, oversight of field activities and client
reporting. This project involved the treatment of approximately 4,500 tons of petroleum-
contaminated soil.
In addition to his thermal treatment experience, Mr. McClung was involved in the
following projects.
• Provided system design and construction oversight for the on•site
treatment of contaminated ground water and soil at a facility in
Wilmington, North Carolina. For remediation efforts, under Mr.
McClung's direction, Four Seasons' design team developed a ground
water and soil Remedial Action Plan which consisted of a carbon
adsorption filtration system for the treatment of ground water and a
horiwntal vapor extraction system for the treatment of soil.
(R. Michael McClung)
• Provided design oversight for the development of a ground water
treatment system utilizing three extraction wells connected to a
25-gpm, triple-pass air stripper with carbon adsorption polishing
units. Air emissions control for the unit was provided by a
regenerative thermal oxidizer unit.
• Constructed an on-site remediation system for a site with free product
and VOC-contaminated ground water. Utilized product recovery
wells and ground water extraction pumps in conjunction with an
oiVwater separator, air stripper, and carbon adsorption system to meet
corrective action guidelines ..
• Developed a turnkey system to perform a pilot test and construct a
ground water treatment system for a RCRA site in Florida. The
recovery system processed ground water through an oiVwater
separator for recovery of free product prior to air stripping and carbon
adsorption of impacted ground water.
• Provided system design oversight for a soil vapor extraction project at
a Superfund site in Deer Park, Suffolk County, New York. This
project was conducted as part of the USEPA, ARCS II Program. The
vapor extraction system was designed and constructed for the removal
of both halogenated and non-halogenated, volatile and semi-volatile
organic compounds. The system included catalytic oxidation and wet
scrubber units for vapor emission control and consisted of two vapor
extraction trenches connected to a single vacuum pump. The vacuum
system was integrated with the catalytic oxidation and scrubber units
to address site remediation requirements.
• Provided system design oversight for a vapor extraction project in
Monroe, North Carolina. Four Seasons · conducted a limited soil
assessment to ascertain the condition of the subsurface soil in the
vicinity of the solvent dispenser lines. Soil borings were found to
contain butyl acetate, propyl-acetate, ethyl acetate, ethyl benz.ene,
xylene, heptane, toluene, tetrachloroethane, and isopropyl alcohol in
concentrations ranging from 65 ppb to 380,000 ppb. Four Seasons'
field operations staff installed a trench . for . vapor extraction. The
trench was backfilled with No~ 57 clean stone with a geotextile cover
and then clean soil. A collection pipe was placed 1 foot off the
bottom to transfer the contaminated vapors to a PVC pipe connected
to the vacuum pump. The HVE system was housed in a heat
controlled, wooden building.
Page3
(R. Michael McClung) Page4
PREVIOUS EXPERIENCE
Vice President/Director, Laidlaw Environmental Services, Inc.; 1989-1991 -In this .
capacity, Mr. McClung was involved in the management and administration of the
company's multi-million dollar comprehensive tank management program. His
responsibilities included financial and operational administration of all facets of the
company while providing controlled growth and marketing direction to meet the
company's expansion goals. In addition, he reviewed all capital expenditures, ascertained
potential acquisitions, analyzed profit/loss statements, and determined personnel
requirements. He also developed and implemented accounting controls, sales and
marketing strategies, annual facility budgets and coordinated regulatory interaction.
President, Industrial Waste Treatment Services, Inc,; 1985-1989 -Mr. Mcclung was
responsible for the startup, administration, and management of all financial and
operational aspects of this regional full-service hazardous waste management finn. He
developed innovative marketing strategies and yearly growth plans for the company in
addition to handling personnel resources. He also reviewed profit/loss statements, capital
expenditures and asset acquisitions for the company. He designed, engineered and
permitted hazardous materials removal, treatment, and disposal alternatives including
specialized mobile and facility treatment systems. The company was purchased by
Laidlaw Environmental Services in 1989.
Operations Mana1:er, GSX Chemical Services, Inc,; 1982-1985 -As the manager for
the GSX Emergency, Remedial, and Technical (ERT) Projects Group in the GSX
Reidsville, North Carolina office, Mr. McClung was administrator for all phases of
operations for ERT Group projects and was responsible for the timely, safe and profitable
completion of all projects. He provided guidance and supervision for individual project
managers. Mr. McClung also assisted with the development and implementation of site
waste removal activities, disposal arrangements, and development of new and innovative
treatment and disposal programs. He prepared and reviewed proposals, pricing, and bids.
He was also actively involved in-marketing ERT Group capabilities with the sales staff to ·
private and government clients and local, state, and federal agencies.
Field Chemist, GSX Chemical Services, Inc.; 1981-1982 -Mr .. McClung was also
employed by GSX as a field chemist In this role, he was responsible for the
identification, manifesting, and packaging of waste materials for educational,
government, and industrial clients which required a thorough knowledge of all USEP A
and DOT regulations concerning hazardous wastes.
Mr. McClung has also acted as on-and off-site manager for over 200 hazardous waste
and underground storage tank projects including:
• Numerous USEPA ERCS Zone II Projects
• Project manager for a 35-acre USEPA Superfund planned removal
action project in North Carolina. Major tasks included the removal
and disposal of more than 2,000 drums, one large material waste pile,
drainage treatment and excavation of 13 surface lagoons,
decontamination of manufacturing and reclamation facility buildings,
and the removal and disposal of nine surface and two underground
storage tanks.
(R. Michael McClung)
• Project manager for the PCB decontamination of a North Carolina
electrical switching station and its partial demolition and disposal.
• Project manager for six week generator funded cleanup of over
3,000 drums of flammable and toxic liquids and the excavation of a
chemical landfill. Site operations included container sampling,
bulking of compatible waste materials, and subsequent disposal.
• Project director for the detonation and thermal treatment of over
3,500 pounds of explosive and various chemical compounds in three
USEP A regions.
• Project manager of Florida Amnesty Days Program which involved
the development and implementation of a state-wide household
hazardous waste collection system.
• Project director for design and construction of a plant pre-treatment
system in Charleston, South Carolina to process heavy metals and
cyanide wastewater.
PUBLICATIONS
B:334_1
Profile of Superfund Cleanup; Macon Fanns, North Carolina Annual
Proceedings; American Society of Chemical Engineers, August 1984.
Pages
ACADEMIC BACKGROUND
SPECIALIZED
TRAINING
PROFESSIONAL PROFILE
JOHN A. BARRERA
Group Manager,
On-Site Treatment Services Group
B.S. Geology (Environmental Engineering Emphasis)
Michigan State University, 1987
40-Hour OSHA Hazardous Materials Training
Hydrocarbon Contaminated Soils Conference,
University of Massachusetts
Petroleum Hydrocarbons and Organic Chemicals in
Ground Water Conference, National Water Well Association
Mr. Barrera, formerly of the U.S. Geological Survey and MWR, is the Group Manager
for Four Seasons' on-site treatment group based in Greensboro, North Carolina. He .
brings to the company 2 years of Federal Government experience and 7 years of project
management and engineering design in the private sector. He has managed branch and
regional·offices in Ohio, Kentucky, California, lliinois and has co-authored and presented
papers at conferences nationwide. Over the past 5 years, he has managed the successful
closure of over 1.2 . million cubic yards of contaminated soil and has managed the
successful closure of several groundwater remediation sites using conventional and
innovative technologies. Additionally, he has managed more than 100 remediation
systems in 25 states and presently designs and manages groundwater recovery, SVE, air
sparging, and bio-venting projects throughout the U.S.
Since joining Four Seasons, Mr. Barrera has been instrumental in the following projects.
Groundwater Remediation System, Greensboro, NC -Mr. Barrera assisted with the
final system design and installation of this 150 gpm groundwater treatment system.
System components included two 120-deep extraction wells, equalization tanks, a 4-foot
diameter air stripper, a climate controlled treatment compound and a complete remote
telemetry interface. The counter-current flow packed column air stripper is designed to
reduce influent concentrations of approximately 30 ppm to less than 5 ppb of various
contaminants including 1,1,l'-trichloroethane, tetrachloroethene, 2-chloroethyl vinyl
ether, dichlorobenz.ene, and 1,2-dichloropropene.
Groundwater Remediation System, Winston Salem, NC -Mr. Barrera is currently
responsible for directing operation and maintenance activities for this groundwater
remediation system consisting of four ground water extraction wells with recovery
pumps and flow totaliz.ers to maintain a 20-gpm flow rate to achieve the required draw-
down below the existing sewer invert This triple-pass air stripper was designed to pre-
heat the ground water prior to pumping it through the columns in order to improve the
contaminated removal efficiency of such compounds as acetone, isopropyl acetates, and
alcohols. Due to the restrictions for off-gas emissions, Four Seasons also installed an in-
line thermal oxidation system to control process off-gas.
(John A. Barrera) Page2
Lithoeraphic Desien Company, Chicaeo, IL -Mr. Barrera was responsible for
activities associated with installation of this SVFJair sparging system. Four Seasons
performed various activities, including development of a detailed set of site plans; ·
excavation, construction and installation of 9 horizontal SVE trenches; installation of 7
air sparging wells; construction and installation of a remediation manifold network;
installation of a combination SVFJair sparging blower package; and implementation of a
start-up test and an Operations and Maintenance·plan. The IEPA is using this site as a
model for air sparging/soil vapor extraction technology.
PREVIOUS EXPERIENCE
Prior to joining Four Seasons, Mr. Barrera was employed as follows.
MWRI {ETG Environmental}, Business Development Manaeer; Chicaeo, IL; 1991
to 1992 -In this capacity, Mr. Barrera opened a regional office in Chicago, Illinois.
Business development activities included presentations to Fortune 100 companies, law
firms, consulting fmns, and state and federal agencies. Mr. Barrera was also involved
with telemarketing, engineering presentations, and industry trade shows. As a senior
project manager, he was responsible for -full-scale soil· and groundwater remediation ·
projects and hydrogeological assessments throughout the U.S. In addition to the Chicago
office, Mr. Barrera also provided assistance with the management of offices in Ohio and
Kentucky.
MWR-West {ETG Environmental}, Senior Project Manaeer; Sacramento, CA; 1990 to 1991 -Mr. Barrera managed the installation and operation of several vapor extraction
projects in Northern California. Additionally, he was responsible for implementing a
pilot scale vapor extraction test at a former rail yard. Mr. Barrera currently holds a
California Contractors License (General Engineering Type "A") and a Hazardous
Substances Removal and Remedial Actions License (HAZ-A).
MWRI {ETG Environmentan, Senior Project Mana~r; Owensboro, KY; 1989 to
1990 -In this assignment, Mr. Barrera was responsible for opening a local office to
provide design, management and operations for the site assessment and subsequent
project at the former Chevron Bulk River Terminal. This project was a teaming effort
with Chevron Research (Richmond, CA) and Chevron's Mid-Atlantic Region. Mr.
Barrera managed and implemented a hydrogeological assessment involving a soil gas
survey, soil boring program and sampling plan which extended to over 3 acres.
Following completion of assessment activities, Mr. Barrera designed, implemented, and
evaluated results of an SVE pilot study to test VOC removal rates and evaluate bio.:.
venting as an adjunct to the SVE system. Results of the pilot were used to design a full-
scale remediation system.
MWRI {ETG Environmental}, Site Operations Manaeer; Lansine, MVDayton, OH;
1987 to 1989 -Mr. Barrera managed several large remediation projects involving
groundwater recovery and treatment, soil vapor extraction, environmental assessments,
and hydrogeological activities. He also prepared final reports for presentations using
modem graphics and design software as well as database management and statistical
analyses for site closures. Mr. Barrera was instrumental in evaluating existing projects,
and providing research, development and design for two U.S. Patents.
(John A. Barrera) Page3
U.S. Geoloeical Survey, Hydrolomt; Michiean; 1985 to 1987 -Mr. Barrera assisted
senior hydrologists with project work throughout the state of Michigan. He also
participated in hydrogeological investigations in cooperation with the Canadian
Geological Survey. He was involved in water sampling, stream gauging, limnology
studies and construction projects on lakes and all major river systems in Michigan.
Hydrogeological studies included KI Sawyer Air Force Base, Wurtsmith Air Force Base,
and several landfill sites in the Detroit area. He spent several months in the field
collecting and analyzing data for water supply papers, annual reports and other federal ·
documents.
Mr. Barrera has managed over 100 projects involving soil and ground water remediation,
environmental assessments and hydrogeological studies. The following are a few of his
key project assignments.
• Soil Vapor Extraction and Air Spar~m= -Mr. Barrera designed and
managed the installation of a vapor extraction system as a means of
recovering contaminants yielded during full-scale air sparging
activities in Chicago, IL. The site presented several obstacles which
had to be overcome. Trenching and drilling. had to be performed
within an active facility. Contaminants included elevated
concentrations of chlorinated solvents as well as fuel components.
The air sparging effectively reduced groundwater contamination by
more than 50% in only 6 weeks of operation. Approximately 500
total feet of trench and 9 sparging wells were installed in complex soil
and groundwater conditions.
• Bio-Ventin2 -Mr. Barrera managed and installed a vapor extraction
system in conjunction with a bio-venting pilot test for a U.S. Air
Force base in South Carolina. The two-day study demonstrated that
the vapor extraction system provided an excellent platform for
enhanced biodegradation. The results indicated elevated levels of
CO2 and Colony Forming Units (CPUs/gram). Also, 0 2 levels were
reduced significantly (02 consumption). . .
• Soil Vapor Extraction and Air Spar~n2 -Mr. Barrera completed
the final design and development of an air sparging system to be
installed in conjunction with an active pump and treat system in
Kernersville, NC. In addition, he managed the design team for a new
patent pending vapor extraction alternative, Vac-U-Piletm. The
comprehensive system is designed to remove the long-term release of
approximately 20,000 gallons of pure toluene. This target VOC was
detected in soil and groundwater at this site. The groundwater plume
is estimated to have spread to an area several acres in size and onto
property adjacent to the site.
• Soil Vapor Extraction and Air Spar~n2 -Mr. Barrera completed
the final design and development of an air sparging system and soil
vapor extraction system for a furniture manufacturer in Liberty, North
Carolina. The system consists of an aggressive SVE system
(John A. Barrera)
and 8 sparging wells to remove dissolved solvents and fuel from the
shallow ground water. The treatment area is near a marsh and
required careful planning to avoid off-site contamination.
• Soil Vapor Extraction -Mr. Barrera was the project manager for one
of the nation's largest vapor extraction projects (Sherwin-Williams
site in Dayton, OH). Working in conjunction with OHM Corporation,
Mr. Barrera was involved with design, implementation, and
regulations liaisons during the course of site activities. The project
involved the treatment of over 500,000 cubic yards of soil
contaminated with toluene, acetone, MEK, MIBK, and xylenes.
• Soil Vapor Extraction -Mr. Barrera was the project manager for an
emergency soil venting system involving the restoration of
approximately 200,000 cubic yards of soils. TCA, TCE, PERC and
fuel from buried rocket motors was detected during construction of a
state prison complex at the abandoned Kincheloe Air Force Base in
Northern Michigan.
• Soil Vapor Extraction -Mr. Barrera was the project manager for an
environmental assessment and vapor extraction pilot study at
Chevron's Major River Bulk Terminal in Owensboro, Kentucky. Mr.
Barrera provided client liaison and interfaced with the governing
regulatory agency.
Page4
The previous three project descriptions can be further reviewed in the USEPA
Engineering Bulletin In-situ Vapor Extraction Treatment EPN540/2-91/006, May 1991.
Publications
1993 Barrera, J.A., "Air Sparging and Vapor Extraction as a Means of
Removing Chlorinated and BTEX Compounds in Complex Groundwater
Conditions" Proce.edings of the Conference on Petroleum Hydrocarbons
and Organic Chemicals in Groundwater: Prevention, Detection and
Restoration. Published National Water Well Association, Houston, TX,
November.
1991 Zenobia, K.E., Richards, A.M., Spearin, J.D., and Barrera, J.A., "Vapor
Extraction Soil Remediation -Design Flexibility and Effectiveness",
presented at the Hydrocarbon Contaminated Soils Conference, University
of Massachusetts, Amherst, Massachusetts, October.
1990 Barrera, J.A, Payne, F.C. Ph.D., "Emergency Removal of VOCs using a
Closed Loop Vapor Recovery System" presented at the HAZTECH
International Conference and Exhibition, Houston, Texas, May 8-10.
(John A. Barrera)
1989 Regalbuto, D.P., Barrera, J.A., and Lisiecki, J.B. Ph.D., "In-Situ Removal
of Voes by Means of Enhanced Volatilization", presented at the
Hazardous Materials Conference and Exposition, sponsored by Arizona
State University Department of Hazardous Waste Management, March.
1988 Regalbuto, D.P., Barrera, J.A., and Lisiecki, J.B. Ph.D., "In-Situ Removal
of voes by Means of Enhanced Volatilization", Proceedings of the
Conference on Petroleum Hydrocarbons and Organic Chemicals in
Groundwater: Prevention, Detection and Restoration. Published National
Water Well Association, Houston, TX, November.
B:1693 1
PageS
ACADEMIC
BACKGROUND
PROFESSIONAL
CERTIFICATIONS
EXPERTISE
PROFESSIONAL PROFILE
MICHAEL R. ROBICHEAUX
Gulf Coast Regional Manager
A.S. Petroleum Engineering
University of Southwestern Louisiana, 1984
OSHA Safety Training: 40 Hours, 1987
OSHA Supervisory Training: 40 Hours, 1991
Red Cross CPR Training: 1987
Red Cross First Aid Training
OHM Corp. Project Management Seminar: 40 Hours, 1990
Engineering and Operations General Management
Mr. Robicheaux joined Four Seasons in 1993 as Gulf Coast Regional Manager with 10
years experience in project management of numerous remedial projects. He has managed
planned projects and emergency response projects involving refineries, and chemical,
petrochemical and plating facilities. His on-site technical experience includes water
treatment, dewatering, thermal treatment, patented dredging processes; BOAT
treatments, specialized treatment schemes, and other remedial technologies. Mr.
Robicheaux also has experience in bench-scale analysis, economic process evaluation
and project-specific design of treatment processes. He has also been involved in
negotiations between local, state, and federal agencies concerning permitting, closure
plans. His overall responsibilities include profit/loss of the Gulf Coast Region in addition
to the overall management of large on-going projects.
PREVIOUS EXPERIENCE
OH Materials, 1990-1993 -As a Project Manager, Mr. Robicheaux managed numerous
remedial projects. His on-site technical experience includes water treatment,
dewatering, thermal treatment, patented dredging processes, BOAT treatments and other
remedial technologies. Descriptions of some of his key projects are listed below.
Volume Restoration Project -Mr. Robicheaux managed this water treatment
project for ultimate closure of ten surface acres of impoundments at a petrochemical
facility. The project consisted of the dewatering of 35,000 in-situ cubic yards of
waste contaminated with PCBs and other organic and inorganic constituents. In
addition, 13,000,000 gallons of effluent water were treated utilizing carbon
absorption, air stripping, filtration and selected precipitation.
In-situ Solidification -Mr. Robicheaux supervised the in-situ solidification of over
8,000 cubic yards of sludge material using mechanical methcxls. Removal of
approximately 25,000 cubic yards of contaminated subsoil was also included in the
project. A critical part of the scope of work included the removal of 1,000 cubic
yards of contaminated subsoil overlaying a high pressure pipeline which had been
previously ruptured. The total value of the project was $3.5 million: it was
completed on schedule and within the estimated budget.
(Michael R. Robicheaux) Page2
Remediation of Active Estuary -Mr. Robicheaux managed the cleanup project of
an active estuary contaminated with chlorinated organics in a navigable waterway.
This project involved the removal of sludges at depths greater than 30 feet utilizing a
cutterhead technology, gravity separation, water treatment and dewatering in order to
remediate approximately 10,000 in-situ cubic yards. He was responsible for
coordinating with EPA Region VI and the Louisiana Department of Environmental
Quality. The project was sensitive to neighboring facilities and required real time
monitoring of water quality within an impermeable silt curtain. The project scope
also included the supervision of a full-scale on-site laboratory consisting of GC/MS
and physical testing capabilities. The project was time sensitive due to the material
being a "U" code waste and becoming landbanned in May 1992. The total value of
the project was $4 million.
Closure of Wastewater Laa:oons -Mr. Robicheaux managed the total closure of 14
acres of wastewater biological lagoons containing approximately 80,000 cubic yards
of in-situ material. This project included dewatering, water treatment, transportation
and disposal of all material on-site. The project was critical due to the lagoons being
lined with HOPE material that was required to remain in place. This was
accomplished utilizing specialired long reach excavators equipped with a squeegee
apparatus in order to prevent damage of the liner material. The total value of the
project was $3.5 million: it was completed on schedule.
Closure Desim -Mr. Robicheaux was a task leader on the preparation ofa submittal
for the Bayou Bonfouca Superfund project located in Slidell, Louisiana. The project,
valued at $110 million, was awarded to his firm. Mr. Robicheaux handled the
design, cost buildup and treatability evaluation of 169,000 in-situ cubic yards
contaminated with PNAs. The project involved designing a patented dredging
process capable of removing material at tolerances less than six inches in a navigabie
waterway and transferring the material over one mile. In addition, the project
consisted of volume reduction processes followed by material preparation prior to
on site incineration.
Landfill Closure Project -Mr. Robicheaux managed this project which consisted of
closure of seven surface acres, including the installation of french drains, slurry
walls, and RCRA cap. The project value was $5.1 million: it was completed on
schedule and within budget.
In addition to the above projects, Mr. Robicheaux managed other remedial projects
totaling in excess of 250,000 in-situ cubic yards valued at over $4.0 million. These
projects, completed for Fortune 500 companies located throughout the United States,
involved various technologies including thermal treatment, detoxification, and volume
reduction/solidification.
Environmental Consultina: and Remediation, Inc, 1987-1990; Mr. Robicheaux served
as a Technical Sales Representative, and Project Manager. He was involved in several
types of environmental remediation projects, including underground storage tank
removals and hazardous waste remediation.
(Michael R. Robicheaux) Page3
SPL Environmental, Inc, 1984-1987; Mr. Robicheaux was a Project Manager for
several types of remediation projects.
B:2511 1
ACADEMIC
BACKGROUND
PROFESSIONAL
ASSOCIATIONS
PROFESSIONAL PROFILE
GREGORY W. KISER
Regional Manager
B.S. Chemistry, 1984
Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University
Franklin County, Ohio Chemical Emergency Preparedness
Advisory Council (CEP AC)
Member -Primary Council and Contingency Planning
Committee
Groveport, Ohio Chamber of Commerce
Trustee -Board of Directors .
SUMMARY OF EXPERIENCE
Mr. Kiser joined Four Seasons in 1994 as Regional Manager of the Midwest Regional
Office. Mr. Kiser brings with him over nine years experience in virtually all aspects of
emergency, remedial and technical hazardous waste management. Mr. Kiser is currently
responsible for the budgeting and management of Four Seasons' Midwest Office's
remedial work, industrial tank cleaning services, emergency response, underground
storage tanks, and other container management. Since joining Four Seasons, Mr. Kiser
has acted as . Senior Project Mal)ager on several removal projects at various natural gas
facilities. Mr. Kiser's primary role in these projects was allocation of personnel and
equipment, negotiation of transportation and disposal activities with subcontractors, and
client interface.
PREVIOUS EXPERIENCE
Vice-President, AG & G Environmental Services, Inc. 1993 -1994: -Mr. Kiser was
responsible for starting a new corporation which offered a variety of services in the
environmental remediation field. He oversaw all aspects of business development from
drafting a business plan, and directing sales and marketing and proposal preparation, to
on-site project management. During this time, Mr. Kiser also acted as project manager
for a bio-remediation project for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in which more than
3,000 cubic yards of sand which was heavily contaminated with a variety of petroleum
hydrocarbons were treated within 70 days.
General Mana2er, Chemical Waste Mana2ement, Inc. 1988 -1992; Mr. Kiser
obtained interim status for a new facility for both TSCA and RCRA storage of hazardous
waste. He was responsible for the management of employees involved in regulatory
agency interaction, customer service, sales, operations, health and safety, vehicle
maintenance procedures, contracting, proposal writing and community relations. Mr.
Kiser was also responsible for profit and loss, invoicing, payables, receivables, capital
expenditures, project forcasting and project cost accounting.
In this position, Mr. Kiser managed two Household Hazardous Waste programs in
Franklin County, Ohio, one being the largest single event in the country. Mr. Kiser also
assisted in the preparation of the proposal that awarded CWM a national contract with the
USDEA, in which CWM responded to drug lab investigations within the United States.
(Gregory W. Kiser) Page2
Some of Mr. Kiser's other responsibilities included the management of a $3.5 million
contract for the repackaging, removal and disposal of highly reactive chemicals on a
USEPA Superfund site; the management of contracts for comprehensive waste
management services with the cities of Columbus and Cleveland, Ohio; and the
management of a government project for underground storage tank removal involving
multiple tanks varying in siz.e from , 500 to 60,000 gallons. Each tank was contaminated
with low-level radioactive and/or hazardous wastes and was excavated, decontaminated
and disposed of. He was also responsible for two two-year projects resulting from a PCB
fire within a building in which the entire contents of the building had to be
decontaminated or disposed of.
Proiect Manaur, GSX Services, Inc,, Emeruncy, Remedial & Technical Proiects
1985 -1987; -Mr. Kiser acted as Response Manager for emergency responses under the
Environmental Protection Agency's Region IV contract In this capacity, he supervised
personnel, coordinated daily activities, implemented health and safety procedures,
interacted extensively with regulatory agencies, maintained cost and material packaging
records, adhered to and fulfilled contractual obligations, controlled project costs and met
with clients and the news media.
Mr. Kiser also managed the excavation of 12,000 cubic feet of soil contaminated with the
lethal and hallucinogenic warfare chemicals VX, GS and BZ in conjunction with the
removal of 50,000 cubic feet of soil heavily contaminated with beryllium. All work was
performed within close proximity to high explosives. Additionally, Mr. Kiser conducted
the removal and disposal of 5,000 cubic yards of soil and debris contaminated with
various heavy metals and organic compounds for the South Carolina Department of
Health and Environmental Control (SCDHEC). This was the second largest hazardous ·
waste clean-up solely funded by the SCDHEC.
Moreover, Mr. Kiser managed Phases m and IV of the State of Florida's Amnesty Days
Waste Removal Program. His responsibilities included approval of sites,· the
establishment of collection facilities, and the supervision of the collection, testing,
segregation and the packaging and disposal of 2.2 million pounds of all types of
hazardous materials.
Field Chemist, GSX Services,· Inc, 1984 -1985; Mr. Kiser was responsible for the
identification, manifesting, packaging and transportation of waste materials. His duties
included proper on-site ·sampling, bulking, containerization, waste characterization and
compatibility testing. Mr. Kiser also participated in Phase Il of the State of Florida's
Amnesty Days Program as Explosives Technician and Assistant Project Manager. In
addition, he directed the drainage and transportation of PCB fluid from electrical
equipment located on military bases in the southeastern United States pursuant to a
contract with the U.S. Defense Property Disposal Office.
B:4134 1
ACADEMIC
BACKGROUND
SPECIALIZED
TRAINING
EXPERTISE ·
PROFESSIONAL PROFILE
WILLIAM J. HOLLINGSWORTH
Group Manager, Health and Safety
B.S., Environmental Earth Science
University of North Carolina at Charlotte, 1982
40-Hour OSHA Hazardous Materials Training
AAR Tanlc Car Safety & Spill Control
Tanlc Truck Rollover Training
USEP A Hazardous Materials Incident Response Training
3-M Fire Control School
FEMA Fundamentals Radiological Response Team
DOE, FEMA Radiological Emergency Response Training
USEP A Health, Safety, and Air Monitoring Training
National Fire Academy Chen;_istry of Hazardous Materials
NC State University HAZ-COM Training
USEPA-Approved Response Manager
Health and Safety Compliance and Emergency Response
Operations and Training
Mr. Hollingsworth joined Four Seasons in 1989, bringing over 14 years of experience in
the management of corporate health and safety programs, as well as emergency response
and planned remedial projects involving hazardous materials. He is currently responsible
for oversight of the health and safety of all remedial projects at Four Seasons.
Additionally, he has participated in over 1,500 hazardous material incidents and is
responsible for emergency response training and the development and maintenance of
Four Seasons' emergency response. program. He has also assisted state, city, county, and
industrial officials in the development of emergency and health and safety contingency
plans and serves on several state committees on emergency response. He is an adjunct
instructor in hazardous materials response for the National Fire Academy and has
responded to many flammable liquid and liquid propane fires. Mr. Hollingsworth has
acted as a technical advisor for industry and local fire departments for response to these
incidents, as well as conducting training and safety audits.
FOUR SEASONS EXPERIENCE
Since joining Four Seasons, Mr. Hollingsworth has participated in many projects, several
of which are briefly described below.
USEPA Emera:ency Removal, Greer, NC; -Acted as Health and Safety Manager for a
major Superfund site involving reactives, explosives, corrosives, unknown drums and
compressed gas cylinders. Mr. Hollingsworth conducted a risk assessment of the site and
developed and implemented a Health and Safety program used during site remediation.
Hazardous Chemical Fire, Charlotte, NC; -Responded to a three-alarm fire at a
chemical plant involving various corrosives, solvents and other hazardous chemicals.
Mr. Hollingsworth acted as the Response Manager during the emergency and
containment phase. Specific duties included initiating emergency pump operation, drum
segregation, hazard removal and site management.
(William J. Hollingsworth) Page2
Hydrochloric Acid Tank Failure, Charlotte, NC; -Mr. Hollingsworth responded to a
1,500 gallon HCl release at a chemical plant requiring the evacuation of 500 people. Mr.
Hollingsworth coordinated containment and spill assessment to include initiating
neutralization and pump operation.
Train Derailment, Ansonville, NC; -Responded to a train derailment involving the
release of 5,000 gallons of diesel fuel into a creek. Mr. Hollingsworth coordinated and
managed emergency response operations with local and state agencies and the USEP A,
Region IV.
Train Derailment, Rockin2ham, NC; -Initial response manager for a. train derailment
involving sulfuric acid and phenol. Mr. Hollingsworth's responsibilities included
conducting damage assessment and containment operations. During project execution,
he interfaced with client representatives, local emergency response personnel, and
government officials.
Truck Rollover, Charlotte, NC; -Project manager for a tank truck rollover in Charlotte,
North Carolina involving the release of approximately 3,000 gallons of diesel fuel into a
drainage ditch. This spill threatened a major water supply in Charlotte. His
· responsibilities encompassed managing all · response operations including fuel
containment and free-liquid product removal. During project execution, he interfaced
with the client representative, and local fire, police, and government entities.
Chemical Site Remediation, Jamestown, NC; -Supervised an emergency response to
an explosive, corrosive, and reactive site. He served as the response manager and site
safety officer for a 7-member response team .. He interacted with the North Carolina
Hazardous Waste Section, the North Carolina Division of Emergency Management, and
county officials.
Train Derailment, NC; -Mr. Hollingsworth responded to a train derailment involving
four cars of leaking methanol. He was responsible for coordinating leak control and
initial off-loading operations. Project coordination involved interacting with local
emergency response personnel, client representatives, and governmental agencies having
jurisdiction.
Tank Car Leak, Lexin2fon, NC; -Mr. Hollingsworth responded to a leaking tank car
incident in Lexington, North Carolina in which 12,000 gallons of ferric chloride were
leaked into a drainage ditch and creek. Mr. Hollingsworth managed crews on
containment and emergency response activities which involved damming the creek to
neutralize contaminants. Interaction took place between the local Fire Chief, industry
personnel, and the North Carolina Division of Environmental Management.
PRIOR EXPERIENCE
From 1985 to 1989, Mr. Hollingsworth was the hazardous materials coordinator for
Charlotte-Mecklenburg County Emergency Management/Charlotte Fire Department In
this role, he was responsible for coordinating the hazardous materials response program.
Selected projects are briefly described.
(William J. Hollingsworth) Page3
Tank Truck Rollover and Fire, Charlotte, NC; 1990 -Responded to a gasoline tank
truck rollover and fire. Mr. Hollingsworth advised local fire departments on fire fighting
tactics and spill control. He also interacted with the state and local government and
initiated cleanup operations.
Diesel Tank Fire, Paw Creek, NC; 1989 -Mr. Hollingsworth responded to a set fire at
the Paw Creek Gasoline Terminal. He advised the fire department on extinguishing
methods and initiated cleanup actions with various local contractors.
Tank Car Leak, Belmont, NC; 1989 -Mr. Hollingsworth responded to a tanker leaking
muriatic acid. He coordinated containment and neutralization operations and interacted
with the local · fire department and the North Carolina Division of Emergency
Management
Industrial Chemical Fire, Charlotte, NC; 1988 -Responded to a fire involving various
industrial chemicals. Mr. Hollingsworth coordinated all emergency response and cleanup
activities. He was also the project liaison to the USEPA, the TAT, the United States
Arson Task Force, local government officials, and the North Carolina Division of
Emergency Management
Pesticide Fire, Charlotte, NC; 1988 -Responded to a fire involving pesticides,
herbicides, and fertilizers. Mr. Hollingsworth coordinated emergency response personnel
and interacted with local government officials and the North Carolina State Division of
Emergency Management
Ha1,ardous Chemical Fire, Charlotte, NC; 1988 -Responded to a three-alarm fire
involving various paints, solvents, pesticides, and other hazardous chemicals.
Mr. Hollingsworth supervised containment, public evacuation, and cleanup efforts. He
also interacted with the TAT, the USEPA, local government officials, and the state
pesticide branch.
Tank Car Leak, Belmont, NC; 1987 -Responded to a leaking tank car of hydrochloric .
acid. Mr. Hollingsworth managed and coordinated leak control and spill containment
and also supervised all neutralization and off-loading procedures. Local fire department,
industry and railroad personnel were involved with site remediation.
Anhydrous Ammonia Leak, Charlotte, NC; 1986 -As the hazardous materials
emergency coordinator, Mr. Hollingsworth responded to a release/leak of anhydrous
ammonia from a faulty valve on a rail tanker. He supervised leak containment and
treatment of water run-off and interacted with local government officials, industry
consultants, and the North Carolina Division of Environmental Management.
In addition, from 1982 to 1985, Mr. Hollingsworth was the environmental response
coordinator and chemical analyst for the Mecklenburg County Environmental Protection
agency. In this position, he was involved with the projects highlighted below.
Sulfuric Acid Leak, Charlotte, NC; 1985 -Responded to a 500-gallon release of
sulfuric acid. As the site hazardous materials emergency responder, he supervised
containment and product control and coordinated cleanup operations.
(William J. Hollingsworth) Page4
Tanker Fire, NC; 1985 -Responded to a 5,000-gallon gasoline tanker fire. As the site
hazardous materials emergency coordinator, he directed containment operations and was
also responsible for interacting with local government officials, emergency response
agencies, and the North Carolina Division of Environmental Management.
Rail Car Leak, Charlotte, NC; 1984 -Mr. Hollingsworth was the hazardous materials
emergency coordinator for a rail car leaking liquid chlorine. Interacting with the TAT,
the Bureau of Explosives of AAR, the North Carolina State Division of Environmental
Management and industry professionals, Mr. Hollingsworth supervised containment and
leak control operations as well as off-loading of the liquid chlorine.
Train Derailment, Marshville, NC; 1984 -Mr. Hollingsworth responded to a request
from the North Carolina Division of Environmental Management to access a train
derailment involving methanol tank cars and fire. He interacted with the USEP A, the
AAR Bureau of Explosives, and state agencies. He also acted as the Technical Advisor
on both the containment and fire control.
Tanker Leak, Charlotte, NC; 1983 -Responded to an MC-312 12,000-gallon hydrogen
peroxide tanker leak on Interstate 85. As the site Technical Advisor to the Charlotte Fire
· Department and Mecklenburg County Environmental Protection, Mr. Hollingsworth
supervised cleanup operations for the North Carolina Division of Environmental
Management.
Truck Rollover, Paw Creek, NC; 1983 -Mr. Hollingsworth was assigned as the
technical advisor and safety director for a project involving a gasoline tank truck rollover
with fire. In addition to reporting site activities to the Mecklenburg County
Environmental Protection agency and Charlotte Fire Department Hazardous Materials
Team, he interacted with the TAT, the North Carolina Division of Environmental
Management, and local government officials, supervising all cleanup operations.
Chemical Fire, Charlotte. NC; 1982 -Mr. Hollingsworth responded to a chemical ·
warehouse fire involving sodium hydrosulfite and paraquat. He was the technical advisor
for the Mecklenburg County Environmental Protection and Charlotte Fire Department
and interacted with the USEPA, state agencies, and the North Carolina Division of
Environmental Management.
B:232 1
ACADEMIC
BACKGROUND
SPECIALIZED
TRAINING
EXPERTISE
PROFESSIONAL PROFILE
MARK A. JOHNSON
Charlotte Division Manager/Project Manager
B.S., Earth Science
University of North Carolina at Charlotte, 1983
40 Hour OSHA Hazardous Materials Training
USEPA-Approved Response Manager
On-Site Management of Multidisciplinary Personnel for
Environmental Remediation Projects
Mr. Johnson joined Four Seasons in 1989 bringing over 10 years of experience in
response to hazardous materials cleanup incidents. His experience involves the
management of professional, technical, and general labor level multidisciplinary teams of
environmental personnel.
FOUR SEASONS EXPERIENCE
Since joining Four Seasons, Mr. Johnson has participated in numerous projects, several
of which are briefly described below.
Dump Site Remediation, Glas2QW, WV; Mr. Johnson served as Project Manager for
this site remediation which involved excavation of RCRA and TSCA waste material.
Following excavation, the site was cleared and grubbed and an embankment foundation
was constructed. Mr. Johnson directed installation of a cap, which included an HDPE
liner and associated drainage systems.
RCRA Surface lmpoundment Closure, Mooresville, NC; Mr. Johnson managed a 4-
member crew for the closure of a 50-by 45-foot impoundment at a pipeline facility in
Mooresville, North Carolina. Activities included excavation of the impoundment soils
and backfilling. A liner system was also installed which included an upper and lower
liner system and an associated drainage system.
RCRA Pond Closure, Gaston, SC; Mr. Johnson managed the RCRA closure of storm
water ponds containing soil and sludge contaminated with lead and other heavy metals.
The most highly contaminated soils and sludges were excavated and disposed of. Mr.
Johnson also directed remedial efforts associated with chemical fixation of the
contaminated materials.
Spill Response, Rock Hill. SC; Mr. Johnson managed the emergency response and
initial cleanup of a 5,000-gallon gasoline spill in an area of dense woods and
undergrowth. Mr. Johnson was the project manager for the 5-member crew working to
contain and remove product from soil, dense vegetation, and water.
Tanker Spill Response, Troy, NC; Managed the emergency response and remediation
of an 8,000-gallon gasoline tanker spill on a rural highway. As project manager, Mr.
Johnson directed a 12-member response team; interacted with state and local regulatory
agencies, PRPs and local emergency officials; fulfilled all recordkeeping obligations; and
assisted with waste removal activities and disposal arrangements.
(Mark A. Johnson) Page2
UST and Soil Excavation, Rock. Hill, SC; Mr. Johnson worked as a project manager
. during a USEPA-ordered cleanup of an abandoned chemical tank and surrounding
contaminated soil. During this project, Mr. Johnson coordinated the activities of a 5-
member, Level B operation, and interacted with federal, state, and local regulatory
officials and PRPs.
Soil Excavation, Tazwell, YA; Managed a major remedial cleanup of soil contaminated
with petroleum products from a transport tanker accident Activities involved soil
removal and replacement on extremely steep and difficult terrain.
Electroplatim: Facility Cleanup, Winston-Salem, NC; Mr. Johnson managed a
USEPA-ordered cleanup of an abandoned electroplating facility. He coordinated the
activities of a 7-member, Level B operation involving sampling, waste placement,
removal, transportation, and decontamination of the entire facility. Federal regulatory
personnel were on site monitoring the project.
PREVIOUS EXPERIENCE
From 1984 to 1988, Mr. Johnson served as a project manager for GSX Services (Triangle
Resource Industries). Some of the projects managed under his direction are summarized
below.
Emet2ency Response, Charleston, SC; 1985 -Worked as project manager for an
em~·gency response action .involving the cleanup of spilled toluene diisocyanate and the
overpacking of several leaking drums discovered in a trailer at a shipyard.
Contaminated Pit Remediation. Gainesville, YA; 1985 -Worked as a project manager
during the excavation, sampling, and containment of several pits contaminated with
pesticides, nerve agents, chemicals, and rocket motors at a former military facility.
Mr. Johnson managed a 16-member crew which operated24 hours per day and required
Level A personal protection equipment for 6 days.
Cyanide Warehouse Response, Heminmay, SC; 1984 -Mr. Johnson served as project
manager for a USEPA response to a fire at a polyester bead warehouse producing
cyanide gas. The response operation required diking and flooding the entire area to
extinguish the fire.
B:215_1
PROFESSIONAL PROFILE
STUART W. EILAND
Facility Manager
ACADEMIC
BACKGROUND
B.S., Resource Management
Auburn University, 1980
SPECIALIZED
TRAINING
40-Hour OSHA Hazardous Materials Training
8-Hour OSHA Hazardous Material Supervisory Training
EXPERTISE Hazardous Waste and PCB Remediation Project Management
Mr. Eiland joined Four Seasons in 1992 bringing 10 years of experience in response to
hazardous materials clean-up incidents and management of professional, technical, and
general labor level multidisciplinary teams of clean-up personnel. Mr. Eiland was hired
to manage all removal and remedial operations for oil and hazardous substance responses
from the Four Seasons Nashville area office. Duties include managing all operations
personnel, equipment, the materials warehouse, ongoing government and private
business, and business development
PREVIOUS EXPERIENCE
Operations Mana2er, OSCO Inc., Nashville, TN; 1991-1992 . -Mr. Eiland's
responsibilities included management of logistics for all field personnel, equipment and ·
materials for all projects, and set-up of a new medical monitoring program for OSCO
field personnel. He served as project manager for OSCO's ·$1.5 million RCRA closure of
·their former treatment facility in Columbia, Tennessee. The closure consisted of
chemical treatment · and the removal of over 3.2 million gallons of inventory waste
material in process tanks followed · by a decontamination wash to remove surface
contamination.
Operations Mana2er, Westin2house HAZTECH, Inc,. Atlanta, GA; 1989-1990 -Mr.
Eiland was responsible for implementing all facets of operations. in every environmental
remediation and hazardous waste management project for the Atlanta branch. His
responsibilities included procurement and control of materials and equipment for the
warehouse, day to day management of 40 operations personnel, consultation for site-
specific issues, performing site assessments, formation of project reports and proposal
development Mr. Eiland was the project manager on 120 oil or hazardous substance
responses during this period.
• ANR, Missouri, Louisiana, Oklahoma, Wisconsin, Illinois, Indiana,
Kentucky, Ohio, Tennessee, Missouri -Project Manager for remediation of PCB
contaminated drain ponds, lagoons, burn pits and retention basins in various ·
compressor stations located . nationwide. This project was operated under a
consent order and involved removal actions and associated waste placement. An
on-site laboratory was present for immediate analysis of soils to determine the
proper closure end points. Mr. Eiland was in charge of overseeing up to 3 crew
members and negotiating transportation and disposal of the waste. The project
involved remediation of approximately 20 sites, each requiring approximately two
weeks.
(Stuart W. Eiland) Page2
• Geor2ia World Con2res,5 Paint/Solvent Tank Remediation, Atlanta, GA -
Managed the location and removal of 14 underground solvent storage tanks and
40 aboveground tanks, vats, and process tanks at an abandoned paint
manufacturing plant. The tanks were decontaminated, cut, and recycled for scrap,
and the wastes treated and disposed of.
• Ford Green Island Remediation, Green Island, NY -Managed major
remediation at a manufacturing plant contaminated with lead, PCBs, heavy
metals, and petroleum. Press pits and concrete transformer pads were cleaned and
wastes disposed of. Contaminated soil and rocks were removed. Also, over 600
labpack items and drums were segregated, characterized, packaged, and
transported for disposal.
• Phthalic Anhydride/Maleic Anhydride Tank Cleanout, Forest Park, GA -
Managed immediate response to clean out 7,000 gallons of solidified phthalic
anhydride and maleic anhydride from two tanks over a 2-day Cargill Chemical
plant shutdown.
Operations Supervisor, HAZTF;CH, Inc,, Atlanta, GA; 1985-1988 -Mr. Eiland was
responsible for managing operations of numerous environmental remediation projects,
and complying with hazardous waste regulations. He is experienced in all phases of site
remediation procedures, pond closures, soil excavation, water and soil sampling,
hazardous waste drum handling, recovery, lab pack procedures, PCB decontamination,
building and structural decontamination and demolition, UST assessment and removal, .
groundwater recovery, and monitoring well sampling. He has supervised numerous
USEPA Superfund and large commercial remediation sites.
• Buried Drum Excavation, Cleveland, TN -Project supervisor for the cleanup of
an abandoned drum site. Initially five exploratory trenches yielded 20 drums of
paint/solvent waste. Another 12 trenches were excavated to evaluate contaminant
migration on and off site.
• Lara:e-Scale PCB Abatement, LaSalle, IL -Project supervisor for the
remediation of an electric utility where PCB-containing electrical equipment was
manufactured, contaminating the plant site and surrounding neighborhood. Initial
work tasks involved a site health and safety plan, QNQC, plan, and material
handling plan for soil sampling. Approximately 23,000 cubic yards of
contaminated soil were then excavated and thermally treated on-site using an
Infrared Conveyor Furnace System (ICFS). Community relations was a · key
concern in this project.
• Emera:ency Response to Dycol Chemical Plant Explosion, Dalton, GA -
Managed the immediate response to a boiler explosion and 4-day fire at a
chemical plant. Water used for firefighting mixed with plant chemicals had
reached a nearby stream. The metal roof of the manufacturing facility had
collapsed onto 400,000 pounds of bagged guar gum and 800 drums. The State
determined that the impounded firefighting water was non-hazardous, and the
cleanup crew mixed half of the water with the guar gum and hauled the jelly-like
mix to a local landfill. The remaining water was applied to land on the site. The
crew removed the drums and separated the suspected hazardous drums. The
charred building was demolished and cleaned for scrap, while nearby ground was
excavated to remove surface contamination. State and USEPA officials
monitored the cleanup.
• Peak Oil Superfund Site, Tampa, FL -Response manager for the on-site
Infrared Conveyor Furnace System incineration of over 6,500 tons of PCB-
contaminated sludge and soil at the Peak Oil site. The high-PCB sludges were
mixed with contaminated soils and lime to allow consistent materials handling.
The crew moved waste from the stockpile, processed the waste through a
chopping/screening operation to provide a feed with small enough particles to
allow thorough decontamination, weighed the feed, conveying it into a hopper,
operated the secondary unit to consistently destroy PCBs, operated a scrubber
system to remove particulates and acid gasses, and emptied the hopper at a
consistent rate, a difficult technical operation.
• McDonald's Farm Superfund Site, Dalton, GA -Response manager for
cleanup of 20-acre drum dump of hazardous wastes including oxidizers, lab-packs
of several thousand laboratory chemical containers, and shock-sensitive materials.
Remote handling equipment and equipment with specialized, explosion-proof
cabs was necessary to respond to this site. Over 30 lab packs and drums were
detonated on-site. All other hazardous materials were transported off-site for
disposal.
Operations Foreman, HAZTECH, Inc., Atlanta, GA; 1983-1985
• Factory Decontamination, Confidential Client -Developed specifications for
heavy metal decontamination of 11 buildings. Mr. Eiland was project foreman
and QNQC officer during the implementation of the project. Activities included
power washing with specialized chemical washes, removal of contaminated wood .
flooring and asbestos insulation, and re,eovery of metallic mercury.
• Yellow Water Road Superfund Site, .Jacksonville, FL -Project foreman for
removal of over 1 million gallons of PCB fluids that had accumulated at a 14-acre
site. Fluid containers were tested and bulked into on-site tanks according to PCB
concentration. During the course of this project, 718 emptied transformers and
1,200 drums were staged and cleaned on-site. Over 20,000 gallons of
decontamination fluids were recycled and treated with a mobile water treatment
system. Over 3,500 cubic yards of PCB-contaminated soils were excavated and
stored on a lined, covered pad on-site to await final disposition.
• Smith Farm Superfund Site, Shepardsville, KY -Project foreman for response
to 40-acre uncontrolled dump of over 100,000 drums in the mountains of
Kentucky. Crew constructed a half-mile road to the site, then excavated primary
hot spot of leaking drums. Five thousand drums were staged, sampled, and
ultimately characterized into five wastestreams, which were transported off-site
for treatment and disposal.
B:226 1
APPENDIXF
EQUIPMENT RESOURCES
ITEM R~QQ!l__S_e Vehicles Emergency Response Yan Large Emergency Response Truck Straight Truck (Box Truck) Service Truck Pick-up Truck Dump Truck Tandem i\xlc Tractor Eicld i\nalytical Equipment Organic Vapor Analyzer (OVA) L.E.L Mcter/O2 Meter/CO Meter pH/Temp. Probe/ Millivolt Meter Photoionization Detector (PIO) PCB Screening Kit Sampling Equipment Sampling Kit Hand Auger Drum Thief Colowasa Drum Sampler Sludge Judge Tank Sampler Patching Tools and Equipment Plugs and Patching Equipment Tranfil'rr Equipment Vacuum Truck {3,500 Gal) Vacuum Truck '"Super Sucker'" (3,500 Gal) Vacuum Tanker (DBL-con, 316-SS) Tanker (DBL-con, 304-SS) Tanker (304-SS 3 Companm~nts) Tanker (304-SS. insulated) Propane Tanker Dry Bulk Tanker Air Diaphragm Pumps: • Stainless Steel (2 inch) • Polypropylene (2 inch) · Teflon (2 inch) • Cast Iron (2 inch) • Aluminum (1.3 inch) Centrifugal Pump (6 inch) GREENSBORO, NORTHCAROUNA 2 I 2 20 27 6 8 I 3 3 0 X 10 10 2 X 2 2 Four Seasons stocks a considerable variety of plugs and patching equipment. 9 2 4 2 0 0 I _I 3 I I 1. 3 I CHARLOTTE, NORTH CAROLINA I 0 I 4 3 3 I 0 0 X 8 8 I X 2 I ,., L 0 0 0 0 I 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 NASHVILLE, TENNESSEE 0 0 I I 2 I 0 0 I 0 I X 5 5 0 X 2 0 I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 BATON ROUGE, LOUISIANA 0 0 0 6 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 COLUMBUS, OHIO 0 0 0 3 2 I I 0 I X X 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 I 0 0 0 0
ITEM Gear Pumps: • Carbon Steel -Stainless Steel Chemical & Petroleum Hoses 12iking/Containment Equipment Permanent Floating Boom with Weights Sorbent Booms Sorbent Rolls and Pads Powersorb Chemical Absorbents lnvened Dam Materials Sand Bags Inflatable Containment Pool (800-Gal) Communication Equipment PIT.SAR Radio Attachments Two-Way Radio Push-to-Talk Mode Radio Attachment ;--.1obile Telephones 35-.MM Cameras Video Recorders Excavation Equipment Tracked Excavator Backhoe/Front Loader Combination Front Loader (Wheel) Front Loader (Track) Forklift Forklift with Drum Rotator Tractor Skid Loader (Bobeat) Jack Hammer Bull Dozer Other Response Equipment Air Can/Filter System Decon Trailer (28 foot) Ponable Air Compressor (5 hp) Air Compressor (185 cfm) Ventilator Blower Acetylene Welder Electric Welder Generator (Skw) Light Stand Light Truck Steam Jenny Power Washer (water laser) Work lloat (Jon boat) Dump Trailer GREENSBORO, NORTH CAROLINA 2 2 X X X X X I 7 7 7 25 15 I 5 7 I 2 2 2 2 2 0 2 I 7 3 3 25 15 18 4 I 0 4 2 I CHARLOTTE, NORTH CAROLINA 0 0 X X X X X I 3 3 3 7 8 I I 3 0 I 0 I I I 0 0 0 4 0 I 6 4 5 4 0 0 I I 0 2 NASHVILLE, TENNESSEE 0 I 0 X X X X X I 2 2 2 3 4 0 0 I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I 0 2 3 I 2 4 0 I I 0 0 BATON ROUGE, LOUISIANA 0 0 0 X X X X X 0 0 7 3 I 0 0 0 2 0 I 0 0 I 0 I 0 0 0 0 0 I 4 0 0 I I 0 COLUMBUS, OHIO 0 0 0 X X X X X 10 2 2 0
ITEM Van Body Trailer Equipment Trailer (28 foot) Low-Boy Trailer (40 foot) Low Boy Trailer (20 Ton) Low Boy Trailer (50 Ton) Flat-Bed Trailer Drop-Deck Lowboy Equipment Trailer (18 Foot) Chem icaL ReS_lS_tar1_1__S_tiLts Level A Suit -Chemiturion (Gas-tight) Disposable Level A (Saranax/Chemrel Max) Aluminizcd Coveralls Level B Suit (TreUeborg Splashsuit) PB! Coveralls Chemrel Suits Yellow Tyvek (Poly coated) White Tyvek Respiratory Protection SCBA with Egress (Bottled Air) SCBA with Egress (In-line Air) Full-Face Respirators Half-Face Respirators Escape Masks Other Protective Equipm_ent PVC Gloves (Outer) Glove Liners (Inner) PVC Boots (Chemical resistant, steel toe, and shank) Boot Covers (Disposable) Hard Hats Face Shields Safety Glasses Dewatering Equipment f-ilter Press (2 cy) Filter Press (3.63 cy) Filter Press Screw Auger (30 ft) Mix/Holding Tanks Shaker Screens Dump Hoppers Barges Electric Pumps Incline Conveyor Pontoon Pumps Submersible Pumps Ptlot Sea le Ftlter Press X = Materials that arc available, but disposable. li2l:;~fl~!lil::1~iilllll1l1B!il!i!ffll1l11!1!:::1:::::1:::1:1::11:::::::::1:::::11 GREENSBORO, NORTH CAR_DLINA 4 4 7 0 0 l l 4 II 2 4 10 103 1,220 1,450 9 9 34 28 5 1,458 1,244 44 115 35 35 51 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CHARLOTTE, NORTH CAROLINA 1 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 10 3 2 3 20 200 275 2 3 6 5 1 36 108 5 36 6 12 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ,., .) NASHVILLE, TENNESSEE ---------0 -0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 5 3 50 200 275 4 3 6 5 0 20 20 8 8 12 12 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 BATON ROUGE, LOUISIANA 0 I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 10 75 150 2 3 5 4 0 40 60 7 50 10 12 14 2 1 2 1 9 3 3 4 2 3 3 2 0 COLUMBUS, OHIO 30 1,500 22 12 40 170 40 6 0
APPENDIXG
INSURANCE CERTIFICATE
CERTIFICATE OF INSURANCE ,, ISSUE DATE (MM/00/YY)
.. OOUCER
Rollins Hudig Hall
THIS CERTIFICATE IS ISSUED AS A MATTER OF INFORMATION ONLY AND
CONFERS NO RIGHTS UPON THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER. THIS CERTIFICATE.
DOES NOT AMEND, EXTEND OR ALTER THE COVERAGE AFFORDED BY THE of Illinois, Inc.
123 North Wacker Drive
PQ!JQ_~S~~~----------------------~
NSUREO
Chicago, Illinois 60606
Attn: Phyllis King
[phone]
Four Seasons Environmental, Inc.
P. 0. Box 16590
Greensboro, NC 27400
All Wholly Owned Subsidiaries of
Great Lakes Chemical Corporation
COMPANY A
LETTER
COMPANYB
LETTER
COMPANYC LETTER
COMPANYD
LETTER
COMPANYE
LETTER
COMPANIES AFFORDING COVERAGE
Niagara Insurance Company
Old Republic Insurance Company
National Union Fire Insurance Company
Planet Insurance Company
Insurance Company of North America
~'>VE~A:GES :if\:f,'.\i>',,::•... ,_,., .-•0;-: .. -,,,, •.. ,,..0,,-""···· .1,, :·; ·/., .•
THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE POLICIES OF INSURANCE LISTED BELOW HAVE BEEN ISSUED TO THE INSURED NAMED ABOVE FOR THE POLICY PERIOD
INDICATED. NOTWITHSTANDING ANY REQUIREMENT, TERM OR CONDITION OF ANY CONTRACT OR OTHER DOCUMENT WITH RESPECT TO WHICH THIS
CERTIFICATE MAY BE ISSUED OR MAY PERTAIN, THE INSURANCE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES DESCRIBED HEREIN IS SUBJECT TO ALL.THE TERMS,
EXCLUSIONS, AND CONDITIONS OF SUCH POLICIES. LIMITS SHOWN MAY HAVE BEEN REDUCED OY PAID CLAIMS. ---------·---·--···-····--·----·-·· ···-•·-··•·----·-·····-·-----·-·· ·-·-·. ... . ....... _______ ....... -··· --·-·---•-····-•···
I f TYPE OF INSURANCE
! GENERAL LIABILITY
-•. :;( COM
0
MERCIAL GENE~l-~~ABIUTY •
X ! CLAIMS MADEL .. ·--; OCCUR ..
! ! OWNER'S & CONTRACTOR"S PROT. L-X:1 ~<?_1!1:.E~c:_t_lJ.al .. .
i X Broad Form Property
, AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY
,·-}( ANY AUTO
~-: All OWNED AUTOS
SCHEDULED AUTOS
B X HIRED AUTOS
POLICY NUMBER
GLL1011-94
Damage
MWTB 17534
, POLICY EFFECTIVE -POLICY EXPIRATION
. DATE(MM/0D/YY) DATE(MM/0D/YY)
03/30/94 04/01/95
04/01/94 04/01/95
LIMITS
GENERALAGGREGATE ' $ t t
PROO~CTs:Co~~K>-PAGG: l $·---2·,-soo ,-000
PERSONAL& ADV. INJURY-;$ -2, QQQ ,000
. ........ -·-. ·---·.
EACH OCCURRENCE • $ ---· --·-·---·-·· -·-
FIRE DAMAGE (Anyonef,eJ $
MEO. EXPENSE (Al\y one person)' $
COMBINED SINGLE
LIMIT
BOOIL Y INJURY
(Per person)
BOOIL Y INJURY
(Per accideni)
s 2,000,000
s
$ X ' NON-OWNED AUTOS
i GARAGE LIABILITY p~
i Ded. Comp 25,000 :
A·-x:Auto Phys. Damage 0023-94
EXCESS LIABILITY ·x UMBRELi.A FORM
. OTHER THAN UMBRELi.A FORM
WORKER'S COMPENSATION
AND
EMPLOYER'S LIABILITY
.OTHER
1Contractors Pollutiorr
Liability
~ F. Property -All Risk
CLM3086608
OMWC10251000
OMWC10250900
NTB 250966501
CXD1568015-5
-04/01/94
(NJ) 04/01/94
(A/0)
04/28/94
04/01/94
04/01/95
04/01/95
04/28/95
04/01/95
EACH OCCURRENCE
AGGREGATE
STATUTORY LIMITS
EACH ACCIDENT
DISEASE-POLICY LIMIT
DISEASE-EACH EMPLOYEE
\:011. 25, 000 j
s 23,000,000
s 23,000,000
. : .
' 1,000,000-!
$
$ 1,000,000
$ 1,000,000
Limit $5,000,000
Blanket Limit $125,000,000 :
: 'SCRIPTION OF OPERATIONS/LOCATIONSNEHICLES/SPECIAL ITEMS j
: I
I jffil~®E~!lli'il1l~(t(~ r :\~ SHOULD ANY OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED POLICIES BE CANCELLED BEFORE THF. '.
I ;~f· EXPIRATION DATE THEREOF. THE ISSUING COMPANY WILL ENDEAVOR TO 1
j FOR BIDDING PURPOSES ONLY t\ MAIL 30 DAYS WRITTEN NOTICE TO THE CER'flFICATE HOLDER NAMED TO THE ·1
·1 :_:_i ., LEFT, BUT FAILURE TO MAIL SUCH NOTICE SHALL IMPOSE NO OBLIGATION OR I
,, LIABILITY OF ANY KIND UPON THE COMPANY. ITS AGENTS OR REPRESENTATIVES. 1
~:~ AUTHOHIZEOREPRESEN~. tZ. ?~~'
ATTACHMENT 2
CERTIFICATES OF INSURANCE FOR FOUR SEASONS AND
SEPARATION AND RECOVERY SYSTEMS, INC.
: A4~4H~lt. CERTIFICATE OF INSURANCE
'-.. -~ ·-, .... : ''
. ·. ISSIJE DATE {MM/OD/YY)
I PRODUCER
~SURED
Rollins Hudig Hall
of Illinois, Inc.
123 North Wacker Drive
Chicago, Illinois 60606
Attn: Phyllis King
[phone]
Four Seasons Environmental, Inc.
P. 0. Box 16590
Greensboro, NC 27400
All Wholly Owned Subsidiaries of
Great Lakes Chemical Corporation
:OVERA.GES
THIS CERTIFICATE IS ISSUED AS A MATTER OF INFORMATION ONLY AND
CONFERS NO RIGHTS UPON THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER. THIS CERTIFICATE ~~1-1~T8t_~~~• EXTEND OR ALTER THE COVERAGE AFFORDED BY THE __j
COMPANY A
I.ETTER
COMPANY B
LETTER
COMPANYC
LETTER
COMPANYD
LETTER
COMPANYE
LETTER
COMPANIES AFFORDING COVERAGE
Niagara Insurance Company
Old Republic Insurance Company
National Union Fire Insurance Company
Planet Insurance Company
Insurance Company of North America
I I
I f
I
THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE POLICIES OF INSURANCE LISTED BELOW HAVE BEEN ISSUED TO THE INSURED NAMED ABOVE FOR THE POLICY PERiOD
INDICATED, NOTWITHSTANDING ANY REQUIREMENT, TERM OR CONDITION OF ANY CONTRACT OR OTHER DOCUMENT WITH RESPECT TO WHICH THIS
CERTIFICATE MAY BE ISSUED OR MAY PERTAIN, THE INSURANCE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES DESCRIBED HEREIN IS SUBJECT TO ALL THE TERMS.
EXCLUSIONS. AND CONDITIONS OF SUCH POLICIES. LIMITS SHOWN MAY HAVE BEEN REDUCED BY PAID CLAIMS. --------····--··------·-·-----·-··---.· -·· ·--···-·-·-····· --
TYPE OF INSURANCE POLICY NUMBER POLICY EFFECTIVE POLICY EXPIRATION
DATE {MM/DD/YY) DATE (MM/DD/YY) LIMITS lt~i ....;...---------------------------------------------..--.r,,,.......--..-,...,....---1 i GENERAL LIABILITY
\ f"""-:lf] COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY G LL 1011-9 4
M.-!.1 CLAIMS MADE:··-~~] OCCUR.
j_ __ _j OWNER"S & CONTRACTOR'S PROT.
; XIContractual ·-·x· Broad Form Property Damage
. AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY ' X. ANY AUTO
I. J :__ .... : ALL OWNED AUTOS
' SCHEDULED AUTOS
! X . HIRED AUTOS
3 --)(; NON-OWNED AUTOS
' .. ·-..
MWTB 17534
I --·--·-; GARAGE LIABILITY
.. 1 X Auto Phys. Damage 0023-94
EXCESS LIABILITY
, ~ ~X UMBRELLA FORM
OTHER THAN UMBRELLA FORIT.
i WORKER'S COMPENSATION
IB
I . OTHER
AND
EMPLOYER"S LIABILITY
ID Contractors Pollution
I, Liability
. : Property -All Risk f
CLM3086608
OMWC10251000
OMWC10250900
NTB 250966501
CXD1568015-5
DESCRIPTION OF OPERATIONS/LOCA TIONSNEHICLESISPECIAL ITEMS
FOR BIDDING PURPOSES ONLY
(NJ)
(A/0)
03/30/94
04/01/94
04/01/94
04/01/94
04/28/94
04/01/94
GENERAL AGGREGATE ' $
04/01/9 5 PRODUCTS-COMP/OPAGG.; $ 2 ;soo ,000 ·;;i~s-o~~i.-&~~~--l~JUR; ·:-$--z;·ooo ,-000
04/01/95
04/01/95
04/01/95
04/28/95
04/01/95
EACH OCCURRENCE $
FIRE DAMAGE (Any one fae) $
MED. EXPENSE (Any one P8"""'1 $
COMBINED SINGLE
LIMIT
BODILY INJURY
(Per person)
BODILY INJURY
(Pe, axident)
EACH OCCURRENCE
AGGREGATE
ST A TUTORY LIMITS
EACH ACCIDENT
DISEASE-POLICY LIMIT
$ 2,000,000
$
$
Ded. Comp25,000
\:011. 25,000
$ 23,000,000
. $ 23 I 000 I 000
$ 1,000,000
$ 1,000,000
DISEASE-EACH EMPLOYEE $ 1,000,000
Limit $5,000,000
Blanket Limit $125,000,000
SHOULD ANY OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED POLICIES BE CANCELLED BEFORE THE
'·" EXPIRATION DATE THEREOF, THE iSSUING COMPANY WILL ENDEAVOR TO 1
MAIL ~~ DAYS WRITTEN NOTICE TO THE CER"i"IFICATE HOLDER NAMED TO THE
LEFT. BUT FAILURE TO MAil. SUCH NOTICE SHALL IMPOSE NO OBLIGATION OR
1$~~-~~~t~~ ~,._C: .. ~1.1~11994
·~ Irvin• Paoitio Insurano•
2081 Businesa Center or. #245
Irvine, CA 92715
[phone] FAX [phone]
~
SEPARATION
INC.
1762 KcGav
Irvine, CA
, RECOVERY SYSTEMS,
Ave.
92714
: Tli1S CERTIACATE IS ts.SUED AS A. MATTER Of INFORMATION ONLY AHO
[ CONFERS NO RiOHT$ U~ TiiE CERTIACATE HOU>ER. THIS CERllACATE
'. DOES NOT A.WEND, EXTEHO 00 Al TER Tl-IE COVERAGE AFFORDED IIY TiiE
l .. ~.~ ... 8.~: .............. ·······························•··················•···························
: c;;:u, J.H'( A
: l..EmR
COMPANIES AFFORDING COVERAGE
ADMIRAL INSURANCE CO. (SWETT)
: C(M'J.H'( · · '. t..EmR B INSURANCE CO. OP' THE WEST
···························· ································ ....... ·-·························· ······· ...................................... . l ~Nff C GOLDEN EAGLE INSURANCE co.
>····························································•··•···················································································--·-··········•··· i C(M'Nff i l..EmR D ATHENA INS. CO. (SWETT , CRAW)
I ro.f'#N E .....
j lEITER
r~a!~~~~~,~~]!:~~~~~!~~l!~r~!!W~iWilF>
camACATE MAY BE ISSUED OR MAY PERTAIN, THE INSURANCE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES 0ESCa88) HEFBN IS SUBJECT TO AU THE TTFMS,
EXCl.lJSIONS N40 CONDfllONS Of SUCH POLICIES. LIMITS $HOHN MAY HAVE BEEN REDUCED BY PAID Cl.AIMS.
l;;;T . : '. POUCY B'l'l!ClM ),oucY DJINTQI :
l TII ) 1Y1'£ 0# ~ POUCY ......,. . : OATI. (',l,l,00(0) : DATI. (Ml400MY) : LMTI
A~:i;~R ! we~• . ~0/19/93 ; 10/19/94[~~-:l~EiJ~
! l : , i ' Fff ~ <,1nv ~ h) ii O
1 ..... r.-.·.·.·.·.·::..~·.·:.·.·.·.·::············································· , .................................................................. l ................................ i ............................... t·e ··~··~·~·~F·············•····-···········.·.o
: AUTOll0N.E UUIIJTY : : : : CClo6IED StQ..E :
s r··x··i .-HY MJTO : cnu1T1M1~ : 1 : UolT i• 1, o o o, o o o r;l§§.:, . :10,01,,3 : 10, 01, '(~~ : I:-=
··-··-··< : ............................................... : ······················--··········•··
: : GAIW)E UA8UTY
: ········< : PIO'em' ONUC£ : ' ~ ~ ; . . . . ...... , ...................................................................................................................................................... ,. ..................................................................... _ .......................................... ·.····················•-•·••··········
:DC&1UANJn , = i .E..&Oi~ " s,000,000 1np;:i===·········:==•·········· 9111,1u 110/19/94~E;J~fo
MD PWC25101U3 :!Jl/01/94 j 01/ 01/ 95;.~ .. ~ ..................... J• ..... ~, .. 9..9.~.,.C>.Q0
IM'lD'IIM' UANJTY \ \ ~.:.~.~············l~ .... ~.,. .. ~ .. ~~ .. ~.~.C>. i i :De£.A3E.E,l()<B,f'l()'1'£E !• 1 000 000 ·--1·01NIIII······················································ i .................................................. ···············i·································i································ ··-·······················································'···-·••···-' .......... .
I slPBRS. PROP. l cTN11ms1~ ~0/01/93 i 10/01/94\ SF/90% COINS 900,00
!B.X. , B.B. j j • SF/50% COINS 500,000
... : ....................................................................................................................................... i ................................. ~ ................................. : ........... ·-················•··········································-·····
I uOUW,.,.. o,: OftftAnoM,tJ)CA~ naa
XH '1'HB BVBHT OP NON-PAYXBN'r OP PRBJUUXL;~ DAYS NOTICB WILL BB G:IVDI. CBRT BOLDBR IS HAKBD AS ADDITIONAL IHSORJW PBR ATTACKED BDN'T.
Uz ALL OPBRATIOHS OF TB!: HAKBD IHSORBD.
5ample Copy
SHOUlD N(( ~ 1HE ~ OESCff8ED POtlOES 8E CANC8.1..ED 8EFOf£ 1HE
EXPtAA llOH DATE THEff:OF, 1HE ISSUING COll'>H'f WU. ENDEAVOR TO
MAIL _1_g_ DAYS ~ NOllCE TO 1HE CffiT1ACA TE HOl.DER N.AMED TO TI-£
LEFT, BUT FM.UF£ TO WJl SUCH NOTlCE SH.AU IMPOSE NO OOUGATION 00
l..1ABIUlY ~ N(( IQNO UPON 1HE COMf'N('(, ITS .AGENTS 00 R:PR:.SefTATMS.
.~
,:,:=:=:=:=:;:=:/\::r,,·::::/':':}\(?O" .· ·' ~-.. :. , .. Peft\ilotrtm·:.
ATTACHMENT 3
FLOW DIAGRAMS OF BCD TREATMENT PROCESSES AND EQUIPMENT
INFORMATION
HYDROGEN DONOR OIL TANK BROWN OIL TANK CATALYST NaOH NITROGEN R104 Se,paration and Recovery Systems. Inc, BLOCK FLOW DIAGRAM BCD LIQUID TREATMENT PROCESS BCD LTR VAPORS WATER CHILLER VAPOR CHILLER CONDENSATE CONDENSATE TANK DEMISTER PROCESS WATER TANK OIUWATER SEPARATOR REFLUX OIL TO REACTOR INSULATED VAPOR GAC VAPORS TO VENT DRUM
FEED HOPPER BLOCK FLOW DIAGRAM BCD THERMAL DESORPTION PROCESS NITROGEN OFFGASES CYCLONE SEPARATOR WATER CHILLER IN OUT DEMISTER 1 >I QUENCH TOWER GAS COOLERS VAPOR CHILLER MX-2500 THERMAL DESORBER DRUM COOLING AUGER CONDENSATE CONDENSATE TANK CHEMICAL OIL/WATER SEPARATOR BROWN OIL TANK VAPOR GAC TREATED SEDIMENT CONTAINER INLIN~ TO >I FILTE ) WATER Separation and Recovery Systems, Inc, DUST CONTROL AUGER TO FEED HOPPER FOR RECYCLE FLOC WATER CHILLER RECYCLE TOAPC OR SLOWDOWN OR DUST CONTROL VAPORS TO VENT LIQUID GAC PROCESS WATER TANK
.,,,-THERMOCOUPLE 0 0 0 0. 0 .. IL----' HEATING COILS o, i-----------7 1 SAMPLE 1 OI \ CONTAlf\JER 1 '..... ,,,,,,,/ ~---.,,.. ~ I I I I I I I I I l?:J HIGH TEMP I I i I I ......_ . MUFFLE FURNACE GRAPHITE 60-1000-F GASKET CHILLED WATER OUT 40-F-STEEL TUBING·-' VAPOR VAPO}J OUT IN CHILLED WATER IN '4''.· ':. •·.:\-· ·'• ,\ •·' \·';"~ -~<··:."'.·.~ CARBON :'PACK,,~ ·~ <-: ',i:.··~;~~-·: ~-·= . : .... ; : .... ' ~ , . ./ ·. ~ .. -~~ ,;,:~· .. ~ • ••• ' •t • CONDENSER 1 CONDENSER 2 NITROGE~,J I ~,I MAf\JOMETER ~ , D TO VEt\JT VACUUM PUMP tv~~=~~~, SRS® SEPfrR~~~~ lJ1~f2t~~~ S~Sl[~S, INC. WATER PUMP S RS I · r 1·r -sK-1139 ~ rvrnP., ,o, orn1,1 IJ.S /\.. THERMAL DESORPTION BENCH TEST APPARATUS
INTRODUCING THE SAREX MX-3000 INDIRECT
HEATED THERMAL DESORBER
-•• . t.. ·--.... -...-...
~--. -. :, ~· ,;-....,...... ~
·;, ,. .
SAREX MX-3000 COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGES * HIGH CAPACITY INDIRECT HEATED DESORBER WITH VAPOR RECOVERY,
MEETS EPA 40 CFR 264 SUBPART X REQUIREMENTS. * PERMITTED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL SYSTEM . * COST EFFECTIVE. * PROVEN TO MEET RCRA WASTE BOAT STANDARDS. * TREATS SOILS/SLUDGES CONTAINING HIGH CONTAMINANT LEVELS. * SRS WARRANTS PERFORMANCE RESULTS TO REGULATORY STANDARDS. * MODULAR, WITH RAPID MOBILIZATION.
SRS'
FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: CALL 714-261-8860
Separation and Recovery Systems, Inc.
1762 McGaw Avenue, Irvine, CA 92714-4962 (9
I SAREX MX-2500 THERMAL PROCESSOR
LIFT CONVEYOR
NIIBOGEN
INJECTION
PRESSURE
RELIEF
VIJ..VE VAPOR LINE /
TEMPERATURE GAUGE
TO VAfOR ~~cpy;RY ~-
L----------------------------------------------------J
~~~~r r ~~i!~~r'~
A GREAT LAKES CHEMICAL CORPORATION COMPANY
CORPORATE HEADQUARTERS
Four Seasons Environmental, Inc.
3107 South Elm-Eugene Street
P.O. Box 16590
Greensboro, North Carolina 27 416-0590
[phone]
REGIONAL OFFICES
Four Seasons Environmental, Inc.
12021 Lakeland Park Boulevard, Suite 120A
Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70809
[phone]
Four Seasons Environmental, Inc.
4920 Old Pineville Road
Charlotte, North Carolina 28217
[phone]
Four Seasons Environmental, Inc.
504 Interstate Boulevard, South
Nashville, Tennessee 37210
[phone]
Four Seasons Environmental, Inc.
4700 Homer Ohio Lane
Groveport, Ohio 43125
[phone]
Four Seasons Enfonmental, Inc.
201 Georgia Avenue
Deer Park, Texas 77 536
[phone]
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Solid Waste Management
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
William L. Meyer, Director
TO: Prospective Bidders
FROM: William L. Meyer, Director
P!·,l\
>'-5 --• an
DEHNR
Division of Solid Waste Management
North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and
Natural Resources
DATE: February 1, 1995
SUBJECT: Request for Qualifications from vendors of technical
and engineering expertise on the Base-Catalyzed Dechlorination
(BCD) method for detoxification of PCB -contaminated soils.
The Department of Environment, Health, and Natural
Resources, Division of Solid Waste Management requests the
submission of qualifications of vendors for a potential project
described in the attached Request for Qualifications (RFQ).
All qualification responses are to be at the identified location
no later than 11 :00 am, Monday, February 27,, 1995.
All participation is voluntary. All responsive submissions are
appreciated and will be used in identifying potential vendors,
should any Requests for Proposal regarding detoxification follow
for this site.
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper
REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS
POTENTIAL SOURCES OF TECHNICAL AND ENGINEERING EXPERTISE
ON THE BASE-CATALYZED DECHLORINATION (BCD) METHOD FOR
DETOXIFICATION OF PCB-CONT AMINA TED SOILS
This Request for Qualifications (hereinafter referred to as "RFO")
solicits information about the qualification and experience of organizations to
perform contractual services for the described potential scope of work. The
State of North Carolina by this process is identifying potential vendors for a
project that has not and may never be authorized. Furthermore,
organizations identified via this RFQ will not become an exclusive list of
vendors should any similar scope of work be authorized in the future.
Successful vendors identified through this process are assured of an
opportunity to bid should the process continue on to a future Request for
Proposals.
Part I
General
I. Send all qualification packages directly to: (if using U.S. Postal Service or
courier service)
North Carolina Department of Environment, Health,
and Natural Resources
Division of Solid Waste Management
401 Oberlin Road, Suite 1 50
Raleigh, NC 27605
Attn: Sharron Rogers
919-733-4996
II. Sealed qualifications packages will be received at the address specified
in Article I until 11 :00 am. Monday. February 27. 1995.
Ill. Refer technical inquiries to:
Sharron Rogers
Division of Solid Waste Management
P.O. Box 27687
Raleigh, NC 27611 -7687
919-733-4996
IV. All responses will be open for the inspection of and reviewed by the
Joint Warren County and State PCB Landfill Working Group and the public.
Trade secrets and proprietary information provided cannot be safeguarded.
V. Offerer's Representative for Business Purposes: The name, mailing
address, and telephone number of the offerer's authorized agent with
authority to bind the firm and answer questions concerning the offeror's
qualifications must be clearly stated.
VI. Pursuant to Article 3 and 3C, Chapter 143 of the North Carolina
General Statutes and Executive Order No. 34, the State invited and
encourages participation in this procurement by businesses owned by
minorities, women and the disabled including utilization as subcontractors to
perform functions under this potential Scope of Work.
VII. Telegraphic Offers: Telegraphic and facsimile offers will not be
considered; however, offers may be modified by such means, providing such
notice is received in a timely manner, and provided a signed original follows.
2
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Part II
Scope of Work
The State of North Carolina in conjunction with the Joint Warren
County and State PCB Landfill Working Group (Working Group) is seeking
information and qualification materials from potential turnkey vendors as we
investigate the feasibility of remediation of the contents of this landfill.
The Working Group has selected Base•Catalyzed Dechlorination (BCD)
as a potential method for detoxification of the PCB-contaminated soils
contained in the landfill. Recognizing that BCD is still considered innovative
and continues to be developed, the Working Group wishes to learn about
potential vendors and to learn about the successful projects completed or
ongoing at this time.
Information about your organization's project experiences that would
be useful include: project plans, lengths of projects and major goals along
the timeline, "clean closure" targets for site contaminants, raw material
requirements, pollution control requirements, and waste quantities and
disposal requirements. Of particular interest to the Working Group is the fate
of dioxin and furans and any propensity for production of dioxin in the
process. In general, any information is requested that can assist the Working
Group in determining the feasibility of BCD to achieve their detoxification
goals and to assess the compatability of the .process with the community.
The request for prior experience details, while focused on BCD, should
in no way discourage organizations from identifing other potential successful
detoxification strategies. Such information would be useful to the group if
relevant to the PCB Landfill site. Examples may include in situ or ex situ
· bioremediation, chemical treatment, in situ vitrification, or thermal
desorption. Please limit project experience capabilities to technologies that
you believe to be compatable and potentially successful at the PCB Landfill
site, as described below.
3
SITE DESCRIPTION
The State of North Carolina owns and maintains a closed landfill
containing PCB-contaminated soils. This landfill is permitted under the
Toxics Substances Control Act (TSCA). This landfill is vinyl and clay lined
and contains approximately 40,000 cubic yards of soils (24 feet thick)
contaminated with polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). The average PCB
concentration of these landfilled soils is 300 to 350 ppm, primarily a mixture
similar to Arochlor 1260. Free water is present in the landfill to a height of
approximately 13 feet. There is evidence that some anaerobic biological
dechlorination has occurred during the period since the landfill was capped
and became anaerobic in 1983.
The landfill is located on a 142-acre tract of land located just off State
Road 1 604 in Warren County. The containment area or landfill cell is
enclosed by a fence occupying approximately 3.8 acres. Figure 1 is an aerial
photograph of the landfill. The four groundwater monitoring wells are
marked on this figure. The actual landfill cell is somewhat smaller than the
fence shown, but in the same configuration.
Figure 2 shows a cross-section of the landfill structure. Figure 3
provides a sketch of details of the bottom liner and dual leachate collection
systems installed at the site. Figure 4 details the single gas vent structure
present at the center of the landfill cell. Figure 5 details the sand and
charcoal filters installed on top of the north end of the landfill cell to treat
any leachate removed from the cell.
A spray irrigation (non-discharge) permit is maintained for the facility,
so that any treated leachate can be routed to an irrigation system installed
along the crest of the landfill. No NPDES permit is available for the facility,
and no adequate receiving stream is available. The leachate collection pond
structure, seen to the north of the landfill cell in Figure 1, is dry and has not
been used during the life of the facility. The unpaved entrance road is
maintained by the NC Department of Transportation and was designed to
handle large soil-laden dump trucks.
CHEMICAL PROFILE OF LANDFILL CONTENTS
In July, 1994, the State executed a sampling plan developed in
conjunction with the Working Group and their Science Advisor. Selected
results from this effort are attached. Table 1 contains all the positive results
Figure 3. Details of Bottom Liner for PCB Landfill
FAeRIC FILTER
&llDGING MA~llAL FILL 1'
5AND 9•
- - - - - - - -..-UPPER LEACHATE COLLECTION SYSTEM
CLAY5'
W mil f'\IC &OTTOM LINER
NATIVE 5APROLITE LOY-JER LEACHATE COLLECTION SYSTEM
BOTTOM LINER DETAILS
WARREN COUNTY PCB LANDFILL
7
Figure 4. Details of Gas vent of PCB Landfill
• • .. Oz -·• :I It)
• • )1 .';) ~
4• SCHEDULE 40 PVC PIPE_/' H 'in ::.
5TAINLE55 STEEL SCREEN
GAS VENT DETAIL
WARREN COUNTY PCB LANDFILL
8
INLET PIPE t.. -~--~ ft . 1,0 Figure 5. Details of Sand and Charcoal filter for leachate treatment of PCB Landfill 2'MANHOLE JI_ . ~ . PUC[ GRAVEL "TO ANCfNA'. (J1 ~ fll.TU f.A8AIC · 7 . .: ,-·,L TCll.;f'A9RIC . ·• . I•-•-•-•-• -• •• • • •• • •• • • •••• ~• • • • '\. • ~ • ~ •• • • • • • • •;• • •~ •~ •~•• • • • ••~••• .. _;• • •• • • • ·········································-•.•.•.•.•-•.• ~-········ ········'··················· ., ..... ·•:::::j::::::::::::::::::: 5AND FIL TE~ ::::::: -•• -·-·-. -,::::::::::=:-:-:•:•:•:•:•:•:•=·=·=·=· =·=•~:·. ·-. - - - ---. - - -. -- - -. - -!:" 2'MANHOLE • ~~-iWAT£ftMFM;twv· I SAND AND CHARCOAL FILTER WARREN COUN1Y PCB LANDFILL t::GRAYEI.'.-•--· FILTCJI ·rAIIAIC.-· "F'I );;;§~1=~:y~q~~j:'.f ·. ~~ .... lh CHARCOAL FIL .. I-Ill" ;:::-~.,-I ::•I , , ·r?.~:;r::~=;'.;:~~~~~=::t~~?~r~· ".+ -L. ounEr PtPE
Table 1. PCB Landfill Environmental Sampling Data
Warren County PCB Landfill Environmental Sampling Data
August, 1994
1
•:•!•···••f JfJ;~e:••:i•·· ••••••••I•••••••••••••
•• ••1•1m1.~I~::•~jG•tl~:iii:1: i:;I!!J ····~~~~~·••:•1••••1:1••
Chemical .
Iii•• e~rirn~i~r :::->:: .-:-·•·· ·.·.·••·•·•
WL-001-SS Leachate Pond -Ravine 013921 Barium
outlet
II II 013921 Chromium
WL-003-SS Leachate Pond -middle 942752 PCB
WL-004-SS Leachate P. -filter outfall 942753 PCB
WL-028-SS Leachate P. -filter out -942781 PCB
duplicate
WL-029-SS Surface Soil Background 942782 PCB
WL-001-LC Dry Landfill Contents 942796 PCB
" " 942795 Chlorobenzene
u u 942795 1,4 Di-chloro-
benzene
WL-002-LC Wet Landfill Contents 942799 PCB
II II 942797 Chlorobenzene
II II 942797 1,4 Di-chloro-
benzene
II II 013919 Arsenic
II II 013919 Barium
II II 013919 Chromium
II II 013919 Lead
WL-001-LE Landfill Leachate 013909 Barium
WL-001-GW Monitoring Well No. 1 013914 Barium
WL-004-GW Monitoring Well No. 4 013917 Barium
Mon. Well No. 4 -duplicate 013918 Barium
WL-002-SD Richneck Ck-OS sediment 013920 Barium
WL-005-SS West side Landfill -seep 013922 Arsenic
II II 013922 Barium
II II 013922 Chromium
WL-006-SS Air Vent Area Soil Grid 14-3 013923 Barium
II II 013923 Chromium
* TCLP results for this element did not exceed standards.
North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Solid Waste Management
10
I ;;;~':~~. : !III ! ! ij!l:
88 ppm*
12 ppm*
0.53 ppm
1.15 ppm
1.45 ppm
0.22 ppm
301.4 ppm
62 ppb
23 ppb
151.8 ppm
60 ppb
48 ppb
2 ppm*
23 ppm*
12 ppm*
35 ppm*
0.23 ppm *
0.05 ppm*
0.08 ppm *
0.08 ppm *
16 ppm*
2 ppm*
94 ppm*
12 ppm*
72 ppm * 16 ppm*
from a composite of EPA Methods 8240, 8141, 8270, 8081 for organics
and various methods for inorganics.
Table 2 displays the positive results from EPA Method 8280 and 8290
for dioxins and furans. Note particularly the results for the Wet Landfill
Contents, which represents the bulk of the contents of the landfill. Also
note that these results display all positives for these analyses, and thereby,
confirm that the landfill contents do not contain other complicating organic or
inorganic compounds in any significant quantities.
Table 3. Chemicals of interest in contents Warren County PCB Landfill
=::1niffiiilJJqijtj(ifiiitlirtl iPOPinli\ipofiftl:::mt:::
PCB (all congeners) Average 350 ppm
(Range 151 to 880)
Chlorobenzene 60 ppb
1,3 Di-chlorobenzene 23.9 ppb
1 ,4 Di-chlorobenzene 48 ppb
Arsenic 2 ppm ❖
Barium 23 ppm ❖
Chromium 1 2 ppm ❖
Lead 35 ppm❖
❖ TCLP results did not exceed standards.
Tables 4 and 5 present results of physical soils testing performed on a
grab sample of landfill contents. These results are representative of the
landfill contents, but other isolated conditions may occur due to the origin of
the landfill's contents from 14 North Ca'rolina counties
11
Table 2. Dioxin and Furan Results from PCB Landfill Content Sample WARREN COUNTY PCB LANDFILL AREA DIOXIN RESULTS ALL UNITS IN PARTS PER TRILLION (PPTJ m~B11111n::t~ot::1:~:01mrllillillll111111mswMF1ttilt~¢bJiliI;:;:0:m:1:IIlliii:lllw$WMW1::1m::mtm:me0®~};:0:w1::1r:111111:1:111::1::;swMFPl'l\l~¢.Q}i:m:0:oo:;r::: tffilWMt::i::i: DIOXIN ISOMERS 2,3,7,8-TCDD 1,2,3, 7,8-PeCDD 1,2,3.4, 7,8-HxCDD 1,2,3,6, 7,8-HxCDD 1,2,3, 7,8,9-HxCDD ~ I 1,2,3,4,6, 7,8-HpCDD 1,2,3.4,6, 7,8,9-0CDD ···=·=·=·=====t;!/i!{f l(l:ii\(??::;=--::···/r/}l[f{il!l/~ FURAN ISOMERS 2,3, 7,8-TCDF 1,2,3, 7 ,8-PeCDF 2,3,4, 7 ,8-PeCDF 1,2,3.4, 7,8-HxCDF 1,2,3,6, 7 ,8-HxCDF 2,3.4,6, 7,8-HxCDF 1,2,3, 7,8,9-HxCDF 1,2,3,4,6, 7,8-HpCDF 1,2,3,4, 7,8,9-HpCDF 1,2,3.4,6, 7,8,9-0CDF ND EMPC 0.009 ND EMPC 0.011 ND ND EMPC. ND ND 0.009 ND ND 0.008 28 ND 0.038 79 113.3 0.049 32.8 32.9 0.013 80.8 118.8 0.021 753 1145.2 0.033 EMPC 117.2 0.011 65.8 101 0.017 EMPC EMPC EMPC 673 895.8 0.041 628 549.1 0.005 4630 4207.2 0.061 -NOT DETECTED AT OUANTITION LIMIT FOR METHOD MON WELL #4 MON WELL 14 Euipt. Rinse m~WijtJt rm:: 0.011 ND ND ND ND ND 0.012 ND ND 0.017 ND ND 0.018 ND ND ND 13.5 0.07 ND 0.065 ND ND 0.047 ND EMPC ND ND 0.043 ND 0.007 ND ND 0.085 ND 0.07 ND ND 0.031 ND 0.02 ND ND 0.04 ND 0.037 ND 18 EMPC ND EMPC ND ND 0.118 ND 0.099 ND 5.6 0.014 ND ND ND ND 0.115 ND 0.105 ND EMPC EMPC -COMPOUND MAY BE PRESENT BUT COULD NOT BE OUANITFIED
Table 4. Physical Properties of Landfill Contents -Quality Test
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
T.LP. ID NO.:
MATERIALS & TEST UNIT
SOILS LABORATORY
REPORT ON SAMPLES OF: SOIL FOR QUALITY
PROJECT: MISC. COUNTY: WARREN
DATE SAMPLED: 07/28/94 RECEIVED: 08/01/94
SAMPLED FROM: PCB LANDFILL
OWNER:
.REPORTED: 08/04/94
BY: -
SUBMITTED BY: 1990 STD. SPECJFICA TJONS
TEST H.ESUL TS
08/12/94
PROJ. SAMPLE NO. WL-002-LC
LAB. SAMPLE NO. 587075
Ret:iined 114 Sie,•e •vu 2
Passing t/10 Sieve o/u 9S
Passini! #40 Sie\'e 0/u 71
Passing #200 Sieve % 28
MINUS #10 FRACTION
SOTL MORTAR -100 %
Co:inc S:tnd net -#GO % 44
Fine Sand Ret -#1270 % 30
Silt 0.05 -0.005 mm % 9
Cl:1y < 0.005 mm % 17
Passin2 #140 Sieve % -
Passine #1200 Sieve % -
LL . 2S
P.L 8
MSHTO Classification A-2-4(0)
Texture
Station
Hole No.
Dcuth (Ft)
to
ORGANIC 1.8
cc:
SOILS FILE
13
-,t,. .:.1:f::f.T r.:.c,1 .... SOIL TEST REPORT AGRONOMIC DIVISION, N.C. DEPARTMENT OF AGFUCUL TURE £LUE RIDGE ROAD CENTER, FiALEIGH, N.C. PHONE: (£-ii) 733-1655 U/~J,/r.,1, Table 5. Physical Properties of Landfill Contents Standard Soil Test TO: t.cr en~;.;-:.. -· liCl ui>EHlt\ i<tl LfL~JG~ ~C ~l£CS-F1.R1.• LOCATION (COUNTY): •111 w,:k.fl ttt:)i, ;,_L °':>i° Tt Ii 01':>ini ... .,~ ... N:) GI!~ . .,. U:;Ll l'~I Vo<JU! :&QO c~~ ='" ~o.-.'N ~u,•J H.fY1~:JSCIIIOF NO Cll;>'"1C" tG•~ u11e.a ...... ~~~ wo C•~ 1C, fl G•~'trii FIELD mFORMATION SUGGESTED TRUTt.lENT FOR FIRST CROP • ..-1 --,---.. I ,,o, I "-,D SUGGESTEDTRtATMENTFORF~STC~OP ••-" ,101 I ",D FIELD INFOF.Ml.TION SUGGESTED TREATMENT FOR FIRST CROP .... " I •,o, "-,0 I FIELO INFORMI.TION !a••£.Jt0Lllll SUGGESTED TRUTMENT FOR FIRST CROP .... " '•°' r.,o FIELD INFORMATION °'I' SUGGESTED TREATMENT FOf; FIRST CROP .... , " ,,o. ..,0 I ... ....... .., C. Z• ....... •• i I i "' I c.. I• i ,..._,. ... . _, I ... c.. • TE~T RE SUL TS (ll.C, tuts ... -m not CD"1p••· dir.clly ID nun,t>.rs oblal ... d by oth., methods.) loi• CltH a.r-. • ll•M,_1 l'-0• .. ""''•'-0t .. MC Ofll.:i. 0-,.NC' .... ._. ~ lb1'1f:, .... '""1t,y'.,.S. ~·,·•--'P"'P'""°"""'·'""'' ct:.c. ..... bttt.C.p ... -..f ,oo...,.• 81-._ • l•N S.tul'llt~ "-et CIC Ac• A~", ....-q,O:. ""' .,.. • tt, ,,.,,......,. &r,....,. P-la~"'N;''"'OfVIMdt• a-t■"°Dteuivtr..,.• C.\t •Cale_,. .. ~-CIC .. ~ ..... Mt; .... ,..:m .... c· etc .._,. "'"i'""'" ~-2~••Zfflf ....... C.,.la Ccpp.•..,~• 1-,1■ S&tt:att 5',.,• ....,, s,s.., ............ ,, ...... ' ' I I Cit ClC etc • I cac CIC IM Ill N~tl ... , I Ill I O,CTl e&-, "" I .. ~;: ...... .... ... W.:TI l ~ .. ,.,_ I II I N:)Tl •• .. .. .. k~•'-■Nfflll.:"'IM' h""..~aA"lll'Pl:>~N "'Pltffl' litaS.,il,IT, .... ,,eoCffl! t■:.r t: I! GIii°""" ,.. ... , e,., 1: f! G-.C•WN ... .... c•or ,: H c;111:>wN ... • C.111:,t-lt M GIIIOWN ... .... c,111:,a '!!: '°l GIIOWM ... -~ NC1t. ....... 01\YUR ! N I •,o, I "-,D I "' I cw ... TEST RE SUL TS • I •• :..• .. I .. .. , I .... , i 1"" 7 --~ -flM r":>," i ....... l I SUGGESTED TFiEATMENl FOFi SECOND CROP (01\ YEAFi .... N •,o, •,o l ... I c. llST RES UL TS • •• I .. ... I .. .... -z.., I c..., I ... I SUGGESTED TRUTMENT FOR SECOND CROP 01\ YEAR .... " ,,o, •,o i ... C. TEST RESULTS• •• Co-'lo ..... .... ... c.,, .... SU ESTED TREATMENT FOR SECOND C~ OF.YEAR UMl " •,o, "-,D I Coo TEST RE SUL TS • •• c. .. ~" ..... ... c.,., .. SUGGESTED TREATMENT FOR SECOND CROP (OFi YEAR . .,, " •:o, •• TREATt.lENl, lbs'I unlns •~cllifll I.NI.: f■leftll ft.a lbt..,ODCe~ IL w • ....,.,.,., ... n.,ooc-..11. ",O, • """"""'"·I'■ IN. ,o,e NI II. ... D I ~ K:t'I • "alelt,. "a lk. 100'; IAl-11. M; • Mag""luffl c ... CDppet S Tut l•vel la questionable. SH auppi.n-.ntal mat•rlal. c.. .... i I IM IM ..=-, .. wo,,,. NOJ"f tro.z-, .. ..,... I I .. ""•" ... ""I' ... -.• "" .. " .............. READ SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL ANO SACK OJ: RFcnRT en~ e110-rue0 ,.,~~'"' I I I .. J. .. 11:-11 ... N!""I ... l t,::TI ... wc-:1 ... iU .. :Tl
~1••a1a,z It • Jt£l~i flif 1 g,1~ !' 15'P1:oJEi ::li g,fii 'PC?.:t I r-~t'f¥ E • l\ "!.·f &-!"·! !! i ~ ';: i •¥ t ·• c: E "f • :o~_!li £ ,,. P.' ~ 0 ... ·i ::i § £ iisiZi !z~l-YI.•-& t C .. i O t, ,.oo "' '> E · .i-JI ......... :, :I!} ..... .., LI ti" C :,i t C 11 i li ·• li . ii ..... , •. '°li 1~ ~ •u .. , 'E' . ':if; f; t; i~ !! .... r n · 'o •»·•r &cAlj~c .. ~=~~, ~ trl !~a ~l ... ii= il!l? .~ ~tr: •. • t !• ~ "f O r. .9' ~ !'! f £ -2 1'i • ·k
ti:? ~ 'IJ '3 .... ~ -,r • T, C? .... ·'!. : -=~-5.a:.l'lt .. 3:..~ *~·t::.•t._~~ •. Lt; t. • ... 1'" : ·=~c~u• "UNZ ' :"'. =~ :1 &> .: u· : ,, -:: ... jS -~ !:' !., {.; ~ .. "' c ~ t "fi £ .. ~ ..; .~ ·r ~ tt ~8: l "-~ u·~ !. t,i:J lo"'G -P. -~ : ·~ i-i \, ·.;. :. :[.ll -

•

0. ..
[.. --·:?. ~; ·! ·? .. :, J £ "2 l ~ ,i; ~ •. E °'z ;;o i'!~.;gr .... .; ~ . -·: f ,~~: t-... .., .t:: _._ :: t-·+ !i~ ; .. '? I: -~"i, ; ~ i t ~ it ·•tJr1,t:"P:~n "' .i ~ { Q. .,. -~ 0 l? & 't) 1 t I:... .• !f .... g -r-8 ~o ... •!r~ •r.. .,.~
r ~:: .g g • ,. :!! r-:? L,g;:: "'f. ~ f t. ? .'J n. a: "t! t }! :. ! a: • :; _! ~; ~ f"_ N ~ ~ -0 --l1 r~:-x~ ii-a. w"! t':n & ¼ ,.r. ••~~fut~ t-.: ,c .. 1 :ti . ~ P.:::. -:1 Ill >. ~ -,~ g-.g IU: •• f"! Q • ; .... z ~ ::l&!: 0 r ~&~a iJ;?~h -;: ~ .;;-·-~~ •·• l c;, .. .,~t_:.-... Ji''/'"F1 .. ·.1 r. ,. !? '!' .: .. ~· -!V r ·r 4£ .! .
•: •• "' ·I ~.:, .'.l !I.,. ~ r • . .-n o • f t-c':,n •.!II ~ .?-• ~ ,-: '.h N t 6 :> ••• ... , . "' fl ~n ~~ ;i 2 ,._.-.'.S'·fo"'.,.J. 0;; :: w ~ L: .:I II) ~t~~U ·! ~t~o r Hi H 1,iOf •H .. ~~:ig .• ,12 "a ... ~~t zg ... i·t= t~"ll E.J.t••v~ •. ,: .. "'0 • C \: -C) ~. " ~~~~iZ& ... -: o-~ ~ 0
-~ £;, ~ ci. ~:'fit :11 t;"' ~ . r r .. ~·~t. '":!'11;1-c•·· .:¥.l: E ,.. n {:•-:;:~•Cl " ~~ut 2~.'!i iu ~ -~ ~ t :g 3 .E o E·s ! Ji:" j i~~~t;~ .:. ·-' C.411( ·• r ~ U -• o •:, 'I.) .,, TI r
~£ . i -~ -~ ~ t 1' Ill J.i =o :! .. ; • t; ~..: -0 ..: ~ w -~ • -::.... e,i • Z ;t • tu ! ~ -~* f C :-·i;~t:'f ~;;¥ z ~ ~ r. •'2 n -1! !If ,, : -uii-•~cP•;t-•r3:: wr
Cl)!l ":~'I.It: .£ .. ~t,,~ .. -... t~i :¥ ... .,•Eo$o t-0 z "'·= ,. a .. ~ " -l •• o.~ t; ~.; -~ ~t,.• ~ t ~a.:~ .o.:-~ f. :! ·c ~ ~ ~Ro~~!¥ _.z
oo~-~.c&..:;ib } J .-~ 2 ,. :;; !! j~ 7i -~ :· -~ s z -~ o e ~ • ~ • Sl .,. -.,, 6 ;).~,t~~~ •· -1., ~ ... ~ ---••c: .!: ... t{.:-V. U>•l;Z!~t 2 ~ -~ ~ -i~; t·, f ?-~ u . .Jc•:;,r.' .. ~ .!!I. t.. • t!, o•= r ~ t • I!' . £ Ill ~ . ,. }'••n."O . .9£::~ i!a: & j b.~ £ :t 'i ~ tt-'t~l~b ., or..., 3 b ,.:·] 2 l e 1-l £ 3 ¾: Ji .. ~ai13.t!:3:: C. • .. .. .. "'
IL:-!'~S ~:s-~g.'P~=.r ~'fO:\lc,U'· !:;.E;.~.!i:' .... -sair, t l • f'B 21 f oE!•i• -·u ., o -.v .. -• g E •-~ .. .,a~:~ zt-! '".e· ... et• .. =" 1'-1• •-c-....... ! • i'!' ~.; • .. :-r•;;-8. it f 0 .. -... ·\! -... --...:: ~ ~ .I.! • ~ ii f ~ ~ t.t 1'°0 •t .. ,· .. 'i !;.!!_::. [1:~ • r. -·. !; II .'t ,., ~ ~•F :t1.;;:'.i_ 2 -~: ~:. :e •;t; •• " • !;-'= " • °£ "'t tc;:vi:: -t::~-~f £c'·&_~ t .t f. .ie .. t ~ t -,~ -~ -j..fi ~ :: ~ T> f ...,.,... ,· !°; 0 •• ~.!! 0 ~~(§t .·-, r. i --,:, .. ::i'\' ·•:,.:.En9 • -a-.. "5 ~ '! [!!!: ~-,:
·:; .'-) !!I a r : I, t u . :,~er,--;,~: -r ... _..,. -=~~ti;u ·ft•"p• :i l & .. ~ -. ., r. ~ :-·a ~-'D w )! , •. t.;•ciu,l:: j~o;.:-... i----·-1,
f;&A. {! !"! ·l"':' u .. ;t .; !J J r •· u • •-~:~ f {? ~-~~ r. 1· ~ 1 ; ;_) •r. ·t ~il~fr; .,. ~... . li = ;--~qpi ~~-';';••~ P~s ·:1:•.c ••;: •. I) t• :! ,.: ·-~ ~ ~ ~ a••· -l .1 t: :. :t;. !-! :~ : t~ ! .. Ml 't! -•-: ;; :J it " .. '--~--.E t u ·•·• t-., . -~ f .. ~~ .. t~~oJ ;;ziJ IU J_!... fi ... -,f M !11,r.-.::-:,... _;£ ~ t;:;.,;=:~ot .. ~-t :i .e tt:f ti • 1111 &; \'. 0 ..... ·-t,,· • .. .! ~ ~ -~ -~ "U u 4..--~ :.:,:iit.!'~£ .• c.. t u fz~ rt~ I-.il .c ... . •ll~~·;;iZ o ., -~ 2 r(i .; fl>.,;r:,~u ;.. *tit O . §. •. u i . £ ~ . ';·'-'0!':2 ~ -;.lj;~ni -,;;••= ... 1-"!I-... ~ ~ n. g ~-,,;. : ;.. :., • p • . .of! li i:t :fi: ~ t.e : ,: t t L • ... ,P'u..:.• !~~ff. . ~ ~ .2"' c:3jg.!:J-,. ..:-'Ii ~
•. !':) '2 ~ • E -~T:t-!:"2 g -.. ~~ t= ~t!i!l!' . =-~, "& £'I'.;-~~ _g
-~ :~--• F-•·~-UJ~O~ rPH r QC... ~ .a.-~E:.~.,; . t o 'c -; Ju a-=z ·• = -~ ~ 0 ~ _E Ji :,· r o '.,_ £21;;."l ·1:oi of ·•~.£_i3'! ~~-t. :.!'P 0 }!" ~-t -.!!·t .,:1l:Jlli
f;.c,..411 'Sc""•t .. ~ I ~~U":'~0 0 ..... • .. •?!-~~a;~ FI. u f .ei~;-s: r. KE fj t .:~.caeo -~Qi).-.Cl:.. :., ~ Al £)!;~:,:i~tJ~i~ 4 ~ ,. •• (.j 't' .-.1. "t'" C •· TI .,, o••,, .. ~ jl~-E ·d( (
!~!!';~ ... 't O, •. O •. $->■, .. ,, t!t~~; ~"~-ti' ~~ -.. ~ ,r ~. j ~-~£ q·;; ~ t"}~ ~ .e k F !'! 2 ~ f~ ~i-~ -Ja :. l'. ,: t ~ Ei ·: -JN~•-o1l~~~1l.; .. "' •. 8 ... -2 -~ .-t' u,-~ !!. ~:1ij:!.!·~ "Vu -,u ·-f ~-; ~?; t -~ ! ~ i: ~: , i; :. t-= .,: ll rt .. f a ~~~-;!_:il .. ,..-r•· R •• E •· .,. --"' :-,rt•~,,,~ . ..• -~ .,w •; ,"Lf ,; -u !t' -t:: .:. :·,.~:-: ~ l 1: ~1 2.1:t~l .; tl1 ; .. ;.; • CJ~ :: ··· t" r~ ~ ~ • •-'···-·U ::i!,. .. ~~:~:-t: .. r ."; i' 1 !.: :; ~: : : '"'·~-1! t. r. -,. .. ' •. , r • t. ., .,,_ .,. :11'~t ~:.: :tU ~.{~ I ~ ,, ~ H ; f.U ~ :~t.ct.rt:: .• .'t • ,.;. ,:.. I -.\. Nt-c::·u• .. ~ !!Jl'~ 1t:a:&:.;•:: :: ... -:ao.a
•
-'l
"C 'llll-EJi ."'Ijt{ lt l5c ~T> 111::tt&l ·1Jli•~1 I l & • Y! "§ ~ ii~· ·f .c
Fe!!--'I! l(i e=0 ~!~•:f Q) :,: ·:: g ~ .c ! t; ~!: o s ~~--~ t,:, ~,rs .j:l· of ot. . I:" :::, ii ...... .0 l, ~-E f! {H ... .A " !·r·· •• -.:: .. ,~ 0 •· .... -.. ;f?z•l&-!r CI "O r." C .. ~i~i ·•: .• :;, f • ~ l:: it !J .v:~~:-.=.u,aoz• C ·-j ... .. t r , .. ~ ~ ... •. l".' .,.,. -~2 -C: r A. -t" .E "ti . .. ... ii
·,.:::; E i:.ts•i . I I i; .. .. = l "·f i:' ! f-' s.6 CG"' ::i ! }t=l 1 ~ ;'! j! ~ -••t""
C t= ·t=c l . . ... :! -~ ~ • .. t e i? t -~ f.,s! -' -·>"••.!! 0. r ·J ... i r i!:, . ~t ~•,• "'o .!' 1·: e-·o t !? . p • r ll
0 ... ..... <s l I!' r: t:-u-... .. CII .: r -.. ·-C' i .. fH ;~!! .II O .,. • r :: . ti ·a
A: -. -t--l, ---c r ;: n 8 l! .. t.~ i!~cE .E-3f .. ~~o~~f::~~.t u ~ • ... ,i ... ,. ~ l a-3 i :I 8.. -"' ::, Ill !; • .c -i !~i3 .t-~ .! o,• CII -pp-J!.E~~E o-! j..9 r'.8 1l""'~•-=•· ... K--

-
"t :-~ r ... -.. r.,ll ···•• ~:::..!I t t f.. . -f' ~
I--·n~o-~ .!;;;a. 11 -~Cl) .. 4 -~ .. ;ii~ ~ l l toS.a..: u~ . p ~ .s; ~ • }: b ~ :i ~ 'P ... • r.. ~ ·.;; t r :;.;..: ii~ "2 .. • u li ;L, 11 e.,. ~ r·l t-~:i:=:,a!':: ... ~? LO .c; -CII :;;:,j,-,.~i~ ·" :; t .. ~ -~1-~ : CII ~ ~ -~"' . ~ t-~ 0 ... l O f .: · J ~ -~ l: --~~---2--.££0 a: ............ .:• ... !!! ' ·;;. .i 0 :; r t-y c..~ .!!~ _-... .._~-~!.•~~~8 Q) j &>~;ii-£ ..... r:.2~ t~ .... t'i ¥ :. 1: .! -· w ~ E . 1 .. ~n·r;irii!:"f~·· 0 §ta.~~ f ~-t -!. r~•ohl ., ~ 8 ... "2.; n .c ► -· .. ~ T:,t.3J;;~t _-.:).-..... .,-u .u -~fl ~ ~ t. ~~ ~ f E ~ .,: Utg .,,. ~ :: •~ ·0
P• -
ca !:' t-~ ~ f F . '~ tc":; e ... -" ~e: l o.t. R ~: .'-! 0 1."l 0 alt_, C" o , -.•:.-.P.1:~-• .t1J•u ~ ~;; ·t ~ j> ... ~ I-:.:?.,.·!§-' -:. ;...-..::. .:c:i-:!t .. ~.,,. ~ ..... ~-r ? ur j~: ~ b ~., 1:. V. 't\ C :J'.•t;JII ~ ~ i ls;.~ ·c;.. ... ~ .5 • ~ ~> ... I, ... "' .,. .. ~
W •~c-! ·!;!' E n ·Y ~ ;.t~iioi • u I" .. r. -p t ~ ~ u ::: :, •• o t ~ "ht F. ,,. ?st~1 i ·i a ;1; :e~-liiR'e. -r. .. ~tI"'"!--·~t ... o;a-.~ -Ere> a: 4
15
' ' ..
Part Ill
Technical Qualifications
Each offerer responding to this RFQ should submit three (3) copies of
a statement of technical qualifications, detailing the organizations ability to
perform the services described in the potential Scope of Work. The technical
qualifications may be narrative in form and should include at a minimum, but
not necessarily limited to the information outlined below.
Information relative to the offeror's background, experience, and such
other information as may be deemed relevant for the purpose of
evaluation of professional skills and capability. Attachments may
include project reports, publications, brochures, or videotapes. It is
requested that other electronic media not be presented as primary
materials due to the nature of public review of these materials;
secondary materials in other electronic forms will be accepted.
Information describing the size and organizational structure of the
offeror's firm.
Information relative to the offeror's professional insurance status,
particularly pollution liability insurance and other relevant liability
reduction practices.
Information about the environmental regulatory compliance history of
the organization.
Information about the professional registration (particularly in North
Carolina) of proposed project staff.
Each offeror shall submit a list of client names or references, type of
contract (including type of services performed) and inclusive dates of
contract or estimated completion date. In addition, provide the name,
address and telephone number of the client's proposed responsible Project
Administrator.
Each offeror shall submit a hypothetical contract schedule and
estimated completion date demonstrating how the organization is capable of
maintaining the schedules and meeting the deadlines that would be
established, if such a contract were in effect.
16
. Each offeror shall clearly identify areas of the scope of work that
would include subcontractors for professional services. Organizations with
exclusive or routine working partnerships or other contractual relationships
are encouraged to submit qualifications and should name these organizations
and clearly define these relationships. All potential subcontractors need not
be identified at this time; however, areas where subcontractors will serve
must be identified, e.g., competitive analytical laboratory support, land
preparation, or office trailer rental.
Part IV
Cost Information
Each offeror is encouraged to supply information about the relative
cost basis found within their prior professional experience with BCD. Please
separate this information into a separate section of your qualification
submission. This information will not be reviewed as a means of
qualification of potential vendors, but will assist the State and the Working
Group in defining the level of effort and budget for a future effort, if any.
The format for this cost information is at the discretion of the offerer;
however, information on cost per ton or other unit value of individual steps in
the process would be most useful.
We appreciate your assistance in responding to this informal request for professional
and project experience qualifications. The materials you provide will assist the State
and the Working Group in investigating the feasibility and potential for success for
detoxification of the contents of the Warren County PCB Landfill.
17
SENT sy:xerox Telecopier 7021 ; 1-12-95 ; 17:52
" '
WASTE TECH NEWS➔
IT! ltN EIA
. THE NEWSPAPER FOR THE W~QTC AND POLLOT.ON CONlROL ,NOUSTRIES
,I ' ,,.
J.
.. ,
Fax Contains 3 Pages (including this cover sheet)
If you do not receive all the of the pages, please call us
as soon as possible for re-transmission. Thank you.
Ple,Jse Deliver This Transmission To:
919 715 3605;# 1
. C6rnpany/Office NC.. lJo/T £,,.,;,., f/4.,11/ --;f,/4r /4J" . ..11,jz.
. ZJa"' r'2-P/v.-~, .c~
· Facsimile# · 9 I?-? /J--;-36 o~--
·voice# ___ C/_1_CJ_·_-_7_3_3_-_Y_-9_7'_l.~· ·_. ---:-----~-·_· ___ _
This Document Is From:
4
Name __ <?_._/i-?e_0_L __ -l'1_"#-r_~_~_1~_s_. ________ ....;.... __ _
Additional Comments/Instructions: .
5'/,.w r g ,_, ' _ ;/ t?-n.. tf. r/ e ' ~/. '7-,,;,L :j:,,..__._ "'---efl .st f rt ,._. 1 / /
~~ 1( r ;(.....,,,_, ,,..,., ,,,,.,,..,e,,1,..,.n-~,,...u,.,77~ P'--_
7la-/11 yo tCJJ.... ,: ~e ~✓e.._ /c-/-~..r /r"'n..:,Lt) /~ /-U'2.. Qcl .t, /2e~
tJ, >-t .;;...7du ::j . o'-<-<.., ~ 7F , s-3 o 3 _ ;:;;.;,.,,; ~,:, 6 //
. ~ 7vV-! -·
January 12, 1995
Carol,
Please review the attached copy and give me a call. We would like to
get this placed in the Jan 30 issue as a Display ad ( smallest, I believe
that's 4-7/8 in). Please advise me if there are other things we should do
with the copy, e.g., box or border. Will you retype. Sorry, I know these
are pedestrian questions, but we are moving quickly and some of my
information pros are not available right now. Please call this afternoon to
confirm. I will be out until between 3:30 and 4:00pm Eastern time.
Thanks,
Sharron Rogers
~~~ (?/~ / /4/tA-4'-A ~A 11./~
303 -4';2? -o 70 / (~)
REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS
North Carolina Dept of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
and
The Joint Warren County and State PCB Landfill Working Group
Seeking qualifications from potential vendors with technical and engineering
expertise in Base-Catal,ed Dechlorination (BCD) Method for detoxification of
PCB-contaminated soils. Request RFQ instructions by February 15, 1995.
Request copy of RFQ by fax, mail, or phone from:
Sharron Rogers, Assistant Director
Division of Solid Waste Management
NC Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
401 Oberlin Road, Suite 150
Raleigh, NC 27605
Voice 919-733-4996; Fax [phone]
StNT BY:xerox Telecopier 7021 1-12-95 17:52 WASTE TECH NEWS➔
REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS
· North Carolina Dept of Environment, Health,
and Natural Resources
and
The Joint Warren County and State PCB
Landfill Working Group
Are seeking qualifications from potential vendors
with technical and engineering expertise in the
Base-Catalyzed Dechlorination (BCD) Method
for detoxification of PCB-contaminated soils.
Request RFQ Instructions by February 15, 1995 ..
by fax, mall, or phone from:
Sharron Rogers, Assistant Director
Division of Solid Waste Management
NC Department of Environment, Health,
and Natural Resources
401 Oberlln Road, Suite 150
Raleigh, NC 27605
voice: [phone]; fax: [phone]
919 715 3605;# 2
SENT sv:xerox Telecopier 7021 1-12-95 17 :53 WASTE TECH NEWS➔ 919 715 3605 ;# 3
Wa~te.Tech New~ 1026 Bannock St., Denver,, CO 80204 • (303) 628•0701 FAX·: (303) 628·0611_ ·
l 1H IH W',f'APrA IGR Tllf WA',Tr Mill l'(llLUllON CONrnOL INDll',TRI[',
r 7
~C Dept. of E;nvironment, Health
· and Natural Resources
Division of Solid Waste Mgmt
~01 Oberlin Rd,, Ste. 150
L . Raleigh, NC 27605 _J
, ... . ... _,'
DATE:
REF:
/ ..
I
1/12/95
1/30/95 Issue
3206
...... , .. ' ..
TERMS: NEl CASH UPON RECEIPT OF INVOICE SEND ATTACHED DUPLICATE COPY WITH AEMIUANCE ;
1/3 jr. page B/W ad
PAYABLE IN °ADVANCE OF PUBLICATION
TE,AR,. SHEETS WILL FOLLOW
'' ' '
. '
. . . ,•, ., . '' ',.,. ;
,,
'• ... ··.:•t 1•;·_·1 ,, .. ,• :_o,, .. \ ::
ORIGlNAC:
ECO
E NVIRONMENTAL
COMPLIANCE
0 RGANIZATION
Professional Waste Management Consultants
106 Robinson Street Ashland, Virginia 23005
TO:
FROM:
RE:
DATE:
iVIE~10Rt\NDUM VIA FACSIMILE
SHARRON ROGERS
PAULINE EWALD
RFQ
12/19/94
'i(l,'fl.l
1a\\6'tl-
\)tt 'lt\ 1
#.4NAGE\,I;
[phone]
804-798-4305
I HA VE REVIEWED TWO SEP ARA TE AND DISTINCT DRAFTS OF THE
DRAFT RFQ FAXED TO ME 12/16/94. THE SECOND DRAFT RFQ TIME
DATED 15: 16 CONTAINED ADDED INFORMATION INCLUDING TABLE OF
PCDD SAMPLING RE SUL TS. AND IS THE PREFERABLE VERSION OF THE
DRAFT.
ADDITIONALLY, I WOULD SUGGEST IHA T GIVEN THE
HYDROGEOLOGICAL CONCERNS REGARDING THE LANDFILL IHA T THE
SCOPE OF WORK ALSO ASK FOR ANY INFORMATION REGARDING
REMEDIAL GROUNDWATER EXPERTISE, AND SPECIFICALLY INQUIRE
WHETHER STAFFS INCLUDE HYDROGEOLOGISTS WITH PROFESSIONAL
CERTIFICATION IN NORTH CAROLINA ..
THE BODY OF THE MORE DETAILED DRAFT IS ACCEPTABLE PROVIDED
THE MISSING QUANTIFICATION OF STANDING LIQUIDS IS ESTIMATED.
AS DISCUSSED, I WILL COMPILE A LISTING OF VENDORS POTENTIALLY
INTERESTED IN, AND CAPABLE OF RESPONDING TO THE RFQ, AND WILL
FAX THESE REFERRALS TO YOU BEFORE THE CLOSE OF BUSINESS ON
FRIDAY, 12/23 /94.
E NVIRONlVIENTAL
C OMPLIANCE
0 RGANIZATION
To: SHARRON ROGERS
Time: 16:43:12
Pages (including cover}: 2
FACSIMILE COVER PAGE
From: ECO
Date: 12/1 9/94
•·<x·NdRtH:·••·cAR()[.1.NA DEPJ.\R!MEN1'"/0F·••·••1:Nv·1.R0NMENT ]ll/
/>•••·•·HeALTH,>A"'o>NATUsAITI:aesauRces :ilU:
December 16, 1994
SUBJECT: Transmittal of Draft Request for Qualifications for Warren
County PCB Landfill
FROM : Sharron Rogers
Assistant Director
North Carolina Department of Environment, Health,
and Natural Resources
401 Oberlin Road, Suite 150
Raleigh, NC 27605
919-733-4996 FAX No. 919-715-3605
TO: Ms. Pauline Ewald
ECO
106 Robinson St
Ashland, VA 23005
+++++++++++++++
Please sign and date on the line below to acknowledge receipt of this fax,
then return by fax copy to the following number 919-71 5-3605.
Signiture Acknowledging Receipt
++++++++++
Pages, including cover: 19
Date
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Solid Waste Management
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
William L. Meyer, Director
.NA
DEHNR
PRELIMINARY DRAFT
DRAFT December 16, 1994 DRAFT
TO: Prospective Bidders
FROM: William L. Meyer, Director
Division of Solid Waste Management
North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and
Natural Resources
SUBJECT: Request for Qualifications from vendors of technical
and engineering expertise on the Base-Catalyzed Dechlorination
(BCD) method for detoxification of PCB -contaminated soils.
The Department of Environment, Health, and Natural
Resources, Division of Solid Waste Management requests the
submission of qualifications of vendors for a potential project
described in the attached Request for Qualifications (RFQ).
All qualification responses are to be at the identified location
no later than 11 :00 am, Monday, January 23, 1995.
All participation is voluntary. All responsive submissions are
appreciated and will be used in identifying potential vendors,
should any Requests for Proposal regarding detoxification follow
for this site.
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ l 0% post-consumer paper
REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS
POTENTIAL SOURCES OF TECHNICAL AND ENGINEERING EXPERTISE
ON THE BASE-CATALYZED DECHLORINATION (BCD) METHOD FOR
DETOXIFICATION OF PCB-CONTAMINATED SOILS
This Request for Qualifications (hereinafter referred to as "RFQ")
solicits information about the qualification and experience of organizations to
perform contractual services for the described potential scope of work. The
State of North Carolina by this process is identifying potential vendors for a
project that has not and may never be authorized. Furthermore,
organizations identified via this RFQ will not become an exclusive list of
vendors should any similar scope of work be authorized in the future.
Successful vendors identified through this process are assured of an
opportunity to bid should the process continue on to a future Request for
Proposals.
Part I
General
I. Send all qualification packages directly to: (if using U.S. Postal Service or
courier service)
North Carolina Department of Environment, Health,
and Natural Resources
Division of Solid Waste Management
401 Oberlin Road
Raleigh, NC 27604
Attn: Sharron Rogers
919-733-4996
II. Sealed qualifications packages will be received at the address specified
in Article I until 11 :00 am. Monday. January 23. 1995,
Ill. Refer technical inquiries to:
Sharron Rogers
Division of Solid Waste Management
P.O. Box 27687
Raleigh, NC 27611-7687
919-733-4996
IV. All responses will be open for the inspection of and reviewed by the
Joint Warren County and State PCB Landfill Working Group and the public.
Trade secrets and proprietary information provided cannot be safeguarded.
V. Offerer's Representative for Business Purposes: The name, mailing
address, and telephone number of the offerer's authorized agent with
authority to bind the firm and answer questions concerning the offeror's
qualifications must be clearly stated.
VI. Pursuant to Article 3 and 3C, Chapter 143 of the North Carolina
General Statutes and Executive Order No. 34, the State invited and
encourages participation in this procurement by businesses owned by
minorities, women and the disabled including utilization as subcontractors to
perform functions under this potential Scope of Work.
VII. Telegraphic Offers: Telegraphic and facsimile offers will not be
considered; however, offers may be modified by such means, providing such
notice is received in a timely manner, and provided a signed original follows.
2
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Part II
Scope of Work
The State of North Carolina in conjunction with the Joint Warren
County and State PCB Landfill Working Group {Working Group) is seeking
information and qualification materials from potential turnkey vendors as we
investigate the feasibility of remediation of the contents of this landfill.
The Working Group has selected Base-Catalyzed Dechlorination (BCD)
as a potential method for detoxification of the PCB-contaminated soils
contained in the landfill. Recognizing that BCD is still considered innovative
and continues to be developed, the Working Group wishes to learn about
potential vendors and to learn about the successful projects completed or
ongoing at this time.
Information about your organization's project experiences that would
be useful include: project plans, lengths of projects and major goals along
the timeline, "clean closure" targets for site contaminants, raw material
requirements, pollution control requirements, and waste quantities and
disposal requirements. Of particular interest to the Working Group is the fate
of dioxin and furans and any propensity for production of dioxin in the
process. In general, any information is requested that can assist the Working
Group in determining the feasibility of BCD to achieve their detoxification
goals and to assess the compatability of the process with the community.
The request for prior experience details, while focused on BCD, should
in no way discourage organizations from identifing other potential successful
detoxification strategies. Such information would be useful to the group if
relevant to the PCB Landfill site. Examples may include in situ or ex situ
bioremediation, chemical treatment, in situ vitrification, or thermal
desorption. Please limit project experience capabilities to technologies that
you believe to be compatable and potentially successful at the PCB Landfill
site, as described below.
3
SITE DESCRIPTION
The State of North Carolina owns and maintains a closed landfill
containing PCB-contaminated soils. This landfill is permitted under the
Toxics Substances Control Act (TSCA). This landfill contains approximately
40,000 cubic yards of soils (24 feet thick) contaminated with polychlorinated
biphenyls (PCBs). The average PCB concentration of these landfilled soils is
300 to 350 ppm, primarily a mixture similar to Arochlor 1260. Free water is
present in the landfill to a height of approximately xx feet. There is
evidence that some anaerobic biological dechlorination has occurred during
the period since the landfill was capped and became anaerobic in 1983.
The landfill is located on a 142-acre tract of land located just off State
Road 1 604 in Warren County. The containment area or landfill cell is
enclosed by a fence occupying approximately 3.8 acres. Figure 1 is an aerial
photograph of the landfill. The four groundwater monitoring wells are
marked on this figure. The actual landfill cell is somewhat smaller than the
fence shown, but in the same configuration.
Figure 2 shows a cross-section of the landfill structure. Figure 3
provides a sketch of details of the bottom liner and dual leachate collection
systems installed at the site. Figure 4 details the single gas vent structure
present at the center of the landfill cell. Figure 5 details the sand and
charcoal filters installed on top of the north end of the landfill cell to treat
any leachate removed from the cell.
A spray irrigation (non-discharge) permit is maintained for the facility,
so that any treated leachate can be routed to an irrigation system installed
along the crest of the landfill. No NPDES permit is available for the facility,
and no adequate receiving stream is available. The leachate collection pond
structure, seen to the north of the landfill cell in Figure 1, is dry and has not
been used during the life of the facility. The unpaved entrance road is
maintained by the NC Department of Transportation and was designed to
handle large soil-laden dump trucks.
CHEMICAL PROFILE OF LANDFILL CONTENTS
In July, 1994, the State executed a sampling plan developed in
conjunction with the Working Group and their Science Advisor. Selected
results from this effort are attached. Table 1 contains the all positive results
4
Figure 1. Warren County PCB Landfill -Aerial View
(Note Fence surrounding landfill & groundwater
monitoring wells)
L-•. ~~ . ·. , .. ,.
\{.; ~-,.. ·,
-~; I:, . . .•,f .
',• :. ~-~
.. ·, i .
··'· . 1~· t·fJ '··w-~~ ,. . ,;""' •, -·~· 'l •. ·"-.... '1 ' ,. ,,,., ... . <•·',.t 1 • ~-• •:' •1'}0
' ' I 1-t\, ;. ,:', ·1. •I. , , ,, ~ ,.,•
. . • ' , ~ .::~,.:. f :,,:,,.!.. n-·:J:-~ ·~ .... , --~~~ .. 1f•,...~ ~
~J .
. ~ .
•,
., . . ~ ;•j21 .., ... ~ .. • ,.,.:-~'~ . ~ ·.v·:· ... ;i~:.. :i
~~,s; ~,~ ~:-~
---i __ • ... -ff•
• , t •I • ~• .,. .z.'"£'~'7
'(. t; ;''('t >': .t~.;""~;:;.~"',:•,"") · '\1"·X•,t '-• ... !.{"~ .•.
~7. ·::~{~:·
.. ,r)
, ..
.;A
:,~i:(
.i . .. ~ ·:·
·':..' ,,.
O' . I ··. I ,. I I ; i Figure 2. Cross-Section through PCB Landfill ~----,----:-~------·. I. &~is I Ve:,__ t-. \IY I I -I . I ···: ·1. . . 1' : ·.\ . , . . . . \ ·I . I t I I . ~ ' '· : .... .. 1 • ~ ··-------.--'--------,.-------·.,,,,,-______ .,.,... ; 4 ' , l . . I .... • ' •• , • I . . • , .... • \ \. ·::_ .. ·PR.~-1 •. ~1ZLAN() ·--·-<--r; ~.=--~......i~i---·--I,, ANDr,1/· . I' u~S:Al.E • I ... _s_:_:--1 I . i . ,-I ;: __ : 1'~~ I ·:~-~~~~~-~-_-d--ted ----·--·--·. ------' I ,. : I I ' ~-1450, '=. . . i.. I . . . , • •, • I • • ·• I • . '· _, ' ,. 1 ·1 j I Lt~e< ·---I -~----_jf -----r-; --;-··-, ..... ·.-··-· -.----.5t..o.:I~ ...... ----------------:------------! I , (~. :l · ·. i i ·:· ·1· I I ! I I : . I . . . ! ! ! ; '. : ~2.0·(1·0~~. OF g.__G_A'(BT1.9~---....J~~---"·--. • ! ~ -·---~--~-----· -··r--~--.. 1 .· ; . .i -.· ·1 I .:· · ~ · I I i ll'. . : ·• ... ;' . . . . ' I ' I i ! i ! 1 i I. I• ; , '! I ; : I I I I ·I• •I' ____ ..,;,,_,,. ... ' ' '.• .. .. ... '' :j __ : __ --------L·----~ -----------150 S;,tM"c..e.. ·. I I I 100 50 i I !O : 10:l 63 N 50 ! _; ,, ''I", I. ~ L{"f) ~'3-S~c..tr ov\ • M-bf,(_; If d'("6-u:}iV\ d: ·-. --------------------: ! . · 100 I l' • • I I . 150 .• 1· . .. • . ~ ~. '·· ---------,r-:--·-· • I J ., 200· .· .. ,, . -. i: ..
· Figure 3. Details of Bottom Liner for PCB Landfill
FABRIC FILTER
eRIDGING MATERIAL FILL 1'
5AND 9•
- - - - - - - -.-UPPER LEACHATE COLLECTION 5Y5TEM
CLAY5'
W mil PVC BOTTOM LINER
NATIVE 5APROLITE LOWER LEACHATE COLLECTION 5Y5TEM
BOTTOM LINER DETAILS
WARREN COUNTY PCB LANDFILL
7
Figure 4. Details of Gas vent of PCB Landfill
• •
STAINLESS STEEL SCREEN
. Oz -
10 mil PVC TOP LINER
C -
A .. <;>~ ... ~
4" SCHEDULE 40 PVC PIPE --"'
GAS VENT DETAIL
WARREN COUNTY PCB LANDFILL
8
I.O JI INLET PIPE Figure 5. Details of Sand and Charcoal filter for leachate treatment of PCB Landfill 2' MANHOLE l,.. ~-~~ '~-••12!'"".'•~<,.,, l'I ~. PLACE GRAVD. 'TO ANCt1'JR" FILTER FA8RIC . . . . · .FIL T[.R:f".A9RIC . : : : : :: : : : : : : : :.-::::;:: :: : : : : : : : ~:::: :: : : : : : ::: : : : : =~=::::: :: :~: ~: -~ ~=::::::. .·.················'··················· .,·.·. ·•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:-:-c,:-:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:• SAND FILTER •:•:•:• .. : : : : : :~:= :: : : : =~~: :t:::::::::: =~: ~=; =~ :: : : : ~:::::.:: =~: := ·=.:. :-: . :-~ .. ::::::: ... .• .. SAND AND CHARCOAL FILTER WARREN COUNlY PCB LANDFILL 2' MANHOLE t:GRAVEL'.T FILTER "FABRIC.--. FILTER F :;-:' :::;~;;=;;:~:;;:;:~ ::f'I.:;:::~),:;'.::::· ff CHARCOAL FILTtr ,,,,-.,::1.•1 ,, Ii=Ji.~.t-=t::;~1:~::;;:=!·~=~~:::~:~=r:=:~:tit:;f:?=~· --~-:. ,-► ifi. IOI -L ' ' ' . OUTLET PIPE
Table 1. PCB Landfill Environmental Sampling Data
Warren County PCB Landfill Environmental Sampling Data
August, 1 994
••··•········•·•····••s~r Jie•······•••••·········· !•••·•····· •••••t •ab••••·1•0 ·••••••••••••••••••••·
Chemicar
<
Ri;:;ylfa ••••Ndriib;f e~r~Metei
··•·•·················.·. ··•••·•·••••• ··•····.· ... ·.· .. ·.·.·.·
< <
WL-001-SS Leachate Pond -Ravine 013921 Barium 88 ppm*
outlet
JI JI 013921 Chromium 12 ppm *
WL-003-SS Leachate Pond -middle 942752 PCB 0.53 ppm
WL-004-SS Leachate P. -filter outfall 942753 PCB 1 .1 5 ppm
WL-028-SS Leachate P. -filter out -942781 PCB 1.45 ppm
duplicate
WL-029-SS Surface Soil Background 942782 PCB 0.22 ppm
WL-001-LC Dry Landfill Contents 942796 PCB 301.4 ppm
II II 942795 Chlorobenzene
II II 942795 1 ,4 Di-chloro-
benzene
WL-002-LC Wet Landfill Contents 942799 PCB
JI JI 942797 Chlorobenzene
JI JI 942797 1 ,4 Di-chloro-
benzene
JI JI 013919 Arsenic
JI JI 013919 Barium
JI JI 013919 Chromium
JI JI 013919 Lead
WL-001-LE Landfill Leachate 013909 Barium
WL-001-GW Monitoring Well No. 1 013914 Barium
WL-004-GW Monitoring Well No. 4 013917 Barium
Mon. Well No. 4 -duplicate 013918 Barium
WL-002-SD Richneck Ck-DS sediment 013920 Barium
WL-005-SS West side Landfill -seep 013922 Arsenic
JI JI 013922 Barium
JI JI 013922 Chromium
WL-006-SS Air Vent Area Soil Grid 14-3 013923 Barium
JI JI 013923 Chromium
>:~ TCLP results for this element did not exceed standards.
North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Solid Waste Management
10
62 ppb
23 ppb
151.8 ppm
60 ppb
48 ppb
2 ppm *
23 ppm*
12 ppm *
35 ppm*
0.23 ppm ~~
0.05 ppm >'" , ...
0.08 ppm J, 'I'
0.08 ppm J, .. , ...
16 ppm >:C
2 ppm*
94 ppm J, 'I'
12 ppm >:C
72 ppm*
16 ppm *
from a composite of EPA Methods 8240, 8141, 8270, 8081 for organics
and various methods for inorganics.
Table 2 displays the positive results from EPA Method 8280 and 8290
for dioxins and furans. Note particularly the results for the Wet Landfill
Contents, which represents the bulk of the contents of the landfill. Also
note that these results display all positives for these analyses, and thereby,
confirm that the landfill contents do not contain other complicating organic or
inorganic compounds in any significant quantities.
Table 3. Chemicals of interest in contents Warren County PCB Landfill
PCB (all congeners)
Chlorobenzene
1,3 Di-chlorobenzene
1 ,4 Di-chlorobenzene
Arsenic
Barium
Chromium
Lead
Average 350 ppm
(Range 1 51 to 880)
60 ppb
23.9 ppb
48 ppb
2 ppm◊
23 ppm◊
12 ppm◊
35 ppm◊
◊ TCLP results did not exceed standards.
Tables 4 and 5 present results of physical soils testing performed on a
grab sample of landfill contents. These results are representative of the
landfill contents, but other isolated conditions may occur due to the origin of
the landfill' s contents from 14 North Carolina counties
11
Table 2. Dioxin and Furan Results from PCB Landfill Content Sample WARREN COUNTY PCB LANDFILL AREA DIOXIN RESULTS ALL UNITS IN PARTS PER TRILLION (PPT) WL-84 IC-003-LC WL-65 ND EMPC 0.009 ND 0.013 ND 0.011 ND ND 1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD ND EMPC 0.011 ND 0.02 ND ND ND ND 1,2,3,4, 7,8-HxCDD ND ND EMPC ND 0.019 ND 0.012 ND ND 1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD ND ND 0.009 ND 0.024 ND 0.017 ND ND 1,2,3, 7,8,9-HxCDD ND ND 0.008 ND 0.026 ND 0.018 ND ND ...... I 1,2,3,4,6, 7,8-HpCDD 28 N ND 0.038 ND 0.134 ND EMPC ND 13.5 1,2,3,4,6, 7,8,9-0CDD ,-, , -79 0.049 0.07 0.065 ND ND 1,2,3, 7,8-PeCDF 32.8 0.013 0.047 EMPC ND ND 2,3,4, 7,8-PeCDF 80.8 0.021 0.043 0.007 ND ND 1,2,3,4, 7,8-HxCDF 753 0.033 0.085 0.07 ND ND 1,2,3,6, 7,8-HxCDF EMPC 0.011 0.031 0.02 ND ND 2,3,4,6, 7,8-HxCDF 65.8 0.017 0.04 0.037 ND 18 1,2,3, 7,8,9-HxCDF EMPC EMPC EMPC EMPC ND ND 1,2,3,4,6, 7,8-HpCDF 673 0.041 0.118 0.099 ND 5.6 1,2,3,4, 7,8,9-HpCDF 628 0.005 0.014 ND ND ND 1,2,3,4,6, 7,8,9-0CDF 4630 0.061 0.115 0.105 ND EMPC ND -NOT DETECTED AT QUANTITION LIMIT FOR METHOD EMPC -COMPOUND MAY BE PRESENT BUT COULD NOT BE QUANITFIED
· Table 4. Physical Properties of Landfill Contents -Quality Test
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
T.LP. ID NO.:
MATERIALS & TEST UNIT
SOIL<; LABORATORY
REPORT ON SAMPLES OF: SOIL FOR QUALITY
PROJECT: MISC. COUNTY:
DATE SAMPLED: 07/28/94 RECEIVED:
WARREN
08/01/94
OWNER:
REPORTED: 08/04/94
IlY: -SAMPLED FROM: PCD LANDFILL
SUilMITTED BY: 1990 STD.SPECIFICATIONS
TEST RESULTS
08/12/94
PROJ. SAMPLE NO. WL-002-LC
LAD. SAMPLE NO. 58707.S
Retained 11-1 Sieve % 2
P:issiu!! 1110 Sieve % 95
Passing 11-W Sieve % 71
Passini! f/200 Sieve % 28
MINUS #10 FRACTION
SOIL MOHTAR-100 %
Coarse Sand llet -1160 °/o 44
Fine Sand Ret -11270 % 30
Silt 0.05 -0.005 mm % 9
Clay< 0.005 111111 % 17
Passing #40 Sieve % -
Passine.1'200 Sieve % -
L.L. . 25
P.I. 8
AASHTO Classification A-2-4(0)
Texture
Station
Hole No.
Deoth (Ft)
to
ORGANIC 1.8
cc:
SOILS FILE
13
...... +:' ~tt'!:t.T :.~.fi1-t!.c. SOIL TEST REPORT AGRONOMIC DIVISION, N.C. DE.?ARTMENT OF AG RIC ULT URE ELUE RIDGE RO.!.D CENTER, RALEIGH, N.C. PHONE: (~1e) 733-2655 cu01,J:,.., Table 5. Physical Properties of Landfill Contents -Standard Soil Test TO: t,([ c.ii,-r1,-· .. "Cl ui:ii:~ llh ;.;i.) ~f~~Jf~ ~[ ~1(~5-FARI.I LOC.!.TION (COUNTY): tHEH FIELD It/FORMATION TEST RES UL TS • ••;:~ ·• 1•"' ,.,,., c•:,o t1Li &.cti.1£t L•wE ! Hr;1 i...ts, tti:>!=' l c~~is I Mt.>-•... : vn-c1:;c I Mo •1 ,,. , ,. I •,o, I •,o ~ I ! ___ I ~~J c.96 J.? l~··_1 ~~,~ ! ~:-4 I PO ill I l •. , I C.-~ I ..... I ... , I 2~, I ~· i ~· I S>I •:,• I .,.. ·1 .. 18 ~B-2 z,., !90 ·1,i I 60 I I Cs..~: Tt Ef Gl!:>Wt-i !, .. u,•:c;.E ., 1 ... , """' c•OP i er.:,:-;~, Er GC:OWN ••;:;•• i '"' ,·,oe, c•:>• I SUGGESTED TRH.TMENT FOR FIRST c_R_O? iOR_YHR) •• l LIME l I I ' I 1 I N I •,o, I ~o l Mg i c, , 2,, FIELD lt,FORMt.TION l I ,,.:;:;LI!.: Lill.£ ; J(i=.i. LL~~ cs.or-11 I ... I ·· lJ ·,o,J ·~:J SOIL c .... I ! !-41,1',. SUGGHTED ,REATMEtn FOR FIRST CROP (OR YEP'ii •• I L•M< • j •,o, ! ,.,o I .. , c. , 2,. I I I I i FIELD INFOF.MATION i ~~~·T"',,. I ,. r~:rc.:~· ~ c~~s J ~,, .. SUGGESTED TREAiMENT FOR FIRST CROP (OR YEAl=.j •• . l 1 M,, ] SH 1·-N:."TE I : I : ClC i ...... ., I i ... , I SH 1·· I i -~n : I l ,! CEC ; ,~, l ., 1. CF-.:,: 1::,fE Gli:iWtol I L~E I • -L_l_ •,o l M, i ~ i 2, • I .. , l .;~~ 1: 5,,u1:>._[ HO I .. ,, .. ,,,_ . .,. FIELD INFORMATION 1 ! •PPl,.J[~ LMriAE 1 Mo l '': r;•,o, I ~ I H'-T. LLfi Cli:>C-Ji SOIL I HIJ-•.. ' CL<SS I I : \',\' SUGGESTED TFiEATMENi FOFi FIP.Si Cl10P (OR YEAR)•• Cl;.:>~ l ~• Et C.Fit'W~ I ~• I • I •,o, I ~o I Mw l ~ ! z,, FIHD INFORMATION [ s,..u.r:...1 •O i••• vioo, c•:,o ! ,&.CIPU(:>LIM( I .. , L.:J ~~=,-·,-1· ,~1~1yi~ I ~· SUGGESTED TRE.HMENT FOFi FIRST CROP .(OR YEAFi1 •• c:;.:,: tc. EE GC::>'l':t; LIME P,01 ~0 I ... C,· 2· • TE!'T RE SUL TS {N.C.1ests will not comparo dire-c:t'y 10 numbe,s ob:ained b)' othe, m,:nods.) ~•'Class M!t.;:r.M,,,..ral ""-C: M,rw-rai..o,panit o,:;;,:; a 0-;anic 1ott.1-•.., :r. t-1'"'"'11: tiun•:, Pt-rce-nl t-r vol. W\"\" s W~1;1'11 pr· \fohJ""t .. p'Cm1 CEt :-Clhor. bth. C..;:., ,n,-; 100 IC"ffl• !!,.--•,. :r. 6a5t S.,ti,:,:-ali:m •,. ot CEC A: :r. Atien, rne-c; ,o:. ,:n,' p~ s HfCft>;l•"'-tor-Atlivi1)"" P--1 :r. Pnes;"loru, lndH tc.-1 s Pot.auiu,:-. .,., (:a.•,.. 1: C.lciur.:.. •.., ot CEC M;--• .. : Mz;M-~i.:~,. •.., c· CEC ~,._I: t.~in;,r\t!! l"ll:!U 2n--1 • Ztrtr lndf • Cu•I :r. Ccp;,,e-• lri:,:u S-11: Sut~aa Sut:..,· ~o SS--1 .-Soh101e s~r: Irion CEC CJ Ac I • N:Tt I .. ,, I SEE I CEC • I t>•.. I I I 1 I t,r. SEE H~T[ •• t-.:,11;: Nit:-tlf t.. rn; dm' ~"":0f'\ :r. /..mm:,-,i~ t; m;i dm' ~;, :r. Sodi.,!'T" .. ~Q,OC• c:m~ :;c.:.r 1: H GS.OWN SUGGESTED TRE.I.TM!:Ni FOR SECOND CROP (OR YEAR)" . ___ ·-••"• i N I •,o, I ~0 , "• c, I z,, l E .1. Mn I -~" I I I I ; ·-,., I . . ! I ' I ! I TEST RE SUL TS • .. .. , I ! •. , i c, •• 11' ,,,... I ,,,_, i 2,-.1 I ~~ I ~· j ''" ,, .,,. I .,.. I ht ' I ' I ' SUGG!:STED ,REt.,MEtli FOR SECOtiD CROP (OFi YEt.R) •• :::;;._:,r '?: ~! C,~C1WN LIME I • I •,c, i ,,o 1 "' j c, 1. 2n ,1 • I M, ! -~~ i I ! i I - -! TEST FiESUL TS • l _[_ •' •·• 1 •·• l c..•. l .. ,.. I """' I 2•·• I c~, I >• I s!-i I •:,• I "'•" I •~ cs:.:;:~: E! GR:>Wt-i I SUGGESTED TREt.iMENT FOR SECOND CF.OP (O;:; YEAR)•• LIM[ I N i ',0, -_L .:~i M; I C, I Z• I E I Mnj -~~ TE.Si RESULTS• ., .. , ·:1 1(..1 I c,..•,. I M~·"'-I M.-..1 I 2M Cu.: -ti,-! i S5-1 NOl~ NH•"' I hi I I I c:1:1:.,:. H. LL c;s;owN ~ ·-I J .. , CR:>'~= Ei. (;AOWN SUGGESiED TREATMENT FOR SECOND CROP (OFi YEAR " l UME j • r •,o, I ~o I Mp I ~ I Zn I . I Mn -~~ . TEST RESULTS • 1 «-1 l ~~ 1 .. ,... I M~I D C-" --S-1 I """ 1 SUGGESTED TREATMENT FOR SECOND CROP (OR YEAR'•• \..IWE '\0~ .. TREATMENT, lbs'£ uniess specified LIME.: Ts 10rn., t.~ :r. t~s..,ooc sc; fl. t; c N,:,o;ien, ti :r. l:-s.. ,ooc: •q. ft. P:O, :r. Pncsp1'111t. II :r. ~s. ,~ IQ ti. K~O M; KP: P01ut,. ~' s l~,.,ro:.~. f1. M; ; 11,a;npsium Cu z Copper $ Test Level is questionable. s~e •~pplemental material. Co Zn 1 Ho,• I :J N , Mn Z.r,s-21nt es f.oron trl.!'ls.lA.n;;aMs-t M.I ,· N:.Tt ! READ SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL AND BACK OF REPORT FOR FURTHER DETAIL
DD "',, u < ,7i· -::;, ,c, ~" 10(7) !!?,o !,! ~l ~ ~-~ ~ ~ g ~ ] ;_ J. ci imimm~ QJ~0:7~3 a. ~'hl fi ~re. ~'11;:,ff:;rtr:C !~~E~-~} ~~-W~8~t -· :;. n· ;J -:1 ~: ~t I': 11] n· ; ~•c;;· ~ [ g ~ .;.,:..J'.~02.~ fi.9~ [~~t?.. !!: .. ~-.,,J.;~i .,, 0 ,,. ~--. -:-.: ~;[~i~!~ :J~~-fb~;n-;t ~i!!~·!;i tf"' ~.; I t:J -,, " n ti• -I "' "' .... O f/1 ., "J" ~ 1 ~· '! ;:J -J n 111 J -g·_:; =X i R[I!' ~~-... ~~, s· ~; jr_ -; !~r~·~~ ,-,n " 11, o, J fl.·• J [~-[" :': ~ 1 n: r; r,· ;if n:"' J 11' RI "T n s ~ I!~~; !~~; •-u J-~~ il!! .,, ;;; r-(l J'~1~~~ ·IJJ~.:}:~r,1 ~ "' ~ :1 !8 '-~ ·j.i~~;::TJ mm -< 0 C: :n (/! 0 ;:= ~ ~'. ,,, :: '1~ ~ ri ; :; g_ ~ ~ l ~ ¥-! ; ~-~ ~ ~: ?: ~ . _r;:. '!!."':., g g ~ J fl ~-ii Q td ~-~· ~ it-~ ~ :.1 j 3· I ~~ ;. :· ~-~ ~ hl o. ~1 iti 3 !}' ., i 1 : i ~, I ~-~J : ; *~~8lg lffi;;J~3 ~-~ {, g ; ·:· . -· ~ :J td ::.· ~--~ ~ i~l-~i?t; irn·,.2-~~o·-~=~~ ;. i ~i 1 ~:: ~ ij !:~ ~ m 'tJ:, :;· --4 ~ ~(0 ::1.§.;:,g :;-3-~?. ~tgo;~l(Jrtto~go fi' ~-3 m ~ 8 ~ 3 o "5 g :ro.••~.,,u,110,:,,t,,n ?-·g~:.~ g ;f i3 li1 ? ::. ~ ~-~ ~ ~: ·~ ;J. 2. P. ~ >-} 0 ~ iiS.:2.~tF!t?~ p. T ~ ~ fft" a_ ~ 5. :!~[! "'v o c,..:... 11' :r :, ... .. 9 ~ .,, ,; C ... -;;,-,,, :, C, ' C " ~ :,· fl. :r ~·~ 5· ~ ,,. ft! :i 10 a. m m!!.,P, ~·~;; . ... ':I ,,, ~ira~: ~~~i :;:I ,t, .... 11 ~t~; [ '! m lb --.. ,, :.1 ;-1\tiO ~:, fU & .. '" < '?' ~ ='· 0 i:" n, !.1' ...... v.; 1:1: g. -~ "' u r o r: rl. ;, * i :{ ~· * i ,: ·~ni~:;;i?.'J nmnn !~ r.~ ;j O ."'-ni.ir. :· h ; ~-l]i~; ~ :~~~?.~~~~ · c~::on -iii ~(fl,=!O~om~ r-~ i-~g:~ i~ ::1:...ao~.g'<ii" :-..: :, I.fl ... J ~ "; 8 il Q. ~ :J n1 :-_ .. ') C -fU °'~·;S·!1;,!'?.rl:i: !ii!~;:; t-i :1. f :rn, n• ::t-. ,,. m n, tr :J n, 5· r,: j. ~t ~ 3· ~ ;· ,gi~,g(Jl~-='--;i ':.I!. n, :3: -· • ~ ci" ~-r. g !" ~ ;· •it?r::~~. fij" 0. l_; 0. II 'tJ ..: ~ [~ '!!. u.:-.,:~) _;;;1!;_;-:_0,~, Cl II• ftl .J ':' .. · · (t ' ~i~~;~!~ r.-f ~ -~•~£}1 ~~-~~a 3· v;· m3.o.(i;·3roa, f1 i;. :J '"° ~-~f~i":i-*g;';~ 7 ::r ~ '&. ~·~ m o ::, n 3 ~·~ 9-H: ~~ii I, :!c0-c11~ o ,r rum. ti'.1[~ -~~ ~;t ~ ~n;.,?:";;. ~ :=t-~ ir," ~~9 .. fi,3 ~ '~~-; itl runt. n •~ 0 m i ~ jn :f. ;J,:, ft) f\J * -~ -f .... ::, ::r ; ~ "' ~ ~-a} ~r "? ;:! ~J :f 'Q -~,,, ~?:; hl" ~n~ "]-'" "' n, ~-~~ ... •J. r: r:! Ji u~ ii, ,ff .,. .,. '" m .J .... :: ::; 0 .. D "' (/! c:; r---1 (/! ~ ~: J .. ; ~ .;:. n. ! ~! ~-.,. .. ~ .. -,f -:T }:}: "' ... ~ ff '" '" t~ Y--: g ~ ;,-U v< VlTI':;ftl't,n-:::r ge:.~~~~!.ji, ~-~ n1 :;· :~ ~ T; ~ ~-~!~~i;} ~:;.~~ ~! ;:11:,,. ~ ~r~:~,,.~~Pn: t~l~ ~:~ f ~-n ,,. . . ,, ·• ~-ffi ~-L N n ~ "I Ill c, fl ::,· ·1 ,-, r" HHm u ~~ -t •• Cl" if.~: fr.J ;T .. .,. f~] Q -II .g "'.,, !'!~ ~ ~-Jn~~ •m~• ~¥,;~ ~u~~ o-~~ ~l~l z .,, 0 :v ?: ,,. -I 0 z fl!:, =.: _o (i;I!) ... "' "' .... :n "' -u !~ ~ ~ ; a?, ¥ ;t ? i! ~J ;;. ~{ s ::. ~it ~ _T ~ ~ ~ 3 ~cul if!if ,·.,-·g~'" rn ~-:.r ~ i :r=~-uit 'ii g 'O ~ !; 0 :n .... ·l 'l_l '< ii, -0 =1QS < "< ~ 0 -C m 3·j il i•~w ~~~~~ ~~idr 5· 5· tl ~ il :1 J:~ ~~ ~: ~::t" !:, ~J~~.f;~;;; : '" ·-,'~: ,1r: r, ~~ o li ~ .? ~~ i ~ ;J :. ~ i. }~ff.·~ {-g; Qg_ ~ : 0·~ ~ ,fl 6 .~.• ~ a. ,,. ;;.· ~? .n ~! . .,._. n, ... ~:r:,;:~;~r,fi;~ 1i-~J.~?::i ;' ;nmm 111 ~'f~ :f~~·::: hi i ~' t f i i;1 O~IOl.f'l'<ttl--~ -o ~ 'l -o :,--I c• :, IJ "' n n :,-CT .... ---1. · o o "J .r 'll L · · tu o c Ct i ~j 1-i. tr: ~ ~ ! ~ I ~ 1: ~ ~~tu r, 3-1:? !,; ~ ri (1 .... :1 Q. ;~. '" .J ;;.·:, r ~ it if "i, ;;~ n ~ -;:. ~ j 3 ~ f, g 0. fifO If' ~I (\1 f6 fft ~ ,,. ~ ..., ,i, ·~-" tu ~-~ ii ::. ~, ru111:;,-.~nn•::,~('(J o :..!! a. a. a. o ':'=-m 3 !a. n ,,. o, u ·-.. !mHii .:J •• t, ,., . Ir• ;-: 3 n II• -!. 3 g-11, ~'~ 1.:'! r. · n, n• ii:;~~i ~:!Jl~lf 'ii~ ~IS!~ -("I "? "' ,~ "' P-::i ~ ,;; ~ r'k-~il ~,.: ~ _;, -:-· ~d;;i1 ~[[ir rtl r: 5_ 'rt hl g ~-rr ~-~-~ . i .. ~ g. ~-:~ nin:-.J-t"-1 !i ~ ;; ~--~~. .I I ,h ,,, ,., ,' 1;~n!;;.J:: J m ,\ ,;. S-..J ~ 0 !=i <IC"' ! ~~iffi*s tr J ~ :; {1 .!.' ~ ... :.I CL\' -?1~~t-~j . .... ,., ,,, p ~mff; -11 <• '1" "' T; iit~!ti mm:~~ <r o o. ;n n .,; ~ ··: f\1 " '" ("') 01 ,r ,. ;"· _·· .rt• ,..., .... 11.1. •• ' iil!l!ill!, ~~~Jm•~~~~ il!i!liiI; ;.~;'.{~I" rfl ,t, it; n _;· ..'.. n... u. -. n,~g~~,., ! ~-~:ii: ~ i~i,[~~ _,on• o ,._ o. ,,, ,,.· :T [-.: ~~i~~:;~ ;1;_~; ~;. ?-,~ Q •I• !!• ,l,I fl' :-1 ~J!'.1-~~~iW:" :. :-,; ~ ~: ¥ -:-j" :;i"''°'" .:r tJ: lb "' ,n o ~: 1s ~ ; :."',.. l: ~1. ... "' 0 _ .. ~-~ !';.if; :I 9 (/! ~ z ... o rn ;1 fn =r .... oca !! (,) 0 -· :;: fll ~ :,--0 (n " '" ~ ~! Of, ;m IO -U :!. :n n U fa ;;~ (J! -< ;t ~-/,'~ ~ ~ 5: ~ ~·-r: g, ~t ~-~ o .. ij!~:: ;Hm 1:! {.1 '!! J, 1tm o · o hi n. -, -t • -"':rn,-o:r 0 m -: tn rtt ~&.iii ~ (OT !t' ~ (b J~i~m;[ ~~ ~f ij ~?: ~:gi;~-0 t.: t.: fll ••. RI j~=~=1; ~!iil:~ ~O•~~~< jiR~r~~ ~! ~ ~~ ~-:: ;i;-r-1 M ~ it ~·~ ~ -~· :. :1 C ;_~ ,. ,,. "', ~: ~-i ~ z -:., in ,o o='"n:,a. _ .. ff' '<'. -· O:,~ ca 9. o ~ 0 ""' g_ ,;.· ~;~EI l:_;~~~1:~ ...!~(~~~;!;_ t; _ ;; ;·! il ::H~;~ ~r ~ "! ;,. ~.! -• n, CTI • fl' ~' o. 1J t.'' • n; ..._ Vi ~ ; t~ fi ~: .\ imm ~n,:ld".:~:r. ~--~-'!' ,,, _n . :-'1 g-g ~ 5· ~; :.-i5 :=t ,,. u :; -,,:5 f~ ~-;-~ i ~ 1 ~ i ? [ :r 1 ~ :f :l n ;;; -• ,i.9"; Ori" ('I "' ~! u :.J ~-~ fTI :.. ~g:~_;;~ ~? ... ~ ,,. r~ 10 l'\l ft! If' hi ,r, J 1J L J :_t Ct ""t.1 ''' IJ. f~-g ~ ti:," .. "!-~ ff~·~ 03•~~~: 1;? -on,~:, :: !i°~ ~ g 3~~:~-: C> ~ RI t. ~iiff~ .!' i~-:} :,, 0 ? .. <Tl~ f7"'?!~~ :~:~:;~ ~ -. ~· n, ~ e,, in ;? gfi.r~ [ i ·o?-'!: . a. ~.il ~l! ~l~~ it~•~ io ;;;:, n rt> •~, "'='-0 :.:. -n• t I 'l' ~ :.1 f\J C) 8 -~-?. ~ ii, :-J .'1 !-!! ; ~ :~ itti-1] iJ 3 '=1 ,6 N O ''' If' II• In -f •T :., !rr ~ t} t ~ ~ ~ ~j ~i ~-Y.. 0 3· 0 n, ri 'g. .... 9 (l. z ~ ,f' ;. :1 f ·• -g_ :1 :· i J1 ~-.:u ~ ~-~ g_ 3 ~ a i ,? !'~ N Oci'" n ffl n, , . 10 c .-. '< 0 :I ,. 'U ~ o, =. fl>. a. ~ ii· -;.. ;-· n, ,,. tu [g.g g_~ ?-a ~.-.P~6.Q; m~~~~ . ~~-~ ~ .. ,t, u :~ ·-ni tt ff• n, 1 r. 1,. f~t ~-il t ~ ;;! il ~! ffi ~r. i ; . h: ;; : : ~~ ,·, ;;! ;~ i-r~ ~ ~ .~ s ~; §"~ ~ ~ ~ ~; Qt~~ ~ ;r·~'[ i? f [~~;;f ~ ~} i !, 7-u. _r ,,. m~I N '"··tu(? i:;~;i!~ ;;.:~~-j ru ct1 '1i :T ni (It:, f/1 n, '" ~mu~~2~~~~ ~[(1~{!i!! ~,~-f i! -~ t; i ;J HW -~. u. 0 .. no .,, .:I fi8l~~~oi~ O ::J .,;~ :u (n C: r., Cl '" V, ... '" lJ _, J.1 "' :,-. ... ~ :i ,1 m ~. -. o i~g~1i ffl~-.. ., ..-: ,: ni n~ ?.i. ~ ~ :r, z t. ,,. -· 1 I~~ R~ g~_:;.r; ,,, -0 :l 0. ,, 1, ~ i;J1 g.tt; ~ri ~i :-_s ~~ m o _ ~:, }[] ~: z :. ~-. 0 3 11,:, ;;.· 3 !. ca (ti s-!1 ;;;r;;r,-s,T1:;-.oc-:,,. mmmi {? =J.,; -=o 11' o-~ :1 ~ • -n :t ,.., _ ;;_ f;-u ;. ~-~'!~ r '.!. fO .:f 2_~'.t~n ~ ;;; ~: 9 ~Jr; 0 lfl Q . rfl ~j-~'} J "9 o. "' .::: ~ ;;.· ;; g m?O~Otum~:G ~ D> O" ('1) CJ'1 () 0 :::J ,-+ :::J C ('1) C.
Part Ill
Technical Qualifications
Each offerer responding to this RFQ should submit three (3) copies of
a statement of technical qualifications, detailing the organizations ability to
perform the services described in the potential Scope of Work. The technical
qualifications may be narrative in form and should include at a minimum, but
not necessarily limited to the information outlined below.
Information relative to the offerer's background, experience, and such
other information as may be deemed relevant for the purpose of
evaluation of professional skills and capability. Attachments may
include project reports, publications, brochures, or videotapes. It is
requested that other electronic media not be presented as primary
materials due to the nature of public review of these materials;
secondary materials in other electronic forms will be accepted.
Information describing the size and organizational structure of the
offerer's firm.
Information relative to the offerer's professional insurance status,
particularly pollution liability insurance and other relevant liability
reduction practices.
Information about the environmental regulatory compliance history of
the organization.
Each offeror shall submit a list of client names or references, type of
contract (including type of services performed) and inclusive dates of
contract or estimated completion date. In addition, provide the name,
address and telephone number of the client's responsible Project
Administrator.
Each offerer shall submit a hypothetical contract schedule and
estimated completion date demonstrating how the organization is capable of
maintaining the schedules and meeting the deadlines that would be
established, if such a contract were in effect.
Each offerer shall clearly identify areas of the scope of work that
would include subcontractors for professional services. Organizations with
exclusive or routine working partnerships or other contractual relationships
are encouraged to submit qualifications and should name these organizations
16
and clearly define these relationships. All potential subcontractors need not
be identified at this time; however, areas where subcontractors will serve
must be identified, e.g., competitive analytical laboratory support, land
preparation, or office trailer rental.
Part IV
Cost Information
Each offerer is encouraged to supply information about the relative
cost basis found within their prior professional experience with BCD. Please
separate this information into a separate section of your qualification
submission. This information will not be reviewed as a means of
qualification of potential vendors, but will assist the State and the Working
Group in defining the level of effort and budget for a future effort, if any.
The format for this cost information is at the discretion of the offerer;
however, information on cost per ton or other unit value of individual steps in
the process would be most useful.
We appreciate your assistance in responding to this informal request for professional
and project experience qualifications. The materials you provide will assist the State
and the Working Group in investigating the feasibility and potential for success for
detoxification of the contents of the Warren County PCB Landfill.
17
September 1, 1993
RECOMMENDED ANALYTICAL REQUIREMENTS FOR PCB DATA GENERATED ON
SITE DURING NON-THERMAL PCB DESTRUCTION TESTS
ANALYTICAL OBJECTIVES
There are two major objectives for data on PCB concentration generated on site
during non-thermal PCB destruction tests, or demonstrations, and during the general
operation of a PCB disposal process: (1) to reliably quantitate the concentration of
PCBs in the feed; and (2) to reliably identify and quantitate the concentration of PCBs
in the product, waste, and effluent streams.
OBSERVATIONS ON PREVIOUSLY DEMONSTRATED ANALYTICAL METHODS
In most on-site PCB analyses associated with non-thermal PCB disposal
processes that have been observed by EPA Headquarters, PCB concentrations have
been determined with portable Gas Chromatographs equipped with Electron Capture
Detectors (GC/EC). In our observations, sample preparation generally consists of (1)
dilution of fluid containing (or formerly containing PCBs) or (2) stripping off a solvent
that interferes with PCB analysis and redissolving the residue in a solvent {such as
hexane or isooctane) that does not interfere with PCB analysis. In either case, the
resulting fluid or extract is diluted to levels within the working range of the GC/EC.
Internal standards or other measures are not commonly used to assure that the stated
volume is, in fact, injected. There is common use of external standards and blanks.
The GC/EC must be calibrated against a standard for quantitation. In the past,
most, if not all, on-site analyses have relied on Aroclor™ mixtures of known
concentration to calibrate the instrument. Many quantitation techniques employ a
"total area· concept, or average the quantitation based on a few major peaks in an
Aroclor™. These AroclorTM mixture quantitation techniques are acceptable onty if the
analyte mixture closely resembles the standard.
All analyses of original or untreated material is normally quantified based on an
Aroclor™ standard. One rare exception might be that the original material has been
partially dechlorinated (perhaps through an unsuccessful treatment by a PCB disposal
process) and the original Aroclor™ formulation no longer exists.
After treatment of the original PCB matrix, if the disposal process causes no
changes in the chemical nature of the PCB molecules (e.g. distillation, sotvent-sofvent
extractions, and solvent wash), then quantitation of the final treated PCB matrix iS
based on the appropriate Aroclor™. Analysis of PCB matrices treated by other
disposal processes (e.g. chemical dechlorination, thermal processes, biologic:8'
processes, photolytic degradation processes, electrolytic dechlorination, and catalyt>c
dechlorination), which, during the process, chemically change the nature of PCB
molecules and hence the character of any mixture of these compounds, must be
quantified based on a congener standard, such as the DCMA (Dry Color
PCB Disposal Section
Analytical Requirements
Revision 3, 09/01 /93
Page 2 of 4 Pages
Manufacturer's Association) standard mixture of ten individual PCB compounds that is
commercially available.
In the GC/EC analysis of treated PCB material, where the original PCB
formulation has been changed by the treatment process, all GC/EC peaks having
retention times between and including the retention time of the earliest eluting
monochlorobiphenyl (MCB) (usually 2-chlorobiphenyl) and decachlorobiphenyt are
considered to be PCBs. · Only a more specific chemical analysis method, such as
GC/Hall Electrolytic Conductivity Detector or GC/Mass Spectrometry, may be used to
identify compounds in this GC/EC retention window that an analyst does not believe
are PCBs.
The most frequent problem observed at on-site laboratories is the difficulty in
evaluating the concentration of the early eluting monochlorobiphenj"s (MCBs) and
dichlorobiphenyls (DCBs). Most of the commonly found Aroclorsr do not have
sizeable amounts of MCBs and DCBs present, and analysts have had some difficulty
adjusting chromatographic conditions. In addition, quantitation using this type of
GC/EC methodology is difficult (1) because of the large variability of response among
the MCBs and DCBs and (2) because the level of 2 parts per million per resolvable
GC/EC peak of a PCB compound in mineral oil dielectric fluid is close to the limit of
quantitation for some of the MCB and DCB compounds.
MINIMUM ANALYTICAL REQUIREMENTS
Since the GC /EC analysis in the field is the final determination that the
treatment is complete with many disposal processes, minimum analytical requirements
have been established. The evaluation team auditing a demonstration will audit the
on-site chemical analysis procedures. The audit will consist of the completion of an
audit form and the observation of the analysis of a number of Quality Assurance
samples prepared specifically for the audit.
The following activities are necessary in preparation for an audit of PCB
analytical procedures during a demonstration test:
(1) A Quality Assurance (QA) plan must be prepared according to the
guidelines set forth in •interim Guidelines and Specifications for Preparing Quality
Assurance Project Plans,• QAMS 0005 /80, Office of Monitoring Systems and Quality
Assurance (OMSQA), Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. 20460, December 29, 1980. (OMSQA is now
called the Office of Acid Deposition, Environmental Monitoring, and Quality
Assurance.)
(2) All chromatograms with raw data must be clearly and completely labelled
with operating parameters, time, date, sample code, and other relevant information
necessary to reproduce the analysis.
. -., PCB Disposal Section
Analytical Requirements
Revision 3, 09/01 /93
Page 3 of 4 Pages
(3) All results must be presented with units. The most common concentration
units are ug/g for solids or liquids (except ug/L), and ug/m3 for air and stack gases.
(4) Sample calculations must be provided. These calculations must show
clearly how the raw data from the sampling process, sample preparation, and
chromatograms, were converted to the final results reported.
(5) Sufficient replicates, standard addition samples, blank samples, and other
GC control samples must be analyzed and reported. The definition of •sufficienr
should be present in the QA plan required in #1 above.
(6) Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) must be documented and available
for inspection if requested.
(7) It must be demonstrated that monocholorinated biphenyls through
decachlorinated biphenyls can be reliably quantitated in the range of concentration of
the original untreated material and at the appropriate concentration range necessary to
verify that the clean levels have been attained. There is no specifically required or
designated analytical procedure. The requirements for a satisfactory analytical
procedure are: (a) that the on-site analyses of audit samples for PCB concentration
are performed satisfactorily, and (b) that the results of analyses of PCB concentration
of split samples of feed waste and treated waste are confirmed by another laboratory
performing adequately during audits by the PCB disposal section.
GAS CHROMATOGRAPHIC ANALYSIS AND OUANTITATION OF TREATED OILS FOR
SINGLE PCB CONGENERS
In some cases, the chemical analysis of treated oils for PCBs in the
implementation of 40 CFR 761 Regulations involves the identification and quantification
of PCB congeners (there are 209 PCB congeners). In the past, most chemicaJ
analyses for PCBs measured concentrations by comparing the response of PCBs in
treated oil to the fairly consistent amounts and distribution of congeners found in
commercial mixtures added to the same matrix. This kind of comparison is perfectty
acceptable when the treatment process, such as a physical separation process, does
not change the chemical nature of the PCBs and therefore the nature of the PCBs °'
PCB mixture potentially remaining in the treated oil. However, following treatment by a
destructive process or processes in which chemical reactions change the chemical
nature of PCBs, the resultant, residual PCB congeners are changed in the amount and
distribution from those present in commercial mixtures of PCBs.
Analysis of oils treated by a destructive process or processes, where chemical
reactions change the chemical nature of PCBs, is best accomplished by procedures
which can quantify individual PCB congeners. The most commonly used analytical
method which provides acceptable quantitation of individual PCB congeners, wrthout
requiring extremely expensive equipment and chemical standards, compares gas
PCB Disposal Section
Analytical Requirements
Revision 3, 09/01 /93
Page 4 of 4 Pages
chromatographic peaks of treated oil samples to gas chromatographic peaks from ten
selected PCB congeners (one from each level of chlorination.)
Any analytical procedure proposed that provides acceptable results should
include the following requirements:
(1) Each gas chromatographic peak between the earliest eluting
monochlorobiphenyl compound (usually 2-chlorobiphenyl) and decachlorobiph~nyl is
considered to be a single PCB congener. If an analyst believes that a gas
chromatographic peak includes more that one PCB congener, resolution of the peak
must be demonstrated (and the resolved peaks requantified) using another gas
chromatographic column and/or using a different detector.
(2) The level of chlorination of the PCB congeners represented by the gas
chromatographic peaks is to be determined by comparison to the gas
chromatographic peaks of a standard containing the earliest eluting
monochlorobiphenyl (usually -2-chlorobiphenyl) and one representative from each level
of chlorination of PCBs from dichlorobiphenyl to decachlorobiphenyl. Any standard
meeting these designated specifications and prepared either commercially* or in a
private laboratory may be used. The level of chlorination of a treated oil gas
chromatographic peak is assumed to be the same as the chlorination level of the PCB
congener of the nearest peak in this standard. If the retention time of a peak is
exactly halfway between two standard peaks, the peak shall be assumed to represent
a congener at the lower level of chlorination of the two nearby standard peaks.
(3) Quantitation is based on comparison of the response of each peak in the
treated oil with the response of the peaks in the PCB congener standard described in
#2 above. The response of each treated oil PCB congener peak is assumed to be
the same as the response of the nearest PCB congener in the standard.
(4) In order for an oil treatment process to be considered successful, any
resolvable gas chromatographic peak present and quantified by #1 through #3
above, must contain less than two parts per million (2 ppm). When using any
chemical analysis methodology, proper Quality Control and Quality Assurance
measures must be taken to assure that the Level of Quantitation of the method is
below 2 ppm and that the instrumentatio:i and all equipment are calibrated and wrthin
prespecified control criteria. In addition, since most gas chromatographic analyses of
treated oils require dilution before chemical analysis, the analyst either (a) must take
care to account for this dilution in calculations of original concentrations in the treated
oil or (b) dilute the standard mixture in the same manner as a treated oil sample fOt' a
direct comparison of response.
* There is a commercially available standard which meets these requirements. This
standard was prepared originally for the Dry Color Manufacturers Association (OCMA)
and is commonly referred to as the DCMA Standard.