NCD980602163_19970905_Warren County PCB Landfill_SERB C_Response by Mike Kelly to Sept. 5 Memo from Joel Hirschhorn-OCR

September 5, 1997
Memorandum
To: Joel Hirschhorn
From: Mike Kelly \ ~ , ... ,·
•\''J c_ _____ _
RESPONSE TO YOUR MEMO OF SEPTEMBER 5
1. Please re-read my memorandum from yesterday. Obviously you missed several points.
2. It is somewhat disturbing that you do not feel this project is of sufficient enough importance
to ask questions and seek clarification on things not clear in the Phase I reports. Yes, the
decision for a Phase II contract will be based on answers to the questions and finalization of the
report. I, as the state representative, have the responsibility to insure that the contract is
technically and soundly justifiably, and since this will be the technology we will be seeking
funding for next year, it is most important that we make the best choice, as I said. I am also
under the impression that some of Patrick's personnel have talked to at least one of the vendors
and sought clarification, so it is certainly not something new. There is no reason not to do the
selection criteria unless you anticipate your questions causing a "re-write" _of the original
reports?? The format for the report will not change any.
3. I did receive your scores on the criteria Patrick suggested, however, you have not provided me
the discussion associated with the scoring you did. Yes, I have received some technical
information from you and Patrick, but I hardly describe it as "detailed technical comments and
justification ... ". And you are correct, you have not received any technical information from the
state as a review, and as I clearly have stated to you and Patrick in the past, I do not have anyone
doing that review. You and Patrick are the science advisors and are contracted to do that work.
4. You mistakenly took my comments on the detection limits as a "technical discussion"--that
was not a technical discussion. My point was that our decision for a Phase II contract cannot be
made on things such as the lab's (not the contractor's) lack of detection limits. You will note that
the ETG lab report was done over a month after the Eco Logic, and I would venture to say that
after the first runs with Eco Logic, the lab realized that they must correct their sample size and
procedures in order to get better detection limits, and therefore ETG may be the recipient of
"lessons learned". Eco Logic also clearly states that they have asked the lab to do a "re-analysis
to decrease the detection limits for the dioxins and furans which will allow a more reasonable
comparison to the performance goal for the treated solids. " The question should be--can Eco
Logic meet the performance goal?
5. Please clarify what you are referring to when you state "any company ... screws up .. ".
Apparently there are issues you feel strongly about with Eco Logic, but I have seen mistakes
with both of the companies. Again, we should be evaluating the performance of the technologies
on the soils from the Warren County Landfill. I am certain that everyone will agree that the
company selected for the Phase II must be credible.
t
6. If you have re-read my memo, you will know that I did not say I would "require" the Phase II
report in 30 days--rather "/ will ask in the contract", "if it is (a problem), we will have to adjust
accordingly", as I stated that I was fully aware of what the RFP says. I am confused-one minute
you say I am slowing things down, and the next, you "strongly oppose" efforts to speed them
up?
7. I will not send copies of your memos in which you mention selection preference of any one
company over another. Your first notes on Eco Logic are clear questions that can be sent as is.
The notes on ETG cannot be sent as is; however, I could extract the questions or ''Issues for ETG
Phase I" report you list on the second page of your August 21 memo. If you do not wish me to
do this then please furnish me with a list I can forward to them directly.
8. If I understand your comment regarding the proprietary technologies to mean that no one else
can do similar work and therefore the state cannot adequately solicit competitive bids for the
process, then we may have a problem. It will be extremely difficult to "sole source" a contract
the size of one for detoxification. The fact that this is even a possibility makes our selection for
Phase II even more important. I think Dollie and Henry realized clearly the importance of this
selection in asking the science advisors for clear criteria to be used in the selection. It may be, as
I said, even more important.
Copy: Patrick Barnes
Technical Committee