NCD980602163_19961122_Warren County PCB Landfill_SERB C_Pilot Bench Scale Detoxification Study Projects-OCR

State of North Carolina
'II Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Waste Management
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
William L. Meyer, Director
November 22, 1996
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Joe!Hirschho~
State Staff ~
Vendor Contracts for Bench Scale Verification Studies
In order for the State to develop contracts for vendors for bench scale detoxification
studies, the following information is requested:
1. Names, technologies, and qualifications of potential vendors.
2. Scope of work for detoxification studies including standards and
deliverables.
3. Proposed schedule
4. Extent and degree of interaction with EPA with respect to
permits/approvals in accordance with TSCA regulations.
Enclosed is the RFP for the previous vendor effort for BCD Technology. Also enclosed is
a copy of the EPA TSCA approval document for the Soiltech R&D proposal.
If you need assistance or have any questions, please contact Mike Kelly at 919-733-4996
ext. 203 .
Enclosures
cc: Patrick Barnes
P.O. Box 27687,
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687
Voice 919-733-4996
FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer
50% recycled/10% post-consumer paper
UNITED ST ATES ENVIRONMENT Al PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION ◄
l ◄S COl.mTLANO STREET. N.E.
ATLANTA. GEORGIA 30365
?.E,CEJ r G:,
Solid Waste
FEB 19 1996
4APT-PTSB
Mr. Anthony J. Trentini
Operations Manager
SoilTech ATP -Systems, Inc.
800 Canonie Drive
Porter, Indiana 46304
Dear Mr. Trentini:
Enclosed is the approval document permitting Soiltech in
conjunction with the North Carolina Division of Solid Waste
Management to conduct research and development (R&D) on the
disposal of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). The U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency Region 4 is issuing this R&:D
approval pursuant to 40 CFR § 761.60(e) under the authority of
the Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976 (Public Law 94-469).
This approval is effective on the date it is signed and is good
for one year.
The R&D studies will be conducted at the Warren County PCB
Landfill located in Warren County, North Carolina. Soiltech will
use its bench scale Anaerobic Thermal Process/Base Catalyzed
Dechlorination process to treat up to 500 pounds of PCB
contaminated soil. This R&:D project will provide data for
evaluating full scale treatment/disposal of PCB contaminated soil
contained within the Warren County. PCB Landfill.
Please direct inquiries concerning this approval to Craig
Brown of my staff. He may be reached at [phone],
extension 6918.
Enclosure
cc: Bill Myer, NCDSWM
Sincerely yours,
~JI ,:I_ f. ~r
Winston A. Smith ·
Director
Air, Pesticides and Toxics
Management Division
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
APPROVAL TO CONDUCT RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT TESTS
TO DISPOSE OF POLYCHLORINATED BIPHENYLS (PCBs)
SoilTech ATP Systems, Inc., in conjunction with
North Carolina Division of Solid Waste Management
Warren County, North Carolina
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT STUDIES INVOLVING THE REMOVAL OF PCBs
FROM SOILS WITH A BASE-CATALYZED DECHLORINATION PROCESS
This approval is issued to SoilTech ATP Systems, Inc.,
(SoilTech) of Porter, Indiana and to the North carolina Division
of Solid Waste Management, (NCDSWM) to conduct Research and
Development (R&D) tests on the use of the Alberta Taciuk Process
(ATP), a high-temperature anaerobic thermal desorption process
and base-catalyzed dechlorination (BCD) for disposal/treatment of
PCB contaminated soils at the Warren County, North carolina PCB
Landfill. This project will be used to evaluate the
appropriateness and feasibility of ATP/BCD technology for full-
scale disposal/treatment of PCB-contaminated soil contained
within the Warren County PCB Landfill.
Authority
This approval to conduct R&D into PCB disposal is issued
pursuant to Section 6(e) (1) of the Toxic Substances Control Act
of 1976 (TSCA), Public Law No. 94-469, and the Federal PCB
Regulations, 40 C.F.R. Part 761.60(e), (Federal Register, 13185,
March 30 , 1983).
Effective Dates
This R&D approval will become effective on the date of
signature and will expire one year after the date of signature.
Proposed Tests
The R&D tests will be conducted at the Warren County PCB
Landfill site. SoilTech will test less than 500 pounds of PCB
contaminated soil over a two to three week period. Soil will be
processed through the treatment unit in 10 to 15 pound batches.
The average concentration of PCBs in the soil is approximately
350 parts per million (ppm) with a range of 150 ppm to 900 ppm.
The concentration of PCBs in the treated soil is expected to be
less than 2 ppm. All process wastes will be analyzed for PCBs
prior to disposal.
SoilTech will use ATP testing equipment developed by UMATAC
in conjunction with BCD technology to thermally separate and
dechlorinate the PCB contaminated soil. The UMATAC test unit to
be used in this ·pilot study is a bench-scale model of SoilTech's
full scale ATP unit. The unit consists of a rotary heating unit
processor (drum), primary and secondary condensers, air pollution
control devices (i.mpinger type gas trap and carbon filters) and
monitoring instrumentation. Heat input to the drum comes from
electric heating elements installed on the outside of the steel
shell.
During treatability test runs, BCD chemicals will be mixed
with the batch samples prior to being placed in the drum. The
BCD reaction takes place as the soil is mixed and heated in the
drum. Each batch will be slowly rotated in the drum for
approximately 30 minutes, at temperatures in the range of
900 -1000 degrees Fahrenheit. Hot vapors evolved in the drum
flow through a rotary seal to two condenser tubes (primary and
secondary), connected in series, which are externally cooled by
cold water circulation. Condensed liquids drain by gravity to a
collector vessel, which accumulates the water and organic liquids
and allows the gases to disengage. Gases exiting the secondary
condenser pass through a gas filter trap (impinger), a wet test
gas flow meter and dual phase carbon filters before being vented
to the atmosphere or collected in a Tedlarft bag for sampling.
Business Confidentiality
Pursuant to the regulations at 40 CFR Part 2, Subpart B (41 Federal Register, 39997, September 8, 1978), SoilTech is entitled
to make a business confidentiality claim covering any information
submitted under this R&D approval. If such a confidentiality
claim is not asserted with any submission, EPA may make this
information available to the public without further notice.
Information subject to a business confidentiality claim may be
made available to the public only to the extent set forth in the
above cited regulations. Any such claim for confidentiality must
conform to the requirements set forth in 40 CFR Part 2.203(b).
Liability
The issuance of this R&D approval does not release SoilTech
or NCDSWM from any liability for damage to persons or property
caused by or resulting from the operation or maintenance of
equipment covered by this approval. The conditions of this
approval are enforceable under TSCA and its implementing
regulations, 40 CFR Part 761. Any actions which violate the
terms of this approval, TSCA, or the regulations may result in
administrative, civil, or criminal enforcement by EPA in
accordance with Section 16 of TSCA, 15 u.s.c. Part 2615.
Findings
1. This permit is specifically for the treatment of no more
than 500 pounds ·(227 kilograms) of PCB contaminated soil. In
addition to the PCB contaminated feed soil, process condensate
and condensate-entrained fines may be recirculated back through
the treatment process.
2. All tests will be conducted at the Warren County PCB
Landfill site in Warren County, North Carolina. Materials
handling, test unit operations and monitoring programs are
designed to .prevent and control spills and minimize the potential
for hazardous materials exposure to workers and the general ·
population.
3. The SoilTech ATP process has been tested at other
hazardous waste sites at pilot and full scale and reduced PCB
concentrations in treated materials to below EPA standards.
Because of waste variability from site to site, it is necessary
and appropriate to conduct site specific testing at the pilot or
bench scale to confirm process effectiveness and safety prior to
treatment of Warren County PCB Landfill soil at full scale.
4. Flue gases from the ATP test unit at the Warren County
PCB Landfill will be purged through dual carbon fi+ters prior to
release to the atmosphere. The State of North Carolina will also
conduct perimeter air monitoring at the site. Therefore,
pursuant to 40 CFR Part 761.60(e) EPA finds that the SoilTech R&:D
project (when operated in accordance with the approved permit
application and under the conditions described below) does not
pose an unreasonable. risk of injury to human health or the
environment.
Conditions of Approval
1 . Advance Notification: SoilTech shall provide the EPA
Region 4 with a thirty (30) day advance written notification of
intent to start operating the R&:D project.
2 . Other Approvals or Permits: Prior to commencing the
tests, SoilTech must obtain ·any necessary federal, state or local
pennits or approvals. During the course of the testing, SoilTech
shall comply with all conditions and requirements of such permits
or approvals. Copies of such permits must be forwarded to EPA,
Region 4 , within five days of the start of the testing.
3. Feedstock Quality and Restrictions: The PCBs to be used
in the thermal desorption and BCD experiments are limited to
samples of PCB contaminated soils taken from the adjacent Warren
County PCB Landfill. The total quantity of PCB waste feed to be
treated under this approval is less than 500 pounds. In
addition, SoilTech is permitted to treat certain process wastes
3
(condensate, air and water pollution control residuals) generated
as p~rt of this R&D approval by the ATP/BCD treatability tests.
SoilTech may request modifications to these restrictions,
with appropriate justification. Requests should be submitted to
the Director, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division
(AP'I'MD) of EPA Region 4.
4. Feed soil and Process waste Characterization: Feed soil for testing and all process wastes generated by the ATP/BCD
process must be characterized as follows:
a. At -a frequency of one composite sample per series
(Series• 50 pounds), feed soil shall be tested for
PCBs, grain size, moisture content (percent solids),
and BTU value.
b. Process wastes that must be characterized for disposal
include: treated/coked solids, liquid phase carbon
filter media, vapor phase carbon filter media, treated
aqueous condensate and spent solvents used for
equipment cleaning. Any process intermediaries,
including oily condensate and, sludge from oxidation
treatment of aqueous condensate, must also be
characterized prior to disposal or recirculation
through the ATP/BCD unit. Each waste stream must be
sampled at least once except for treated/coked solids
which shall be sampled and tested at a once-per-series
frequency. At a mini.mum, all wastes shall be analyzed
for PCBs.
c. Any process wastes, whether treated or not, that are to
be disposed of on-site at the Warren County PCB
Landfill following completion of the tests shall also
be analyzed for the following compounds:
PCDFs, polychlorinated di.benzofurans
PCDDs, polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins
TCDFs, tetrachlorinated dibenzofurans
TCDDs, tetrachlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins
2,3,7,8-TCDFs
2,3,7,8-TCDDs
s. Exhaust Emissions Monitoring: Flue gases shall be sampled at the frequency and by the methods· specified in
SoilTech's R&D Permit Application dated October 26, 1995, as
amended on January 17, 1996, except as modified herein.
a. The •first Tedlar~ bag in the flue gas sampling train
described in Section 6.3 and depicted in Inset A,
Figure 1 in the Permit Application shall be eliminated.
A Teflonft diaphragm pump, as depicted in the referenced
4
figure, may be used in the sampling train if needed to
compensate for pressure losses across the sampling
train. Other sampling configurations may be allowed if
approved by EPA in writing.
b. Flue gas samples shall be tested for the following
parameters:
02 , oxygen co, carbon monoxide
CO2, carbon dioxide
-· . ..HCl, hydrogen chloride
PCBs, polychlorinated biphenyls
PCDFs, polychlorinated dibenzofurans
PCDDs, polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins
TCDFs, tetrachlorinated dibenzofurans
TCDDs, tetrachlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins
.2,3,7,8-TCDFs
2,3,7,8-TCDDs
c. PCDF and PCDD analytical results must include the
values for the .2,3,7,8-TCDF and .2,3,7,8-TCDD congeners ,
total TCDFs and TCDDs and total PCDFs and PCDDs.
6. Process waste Handling and Disposal: SoilTech shall
dispose of all waste generated during the R&D studies which have
been found to contain .2 ppm or more PCBs or 3 ppb or more PCBs
for aqueous waste, as calculated by comparison to an external
standard homolog peak having the nearest retention time to each
appropriate PCB peak to be quantified, in an off-site PCB
disposal facility approved by EPA under 40 CFR Part 761. EPA
approved sampling and analytical methods for PCBs in different
media (water, solids, and oil} must be used by SoilTech in making
such determinations (note: sampling and analytical methods listed
in SoilTech's R&D Permit Application dated October 26, 1995 , are
considered "EPA approved" for this purpose}.
7 . Process Monitoring/Recording: Provisions must be made
to ensure that the following process elements are suitably
monitored and recorded for each batch of PCB contaminated
material processed:
a . The weight of soil feed charged into the SoilTech ATP
retort unit. ·
b. The weight and volume of any condensate or sludge that
is recirculated through the ATP retort unit.
c. The weight of treated/coked solids removed from the
treatment unit.
5
d. volume and weight cf condensate -produced.
e. volume cf gas produced as measured by the wet test gas
flow meter.
f. Temperature of reaction.
g. Date, time and duration of run.
h. Name cf operator and supervisor.
a. Operating Restrictions: SoilTech shall comply with the
following operating requirements:
a. Feed soil for the R&D tests and all process wastes will
be stored in compatible, weather-tight containers
within a locked building or fenced enclosure.
Containers of untested liquid wastes or liquids
containing PCBs in concentrations above PCB treatment
standards must be stored within secondary containment.
b. The graphite gasket at the access port of the retort
unit shall be inspected following each batch test and
replaced as necessary. Other items listed as Routine
Maintenance Items in SoilTech's "Operating Manual for
the Bench Scale Test Equipment," shall be replaced as
necessary to ensure proper operation of the test
equipment.
9. Safety and Health Standards: SoilTech or its agents
must take all necessary precautionary measures to ensure that
operation of the UMATAC bench scale ATP unit is in compliance
with the applicable safety and health standards, as required by
Federal, State and local regulations and ordinances. The
occurrence of any lost-time injury or illness which results from,
or may have resulted from, exposure to PCBs during the ATP
process must be reported to the EPA Region 4, PCB Coordinator by
the next regular business day.
10. Facility Securitv: The UMATAC ATP unit and PCB
contaminated materials stored at the site shall be secured (e.g.,
fence, alarm system, etc.) to restrict unauthorized access to the
area. Any security breach that resulting in a release of,
removal of or exposure to PCB contaminated.materials or equipment
shall be reported to the EPA Region 4 PCB Coordinator by the next
regular business day.
11. PCB Releases: In the event the SoilTech or an
authorized facility operator of the ATP believes, or has reason
to believe, that a release has or might have occurred, the
facility operator must infonn the EPA Region 4 PCB Coordinator
irmnediately.
6
Approval
Under the above conditions, and given the circumstances
under which the R&D tests will be conducted, EPA Region 4 finds,
pursuant to 40 CFR 761.60(e), that these tests will not present
an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment.
Approval to perform R&D for PCB disposal is hereby granted
to SoilTech ATP Systems, Inc., in conjunction with the North
Carolina Division of Solid Waste Management, subject to the
conditions expressed herein, and consistent with the materials
and data included in SoilTech's application •TSCA R&D Permit
Application for Pilot Scale Study" dated October 26, 1995, as
amended on January 17, 1996. This R&D approval is valid when
conducted at the Warren County PCB Landfill located in Warren
County, North Carolina.
Fra D p, T~!!i
Date
9
Winston A. Smith
Director
Air, Pesticides and Toxics
Management Division
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 December 18, 1996
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
Joel Hirschhorn, Science A
Mike Kelly, State Staf~
SUBJECT: VENDOR CONTRACTS F BENC_H SCALE VERIFICATION STUDIES
On November 22, 1996, I sent a memo to you ( copy attached) requesting information on
the proposed vendors and processes for the bench scale detoxification studies. As of today, I still
have not received that information.
I will not be in the office during the holidays, ie after the 20th until the 2nd of January,
and had hoped to get that RFP out the door prior to my departure. Patrick Watters of my staff
will be here some during the holidays and will work on getting the RFP prepared once the
information is received.
In regards to the question of a two phase approach, we have been advised by Purchasing
and Contracts that we can take this approach on the RFP as long as it is clearly spelled out in the
RFP what our intentions are. They were concerned as to whether or not the vendor would have
enough information to adequately prepare a Phase II, or do they need the results from the pilot to
prepare an accurate proposal. The concern would also be one of "high pricing" on a Phase II,
possibly low balling the Phase I to help get the business. Another question is, given the results of
the Phase I, if the others originally bidding were allowed to bid on the Phase II using the
technology picked, would it be more price competitive? I commented that the companies should
know their technologies and be in a position to predict the results and that our recommendations
would be based on the entire package and that if they know our intentions to go straight into a
Phase II contract they should be competitive up front.
Please submit the information as soon as possible so that we can get this RFP out the
door. Refer to the "Part II, Scope of Work" outline in one of the other RFP's you have to see
what information should be covered .. We need to be sure that we can clearly separate the two
phases and that it is understood that we will pick more than one Phase I, but only one Phase II.
Feel free to call Patrick Watters or me at 919-733-4996, extension 201 should you have
any questions.
Copy: B. Meyer, P. Barnes, P. Watters, Technical Committee
P.O. Box 27687,
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687
Voice 919-733-4996 f#ffl@l(?jMfM
FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer
50% recycled/10"/o post-consumer paper
State of North Carolina
· Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Waste Management
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
William L. Meyer, Director
MEMORANDUM
NA
DEHNR
November 22, 1996
TO: Joel Hirschho · ·
FROM: State Staff ~
SUBJECT: Vendor Contracts for Bench Scale Verification Studies
In order for the State to develop contracts for vendors for bench scale detoxification
studies, the following information is requested:
1. Names, technologies, and qualifications of potential vendors.
2. Scope of work for detoxification studies including standards and
deliverables.
3. Proposed schedule
4. Extent and degree ofinteraction with EPA with respect to
permits/approvals in accordance with TSCA regulations.
Enclosed is the RFP for the previous vendor effort for BCD Technology. Also enclosed is
a copy of the EPA TSCA approval document for the Soiltech R&D proposal.
If you need assistance or have any questions, please contact Mike Kelly at 919-733-4996
ext. 203.
Enclosures
cc: Patrick Barnes
P.O. Box 27687,
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611 -7687
Voice 919-733-4996
FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer
50% recycled/ 1 O"lo post-consumer paper
..
For Superfund XVII Conference, October 1996
CONTAINMENT REMEDIES:
MINIMIZING HAZARD, NOT JUST EXPOSURE,
CUTS LIABILITIES
Joel S. Hirschhorn, Ph.D.
Hirschhorn & Associates
Wheaton, Maryland
ABSTRACT
An important consequence of the trend to reduce
Superfund cleanup costs has been a definite shift away from
treatment to pure containment remedies. The issue that
merits more attention, however, is whether reductions in short
term costs may be offset by longer term liabilities.
Containment remedies that focus entirely on reducing
exposures and hence risk are vulnerable to various failures of
key components that may not necessarily be prevented by
operation and maintenance programs. A sensible alternative
is to also include some hazard reduction, especially by in situ
technology. By doing so, longer term liabilities associated
with various failure modes of containment remedies can be
greatly reduced. Corporate accounting systems ignore such
liabilities. The insurance industry, large companies,
brownfield developers, and the government are currently
ignoring liabilities that inevitably will become all too real,
because pure containment reinedies are not permanently
effective.
INTRODUCTION
Driven by cost reduction the pendulum of remedy
selection has swung very far to pure containment cleanups.
But short term economic gains may be offset by longer term
financial liabilities. A host of failure modes exist for
containment remedies, and these ate not necessarily
prevented by ordinary operation and maintenance (O&M)
programs.
It was concern about these failure modes that caused
various changes in the CERCLA statute in 1986 that were
meant to cause greater use of treatment remedies leading to
permanent cleanups. For awhile treatment remedies became
prevalent But now there is a clear trend back to containment
only remedies. For example from FY 92 to FY94
containment only remedies at Superfund sites increased from
22% to 33% of source control Records of Decision, after
holding steady from FY88 for several years, following a
major decline from over 50% before the impact of the 1986
requirements for treatment remedies.(!) What the data do not
1
reveal is that early in the Superfund program many
containment only actions consisted entirely of offsite disposal
in landfills. But that stopped when the issue of Superfund
wastes going to landfills that themselves became Superfund
sites surfaced. Now, containment only remedies are typically
onsite actions.
Technology has not erased the fundamental failure modes
for containment methods. From a risk management
perspective, it is necessary to understand the choice between
reducing hazard versus reducing exposure. Pure containment
remedies only address exposure. A better balance can often
be reached between near and longer term costs by examining
how reducing hazard in combination with reducing exposure
can be used.
Another aspect of the current condition is that long term
liabilities are really not accounted for. Although some cost is
allocated to future operation and maintenance activities, these
do not really address the high costs for addressing major
failures of containment remedies. Companies that have paid
for containment cleanups are not carrying on their books any
appropriate environmental liability costs caused by the
remaining high hazards at the site.
HAZARD VS. EXPOSURE
A simple and fundamental way to define risk to public
health for any cleanup site is to formulate it as:
Risk = Hazard x Exposure
Hazard refers, for example, to the toxicity and amounts of
chemicals, and exposure to how much of a site contaminant
enters people through ingestion, inhalation, or dermal
exposure over time.
To simplify the fundamental choice in remedy selection,
a pure containment remedy only reduces risk by reducing
current or future exposure to whatever poses a hazard. The
risk management capability of a containment remedy depends
..
on some type of physical barrier between the hazard and
possible ecological or human receptors. In contrast, pure
treatment remedies reduce risk by reducing hazard through
use of some treatment technology, possibly in combination
with extraction technology, that removes or transforms the
initial source of hazard. Of course, the way to optimize both
risk and cost reduction is to envision how some combination
of hazard and exposure reduction can be used in cleanups.
It must also be recognized that extracting or removing a
hazard from a site followed by some form of containment
(e.g., land disposal) is not equal to hazard reduction from a
systems perspective, because the hazard ( and risk and
liability) is merely transferred to another location.
RISKY RISK ASSUMPTIONS
The problem with pure containment remedies is that they
assume that a certain level of risk is achieved through
effective containment elements. A New Jersey study
recognized this issue and resolved it intelligently. It proposed
that state remediation criteria "require an order-of-magnitude
more stringent standard when exposure controls are
employed. This concept was incorporated in recognition of
the fact that these controls may deteriorate and permanent
remedies are most desirable. In addition, a maximum
residual contaminant level must be achieved when exposure
controls are employed. This is to ensure that in the event of
a total failure of all exposure controls a minimum level of
environmental and public health protection is maintained.
This 'safety-net' imposes a more stringent requirement than
current regulations." (2) In fact, the maximum risk resulting
from failure of the exposure control remedy was specified as
1 o·◄ cancer risk or a hazard quotient of 3 for non-cancer
endpoints.
Moreover, the system envisioned would create
opportunities to remove all future liability. However, one
exception was that "TI1e severing of liability recommendation
does not apply to exposure control remediation alternatives."
Exposure controls were defined as "methods which prevent
contact between contaminants of concern and the human
population. Exposure controls include slurry walls, liners,
fences, ventilation, polymer or clay lined landfill, hydraulic
controls. and immobilization processes which may result in
future contaminant releases. Deed restrictions apply."
This sophisticated approach is very different than the
current Superfund approach and state programs, where pure
containment remedies are justified on the basis of poor
science and poor risk management. Ignoring the intrinsic
shortcomings of containment remedies is penny wise and
pound foolish.
Land Use
2
Another dimension to this problem is that when
containment remedies are used there is likely to be some
assumption on future use of the land. Whether the
assumption is industrial use for brownfield development or
no residential use, the problem is that there are few legal
guarantees that any such land use restriction will always be
implemented faithfully. EPA and state agencies may not
closely monitor or even be able to legally prevent future land
uses that are inconsistent with the original containment
remedy. This too poses a future liability for the party
responsible for cleanup. Moreover, there are major
uncertainties for brownfield development involving
industrial activities that may directly cause failure of the
containment remedy. Over time, site activities could
physically harm containment components.
Covers and Caps
An important example is the use of covers and caps placed
on top of contaminated soil For a containment remedy, it can
be assumed that there is no future human exposure because
of dermal contact, ingestion of contaminants, or inhalation of
contaminants. This is deemed equivalent to a treatment
remedy that would have removed and destroyed the
contaminants in the soil Essentially, the key assumption with
the containment solution is that there is zero concentration
of site contaminants in surface soils after placement of the
cap or cover.
The longer term liability that cannot be eliminated,
however, is that over time various failure modes can make the
soil contaminants accessible to humans. TI1ere must be a
finite probability that such a major failure will occur. No
technological component of a containment system can operate
at l 00% efficiency over all future times. Even the
assumption of a functioning operation and maintenance
program does not reduce the probability to zero. The reason
is that no such program is necessarily 100% effective for all
future times. A lack of funding as well as poor
implementation may occur. Or there may be some
catastrophic failure mode that even a good O&M program
will not prevent. O&M programs systematically
underestimate or ignore major repair, reconstruction, and
replacement needs, and financial accounting systems ignore
such costs.
The drive to reduce costs has resulted in decisions that
have changed the types of covers and caps used as key
containment elements. Whether the cover or cap is necessary
to prevent human exposure to contaminants, or whether it is
meant to prevent water infiltration and contamination of
groundwater, there are many negative scenarios for the
future. Instead of RCRA Subtitle C hazardous waste caps,
increasing numbers of remedies are based on plain soil
covers, soil and a flexible membrane liner (FML), or caps
..
where several feet of compacted clay are replaced by
geosynthetic clay liners (GCLs). Engineers have a tendency
to compare GCLs with compacted clay layers and focus only
on advantages of GCLs. They ignore various problems with
GCLs, including poor field construction and assembly and
various failure modes over time. Simple soil covers have
obvious limitations and provide no reliable long term
protection. The inclusion of an FML adds a degree of
protection, but there are a multitude of recogniz.ed failure
modes.
Subsurface Walls
Many pure containment remedies include subsurface
barrier walls to keep contaminated groundwater in and/or
clean groundwater out. No physical wall, however, can be
I 00% efficient as a water barrier over all future times. While
more technology has entered the field to allow walls to be
constructed in diverse geological conditions, a cost-cutting
tactic is to use partial walls. The concept here is that site
investigation information is deemed sufficient to design a wall
for a certain, limited length on the basis of known
groundwater flow.
For example, at the Agrico Chemical Superfund site in
Pensacola, Florida, the original Record of Decision prescribed
a full barrier wall around the site, as part of the remedy. • But
during remedial design it was changed to a relatively small
partial wall. EPA ignored concerns about the shallow water
table and climatic conditions leading to frequent heavy
rainfalls and flooding.
Natural Clay Layers and DNAPLs
Many containment remedies are based on a natural clay
layer in the subsurface acting like an engineered bottom liner
system in a landfill. The problem is that natural clay layers
are not I 00% efficient in stopping the movement of
contaminated groundwater downwards to deeper aquifers,
unless there is a consistent upward hydraulic gradient across
the clay layer. But for DNAPLs, even an upward gradient is
not necessarily effective in stopping the downward movement
of DNAPLs through the clay layer and into deeper aquifers.
(3) Increasingly, attempts to extract DNAPLs are rejected,
largely because of limits to pump and treat methods, making
the issue of eventual DNAPL movement more important.
The problem is that natural clay layers have pores that can
be large enough to permit DNAPL penetration and
movement, depending on the chemical composition and
amount of DNAPL. DNAPL penetration is a microscopic,
statistical phenomenon that is nearly impossible to document
directly. Too many environmental engineers make
assumptions that are not valid. For example, using average
pore siz.e rather than examining how the largest pores provide
transport pathways, and using average DNAPL heights rather
3
than larger values at specific locations.
Another aspect of natural clays is that engineers often
evaluate the permeability in order to demonstrate that natural
clays can offer sufficient containment of untreated wastes.
The problem is that virtually any type of laboratory testing of
clay permeability produces values that are much too low. The
problem is that either the clay is recompacted to form test
specimens or cored, undisturbed samples are tested so that
vertical permeability is determined. The issue is that in their
natural state clay layers are likely to have a layered structure,
including high permeability layers, such as sand lenses.
Laboratory testing done on undisturbed samples measures
vertical rather than three dimensional or horizontal
permeabilities, and testing of recompacted samples produces
still lower values because all natural high permeability
pathways are removed. The difference between permeability
values measure in situ and such laboratory values can be
several orders of magnitude. Laboratory data inevitably
predict a level of containment capability that is inaccurate and
misleading, especially if recompacted samples are used. In
some cases the exact containment function for a site may be
consistent with low vertical permeability obtained from cored
samples. But even here the problem is that a relatively large
number of samples are needed to accurately portray the
macroscopic variations in permeability in natural clay
formations.
· Groundwater Monitoring
All forms of environmental monitoring are exposure
detection, not directly exposure reduction. Proponents of
pure containment remedies, for which spread of contaminated
groundwater is an issue, place considerable trust in long term
groundwater monitoring to detect failures of the containment
remedy, including failures of caps/covers, bottom liners and
leachate collection systems, pump and treat systems, natural
clay layers, and subsurface barrier walls. It is important to
note that even the most engineered hazardous waste landfills,
meeting stringent regulatory requirements "utilize a flawed
technological approach for the development of a landfill
containment system that at best only postpones when
groundwater pollution occurs."(4) Few pure containment
remedies use technology comparable to such engineered
hazardous waste landfills.
There are many significant problems with long term
groundwater monitoring systems. These include: too few
monitoring wells to be effective; deterioration of wells over
long times; use of chemical testing methods with detection
limits that are too high to detect the first indications of
contamination; failures of long term O&M programs to
function as originally designed.
TECHNOLOGY FOR HAZARD REDUCTION
The alternative to pure containment remedies are ones
that include a sensible, cost-effective degree of hazard
reduction through judicial use of in situ extraction or
treatment technology. The point is that addressing a relatively
small portion of a cleanup site can greatly reduce hazard and
future liability. The philosophy of this approach is to
recognize that what makes a containment remedy a liability
are contaminants that, in the event of containment failure, are
the most likely to cause environmental damage or human
health risks. Hence, it is contaminant mobility and toxicity
that matter most.
It is not necessary to attempt to address all site
contaminants of concern, as in a traditional treatment remedy,
but only to reduce a large fraction of the intrinsic site hazard
through cost-efficient use of in situ technology. With
virtually all in situ technologies the greatest cost efficiency is
in the early stages of implementation, when the amount of
contaminants extracted or treated per unit time is the greatest.
In traditional source control treatment remedies technologies
are pushed to extremes to satisfy stringent cleanup standards,
and 80% of costs may be for addressing the last 20% of
contaminants. Hazard reduction looks at the converse, trying
to address 80% of the contaminants at 20% of the cost. The
goal is to increase the cost of the containment remedy
proportional to the amount of reduction in long term liabilities
accomplished by the hazard reduction.
Consider a simple representation of total remedy costs
under two conditions:
Containment only: total cost= CS + Pf(F)
Containment plus hazard reduction:
total cost= CS+ HR+ Pf(FJ
CS= cost of containment remedy
Pf = probability of major containment failure
F = cost of major failure, containment only
Fh = cost of major failure, with hazard reduction
HR = cost of hazard reduction
While CS and Pf may be assumed equal, Fh will be much less
than F. The goal is to have HR+ Pf(FJ be much less than
Pf(F), so that total remedy cost is reduced through hazard
reduction.
For example, consider a pure containment remedy based
on a cap to address health risks related to contact with or
ingestion or inhalation of site contaminants, chiefly VOCs,
with a total cost of $5 million. Limited use of SVE in a
portion of the site, to extract some 50% of the site's voes,
adds $1.5 million. The question is whether this incremental
4
cost increase makes sense in terms of the reduction in long
term liabilities. Clearly, if the site was located in a remote
area, it would not be sensible. But for a site in a populated
urban or suburban area likely to undergo increasing economic
development, it would make sense, because any future
releases of VOCs could cause serious consequences,
including public health risks, civil suits and emergency
responses, that would cause a high cost of containment
failure.
Repair of the containment system, possible use of
excavation, and potential civil litigation costs could easily
exceed $10 to $50 million. It was exactly this logic and
scenario that motivated a citizen group to want intentional
VOC extraction at the Brio Refining Superfund site in
Houston. Large amounts of buried VOCs were in discrete
pits and the containment remedy was based on a cap and full
subsurface wall.
One approach is to define hot spots of contamination for
which a traditional ex situ treatment remedy would be used.
Although there has been some attention to defining hot spots,
such as in EPA's guidance for municipal solid waste landfills
(5), for the most part bot spots are underutilized. Part of the
problem is that it can be difficult to use site investigation data
to accurately define hot spots. In many cases, the site may be
much too large or complex to even imagine seeking bot spots.
More attention can be given to using site investigation
methods that are effective in defining subsurface
contamination levels, such as soil gas testing for VOCs.
When subsurface sampling is necessary, defining hot spot
boundaries is difficult, but not impossible.
lfhot spots can be reasonably defined, then either in situ
technology, such as soil vapor extraction (SVE) or in situ
stabilization/solidification, or excavation followed by off site
treatment should be examined. At the Bailey Superfund site
in Texas, a remedy based on complete soil/buried waste
treatment plus some containment was replaced with a
containment remedy that addressed some hot spots.
Another approach is to examine how in situ technologies
can be used as a component to a containment remedy for the
entire site. The key concept to use is that a technology does
not necessarily have to be used to achieve stringent cleanup
levels determined on the basis of risk assessment. Instead, it
can be practical to examine bow the in situ technology can
achieve a major reduction in hazard with less extensive
application. For example, SVE can be used to extract a major
amount of VO Cs and then stopped, once removal rates drop
substantially ( even after pulsing), rather than used for long
times to achieve some concentration of specified VOCs in the
subsurface soil In other words, the in situ technology can be
used not as a source control method, but as a component of a
containment remedy. Air sparging can also be applied in this
manner.
Some engineers hope for haZMd reduction through natural
degradation processes. But rarely is there data to support a
predictable, reliable amount of toxicity loss over periods
likely for containment failure.
CONCLUSIONS
Overreaction seems to be a historic hallmark of
environmental activities. The reaction in the late 1980s and
early 1990s to high cleanup costs has been excessive use of
pure containment remedies. Pure containment remedies are
replacing treatment remedies selected previously, as well as
being selected in new cleanup decisions. Such remedies are
not "permanent'' in any sense, because they leave the original
hazards associated with hazardous substances intact at the
site. By not reducing hazards, pure containment remedies
pose long term risks and liabilities.
Long term containment liabilities are currently being
ignored from a financial perspective. A more effective
strategy is to balance the low costs of containment methods
with some hazard reduction. The incremental cost of hazard
reduction needs to be balanced against the high, uncertain
costs of containment failure and consequent liabilities for
additional remediation and possible civil litigation. Ordinary
O&M programs do not remove these longer term risks and
liabilities of pure containment remedies.
Environmental firms conducting Feasibility Studies and
Remedial Designs should give more attention to use of
hazard reduction components of containment remedies, and
where appropriate sound value engineering type analysis to
support higher short term costs because of long term benefits.
Even with using reasonable uncertainties for future costs, it
is possible to estimate costs and benefits to establish the
boundaries of sensible hazard reduction measures as part of
containment remedies.
REFERENCES
(1) EPA, Innovative Treatment Technologies: Annual
Status Report, EPA-542-R-95-008, 1995.
(2) Draft Report of the Environmental Risk Assessment
and Risk Management Study Commission, New Jersey, Nov.
1995.
(3) Hirschhorn, J. S. Do Natural Clay Layers Really Stop
DNAPL Penetration?, Proceedings Superfund/HazWaste
West, May 1996, pp.59-67.
(4) Lee, G. F. and Jones, A, Superfund Site Remediation
by On-Site RCRA Landfills: Inadequacies in Providing
5
Groundwater Quality Protection, Proceedings
Superfund/HazWaste West, May 1996, pp.313-329.
(5) EPA. Conducting Remedial Investigations/Feasibility
Studies for CERCLA Municipal Landfill Sites, EPA/540/P-
91/001, 1991.
ECO LOGIC
Media Relea!e, ELI Eco Logic Inc.
Toronto, Ontario
TSE Trading S)mbol for Common Sham: ELI
CDN TradinJ S)n1bol for Warrants; ELII.WT.A
I I I\.JI ,._ 1,v. • G.U ~OV ... U....JC-V \.J\.,,I,• ~V ~JJ\..J -~•"'-111 II 1 _,
.s-J.,,,.t.l
TOXIC CHEMICAL
5PfCIAU5T5
For /mmediatt Rt/east
Scptf!mbcr 2, 1996
ECO LOGIC AND WESTINGHOUSE TEAM FOR POTENTIAL BULK-SITE CHEMICAL
WARFARE AGENT DESTRUCTION
ELI Eco Logic Inc. ("ECO LOGIC") ond We$hnghouse Electric Corporation, Gov~nent and Environment.ii Services of
Pittsburgh. Pennsylvania have announced that they have signed II teaming agreement under which Westinghouse will act as prime
contractor, with ECO LOGIC as subcontractor, upon the ECO LOGIC technology being selected for an :iward of contract in the
U.S. Army's Alternative Technology Program for Chemical Worfnre Agent Destruction. ECO LOGIC and Westinghouse have
developed an approach which offers a sound alternative for application at the bulk chemical warfare agent focilitics at Newpon,
Indiana and Aberdeen. Maf)-la.nd.
The ECO LOGIC Process was initially selected in Novcmb« 1995 by the U.S. Army for further evaluation of its efficacy for the
destruction of chemical warf~ agents. The Company decided to tcrun with the best U.S. corporation tt, strengthen the breadth and
depth of its capability. Dr. Douglas Hallen, Chief Executive Officer of ECO LOGIC said, "ECO LOGIC and Westinghouse
believe that this integrated pl&nt concept will provide a viable altei,,ative method of meeting the Army's goals."
The US Anny has been sedcing alternative technologies mature enough to meet the needs of the Chemical Stockpile DispMal Program
for the safe disposal of HD ruid VX ~ agent stored at Abcn:leffl Ptovmg Ground, Maryland. and Newport Army Ammunition Plant,
lndi:ma. Based on the technological merits of the ECO LOGIC Pr0tt~S. it was one of only three private sector technologies selected
for furthcr evaluation by the U.S. National Research Council's Altcrnati,-e Technology Panel.
ECO LOGIC has released full independent test data to the U.S. Anny and the National Research Cmu1cil confirming destruction of
the Army's VX nerve agent, HD blister mustard and hydrolysed VX nerve 11!,'fflt. ECO LOGIC conducted its tests at the U.S. Army's
toxic test facility in Aberdttn, MarylMd. Not only were the destruction results e:<ccllent, but no harmful by-products were produced
· and the process water met applicable drinking w3tcr st:md:uds.
ELI Eco Logic Inc.' s business is to solve toxic chemical problems in a safe, pamanent, cost effective manner. The ECO LOGIC
Pro<:tsJ is an UUlQVlltive technology that converts on-site, organic hazardous wastes into reusable or di!-posable products. th.is non-.
incintration procc$S has gained high public and regulatory m:ceptance. ECO LOGIC's worldwide hv..ardous wnste cleanup marL:et
includes PCBs, electrical equipment, contnminntcd soils, chtmical warfare agents, petrochemical wastes, certain low level rndio;icrive
mi."ed wastes, and mwiicip,d sludge.
-30-
Plc:ise contact:
Maggie Treanor
Assigtant to the President / lnvestor Relntions
.ELI Eco Logic Inc.
143 Dennis Stxeet
Rockwood, Ontario · NOB 2KO
Telepho11e: (5 l 9) 856-959 l
f;icsimile: (S 19) 856-9235
Web Site: http://ww'-'·.eco-logie-inll.eom
Email: [e-mail]
143 Dennis SI., Rockwood, Ontario, Canada, NOB 2KO
Rockwood (5191 856-9591
Fax [phone]
FROM LEM La VARDERA PHONE MO.
'
2016640328 Oct. 10 1996 02:07PM P2
TOXIC CHEMICAL
SPECIALISTS
ECO LOGIC -------(«)
Press Release, ELI Eco Logic Inc.
Toronto, Ontario
TS!! Trading Symbol for Common Shares: ELI
CDN Trading Symbol for Warrants: Elli. WT .A
For Immediate Rclt!tUe
September l4, 1996
PILOT SUPERFUND REMEDIATION CONTRACT AWARDED TO ECO LOGIC AND SAIC
ELI Eco Logic Inc. ('ECO LOGIC'") announced todoy that it has been awarded • contract for pilot-scale testing en the ECO
LOGIC Process at the New Bedford Harbor Superfund Site in Massachusetts. A pilot-tteale unit will be taken to New Bedford in
early November for seven days of on-site testing. The contract. valued at USS 235,580, has been issued by Fos~ Wheeler
Environmental, lnc., the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Supcrfund cleanup contractor in EPA Region 1, to ECO LOGIC
~ itJ U.S. strategic marketing partner, Science Applications lntenuitional Corporation ("SAIC").
Art Shattuck, Vice Preside:nr of SAIC, indicated, "Based on successful pilot-scale testing mults at the New Bedford Horbor Supcrfund
Si~. ECO LOGIC will be a leading candidate for the cleanup of the reported 14,000 cubic yards of PCB contaminated sediment"
Dr. Douglas J. Hallett, ECO LOGIC'! CEO, noted, "Tius represents ECO LOGIC's first entry into the U.S. Supetfund nwket.
1he ECO LOGIC Process is already commercfally available for the remediation of the New Bedford Harbor Supetfund site." The
New Bedford Harbor Supcrfimd Site pollutants, namely, PCBs, PAHs, and metals, are the same pollutants which the ECO LOGIC
_ l'roc:cu bu previously treated and des1Joym n,e ECO LOGIC Process. a non-incineration process, has been previously validated
and pmnitted in the United S~te!, 01.nada, and Austrolia. Significantly, it was nmuated f'or Superfund Site cleanup by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency under its Superfund IMovative Technology EYaJuation Program. It is now commercialized wilh
two units c:onmuctcd and operating for industrial clients in Ausaalia and Canada.
ELI Eco Logic Inc.·• business is to solve toxic chemical problems in a safe, permanent, cost effective mannei. The ECO LOGIC
l'roc.ess is an innovative technology that converts on-site, organic haurdow wastes into reusable or disposable product!!. This non-
incinc:ration ~ 1w gained high public and Jeb'Ulatory ac«ptant':. ECO LOGIC', worldwide hazardous waste clcunup market
includes PCBs, electrical equipmmt, rontamirultcd soil!, c.hcmical warfare egc:nts, petrochemical wastes, certain low level 1adioactive
mixed wastes, and municipal sludge.
-30-
Please contact
Maggie Treanor
Assist:mt to the President/ Investor Relations
ELI Eco Logic Inc.
143 Dennis Street
Rockwood, Ontario NOB 2KO
Telephone; (S 19) 856-9591
f:icsimilc: (S 19) 856-923.S
Web Site: http://www.eco-logic-intl.com
Emnil: [e-mail]
143 Dennis St., Rockwood, Ontario, Canada, NOB 2KO
Rockwood [phone]
Fax [phone]
PROPOSAL NO. __ §. Q __ Issue Date: 1995 ---
N C DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT HEAL TH AND NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF GENERAL SERVICES
Request for Proposal
for
Closing Date: -----"'--'-'19~9'-=5
Send all proposals directly to:
(if using U.S. Postal Service)
(if proposal is transmitted by
a courier service such as UPS,
Federal Express, etc. send to)
Time: 2:00 p.m.
NC Department of Environment
Health and Natural Resources
Division of General Services
Post Office Box 27687
Raleigh, N. C. 27611-7687
Attn: Doris E. Strickland
NC Department of Environment
Health and Natural Resources
Division of General Services
225 N. McDowell St., Room 6013
Raleigh, N. C. 27603
Attn: Doris E. Strickland
Please note the proposal number and closing date on the bottom left hand comer
of your return envelope.
PART I
SOLICITATION INSTRUCTIONS
1.1 This request for proposals (hereinafter referred to as ("RFP") solicits
proposals for contractual services pursuant to Section 1 NCAC SD .0300-
.0509 of North Carolina Administrative Code .
Mark outside of return envelopes: Reply to __ § Q __
1.2 Using Agency
The services solicited herein shall be performed for:
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
1.3 Issuing Agency
Department of Environment, Health , and Natural Resources
Division of General Services
225 N. McDowell Street
P.O. Box 27687
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687
Attention : Doris E. Strickland
Telephone: [phone]
1.4 Copies of this request for proposals will be distributed only by mail or they
can be obtained in person from Room 6013, Cooper Building , 225 N.
McDowell St., Raleigh, NC 27603 .
1.5 Sealed proposals subject to the terms and conditions made a part hereof
will be received at the address specified in 1.3 until 2:00 p.m. 1995.
1.6 Refer technical inquiries to address/person specified in 1.3.
1.7 Pursuant to Article 3 and 3C, Chapter 143 of the North Carolina General
Statutes and Executive Order No. 77 , the State invites and encourages
participation in this procurement by businesses owned by minorities, women
and the disabled including utilization as subcontractors to perform
functions under this Request for Proposals.
1.8 Subcontracting: Offerers may propose to subcontract portions of the work
provided that their proposals clearly indicate what work they plan to
subcontract and to whom and that all information required about the prime
contractor is also included for each proposed subcontractor.
1.9 Performance and Default: The State reserves the right to require a
Performance Bond or other suitable performance guarantee from the
successful offeror as provided by law without expense to the State . In case
of default by the contractor, the State may procure the services from other
sources and hold the Contractor responsible for any excess cost
occasioned thereby.
1.1 O Pricing: If either a unit price or an extended price is obviously in error and
the other is obviously correct, the incorrect price will be disregarded . The
right is reserved to accept other than the lowest priced proposal as r,iay be
determined to serve the best interest of the State Agency.
1.11 Specifications: Any deviation from specifications indicated herein must be
clearly pointed out; otherwise, it will be considered that the proposal offered
is in strict compliance with these specifications, and the successful offerer
will be held responsible therefor. Deviations must be explained in detail on
an attached sheet(s).
1.12 Exceptions: All proposals are subject to the terms and conditions outlined
herein. All responses will be controlled by such terms and conditions and
the submission of other terms and conditions and/or other documents as
part of an offerer's response will be waived and have no effect either on
this Request for Proposals or on any contract that may be awarded
resulting from this solicitation. The attachment of other terms and
conditions by an offerer may be grounds for rejection of that offerer's
proposal.
1.13 Award: All qualified Proposals will be evaluated and acceptance made on
the Proposal judged by the Contracting Agency to constitute the best value
offered for the purpose intended . Evaluation will be based on the offerers
qualifications, experience, similar related experience, past periormance,
financial standing, labor supply, hours offered, references , cost and overall
demonstrated ability to perform the service required . The Contracting
Agency reserves the right to contract with more than one offerer to provide
the services described herein.
1.14 No Bid/Offer: Unless a response , in the form of either a proposal or a
written decline to offer a proposal, is received , offerer's name may be
removed from the applicable mailing list.
1.15 Cost for Proposal Preparation: The State will not reimburse offerers for
costs incurred in the preparation and submission of a proposal .
1.16 Offeror's Representative for Business Purpose: The name, mailing
address, and telephone number of th€ offerer's authorized agent with
authority to bind the firm and answer official questions concerning the
offerer's proposal must be clearly stated .
1.17 Time for Consideration: Preference may be given to proposals allowing not
less than 30 days for consideration and acceptance.
1.18 Telegraphic Offers: Telegraphic, telecopy and facsimile offers will not be
considered; however, offers may be modified by such means , providing
such notice is received prior to the date and time of bid opening above
specified, and provided a signed original follows.
1.19 Any explanation desired by an offerer regarding the meaning or
interpretation of the RFP, attachments , specifications, etc. must be
requested in writing and with sufficient time allowed for a reply tc reach
offerors before the submission of their offer. Oral explanation of
instructions given before the award of the contract will not be binding. Any
information given to a prospective offerer concerning the RFP will be
furnished to all prospective offerers as an amendment to RFP, if such
information is necessary to offerers in submitting offers on the RFP or if the
lack of such information would be prejudicial to uninformed offerors .
1.19.1 Acknowledgement of Amendments to RFP : Receipt by an
offeror of an amendment to this RFP must be acknowledged
by including a copy of the amendment with offerer's proposa l.
1.20 The successful offerer shall provide adequate facilities , labor, equipment.
services, supervision and lay days to meet all conditions of the contract
specifications.
1.21 Liability: The successful offerer Shall assume liability for damage or loss
resulting from the wrongful act(s) and/or negligence of its employees wh ile
engaged in the performance of the contract. The contractor or its insurer
shall reimburse the Contracting Agency for any such damage or loss with in
30 days after a claim is submitted .
1.22 Insurance: The successful offerer shal l at its sole cost and expense
procure and maintain in full force and effect during the term of the contract
from an insurance company duly authorized to do business In North
Carolina , insurance as appropriate for the conduct of the contract
1.22.1
1.22.2
1.22.3
1.22.4
Worker's Compensation Insurance covering all of contractor's
employees who are engaged in any work under the contract.
Public Liability Insurance in the amount of $300,000 .00 and
Property Damage Insurance in the amount of $100,000.00.
Automobile bodily injury and property damage liability
insurance when the services to be performed require the use
of motor vehicles.
Fidelity bonding (Honesty Bonding )
Contractor shall furnish the State a certificate evidencing required insurance
coverage prior to commencing work. All certificates of insurance shall
provide that the insurance company will give customers fifteen (15) days
written notice prior to cancellation or any change in stated coverage of an y
such insurance. All insurance shall rema in in effect for the duration of the
contract.
Failure to provide current Certificates of Insurance to the Contracting
Agency as required, during the term of this contract will be considered
default and the contract may be cancelled.
1.23 Laws: The contractor shall comply with laws, ordinances, codes, ruIes an d
regulations bearing on the conduct of the work including Federal , State and
local agencies having jurisdiction. This shall include, but not be limited to ,
minimum wages, labor and equal employment opportunity laws .
1.24 Each offeror is cautioned that the State is not obligated to ask for or accept,
after the closing date for the receipt of proposals , data which is essential for
a complete and thorough evaluation of the proposals. The State of North
Carolina may award a contract based on in itial offers received w ithout
discussion of such offers. Accord ing ly, each initial offe r should be
submitted on the most favorable and complete price and technical terms
which the offerer can submit to the State .
1.25 The State reserves the right to accept or reject any and all proposa ls; to
waive any informality in proposals: and , unless otherwise specified by the
offerer, to accept any item in any proposa l
1.26 Confidentiality: In submitting its proposal the offerer agrees not to discuss
or otherwise reveal the contents of the proposal to any source outs ide of
the using or issuing agency, government or priva te, until after the awa rd of
the contract. Offerers not in compl iance with this provis ion ma y be
disqualified, at the option of the State , from contract awa rd. Only
discussions authorized by the issu ing age ncy are exempt from th is
provision.
1.27 Proprietary Information: All proposa ls, after the award of the contract, wil l
be open for public inspection . Trade secrets or similar proprietary data
which the offerer does not wish disclosed to other than personnel involved
in the evaluation or contract administration will be kept confidential to the
extent permitted by NCAC T01 :058.1501 and G.S. 132-1.2. Each page
shall be identified in boldface at the top and bottom as "CONFIDENTIAL".
Any section of the proposal which is to remain confidential shall also be
marked in boldface on the title page of that section. Cost information and
certain other information essential to the evaluation of the proposal may not
be deemed confidential.
1.28 Advertising: In submitting its proposal , the offeror agrees not to use the
results therefrom as a part of any news release or commercial advertising
without prior written approval of the Division of Purchase and Contract and
the using agency.
PART II
SCOPE OF WORK
2.0 Background on Warren County PCB Landfill and detoxification commitment
2.0.l The State ofN.C. (State) owns and maintains a closed polychlorinated
biphenyl (PCB) chemical waste landfill permitted in accordance with the
Toxic Substance Control Act (TSCA) and 40 CFR Part 761. The landfill
is located in Warren County, N.C. (Attachment 1 &IA)
2.0.2 The State is committed to detoxification of the landfill utilizing
appropriate and feasible technology.
2.0.3 The State established a Joint Warren County/State PCB Landfill Working
Group (Working Group) to evaluate various technologies for
detoxification of the landfill.
2.0.4 The Working Group has determined that base catalyzed dechlorination
(BCD) technology is a potential appropriate and feasible technology for
detoxification of the landfill.
2.0.5 The Working Group has determined that information obtained from
multiple variations of BCD technology from pilot scale studies is essential
for final evaluation of the appropriateness and feasibility of BCD for full
scale detoxification of the landfill.
2.1 Goals and Objectives of BCD Pilot Scale Studies
2.1.1 A major objective of BCD Pilot Scale Studies is to determine the
appropriateness and feasibility of this technology for full-scale
detoxification of the PCB Landfill.
2.1.2 Appropriateness will be largely measured by the extent and degree of
success of BCD technology to detoxify the PCB Landfill contents. The
minimum goal for detoxification is to reduce PCB concentrations to less
than 2.0 ppm and a proportionate reduction in other chlorinated
constituents.
2.1 .3 Feasibility will primarily be determined by considerations for safety of the
technology, rate of detoxification, cost per unit of detoxification and
reduction in long term potential for environmental releases from residuals
of the detoxification process.
2.1.4 The primary goal of the BCD Pilot Scale Studies is to provide the
technical data and a scientific basis for recommendations by the Working
Group to the State for full-scale detoxification of the PCB Landfill.
2.3 Characterization of PCB contaminated soils to be utilized for BCD Pilot Scale Studies
2.3.1 PCB contaminated soils are physically characterized in exhibit one.
Generally, the soils are coarse-grained, with less than 30% passing through
a #200 sieve. The liquid limit and plasticity index is 25 and 8
respectively. Total organic or humic content is less than 2%. Soils
provided for the pilot scale process will be relatively dry at approximately
gravity drainage moisture content. (Exhibit 1 & lA)
The surface 10 to 12 feet of PCB contaminated landfill soil is relatively
dry. PCB contaminated soils below this level are saturated with water.
The State intends to provide dry PCB contaminated soils from the upper
portion of the landfill for the pilot scale study. A major objective of the
pilot scale study is to provide sufficient data for evaluation of BCD
technology on a full scale basis. There may be a significant difference in
interpreting between a pilot scale and full scale process and dry and
saturated soils. Each respondent is requested to provide information on
differences between using dry and saturated soils for the pilot scale study
and accuracy in projecting or estimating the applicability to full scale
projects. If there is an essential need to utilize wet soils in the pilot scale
study, the respondent must indicate this in the proposal.
2.3.2 PCB contaminated soils are chemically characterized in exhibit two. The
average concentration of PCB is approximately 350ppm with a range of
150 to almost 900ppm. The PCB is a mixture of PCB congeners with
approximately 61 wt% Arochlor 1260, 27 wt% Arochlor 1254 and 12 wt%
Arochlor 1242. Other chemicals including chlorinated benzenes, furans &
dioxins are present in ppb or ppq concentrations. (Exhibit 2)
2.3.3 The State will provide sufficient volume/weight of PCB contamin.1ted
soils from the landfill to complete the pilot scale project. All respondents
must submit the minimum and maximum amount of soils needed for the
project.
2.4 Location of Warren County PCB Landfill
2.4.1 The Warren County PCB Landfill is located approximately 45 miles
northeast of Raleigh, N.C. in Warren County.
2.4.2 A vicinity map is enclosed in exhibit three.
2.4.3 Pilot scale detoxification studies will be performed at the PCB Landfill
site.
2.5 PCB Landfill Site Visit and Pre-Proposal Conference
2.5.1 A pre-proposal conference will be held two weeks after the request for
proposals (RFP) is noticed to potential respondents. A model contract is
attached (Attachment 2) for discussion at the pre-proposal conference.
2.5.2 A site visit will be provided two weeks after the RFP is noticed to
potential respondents.
2.5.3 Specific times and dates will be established at the time the RFP is noticed.
2.5.4 Attendance at the site visit and pre-proposal conference is preregµisite to
consideration of the offerers' proposals.
2.6 Process and Procedures For Implementation of Pilot Scale BCD Studies
2.6.1 The PCB Landfill is subject to TSCA regulations. BCD is considered a
research and development technology or an alternative method of disposal
under TSCA and 40 CFR 761 regulations. Respondents must submit an
application for approval of the project as an alternative method of PCB
disposal to the State and US EPA Region IV in accordance with 40 CFR
761.
2.6.2 Approximately 30 days will be allowed for respondents to submit an
application for BCD as an alternative PCB disposal method. The actual
schedule for submittal of the application will be negotiated during the pre-
proposal conference.
2.6.3 The State will facilitate and administratively support respondents' efforts
to obtain US EPA approval.
2.6.4 The US EPA Region IV has committed to provide reasonable priority to
make a decision on respondents' applications. The approximate schedule
for EPA to make a decision is 90 days. The quality and completeness of
applications will influence this schedule.
2.6.5 The following documents are enclosed to assist respondents in submitting
an application for alternative methods of PCB disposal.
Draft Guidelines for Pennit Applications and Demonstration Plans for PCB Disposal by Non-
thennal Alternative Methods: Fr (48) /62/Wednesday, March 30, 1983, 40CFR Part 761
Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCB's)
Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCB's) Procedural Amendment of the Approval Authority for PCB
Disposal Facilities and Guidelines for Obtainim: Approval
Quality Assurance and Quality Control Procedures for Demonstratin2 PCB Destruction in Filing
for a PCB Disposal Permit, June 28, 1983
Interim Guidelines and Specifications for Preparin2 Quarterly Assurance Project Plans, Dec 29
1980
40 CFR Part 761 -Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCB's) Manufacturing, Processing, Distribution in
Commerce and Use Prohibition
2. 7 Evaluation/Selection Criteria
2.7.1 Adequate response to information required for evaluation by Working
Group.
2. 7 .2 Adequate submittal and State and EPA approval of Pilot Scale BCD
proposal as an alternative PCB disposal method. Respondents must obtain
EPA and State sWproval prior to bein~ considered for contractin~ with the
State for implementin~ the Pilot Scale Study.
2. 7 .3 Respondents shall submit a description of their business structure and a
compliance history document including:
Business Structure -Brief description of form of business to
include partnerships, corporation or other names, addresses and
titles of all officers, directors or partners of any parent or
subsidiary corporation, partnership or other form of business.
Names, addresses and titles of any projects or facilities constructed
or operated by the applicant.
Compliance History Documentation -

A

list describing any notice
of violation, warning or any other enforcement action taken against
any person or facility identified above. This includes any
administrative ruling or order issued by any state, federal or local
law, regulation or ordinance related to waste management
environmental protection regulations.
2. 7.4 Respondents shall submit documentation of experience with the proposed
technology including:
List of all projects initiated, implemented, completed with same or
similar materials;
Contacts/evaluations from federal/state/local oversight agencies on
these projects;
2.7.5 Respondents shall submit a Health and Safety Plan specific for the
initiation, operation and closure of the project. The plan shall include
demonstration of safe work practices, site sanitation, and on-site
communication and security.
2. 7 .6 Respondents shall submit documentation and other information to describe
personnel qualifications for personnel implementing the project including:
Academic qualifications
Specific experience of individuals assigned to projects with similar
contaminants
Company safety training requirements
Include all proposed sub-contractors.
2. 7. 7 Respondents shall submit Financial Assurance Documents and
information including:
Financial statement on strength of organization
Ability to provide performance bond, letter of credit, trust fund, or
insurance
Past enforcement/utilization implementation of financial assurance
mechanisms.
2.7.8 Respondents shall submit a Monitoring Capability/ Capacity Plan
including:
Sample/analysis arrangements
Statistical tests to be used for data, precision and accuracy of
selected test, verification of all results of pilot scale project
Ability to monitor releases from planned and unplanned events
Soil, air, surface water/groundwater capability
Experience developing and implementing QA/QC plans.
2.7.9 Respondents shall submit a complete cost analysis/estimate of the project
including:
Cost per unit of material
Cost per unit of decomposition
Cost of management of residuals
Site restoration/decontamination cost estimates
Cost of mobilization to and on site
Total itemized cost of project, including all items considered
essential by the respondent.
2. 7 .10 Respondents shall submit documentation and information on any history
of cost over runs on projects where the original contracted costs were
exceeded. The reason or basis for any cost over runs or excedanc~s shall
be submitted.
2. 7 .11 Respondents shall submit time lines and schedules for implementing the
project. This schedule shall include all aspects of the project from initial
granting of the contract through decontamination and removal of
structures and devices utilized in the project.
2.7.12 Respondents shall submit documentation and other information on current
and previous experiences in responding to public and citizen concerns and
include:
History of working with community groups (proactive efforts,
communication, management of complaints)
Presence/capability of staff/personnel for public relations
"Desire" -commitment to public relations and participation
before, during and after project completion.
2.7.13 The Working Group will review all information and make a
recommendation for selection of respondents to the State.
2.7.14 The State reserves the right to select more than one offeeor and award a
contract(s) to other than low bid.
2.8 Deliverables To State
2.8.1 All information requested in sections 2.0 through 2. 7.
2.8.2 Interim progress reports, monitoring data and other information requested
by the Working Group
2.8.3 A final report on the BCD Pilot Scale Project upon completion of the
study.
2.8.4 A report of all aspects of BCD technology required for consideration to
scale the process up to full scale detoxification of the PCB Landfi]. The
report shall provide data and sufficient technical and cost information that
can be technically and scientifically verified through a peer review
process. The report shall be of sufficient quality to present to the General
Assembly ofN.C. for consideration of funding a full scale BCD process
for detoxifying the PCB Landfill.
2.8.5 The report on full scale applicability shall include at least the following:
Overall protection of human health and the environment.
Short tenn effectiveness and impact on community, environment,
and workers during implementation of full scale operation.
Reduction of Toxicity and mobility due to treatment, degree of
irreversible treatment, and characteristics of residuals.
Lon2 tenn effectiveness -residual risk and management, and
reliability of residual management control.
Implementability -ability to construct and operate proposed BCD
technology, reliability of BCD proposals for full scale
detoxification, ability to monitor releases, effectiveness of full
scale BCD on the PCB Landfill, and ability to obtain regulatory
approval of full scale BCD process at the PCB Landfill.
Qlfil -including capital cost, operating and maintenance cost, cost
per unit of containment, and total cost of full scale BCD treatment
of the PCB Landfill.
2.9 Anticipated Sequence of Activity and Schedule for Pilot Scale Studies
2.9.1 Notice to potential respondents (Day 1).
2. 9 .2 Pre-proposal conference and site visit ( + 14 Days).
2.9.3 Respondents submit application for alternative PCB disposal and all
information required by Working Group for evaluation/selection (+30
Days).
2.9.4 Respondents receive decision from US EPA on application for altt!rnative
PCB disposal (+120 Days).
2.9.5 State negotiates fixed cost contract with respondents that receive US EPA
approval for alternative PCB disposal method (+125 Days).
2.9.6 Respondents mobilize on PCB Landfill site and initiate Pilot Scale Study
(+155 Days).
2.9.7 Respondents complete Pilot Scale Study (+245 Days).
2.9.8 Working Group reviews and makes recommendations to State (+300
Days).
2.9.10 All the above may be significantly modified by negotiation with
respondents and events beyond the control of the respondees or the State.
The State and Working Group are committed to ensuring that the process
is implemented on as rapid a track as practicable.
NAMES AND ADDRESSES OF VENDORS FOR RFP/CONTRACT FOR
BIOREMEDIATION OF PCB LANDFILL
Mitchell, Alicia
IT Cooperation
3710 University Drive
Suite 201)
Durham, NC 27707
Phone# [phone]
Fax# [phone]
Hutton, Joe
Soil Tech
800 Canonie Drive
Porter, IN 46304
Steven C. Lewis
Aquaterra
PO Box 37579
Raleigh, NC 27627-7579
Phone# [phone]
Fax# [phone]
Barbee, Thomas
Groundwater Technology Inc
1000 Perimeter Park Dr
Suite I)
3107 South Elm Eugene St
Morrisville, NC 27560
Phone# [phone]
Fax# [phone]
Noles, Jim
Four Seasons Env, Inc
3107 South Elm Eugene St
Greensboro, NC 27406
Phone# [phone]
Loren Martin
ETG Environmental
660 Sentry Parkway
Blue Bell, Pa 19422
Phone# [phone]
Fax # [phone]
I I I I I
I I I
I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I
I I
I I
I I I
I
I
I I I ' ' ' I
' \
\
\ \
\ \
\
\ \ \
\
, , , , , , , , , , ,
I I I
I I
I I
I I I I I I
I
I
I
I
I I I
I --------------1-----
Raleigh
45 mi
1
I
I
I
I
I I
SR1613
N
,
, , , , , , ,
I I I I I
SR1604
', ',
,
I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I
SR1604
----~-----,_ __
-----I I I
I I
I --------------J----------
, ...
1
I
I
I
' \
...... .........
\ 1.2
I
I
I
I I Access:
Road : \ I
\ :
\ I
\ : ',
',, SR1605 ,
', I
', I ',, 1.-ne --· ............. ______ !,. ____ _
I
I
I
--
I ... ......... ____ 3 ... ____ _ ____________ ....,._
ATTACHMENT 1 I
WARREN COUNTY PCB LANDFil.L SITE
ATTACHMENT lA
PART Ill
TECHNICAL PROPOSAL
3.1 Each offerer responding to this RFP should submit three (3) copie$ of a
statement of technical qualifications, detailing his firms ability to perf~•rm the
services required herein. The technical proposal should be in narrative form
and should include at a minimum the information outlined below.
3.1.1 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.
3.1.2 Information describing the size and organizational structure of the
offeror's firm.
3.1.3 Information describing how each requirement of the scope or work
will be addressed.
3.2 Each offeror should submit a list of client names , type of program , type of
contract (including type of services produced) and inclusive dates of
contracts for similar work.
3.3 Each offeror shall propose a contract schedule and guaranteed completion
date and shall assure the Department that their firm is capable of
maintaining the schedules and meeting the deadlines that have been
established. Any schedule and deadline, once established by contract, can
only be adjusted by mutual consent of all parties thereto.
3.4 Each offeror should furnish complete professional services relating to the
preparation of the scope of work including materials and any necessary
subcontractors. The bid price offered will be a fixed price and shall include
all professional fees for services rendered as well as all incidental travel
and production expenses.
PART IV
FORM OF PROPOSAL
The undersigned bidder proposes and agrees if this proposal is accepted to contract with the
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources, Division of _______ to
furnish the services required herein, and to complete the scope of work as described in Part II
hereof. Services should be accomplished in full and complete accordance with the specifications
and contract documents to the full and entire satisfaction of the Division of ------with a definite understanding that no money will be allowed for extra work except as may be set
forth in written addendum to the contract, duly executed by all parties thereto.
The parties hereto agree that in consideration for performing all the requirements hereunder,
DEHNR shall pay the offerer $ ______ (to be filled in by offerer) for the services as
described herein, said sum to be full and complete compensation for the offerer's services
required herein. -
Pursuant to the provisions of G.S. 143-54, and under penalty of perjury, the signer of this
proposal certifies that this proposal has not been arrived at collusively nor otherwise in violation
of Federal nor North Carolina antitrust laws.
Name of Firm or Corporation submitting bid
Federal 1.0. Number --------------------------
By: ________________________________ _
Typed Name: ___________________________ _
Title: --------------------------------
Address: -------------------------------
Witness : -------------------------------Proprietorship or Partnership
Please indicate if one of the following applies:
Minority Owned/Controlled
Handicapped Owned/Controlled
ATTEST:
Women Owned/Controlled
By: _________________ _
Title: -----------------
Submitted this ____ , day of ________ , 1995
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTY OF WAKE
CONTRACT NO. _____ _
CONTRACTOR'S FEDERAL I.D.
OR SOCIAL SECURITY NO.
nns AGREEMENT, made and entered into this __ day of _______ _
, by and between ___________ , hereinafter referred to as
•CONTRACTOR", and North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural
Resources, hereinafter referred to as "DEPARTMENT";
WITNESSETH :
THAT WHEREAS, the CONTRACTOR has submitted to the DEPARTMENT a
proposal for the performance of ce~Jecbriical or professional services; and ,.·· ... ~<:::: < ... · ··•.• ··• ...
WHEREAS, the DEP,ARTMENTde.sires to eriterinto a contract with the
1. The CONTIO\C,:QJtb:~fet?,Y·agr~s toperfoririin a manner satisfactory to the
DEPARTMENT, the work reqffir~'foiJ:l~se~p.ial~4 Dechlorinization Pilot Scale Study as
described in Part n of the request for'JJl:pP~ ifon)ber " -.. _ .. ----
2. Performance of the tasks des.cil"bed in the request for proposal number __ _
require the following deliverables:
(a) Participation in formal and informal meetings as requested by the
State and Working Group during the Pilot Scale Study.
(b) Various verbal and written reports as needed or required by the
State, EPA and the Working Group.
(c) Submittal of application for alternative PCB disposal method .
(d) Periodic status reports on the Pilot Scale Study.
(e) Submittal of final reports on BCD Pilot Scale Studies .
ATTACHMENT 2
(f) Submittal of reports for full scale applicability and cost of BCD
technology to the detoxification of the PCB Landfill.
3. The Department of Environmental Health and Natural Resources
(DEPARTMENT) hereby agrees to pay the CONTRACTOR on a fixed cost basis. A c~:mtract(s)
will.only be negotiated with respondent(s) that are approved by the US EPA and State for
alternative PCB disposal method(s). Payments will be made within 30 days upon notification and
department concurrence for each completed task of the project. The tasks will include: approved
Pilot Scale Studies for R&D or alternative PCB disposal methods; mobilization on the PCB
Landfill site; implementation of the Pilot Scale Study; demobilization, decontamination and site
restoration; submittal of adequate reports on Pilot Scale Study; submittal of adequate reports on
Full Scale applicability and cost of BCD technology for detoxification of the PCB Landfill. For
each completed task, CONTRACTOR will bill up to 70 percent of the total task amount and
payment shall be made upon acceptance and approval by the DEPARTMENT. The final 30
percent payment shall be made upon acceptance and approval by the DEPARTMENT, of all data
and reports submitted by the CONTRACTOR in satisfying the scope of this contract. The
DEPARTMENT shall provide written notifi.fation within 10 working days of task or partial task
completion if work product(s) are not ... ~AAiiib~ and shall provide detailed explanation of what
revisions are requested or required fdFl yffient. PaYment for task completion to be paid from
funds available for obligation.µtjijlJ~ 36; 1296. Toifil ,p?,yment for completion of all tasks shall
not exceed ·-:::::ql~sedtipqg::a~pt;i,~pfCQJITRACTOR bid).
:i';'::~:~~~~s~~r~l~=••i:p:;:::, all
.. -•:::::::(;}:=::::::;. . ... •.•.•,•,• .....
5. The CO~C'f<;ijl·sljall1~entjfy alf~y pJffiiririel assigned for the performance
of this contract and not substitutek.eyp¢.riPrtn~f Withgµ{prior approval of the contract administrator. .,. ·• .. ;,>.. •· ••.···· ·
·=·:::::::=:::,.
6. None of the work to be perf~rifiecl under this contract shall be subcontracted
without the prior approval of the contract administrator. The contract administrator must
approve all subcontracts.
7. The tasks and services of the CONTRACTOR are to commence on or about
__ _ _ _, subject to direction by the DEPARTMENT and shall be undertaken and
completed in such sequence as to assure their expeditious completion in accordance with the
purposes of this agreement.
8. Specific CONTRACTOR tasks to be performed under this contract shall be
authorized on a task by task basis following submittal of specific workplans (including schedules
and cost of task(s)) by the CONTRACTOR; no task shall be initiated by the CONTRACTOR
until written authorization has been received by the DEPARTMENT Contract Administrator.
9. If completion of tasks, or any portion of a task, is delayed for causes beyond the
control of and without the fault of CONTRACTOR, and which could not have been reasonably
avoided or anticipated by the exercise of due care and prevention, the time of perfonnance of the
work will be extended for a period equal to the delay. Excusable delays shall include, without
limitation, acts of God or the public enemy; acts of federal, state, local or foreign governments;
acts ofDEPARTMENT's agents; fires, floods, epidemics; strikes; riots; freight embargot:.3; and
unusually severe weather. Such delays shall not be the result of labor or equipment shortages.
10. The CONTRACTOR shall furnish without expense to the DEPARTMENT a
Performance Bond or an irrevocable Letter of Credit equal to one hundred percent ( 100%) of the
cost of any and all tasks authorized by this contract or any amendment thereto. In case of default
by the CONTRACTOR, the DEPARTMENT may procure the services from other sources and
hold the CONTRACTOR responsible for any excess cost occasioned thereby.
11 . If, through any cause, the CONTRACTOR shall fail to fulfill in timely and proper
manner the obligations under this agreement, the DEPARTMENT shall there upon have the right
to tenninate this contract by giving written notice to the CONTRACTOR of such termination and
specifying the reason thereof and the effectiy~ date thereof. In that event, all finished or
unfinished documents, data, studies, sµq~y~/d~)Yings, maps, models, photographs, and reports
prepared by the CONTRACTOR shaii;!jf the optlonqfthe DEPARTMENT, become its property,
and the CONTRACTOR shall.~:!!ntW,~d i or ~ceive ju"sf-.vp equitable compensation for any
satisfactory work compw,~4 ._ort'Juir cto'du~ pfs:@lld ,~Jwrtn~rials. The CONTRACTOR shall
not be relieved of~f,pil1ty:~pthe•Q~?~!M£NT;[ob~hges sGstajped by the DEPARTMENT
by virtue of any brea6q9fth!$ agreemep(:•a:gq the Dlie.ARJMENT may ~m}:lpl~ payment to the
~~=~:::!.?ltf~~t c~!6~~:;i~~:d~•=t •~=1~,,.,:xa91, •• ~&unt'••8r damages due
•,•,:-::; ·•:<=:::/:'.::;
12. This con~;~bt:~,~~~pmp:;tedpy eit~p'iiriyo~6n sixty (60) days notice given
in writing by one party to the oth~::=:•'lf t~ contiacti$Jgfuinated, all finished or unfinished
documents and other materials shal(' atiffe <ip;iort Q{th·e bEP AR TMENT, become its property.
Tennination of the contract by the CO~,¢TOR.shall not prohibit the DEPARTMENT from
seeking remedy for additional costs consequerrt ial to the termination, which are incurred by the
DEPARTMENT. If the contract is terminated by the DEPARTMENT as provided herein, the
CONTRACTOR will be paid in an amount which bears the same ratio to the total compensation
as the services actually perfonned bear to the total services of the CONTRACTOR covered by
this agreement; for costs of work perfonned by subcontractors for the CONTRACTOR provided
tat such subcontracts have been approved as provided herein; or for each full day of services
perfonned where compensation is based on each full day of services perf onned, less payment of
compensation previously made. The CONTRACTOR shall repay to the DEPARTMENT any
compensation he has received which is in excess of the payment to which he is entitled herein.
13. The parties to this contract agree and understand that the payment of the sums
specified in this contract is dependent and contingent upon and subject to the appropriation,
allocation, and availability of funds for this purpose to the DEPARTMENT.
DEPARTMENT from all claims, demands, liabilities and suits of any nature whatsoever to the
extent they arise out of, because of, or due to the negligent or wrongful act or omission by the
CONTRACTOR, its agents or employees.
15. The DEPARTMENT may, from time to time, request changes in the scope of the
services of the CONTRACTOR to be performed under this agreement. Such changes, it.eluding
any increase or decrease in the amount of the CONTRACTOR'S compensation, which are
mutually agreed upon by and between the CONTRACTOR and the DEPARTMENT, shall be
incorporated in written amendments to this contract.
16. Any information, data, instruments, documents studies or reports given to or
prepared or assembled by the CONTRACTOR under this agreement shall be kept as confidential
and not divulged or made available to any individual or organization without the prior written
approval of the DEPARTMENT.
17. The filing of a petition in bankruptcy or insolvency by or against the
CONTRACTOR shall terminate this agreement.
18. The CONTRACTOR shall not assign or transfer any interest in this agreement.
19. No reports, maps or other documents produced in whole or in part under this
agreement shall be the subject of an application for copyright by or on behalf of the
CONTRACTOR.
20. It is agreed between the parties hereto that the place of this contract, its situs and
forum, shall be Wake County, North Carolina, and in said County and State shall all matters,
whether sounding in contract or tort relating to the validity, construction, interpretation and
enforcement of this agreement, be determined.
21. The CONTRACTOR agrees that the ST ATE may have the right to audit the
records of the CONTRACTOR pertaining to this contract both during performance and for 36
months after completion or termination. The CONTRACTOR must retain all records relating to
this contract and allow employees or agents of the DEPARTMENT to inspect such records
during the period of time set out herein.
22. The CONTRACTOR agrees that he shall be responsible for the proper custody
and care of any ST ATE owned property furnished him for use in connection with the
performance of his contract and will reimburse the State for its loss or damage.
23. William L. Meyer is designated as the Contract Administrator (project
coordinator) for the State. However, any changes in the scope of the contract which will increase
or decrease the CONTRACTOR'S compensation shall not be effective until they have been
approved by the DEPARTMENT Head or Authorized Agent.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the CONTRACTOR and the DEPARTMENT
have executed this agreement in duplicate originals, one of which is retained by ·
each of the parties, the day and year first above written.
CONTRACTOR
By ____________ _
Contractor's Signature
Typed Name
Title -----------( O w n er, Partner, or Corp.
Pres. or Vice-Pres. only)
WITNESS:
Signature
Approved as to Form:
Attorney General of North Carolina
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT, HEAL TH, AND
NATURAL RESOURCES
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
By ___________ _
Department Head's Signature
or Authorized Agent
WITNESS:
Signature
MODEL
PHYSICAL CHARACTERIZATION OF PCB CONTAMINATED SOILS IN WARREN COUNTY Physical Properties of Landfill Contents -Standard Soil Test Soil Class HM% WN CEC 85% Ac pH P-I K-I Ca% Mg% Mn-I Zn-I Cu-I Min 0.1 0.96 1.2 69 0.4 5.4 011 18 38.2 24.4 90 146 60 EXHIBIT 1
Physical Properties of Landfill Contents -Quality Test
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVJSJON OF HIGHWAYS
MA T£RlALS & TEST UNIT
SOILS UBORATORY
T.LP.IDNO.:
REPORT ON SAMPLES OF: SOIL FOR QUALITY
PROJECT: MISC. COUNTY: WARREN
DA TE SAMPLED: 07/28/94 RECEIVED: OH/01/94
SAMPLED FROM: PCB LANDFILL
OWNER:
.REPORTED: 08/0,&/9,&
BY: -
SUDMITT£D B\': 1990 STD. SPECIFICATIONS
TEST RES UL TS
08/12/94
PROJ. SAMPLE NO. Wl.,002-LC
LAD. SAMPLE NO. 587075
Retained #4 Sie,•e •/11 1
P:mine 1110 Sieve 9/e 9S
Passini! #40 Sie,·e % 71
Passinl! #200 Sieve % 28
MINUS #10 FRACTION
SOIL MOH.TAR -JOO%
Co:1ne S:111d H.el • #GO •/11 44
Fine S:md Rel -#270 % 30
Sill 0.05 • 0.005 mm •111 9
Cl:1y < 0.005 mm •111 J7
Passin!! #40 Sieve o/11 -
P:mine #200 Sieve % -LL .. 25
P.L I
MSHTO Classification A-l-4(0l
Texture
Station
Role No.
Dculh (Ft)
to
ORGANIC J.8
cc: -.....
SOIUFD..E
13
-/--~~::-6.~-~~~~«--....... Soi.h Engincc~
EXHIBIT lA
CHEMICAL CHARACTERIZATION OF PCB CONTAMINATED SOILS IN WARREN COUNTY
PCB (all congeners)
Chlorobenzene
1,3 Di-chlorobenzene
1 ,4 Di-chlorobenzene
Arsenic
Barium
Chromium
Lead
Average 350 ppm
(Range 151 to 880)
60 ppb
23.9 ppb
48 ppb
2 ppm◊
23 ppm◊
12 ppm◊
35 ppm◊
◊ TCLP results did not exceed standards.
EXHIBIT2