NCD980602163_19970324_Warren County PCB Landfill_SERB C_RFP - Evaluate Treatment Technology on Soils Extracted-OCR

8-22-1 S:lS:l6 I I : 1 3Pt 1
Jc( .
'fcj /L
Ff?Ot-1
f~tr_J(C/
v {?;j~
( Ma:rch 24, 1997 .............................................................................. by FAX (2 pages)
To: Mike KeUy
Working Group
Pat Bames
P. I
<,
·,:': nr.1 .
From: Joel Hfrschhom
Re: Summ:uy evaluation ofnvo technology testing proposals
As a result ofrevie\\::ing the proposals from ETG and Eco Logic I offer the fol1ovving conclusions
and comments.
l. Both companies have adequately responded to the RFP and have presented a sufficient case to
be considered for Phase I contracts. However, the overall quality and technical content of the
ETG proposal is not as good as the Eco Logic proposal.
2. As to pricing, the Phase I cost from ETG is high, $194,000 versus S 141,000 for Eco Logic. It
is not entirely clear why the ETG cost is so much higher. Eco Logic provided some hreakdov.,'n
of costs for Phase I, but ETG did not. An e:,.,,.'J)lanation given by ETG to me is that it ¼ill be using
a pilot scale unit rather t11an a laboratory, bench scale unit. But this also appears to be the case
for the Eco Logic work. And both companies have similar laboratory testing costs. The higher
cost ofETG by some $50,000 merits some attention. 1 recommend that the state askfor some
supporting i,~f ormation from ETG, at least si,nilar to the breakdown provided by Eco Logic
(p. 49j.
3. TI1e Phase TI cost proposals also raise some issues. TIJe ETG proposal at $89,000 may be
deceptively low, as compared to the $115,000 from Eco Logic, because ETG said that some
travel costs were not included. Moreover, ETG did not seem to include any labor costs for ETG
personnel for Phase II, but only its subcontractor !CF Kaiser. J recommend that the state seek
clarification 011 these issues from ETG.
4. A major difference between the proposals is that Eco Logic has paid considerable attention to
the entire area of community relations and risk communication, as well as future economic
development for the commu1.lity in full scale cleanup, by using a subcontractor, Guild, that is a
minority (African-American) owued 8-a type company with considerable ex"J)erieuce in working
\,vith low trnst!high concern emriro1unental situations and communities. This component of the
1
. -'
8 -22-1 ~➔~➔6 1 1 : I 4Pt 1
Eco Logic proposal is detailed in sections 5.3.2, 6.2, 7.3 and Attachment H. ETGJJas no
corrqJarable component to their proposal, even though it has considerably higher costs. It is my
understa.ndillg that Guild v.ill not attempt to market Eco Logic, but rather to ensme the
commnnity that its issues and concerns about the technology testing and full scale detoxification
are effectively identified and addressed by Eco Logic.
5. ETG has e:x.l)licitly stated that its test facility \\ill be open to inspection, but Eco Logic did not
make such a statement~ aJld the fact that Eco Logic testing \\-ill be done at au Anny faciljty in
Maryland raises some reasonable question about the ability to access the site to observe the
testing. I recommend that the state seek clarification on tlzis issue from Eco Logic.
6_ The issue of EPA TSCA pennits for the testing was addressed in each proposal, but
uncertainties remain for Eco Logic which said it ex.1>ects a permit by mid-April. On the positive
side, Eco Logic had a TSCA permit for its work in Bay City, Ml, and presumably should not face
obstacles ro getting a ne,\' permit for this tesring. For ETG, the EPA permit is from EPA Region
3, not Region 4, and was not given to ETG but to an affiliated company VFL. A deficiency in the
ETG proposal is the lack of details about its corporate/business strueture and its relationship to
other companies. Landfill waste pro\.ided to ETG would seem to have to go to VFL~ and the
question of whether the VFL permit legally covers testing by ETG me1its an answer from EPA. I
recommend that tlte state obtain an opinion from EPA Region 4 about this ETG siruarion.
7. I note that both firms have teamed with major emi:ronmental engineering firm.,;_ Although it
appears that Eco Logic's partner CDM has a significant preseuce iIJ North Carolina and an office
in Raleigh, while ETG's partner, ICF, does not have a local office. Several of the professionals
identified for CDM have worked on sites in North Carolina, and one of their senior people is
someone that I have worked with for several years for a. landfill in New York; he has
demonstrated very good skills in working with community interests.
2
I
I
ECO LOGIC
!
Febf ary 26, 1997
Mr. !Michael A. Kelly
I • Deputy Director
DiviliioD of Waste Management
Srat.J of Nort11 Carolina
P.0/ Box 27687
Ral~igh, North Carolina
276p-7687
l
-------le
I I SU JECT: Warren County, North Carolina Landfill Proposal No. PCB LF-4
Dea Mr. Kelly:
The purpose of this letter is to request some clarification regarding the requirements for the
Pha~e TI portion in the request for proposals.
I
On page 7 Section 2.1.1 of the RFP is the description of the Phase II portion of the project.
For /the purpos_es of_ our pro~os~J submis~ion, we would like to clarify that the technical and
coso proposal tor this Phase 1s tor deszgnzng full-scale cleanup rather than for actually
con~ucting fullpscale remediation of the landfill. In other words 1 should our cost proposal
incln.ide a cost breakdown for excavation, mobiliza6on and set-up, operations, and
den}obilization etc. or for the costs we would incur in developing a design ai1d operations plan
for [he site?
Cla ification of the above memioned would be greatly appreciated.
Sin ·erelv . '
JJ~
Sh~rri E. Woodland, B.Sc.
Project Development Coordinator
ELf Eco Logic International Inc.
i I I
i I
I
ELI Eco Logic Inc.
143 Denni~ St, Rockwood, Ontario, Canada, NOB 2k0 I
Phone [phone]
Fax (519 ) 856-923 5
FAX COVER SHEET
PHONE: --------
PHONE : 7 3_~ -4 9 9 6 )( ;l-0..3
COMMENTS: ;t..,_,_, /l.µ/Uuc) ef ~ 7 =4
(7(Yl/U?C7?r&-; AsA e --Jo ri, /}(~~-kt-
TOTAL NUMBER OF PAGES INCLUDING COVER SHEET: .,__ j
DATE SENT: / -J/-'1 1
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:
TO: Potential Respondents
January 31, 1997
FROM: Michael A. Kelly, Deputy Director
Division of Waste Management
.AVA
DEHNR
SUBJECT: Request for proposals to evaluate fi>?J...+.-,enr ec nologies on soils
extracted from the PCB Landfill, Warren County, North Carolina.
The Division of Waste Management seeks proposals for a two phase bid on conducting
evaluations of technologies to be used in the detoxification of the PCB Landfill in Warren
County, North Carolina. The proposals are to be for the evaluation of the following technologies
only:
1) Base Catalyzed Dechlorination (BCD)
2) Gas Phase Chemical Reduction
These technologies have been determined by the Warren County Working Group and
Science Advisors to be the most appropriate technologies for detoxification. No other remedial
or detoxification technologies will be considered responsive to this RFP.
A mandatory pre-bid meeting will be held February 17. 1997. at 10:00 AM in
Conference Rooms 1 & 2, Division of Waste Management, 401 Oberlin Road, Raleigh, North
Carolina. Five copies of the final proposals are due to the Division of Waste Management, 401
Oberlin Road, Suite 150, Raleigh, North Carolina 27605, no later than 12:00 noon on
Wednesday, March 19. 1997.
Multiple companies may be chosen for Phase I, however, only one company and
technology will be awarded a contract for Phase II. All responsive bidders will quote on both
phases of this project in their final proposal.
Contact: Mr. Michael A. Kelly, Deputy Director, Division of Waste Management, State
of North Carolina, 919-733-4996, ext. 201.
P.O. Box 27687,
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687
Voice 919-733-4996 If P®'&MN
FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Ac tion Employer
50% recycled/10% post-consumer paper
PROPOSAL NO. PCB LF 4 ISSUE DATE: JANUARY 31, 1997
NC DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT HEALTH AND NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF WASTE MANAGEMENT
Request for Proposal
for
Evaluation of treatment technologies on soils extracted from the PCB Landfill, Warren
County, North Carolina.
PRE-BID MEETING:
CLOSING DATE:
Send all proposals directly:
February 17, 1997
March 19, 1997
Time: 10:00 AM
Time: 12:00 Noon
NC Department of Environment, Health &
Natural Resources
Division of Waste Management
401 Oberlin Road, Suite 150
Raleigh, North Carolina 27605
Attn: Michael A. Kelly
Please note the proposal number and closing date on the bottom left hand corner 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 I NCAC 5D.0300-.0509 of North Carolina
Administrative Code.
Mark outside of return envelopes: Reply to
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 Waste Management
40 I Oberlin Road, Suite 150
Raleigh, North Carolina 27605
Attention: Michael A. Kelly
Telephone: [phone] Extension 201
1.4 Copies of this request for proposals will be distributed only by mail or they can be obtained
in person from Suite 150, 401 Oberlin Road, Raleigh, NC 27605.
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 12:00 noon, March 19, 1997,
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.
RFP #PCB LF-4
1
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 offerer 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. 10 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 may 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 offeror 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 offeror' 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 offeror may be grounds for rejection of that offeror' 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 performance, 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, offeror' s name may be removed from the applicable mailing
list.
1.15 Cost for Proposal Preparation: The State will not reimburse offerors for costs incurred in
the preparation and submission of a proposal.
RFP #PCB LF-4
2
1.16 Offeror's Representative for Business Purpose: The name, mailing address, and
telephone number of the offeror' s authorized agent with authority to bind the firm and
answer official questions concerning the offeror' s proposal must be clearly stated.
1.17 Time for Consideration: Preference may be given to proposals allowing not less than 3 0
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 to 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
offerors 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
offerers.
1.19.1 Acknowledgment of Amendments to RFP: Receipt by an offerer ofan amendment
to this RFP must be acknowledged by including a copy of the amendment with
offeror' s proposal.
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 while engaged in the performance of the
contract. The contractor or its insurer shall reimburse the Contracting Agency for any such
damage or loss within 30 days after a claim is submitted.
1.22 Insurance: The successful offeror shall 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:
RFP #PCB LF-4
3
1.22.1 Worker's Compensation Insurance covering all of contractor's employees who are
engaged in any work under the contract.
1.22.2 Public Liability Insurance in the amount of $300,000.00 and Property Damage
Insurance in the amount of $100,000.00.
1.22.3 Automobile bodily injury and property damage liability insurance when the services
to be performed require the use of motor vehicles.
1.22.4 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 any such insurance. All insurance
shall remain 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 canceled.
1.23 Laws: The contractor shall comply with laws, ordinances, codes, rules and 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 ofNorth Carolina may award a contract
based on initial offers received without discussion of such offers. Accordingly, each initial
offer should be submitted on the most favorable and complete price and technical terms
which the offeror can submit to the State.
1.25 The State reserves the right to accept or reject any and all proposals; to waive any
informality in proposals; and, unless otherwise specified by the offeror, to accept any item in
any proposal.
RFP #PCB LF-4
4
1.26 Confidentiality: In submitting its proposal the offerer agrees not to discuss or otherwise
reveal the contents of the proposal to any source outside of the using or issuing agency,
government or private, until after the award of the contract. Offerors not in compliance
with this provision may be disqualified, at the option of the State, from contract award.
Only discussions authorized by the issuing agency are exempt from this provision.
1.27 Proprietary Information: All proposals, after the award of the contract, will 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 T0I:05B.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.
1.29 Protest Procedures: A party wanting to protest a contract awarded pursuant to this
solicitation must submit a written request to the State Purchasing Officer, Division of
Purchase and Contract, 116 West Jones Street, PO Box 29582, Raleigh, NC 276260582.
This request must be received in the Division of Purchase and Contract within thirty (30)
consecutive calendar days from the date of the contract award, and must contain specific
sound reasons and any supporting documentation for the protest. NOTE: Contract award
notices are sent only to those actually awarded contracts and not to every person or firm
responding to this solicitation. Offerors may call [phone] to obtain a verbal status
of contract award. All protests will be handled pursuant to the North Carolina
Administrative Code, Title 1, Department of Administration, Chapter 5, Purchase and
Contract, Section 5B.15 l 9.
RFP #PCB LF-4
5
PART II
SCOPE OF WORK
2.0 Background on Warren County PCB Landfill and detoxification commitment
2.0.1 The State ofN.C. (State) owns and maintains a closed (July 1983)
polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) chemical waste landfill permitted in
accordance with the Toxic Substance Control Act (TSCA) and 40 CPR Part
761.
2.0.2 The PCB landfill is located on the East side of SR 1604 approximately 1.5 to
2.0 miles from the intersection of SR 1604 and US 401 South, 2-3 miles
from Warrenton, North Carolina. (see Attachments 1 and 2)
2.0.3 The State is committed to detoxification of the landfill utilizing appropriate
and feasible technology.
2.0.4 The State established a Joint Warren County/State PCB Landfill Working
Group (Working Group) to evaluate technologies and tasks associated with
the detoxification of the landfill. The Working Group has hired independent
science advisors to help them with technical issues associated with the PCB
Landfill.
2.0.5 The Working Group has determined that Base Catalyzed Dechlorination
(BCD) technology and Gas Phase Chemical Reduction technology (herein
after referred to as "technologies") are appropriate and potentially feasible
technologies for detoxification of the landfill. No other remedial or
detoxification technologies will be considered responsive to this RFP.
An "Explanation of Selection of Two Detoxification Technologies" from
the Working Group and Science Advisors is provided as an Appendix to
this RFP.
2.0.6 The Working Group has determined that information obtained from multiple
variations of the technologies from bench scale testing is essential for final
evaluation of the appropriateness and feasibility of the technologies for full
scale detoxification of the landfill.
RFP # PCB LF-4
6
2.0.7 The Working Group has recommended the technologies for consideration of
implementing bench scale testing on representative waste or contaminated
soil materials from the PCB landfill.
2.0.8 Soils to be utilized in this bench scale testing will be removed from the
Warren County PCB Landfill on a separate contract and shipped to the
selected vendors.
2.1 Project Description
2.1.1 The scope of this RFP is split into two phases.
-Phase I -To solicit technical and cost proposals to conduct bench
scale testing to demonstrate the effectiveness of the technologies on
detoxifying PCB contaminated soil removed from the Warren County
PCB landfill.
-Phase II -To solicit technical and cost proposals for the
preliminary design of the full scale use of the detoxification
technology selected on the basis of Phase I results to detoxify the
Warren County PCB landfill.
2.1.2 Respondents to this RFP must present separate technical and cost proposals
for performing both Phases I and II within one proposal document.
2.1.3 Contracts awarded to companies to perform the Phase I testing will include
stipulations that they are pre-qualified as potential providers of Phase II
services. Only one contractor will be awarded a Phase II contract.
2.1. 4 The selection of the company for the Phase II part of this RFP is dependent
on the results of the Phase I testing. It is anticipated that the Phase II
contract will be awarded within 30 days of obtaining the final Phase I Test
Report. The specific selection criteria are as follows :
RFP #PCB LF-4
a. The ability to meet Phase I performance criteria (see section 2.5) as
demonstrated through Phase I test data.
b. The quality of the Phase l test report.
c. The ability of the vendor to provide full-scale .equipment at the
Warren County PCB Landfill site.
7
d. The ability of the vendor to provide a safe, reliable and cost-effective
full scale application of the selected technology at the Warren County
Landfill.
e. The quality and cost of the proposal for providing Phase II services.
2.2 Goals and Objectives of the Bench Scale Testing
2.2.1 A major objective of the bench scale testing is to determine the feasibility of
the technologies for full-scale detoxification of the PCB Landfill.
2.2.2 The preliminary goal for detoxification is to reduce total PCB concentrations
down to 20 ppb and Dioxin TEQ down to 1 ppt with a proportionate
reduction in other chlorinated constituents.
2.2.3 Feasibility will be largely measured by the extent and degree of success of
the technologies to detoxify the PCB Landfill contents. Feasibility will also
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.
2.2.4 The primary goal of the bench scale testing 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 Phase I -Bench Scale Test -General Procedures
2. 3 .1 The primary qualitative goal of the bench scale testing is to demonstrate that
the technologies can effectively, reliably, and safely detoxify PCB waste
materials from · the Warren County PCB Landfill
2.3.2 Approximately 500 pounds of PCB contaminated soils will be sent to the
vendor's designated facility for testing.
2.3.3 The vendor must account for the total amount of waste supplied and is
responsible for the final legal disposal of the material.
RFP #PCB LF-4
8
2.3.4 It is preferable to avoid any de-watering of waste material before the bench
testing. If de-watering needs to be done before testing, this must be fully
described in the response to this RFP and in the final test report. The
technical and economic implications and equipment necessary for de-
watering in the full scale detoxification of the landfill must also be
thoroughly discussed.
2.3 .5 Samples of the pre and post-treatment solids will be analyzed for water
content, all PCB congeners, dioxins/furans and VOCs. Analyses must be
obtained for all PCB congeners in parts per billion. Analyses for
dioxins/furans must be in parts per trillion. EPA method 8290 should be
used and results must be reported for all species plus dioxin TEQ.
2.3.6 The vendor must be willing to allow State personnel, members of the
Working Group and the Science Advisors to visit their facilities, possibly
during some of the actual bench-scale testing.
2.4 Characterization of PCB contaminated soils to be utilized for the bench scale testing
2.4.1 PCB contaminated soils are physically characterized in Attachment 3.
RFP #PCB LF-4
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%.
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 PCB contaminated soils that are a mixture from the dry
and saturated portion of the landfill for the bench scale testing. A major
objective of the bench scale testing is to provide sufficient data for
evaluation of the technologies on a full scale basis. There may be a
significant difference in interpretjng between a bench 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
bench scale testing and accuracy in projecting or estimating the applicability
to full scale projects.
The degree to which materials handling and de-watering can be minimized in
full scale detoxification at the landfill is an evaluation criterion for judging
the overall effectiveness performance of the technology in Phase I and for
selecting one Phase I vendor for providing Phase II services.
9
2.4.2 PCB contaminated soils are chemically characterized in Attachment 4. The
average concentration of PCB is approximately 350 ppm with a range of 150
to almost 900 ppm. The PCB is a mixture of PCB congeners with
approximately 61 wt¾ Arochlor 1260, 27 wt¾ Arochlor 1254 and 12 wt¾
Arochlor 1242. Other chemicals such as chlorinated benzenes, furans &
dioxins are present in ppq to ppb concentrations.
2.5 Phase I -Bench Scale Test -Performance Criteria
2.5.1 The primary detoxification performance criteria to be used to evaluate bench
scale test results will be the level of destruction of PCBs and all dioxin
isomers present in the waste material.
Principal Preliminary Remediation Goals in post-treatment solids:
-20 ppb for total PCBs
-

1

ppt for Dioxin TEQ
2.5.2 The vendor must demonstrate that air emissions will be kept under
unacceptable potential health risks levels for on site use.
Air Emission Performance Goals:
-8x I 0-4 micrograms per cubic meter for PCBs
-5x10·3 micrograms per cubic meter for Dioxin TEQ
2.6 Phase I -Bench Scale Test -Test Data Required
2.6.1 The vendor is responsible for obtaining and presenting test data that
demonstrates the performance of their technology and that all preliminary
remediation goals have been m~t.
2.6.2 The vendor must show that PCBs and Dioxins are being destroyed and are
not just being removed from the waste during treatment. This will require
that the vendor obtain accurate data on whether PCBs and Dioxins exit from
the test equipment in off streams such as air, waste water and solid residue.
2.6.3 The vendor must show the consistency of their technology by conducting
several runs in the equipment. Varying levels of performance between
different test runs must be explained and discussed. Any correlation between
RFP #PCB LF-4
level or consistency of performance and water content in the waste feed
material must be explained and discussed. The implications of varying
performance for reliability for full scale use of the technology must be
discussed.
2.7 Phase I -Bench Scale Testing -Test Report
2. 7 .1 The vendor must submit to the State a comprehensive test report within 60
days of receipt of the waste material to be tested.
2. 7.2 The Test Report should follow the following format.
RFP #PCB LF-4
a. Executive Summary.
b. Introduction and background information on the technology and the
company.
c. Description of the bench scale test equipment and methodologies
used.
d. Test Results
-Detoxification perforrriance, effectiveness, and reliability
-Environmental and safety performance
e. Ability to accommodate significant water content
f. Technical issues, needs and potential uncertainties for full scale
treatment.
g. Economic issues and estimates for full scale treatment
h. Capabilities to provide full-scale equipment for use at the Warren
County Landfill.
1. Appendices (as needed)
11
2.8 Phase II -Full Scale Preliminary Design -Scope of Work
2.8.1 The primary scope of work for Phase II is to produce a conceptual
preliminary design of the full scale detoxification system needed for the
Warren County PCB Landfill. This conceptual preliminary design will be
described in a Design Report.
2.8.2 It is acceptable for the technology vendors to utilize subcontractors to assist
with the engineering, design and construction of the full scale on-site
remediation system.
2.8.3 It is anticipated that the full scale preliminary design will need to address the
following areas:
a. Excavation of the landfill
b. Materials handling and preparation
c. Mobilization and staging of all equipment to be used at the site
d. Design of an on-site demonstration performance test
e. Construction/Assembly of the full scale detoxification technology
equipment
f Full scale detoxification of all materials needing treatment including
on-site and off-site monitoring and testing for PCB air emissions as
vapors and particulates.
g. Verification testing and replacement of treated soils at the site
h. Demobilization of all equipment at the site
1. Proper testing and disposal of solid and liquid wastes or residues
J. Restoration of the site
2.8.4 The Vendor's team of engineers and scientists is expected to work
cooperatively with the State, the Working Group and the Science Advisors
to prepare the preliminary design. It is expected that several meetings
(probably at least four) in North Carolina will be needed to accommodate
this cooperative effort.
RFP #PCB LF-4
12
2.8.5 It is expected that a Draft Preliminary Design Report be provided no later
than 75 days after initiation of Phase II. A Final report is expected no later
than 30 days after submission of final comments from the State, the Working
Group and the Science Advisors.
2.9 PCBLandfill Site Visit and Pre-Proposal Conference
2.9.1 A pre-proposal conference will be held two weeks after the request for
proposals (RFP) is noticed to potential respondents.
2.9.2 A site visit will be provided two weeks after the RFP is noticed to potential
respondents immediately following the pre-proposal conference.
2.9.3 Attendance at the site visit and pre-proposal conference is prerequisite to
consideration of the offerers' proposals. This conference is scheduled for
Monday, February 17, 10:00 AM at the Division ofWaste Management's
Conference Room's 1 & 2, 401 Oberlin Road, Raleigh, NC.
2.10 Process and Procedures For Implementation of the Bench Scale Testing
2.10 .1 The PCB Landfill is subject to TSCA regulations. The technologies are
considered as research and development technologies or alternative methods
of disposal under TSCA and 40 CFR 761 regulations. As a result,
respondents may have to 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 .
2.10.2 Vendors should provide any documentation concerning previous
determinations by the U.S. E. P.A. about their technology as either an R&D
technology or an alternative TSCA method of disposal, preferably in a pre-
proposal submission prior to or at the pre-proposal conference.
2 .10. 3 If necessary, approximately 3 0 days will be allowed for respondents to
submit an application for the selected technologies as alternative PCB
disposal methods. The actual schedule for submittal of the application will
be negotiated during the pre-proposal conference.
2.10.4 The State will facilitate and administratively support respondents' efforts to
obtain US EPA approval.
RFP #PCB LF-4
13
2.10.5 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.
2.10.6 Respondents should indicate their current permitted status with EPA, ie
permitted as a R&D or as a Treatment, Storage & Disposal facility for
PCB's, and their current status in regards to immediate receipt of and testing
of PCB soil from the landfill.
2.11 Overall Evaluation/Selection Criteria
2.11.1 Complete response to information required by this RFP for evaluation by the
Working Group and Science Advisors.
2.11.2 Submittals, with State and EPA approval, of the bench scale testing
proposal as an alternative PCB disposal method. Respondents must obtain
EPA and State approval prior to being considered for contracting with the
State for implementing the bench scale testing.
2.11.3 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_ forin 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.
2.11.4 Respondents shall submit documentation of experience with the proposed
technology including:
RFP #PCB LF-4
List of all projects initiated, implemented, completed with same or
similar materials;
14
Contacts/evaluations from federal/state/local oversight agencies on
these projects;
2.11.5 Respondents shall submit documentation and other information to describe
key personnel qualifications to include:
Academic qualifications
Specific experience of individuals assigned to projects with similar
contaminants
Company safety training requirements
Include all proposed sub-contractors.
2.11 .6 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 risk communication,
provision of technical information for nonprofessional audiences, and
community relations.
2.11 . 7 The Working Group will review all information and make a
recommendation for selection of respondents to the State.
2.11. 8 The State reserves the right to select more than one offeror and award a
contract(s) to other than low bid.
2.11 . 9 As stated in Part I, Section 1. 7 of this RFP, the State encourages the
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.
2.12 Deliverables To State
2.12.1 All information requested in sections 2.0 through 2.12.
2.12.2 Interim progress reports, monitoring data and other information requested
by the Working Group
RFP #PCB LF-4
15
2.12.3 A final report on the bench scale testing upon completion to cover the
following items: ·
a. All aspects required for consideration to scale the process up to full
scale detoxification of the PCB Landfill.
b. Provide data and sufficient technical and cost information that can be
technically and scientifically verified through a peer review.
c. The report shall be of sufficient quality to present to the General
Assembly ofN.C. for consideration of funding a full scale process for
detoxifying the PCB Landfill.
d. Cost of development of final report on the bench scale testing.
2.12.4 The report on full scale applicability shall include at least the following:
RFP #PCB LF-4
Overall protection of human health and the environment.
Short term 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.
Long term effectiveness -residual risk and management, and
reliability of residual management control.
Implementability -ability to construct and operate proposed
technology, reliability of proposals for full scale detoxification, ability
to monitor releases, effectiveness of full scale operations on the PCB
Landfill, and ability to obtain regulatory approval of full scale
operation at the PCB Landfill.
Co.st :.. including capital cost, operating and maintenance cost, cost
per unit of containment, and total cost of full scale treatment of the
PCB Landfill.
16
2.13 Anticipated Sequence of Activity and Schedule for the Bench Scale Testing
2.13 .1 A pre-bid conference is scheduled to be held at 401 Oberlin Road, Raleigh,
NC 27605, in Conference Room 1 on Monday, February 17, 1997 at 10:00
AM.
2.13 .2 If necessary, respondents must submit application for alternative PCB
disposal to the EPA and all information required by Working Group for
selection by Wednesday, March 19, 1997.
2.13.3 State negotiates fixed cost contract with respondents that receive US EPA
approval for alternative PCB disposal method within 30 days.
2.13.4 Respondents complete bench scale testing and final report within 60 days.
2.13. 5 All the above may be significantly modified by negotiation with respondents
and events beyond the control of the responders or the State. The State and
Working Group are committed to ensuring that the process is implemented
on as rapid a track as practicable.
RFP #PCB LF-4
17
PART Ill
TECHNICAL PROPOSAL
3 .1 Each offerer responding to this RFP must submit three (3) copies of a statement of technical
qualifications, detailing the firms ability to perform the services required herein. The technical
proposal should be in narrative form and must include at a minimum the information outlined
below.
3 .1. 1 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.
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 of work will be addressed.
3.2 Each offeror must submit a list of client names, type of contract (including type of services
produced) and inclusive dates of contracts for similar work.
3 .3 Each offerer 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 offerer must furnish complete professional services relating to the requirements of the
scope of work including materials and any necessary subcontractors. The bid price offered will
be a fixed price or fixed rate and shall include all professional fees for services to be rendered
as well as all incidental travel and production expenses.
RFP #PCB LF-4
18
PARTIV
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 Waste Management to furnish
the services required herein, and to complete the scope of work as described in Part 11 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 Waste Management, 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 $ or per the attached cost proposal for the services as
described herein, said sum to be full and complete compensation for the offeror' 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 I.D. Number ___________________________ _
By:. __________________________ _
Typed Name: _____________________________ _
Title: ________________________________ _
Address: _______________________________ _
Witness: _______________________________ _
Proprietorship or Partnership
Please indicate if one of the following applies: Women Owned/Controlled. __
Minority Owned/Controlled__ Handicapped Owned/Controlled __
Submitted this __ day of ______ l 997
RFP #PCB LF-4
19
Appendix for technology RFP
.EXPLANATION OF SELECTION OF TWO DETOXIFICATION TECHNOLOGIES
A detailed technology screening, evaluation, assessment and comparative analysis has been
performed for tlle V.'arren County PCB Landfill. All but two treatment technologies were
screened out. Only Base Catalyzed Decomposition (BCD) and Gas Phase Chemical Reduction
technology were found to be appropriate and potentially feasible.
The original use of the term deto:-...ification technology by the state of North Carolina implies that
technologies that are considered cleanup or remedial technologies but that do not by themselves
detox.ify PCBs are :uot appropriate for the Warren County situation. Potential feasibility has had
to be demonstrated through prior successfi.11 full scale use of a technology for PCB detox.--i.fication
work
All forms of containment technology such as caps and subsurface banier walls have been ruled
out as being inappropriate.
All fon.n.s of separation technologies that do not actually detoxify through treatment have been
mled out. TI1ese include, for example, thenual desorption~ solvent ex-traction, soil washing, and
soil vapor e\.'traction.
All forms of stabilization/solidification have been e]iminated as inappropriate~ because they have
not been thoroughly proven to actually and permaneutiy destroy PCB molecules, ren.clc1ing them
permanently nontoxic.
Any use of high temperafru·e incineration has been rnled out as being inappropriate because ofits
potential for causing harmful toxic air emissions and its long history of being deemed
unacceptable by communities, especially when used iu locations close to residential areas.
All fonns ofbiotreatment or bioremecliation have been screened out on the basis ofiusufficient
proven effectiveness. For many years various fon:ns ofbiotreatment have been pursued for PCB
cleanups. TI1e conclusion has been reached that biotreatment is not yet proven effective and
reliable enough for full scale use either as an in situ or ex situ technology, in aerobic or anaerobic
form or some combinatioll of them, for the Wanen County applicatio:n.
In situ vitrification has been screened out because of insufficient full scale application. This
technology has been under extensive development for many years, chiefly with.in the DOE sy~tem
While some people have viewed this technology as a variant ofincineration, chiefly because it
employs very high temperatures, it usuaJJy is considered as a unique technology. Buried wastes
can be heated to melt all materials and form a vitreous or glassy material. The process thermally
destroys organic contaminants and an extensive offgas, air pollution control system is used.
Interestiugly, in October 1995 EPA granted Geosafe a National TSCA Operating Penn.it for the
I
nationwide treatment of PCBs within a large number of prescribed circumstances, including
ma"'-wum average concentrations of 14,700 ppm an.d maximum hot spot concentrations of 17,860
ppm TI1e company obtained this regulatory permit on the basis of a site demonstration that
achieved various performance criteria, including six nines destruction and removal efficiency and
less than 2 ppm .PCBs in vitrified product. No detectable dioxins/foraus were found in offgases.
But the demonstration was not on in situ wastes similar to the Warren County situation. This
technology must be considered detoxification, and it offers the comparative advantage of being
intrinsically applicable for in situ treatment, avoiding the need for excavation of materials. In
theory, the technology could be applied directly to the Warren County Landfill, perhaps without
dewatering the site, although the site's location would pose significant problem for using the
extensive equipment. 1J1e conclusion has been reached that this teclmology is not acceptable OT
feasible foT the Wanen Cowity application~ and that it could not be suitably evaluated through
bench-scale testing.
Because the objective is to select a detoxification technology that has already been proven
effective for PCB detox.;fication through full scale, commercial use, an.d that will be demonstrated
effective for frill scale application at the Waneu County PCB Land:fill on the basis of bench-scale
testing of site contaminated soils, no technology that has not yet been folly deployed in a full scale
detoxification of PCB wastes ,vill be considered appropriate and potentially effective for this
application. No technology that exists only as a research or developmental technology is deemed
appropriate and potentially feasible for this application and, therefore, for bench-scale testing.
2
CHE:MICAL CHARACTERIZATION OF PCB CONTAMINATED SOILS IN WARREN COUNTY
\Cherrii clJJd entif j cation ) Concentration ... :::?//:
PCB (all congeners) Average 350 ppm
(Range 151 to 880)
Chlorobenzene 60 ppb
1,3 Oi-chlorobenzene 23.9 ppb
1,4 Di-chlorobenzene 48 ppb
Arsenic 2 ppm ❖
Barium 23 ppm ❖
Chromium 12 ppm ❖
Lead 35 ppm ❖
❖ TCLP results did not exceed standards.
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-1 K-1 Ca% Mg% Mn-1 Zn-1 Cu-1 Min 0.1 0.96 1.2 69 0.4 5.4 011 18 38.2 24.4 90 146 60