NCD980602163_19970107_Warren County PCB Landfill_SERB C_Excavation, Handling and Storage of PCB Landfill Materials - Selection of Contractors, 1995 - 1997-OCR

I
I
I
/"" N;rth Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and
Natural Resources · ·
Michael A. klly, Deputy Dinctor
Solid Waste Management DivisiDn
Please:
_ Draft a reply for my signature
_ Take appropriate action
_ Approve
DaJe:
~formation
&e me about attached
_ Handle and report to me
_ Note and retum attached material to me
Remarks:
Cei ""'-\I'-_,,____,½ • ~ ~ \ J
{z, ~ w ~ ~ b-=:\-
cc:) ~ \-D
w~\_ \ L tJ ~ ~v~ ,,___, ~ fv---___
~ ~~ \_,_JQ_
~ . {) ~ ·~'-\\__ w ~
~~ ~
State of North Carolina Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources
Division of Solid Waste Management
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
William L. Meyer:Director
TO:
FROM: MIKE KELLY ~
January 7, 1997
SUBJECT: ADDITIONAL CO .. uu~, ON THE BID FOR EXCAVATION, HANDLING
AND STORAGE OF PCB's FROM THEW ARREN COUNTY LANDFILL
As previously discussed, all four proposals were reviewed by Division of Waste Management
personnel and the Science Advisor's for the Warren County Working Group. Our
recommendation was made on December 10, 1996, and on January 3, 1997, we provided
additional information as justification for our recommendation.
In review of that memo and my file on the selection process, I wanted to offer additional
information in support of our recommendation to you.
In November, 1996, we sent out a request for clarification to all four respondents asking that they
review their plans to insure that they had considered the possibility of methane gas in their
proposals, and we provided to them a copy of a bid tabulation sheet to be filled out. One reason
for this tab sheet was to separate out the costs into categories and in two parts-the liner integrity
evaluation and the borehole, excavation, well installation.
In comparing the costs for the borehole/ excavation/ well installation, Soil & Materials is actually
the lowest bidder at $21,485, while Triangle is at $25,500. · · ·
A major component of the project is the evaluation of the liner integrity. Soil & Materials bid
$17,091 for this portion, as compared to $3,200 for Triangle. The average cost for this part is
almost $14,000 based on a comparison of all four bids. Although it is our feeling that S&ME
could perhaps do this portion for less, their figure isn't as "out of line" as Triangle's .
. "J' ..
Triangle only proposes to check two areas in the landfill using hand shovels and careful
excavation. They plan to note conditions of the soil and liner in the 4' x 4' hole, and send a
portion of the liner to a lab for testing. They propose nothing for the overall cap, as was
requested. S&ME, on the other hand, plans to check similar areas like Triangle, but will provide
an evaluation of the clay cap using a "saturated hydraulic conductivity field test", and removing
core samples from around the landfill for testing. ·
P.O. Box 27687,
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687
Voice 919-733-4996
~TL"\'1 FAX [phone] l ~ ' : ; t.J . · An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer
tf WA•kJ£3%:&i SO"k recycled/ l O"/o post-consumer paper
I' ; • • ..._ • • ·~ • ' • • • \.. ~' I • • •. ' • • • '
This testing is extremely important because it has been alleged that the liner is leaking, allowing
water to get into the landfill. It should be kept in mind that the ultimate goal is to look at
potential detoxification of the landfill, which could cost $20-30 million. If the liner is in fact
leaking, it will play an important part in future decisions, not only the type of remedy, but the
time frame as well. This is an important question that we do not feel will be answered by the
proposed methods from Triangle. ·
Furthermore, as has been previously mentioned, we will be required to get a permit from the
EPA in order to perform this work. Triangle's overall proposal was lacking technical background
information and detailed descriptions of the processes they would follow, and this type of
information would be needed to secure this permit. S&ME provided both written and visual
specifications for their plans. This project is on a tight time frame due to community pressures
and time constraints dealing with the upcoming Legislative Session. Triangle would most likely
be able to produce the necessary information and drawings and ultimately secure the necessary
permit, but with un-necessary and costly delays. Three other contracts will be implemented with
this one, and they all are inter-related as their scope of work play a part in the overall plan.
I ask that you please consider the fact that two independent science advisors and two state
professionals reviewed separately and then together all proposals: Each was ranked based on a
number of factors, including price, and S&ME was the overwhelming recommendati~n;·There·is
already a lot of distrust of the state by the Warren County residents, and if a vendor is chosen by
the state that was not recommended by the Working Group, they, too, will become suspect.''
As I understand it, one of these contracts (for monitoring wells) is to also be awarded to a
company not recommended by the Division and Working Group. The comparison of these two
companies from a technical and financial standpoint is very close, although there were sound
reasons why one was recommended over the other. The borings, however, and 'the comparison
between Triangle and Soil & Materials Engineering is much more complex. · · · · -· · ·· ·
.: ' :
Whatever the decision is, we of course will implement in the best manner we can. · I just ask that
a final decision be made as quickly as possible so that we can get the contractor on board and .
working towards getting the necessary permit. We are already approximately 30 days behind the
original plan. · · ·.. · -· -' ---· -
Thank you for your consideration.
: . ;:!·.:,, • : .
/
... 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
To:
From:
Date:
Doris Strickland
Mike Kelly
January 3, 1 997
AVA
DEHNR
Subject: Clarification of our recommendations for the RFP on the Excavation, Handling,
and Storage of PCB Contaminated Soils from the-Warren County PCB Landfill
dated 11/8/96.
We had submitted our recommendations for this RFP to you on 12-10-96. We were informed on
12-31-96 that our recommendation to select S&ME for this contract was not approved and that
Triangle Environmental Inc. was recommended because they were the lowest bid. This is written
to provide further clarification and justification of our selection of S&ME for this contract.
Technically, the proposal submitted by Triangle Environmental was inadequate in several areas
and did not demonstrate that they could perform the work to meet the requirements of the RFP
for the following reasons.
DEMONSTRATED EXPERIENCE AND QUALIFICATIONS
Selection criterion 2.4.1 of the original RFP is demonstrated experience and qualifications with
landfill projects with emphasis on North Carolina projects. S&ME cited 53 different landfill
related projects. Also, they cited specific experience with PCB contaminated sites. Triangle
cited only two landfill examples with no PCB experience. Since this is one of the selection
criteria, S&ME provided a significantly higher degree of landfill and PCB experience. We did
not feel that Triangle Environmental Inc. experience was adequate to properly carry out this
project. Also, S&ME provided information on the qualifications of its staff whereas Triangle
did not. As a result, Triangle Environmental did not demonstrate that their staff had the
qualifications to properly carry out this project.
LANDFILL LINER INTEGRITY
A very crucial element of this project is to show that the integrity of the landfill liner will be
maintained during the project. Since this landfill is licensed by the EPA, the State will have to
be granted specific authorization to conduct this work. To obtain this authorization, the State
will have to submit the procedure that the contractor will take to protect the integrity of the liner
P.O. Box 27687,
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687
Voice 919-733-4996 f ¢ffiJ§if4@'#f#i
FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer
50% recycled/10"/o post-consumer paper
to the EPA for their review. S&ME proposed both sampling and new survey data to assure that
the bottom liner integrity is maintained. Triangle plans to rely on existing survey data with
periodic sampling. We do not feel that the Triangle proposal is technically adequate to provide
the level of liner protection that the EPA and the Division of Waste Management feels is
necessary.
CONTINGENCY PLAN FOR MONITORING RELEASES
Item 2.2.2d of the original RFP included a requirement for a contingency plan for releases to the
environment. S&ME submitted specific provisions for monitoring releases to the environment.
The Triangle proposal did not address this issue. Having a contingency plan is essential when
working with hazardous materials in terms of protecting human health and the environment. As
a result, we found the Triangle proposal technically inadequate in this area.
Because of these technical shortcomings and inadequacies of the-Triangle Environmental Inc.
proposal, we recommend that S&ME be awarded the contract for this RFP even though they are
not the lowest bidder.
}
, l'-1"' . ,/ ;. ?1
" St~te of North Carolina ~ 0 ~c \ Department of Environment, -AVA , Health and Natural Resources
Division of Solid Waste Management
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
William L. Meyer, Director
To: Doris Strickland
From: Mike Kell
Date: December 10, 1996 -
DEHNR
Subject: Bid Clarification for the Excavation, Handling, and Storage of PCB Contaminated
Soils from the Warren County PCB Landfill dated 11/8/96.
Four bid proposals were received by the Division of Waste Management for the subject RFP. A
Pre-Bid conference was held on February 16, 1996. All of the respondents to the RFP attended
the pre-bid conference. All of the technical and cost proposals for this RFP were reviewed versus
the criteria in the RFP with the following conclusions and recommendations.
As far as the methane potential is concerned, all respondents addressed this as part of their Health
and Safety Plan by using various detectors and monitors. All respondents appeared to adequately
address this concern.
GENERAL
The overall ranking of the four respondents based purely on the cost breakdown are as follows :
LINER INTEGRITY EVALUATION
CATEGORY S&ME
Labor $9,191
Equipment $2,815
Sub-cont. $5,015
Misc $ 140
TOTAL $17,091
P.O. Box 27687,
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687
Voice 919-733-4996
BIDDERS
COM Triangle Patterson
$10,500 $ 750 $4,800
$ 900 $ 775 $ 0
$11,500 $1,075 $ 800
$ 4,500 $ 600 $2,175
$27,400 $3,200 $7,775
FAX [phone]o
f f'Jffi'Al~¼M5
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer
50% recycled/l()"lo post-consumer paper
.. .. . -
BOREHOLE/EXCAVATION/ WELL INSTALLATION
BIDDERS
CATEGORY S&ME CDM Triangle Patterson
Labor $14,422 $30,425 $14,000 $13,500
Equipment $ 5,973 $ 1,100 $ 200 $14,000
Sub-cont. $ 915 $20,000 $ 8,700 $16,500
Misc $ 175 $ 4,475 $ 2,600 $ 1,500
TOTAL $21 ,485 $56,000 $25,500 $45,500
GRAND TOTAL $38,576 $83,400 $28,700 $53,275
CONCLUSIONS
From a pure cost perspective Triangle Environmental Inc. and S&ME were the lowest. From a
technical perspective however, S&ME had the better proposal for the following reasons.
-S&ME has had orders of magnitude more experience dealing with landfills than Triangle.
S&ME cite 53 different landfill related projects. Triangle cited only two landfill examples.
-S&ME cited specific PCB experience whereas Triangle did not.
-S&ME proposed both sampling and new survey data to assure that the bottom liner integrity is
maintained. Triangle plans to rely on existing survey data with periodic sampling. Maintaining
the integrity of the bottom liner is a very key element of this project. The State will have to be
authorized by the EPA to conduct this work and liner integrity is one of the most important
aspects of this project.
-The descriptions of the services in the S&ME proposal is far superior to that of the Triangle
proposal. S&ME provides more detail and illustrations on the scope of work and methodology
they will use than Triangle.
-The S&ME proposal provides information on the qualifications of key staff members whereas
the Triangle proposal does not.
S&ME will not need to subcontract any of this work whereas Triangle will use a drilling
subcontractor.
-S&ME will use a more sophisticated steel pan system to contain the drill cuttings.
Therefore as a result, and following lengthy discussions with staff and the science advisors, we
recommend that S&ME be awarded the contract for this RFP.
November 15, 1996
Mr. William L. Meyer, Director
North Carolina Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources
Division of Waste Management
P.O . Box 27687
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687
Reference: Request for Clarification on RFP, dated November 8, 1996
Proposal for Excavation, Handling and Storage of PCB Contaminated
Soils from Warren County PCB Landfill
Warren County, North Carolina
S&ME Proposal No. P1012-96V
Dear Mr. Meyer:
In response to your Request for Clarification on RFP, dated November 8 1996, S&ME, Inc.
(S&ME) is pleased to submit the requested information. We have also reviewed our
original pricing information to confirm that the proposed services are complete and cost
effective. We understand that a contractor has not been selected and the attached
information will be used in lieu of previous pricing in selection of a successful contractor.
Our original proposal did address the issues noted in your Request for Clarification. That
is, we accounted for the possible presence of landfill gas containing methane during the
construction activities and included the following monitoring equipment: a LANDTEC -
GA90 infrared landfill gas analyzer, organic vapor analyzer (OVA) and explosimeter. We
also included the use of a fan or blower for engineering control. The need for air line]
respirators is no longer apparent and the air line equipment has been deleted from this
quote. We envision intrusive activities can be performed with conventional respirators and
hepa filter cartridges, as priced on the attached breakdown.
S&ME, Inc. 3100 Spring Forest Rood, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604, [phone], Fax [phone]
Moiling address: P.O. Box 58069, Raleigh, North Carolina 27658-8069
Mr. William Meyer
November 15, 1996
Page 2
Our original proposal, scope, and price were based on a combination of the RFP and our
knowledge of previous similar projects along with issues which may be raised by the
science advisors, the PCB Working Group, or others. Accordingly, we conservatively
scoped and priced several items that were desirable, but technically could be eliminated
or modified, while still meeting the guidelines and requirements of the original RFP dated
February 5, 1996 and the Addendum dated September 18, 1996. The attached cost
breakdown reflects these modifications, which are presented below:
• Collection of QA/QC samples (Section 3.0, Sampling and Analysis Plan) and the
corresponding laboratory analyses have been eliminated. This includes collection
of the wipe samples, duplicates, equipment blanks, and trip blanks. We will
characterize the wastes as specified in the original RFP. While the QA/QC samples
and analyses are desirable if it should be necessary to defend the data, they are
not technically required to characterize liquid and solid wastes that will be generated
by the work. The wipe samples were originally included to demonstrate, through
analytical data, that the work had not resulted in a release of PCB containing
materials to the environment. We will still perform the work as originally planned,
using good work practices to prevent releases. ·
• The private security service has been eliminated . With the high-visibility of this site,
we felt that the service would be a positive influence in demonstrating a secure site
to area citizens during the planned activities at the site. The private service is not
a necessity to perform the work as specified in the RFP. If selected, we will work
with the DWM to secure the site with existing gates and fencing and address the
need for further security with the Warren County Sheriffs Department, should the
need arise.
2
Mr. William Meyer
November 15, 1996
Page 3
• Shop-fabrication of two PVC boots to connect the wells to the top liner has been
eliminated. The boot may not be necessary, but was a conservative method of
assuring that leakage would not occur at the well location. A field-fabricated
mechanical seal will serve the same function and will be less expensive. The seal
will be fabricated using a stainless steel band clamp to attach the PVC liner to the
well casing.
• Adjustments have been made to the labor time required to complete the various
tasks where appropriate.
As shown in the attached table and the supportive documents, our revised costs based on
the RFP, Request for Clarification on RFP and the modifications stated above will be
approximately $ 38,600.
Please call us if you _have any further questions. We appreciate the opportunity to be of
service to the Division and the citizens of Warren County. We trust your review will be
favorable and look forward to beginning the project.
Sincerely
S&ME, Inc. ~-v.-/~
Walter J. Beckwith, P.W. ~ -
Senior Project Geologist
~/~/'.
~.~/Ann M. Bo den, P.G. -~--..
Environmental Manager
3
Labor
Position
Principal
Sr. Consultant/Proiect Director
Sr. Registered Professional
Proiect Professional
Staff Professional (Level II)
Staff Professional (Level I)
Senior Technician
Technician
CAD Ooerator
Secretary
Driller
Heloer
Driver
Mechanic
TOTALS:
WARREN COUNTY PCB LANDFILL
Addendum to Request for Proposal
TABLE 1 -DETAILED TASK AND SUBTASK COSTS -LABOR
TASK NO.1: TOP LINER EVALUATION
HASP/Mobilization Engineering Evaluation Field Activities
Subtask No. 1.1 Subtask No. 1.2 Subtask No. 1.3
Rate Hours Cost Hours Cost Hours Cost
125.00
110.00 2.00 220.00 2.00 220.00
95.00 2.00 190.00 8.00 760.00 12.00 1140.00
80.00
63.00 12.00 756.00 28.00 1764.00
55.00 16.00 880.00
48.00 28.00 1344.00
42.00
42.00 2.00 84.00 9.00 378.00
33.00 8.00 264.00 12.00 396.00
45.00
25.00
35.00
35.00
30.00 1638.00 43.00 2510.00 68.00 4248.00
S&ME Proposal No. P1012-96V • Revision 1 11/15/96
Project Management
Subtask 1.4
Hours Cost
1.00 125.00
2.00 220.00
4.00 380.00
7.00 725.00
Page 1
Equipment
Type
Drill Crew and Rig, hr
Drill Crew and Rio, dav
Water Truck, Dav
4x4 Vehicle on Site, day
Std. Vehicle on Site. day
Explosimeter. day
Explosimeter. week
Toxic Vapor Analyzer, day
Toxic Vapor Analyzer, week
Organic Vapor Analyzer, day
Organic Vapor Analyzer, week
Landfill Gas Analyzer, day
Landfill Gas Analyzer, week
Sensidine Pump_ Dav
Conductivity Meter, day
Contractor Pumps, day
Contractor Pumps. week
Generator, day
Generator, week
Light Plant, mobilization
Lioht Plant, day
Light Plant, week
Fan or blower, day
Full Face Respirators, day
Air Line Respirators, day
I pH Meter, day
S/S Hand Auger & Extensions, dav
Submersible Pump. day
Field Permeameter. day
Water Level Probe, week
Redi-Flo2 Pump (2"), day
Redi-Flo2 Controller. day
Steam Cleaner. dav
Steam Cleaner, week
Air Compressor, day
Compressed Aroon (for DO Meas.)
Regulator, day
Storage Trailer, mob
Storage Trailer, month
Site Support Facilities
Bobcat, mob
Bobcat, month
Forklift Tines, month
Poly Tanks (2100 oallon), month
Metal Pan Fabrication
TOTALS:
WARREN COUNTY PCB LANDFILL
Addendum to Request for Proposal
TABLE 1 -DETAILED TASK AND SUBTASK COSTS -EQUIPMENT
TASK NO.1: TOP LINER EVALUATION
HASP/Mobilization Engineering Evaluation Field Activities
Subtask No. 1.1 Subtask No. 1.2 Subtask No. 1.3
Rate Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost
125.00
1200.00
125.00
55.00
25.00
78.00
235.00 1.00 235.00
120.00
360.00 1.00 360.00
120.00
360.00
125.00
375.00 1.00 375.00
25.00 3.00 75.00
36.00
25.00
75.00
35.00 3.00 105.00
115.00
100.00
250.00
750.00
30.00
35.00
120.00
33.00
.. 10.00 1.00 10.00
150.00
100.00 1.00 100.00
35.00
50.00
100.00
80.00
240.00
75.00
20.00
20.00
300.00
150.00
2000.00 0.25 500.00
125.00 1.00 125.00
1350.00 0.25 337.50
200.00 0.25 50.00
250.00
1500.00
2272.50
S&ME Proposal No. P1012-96V-Revision 1 11/15/96
Project Management
Subtask 1.4
Qty Cost
Page 2
Material
Item
Eouipment Decon Pad
55-Gallon Drum, ea
Drum Label, each
Plastic. roll
Hydrogen, per bottle
Calibration Gas Charoe. ea
Grade D Breathing Air, Cylinder
Grade D Air Cvlinder Rent. Month
PipeX -Metal X, Pail
lsopropyl Alcohol, liter
Liouinox, Gallon
DI Water, Gallon
Sensidyne Tubes, ea
Markers/Paint, etc.
Shelby Tubes. ea
Sample Cooler, use
Sample Shippino, ea
Well Casino, 6" x 10 '
Well Screen, 6" x 1 0'
Well Cap, 6"
Lockino Cap, 6"
Padlock
Filter Sand, 50# Bao
Bentonite, 50# Pail
Cement, Sack
Bentonite Powder, 50# bao
Potable Water, unit
Decon Supplies, week
Tvveks, each
Vinyl Gloves, box
Nitrile Gloves, pair
Disposable Booties, pair
Respirator Cartridoes, ea
Level D PPE, day
Level C PPE, day
Level B PPE, dav
TOTALS:
WARREN COUNTY PCB LANDFILL
Addendum to Request for Proposal
TABLE 1 -DETAILED TASK AND SUBTASK COSTS -MATERIAL
TASK NO.1: TOP LINER EVALUATION
HASP/Mobilization Engineering Evaluation Field Activities
Subtask No. 1.1 Subtask No. 1.2 Subtask No. 1.3
Rate Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost
250.00 1.00 250.00
30.00
3.00
70.00 2.00 140.00
55.00
10.00 3.00 30.00
20.00
20.00
55.00 0.50 27.50
10.00 1.00 10.00
6.00 1.00 6.00
0.60 10.00 6.00
12.00
25.00 1.00 25.00
9.00 2.00 18.00
10.00
35.00
120.00
155.00
40.00
32.00
10.00
3.00
42.00
8.50
9.00
125.00
100.00 1.00 100.00
10.00 12.00 120.00
15.00 2.00 30.00
7.50 4.00 30.00
5.00
12.00
45.00
60.00
120.00
542.50
All drums and containers to be furnished by the DWM.
S&ME Proposal No. P1012-96V-Revision 1 11/15/96
Project Management
Subtask 1.4
Qty Cost
Page3
WARREN COUNTY PCB LANDFILL
Addendum to Request for Proposal
TABLE1 -DETAILED TASK AND SUBTASK COSTS -SUBCONTRACT EXPENSE
TASK N0.1: TOP LINER EVALUATION
HASP/Mobilization Engineering Evaluation Field Activities
Subcontract Expense Subtask No. 1.1 Subtask No. 1.2 Subtask No. 1.3
Name/Service Provided
Plastic Fusion Fabricators 3200.00
IEA / North Carolina (Table 2) 740.00 1.00 740.00
ReadiMix Concrete (per vd delivered) 100.00 1.00 100.00
Surveyor 2500.00 1.00 2500.00
Physical Soil Testing 1500.00 1.00 1500.00
PortaJohn Service, Mobilization 100.00 1.00 100.00
PortaJohn Service, Week 75.00 1.00 75.00
Phone Service 100.00
Security Service, week 2900.00
TOTALS: 5015.00
S&ME Proposal No. P1012-96V -Revision 1 11/15/96
Project Management
Subtask 1.4
Page~
WARREN COUNTY PCB LANDFILL
Addendum to Request for Proposal
TABLE1 -DETAILED TASK AND SUBTASK COSTS -MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSES
TASK NO.1: TOP LINER EVALUATION
HASP/Mobilization Engineering Evaluation
Misc. Expenses Subtask No. 1.1 Subtask No. 1.2
Description
Mileage (car or pickup), per mile 0.35
Mileage (rig or heavy truck), per mile 1.00
Perdiem, per man/day 75.00
TOTALS:
SUBTASK 1.1: Preparation of the Health & Safety Plan and initiation of the project.
SUBTASK 1.2: Engineering evaluation of the cap and generation of the report.
SUBTASK 1.3: Field work assocated with the cap evaluation.
SUBTASK 1.4: Project Management
Misc. Expenses
Description I
TOTAL TASK 1
S&ME Proposal No. P1012-96V-Revision 1
TABLE1 -SUMMARY OF COSTS
TASK NO.1: TOP LINER EVALUATION
HASP/Mobilization Engineering Evaluation
Subtask No. 1.1 Subtask No. 1.2
I 1638.00 I 2510.00
17091.00
11/15/96
Field Activities
Subtask No. 1.3
400.00 140.00
140.00
Field Activities
Subtask No. 1.3
I 12218.00
Project Management
Subtask 1.4
Project Management
Subtask 1.4
I 725.00
Pages
Labor
Position
Principal
Sr. Consultant/Project Director
Sr. Registered Professional
Proiect Professional
Staff Professional (Level II)
Staff Professional (Level I)
Senior Technician
Technician
CAD Operator
Secretary
Driller
Helper
Driver
Mechanic
TOTALS:
WARREN COUNTY PCB LANDFILL
Addendum to Request for Proposal
TABLE 1 -DETAILED TASK AND SUBTASK COSTS -LABOR
TASK NO. 2: BOREHOLE / WELL INSTALLATION
Project Management Field Activities QA/QC
Subtask No. 2.1 Subtask No. 2.2 Subtask No. 2.3
Rate Hours Cost Hours Cost Hours Cost
125.00 1.00 125.00
110.00 2.00 220.00 4.00 440.00
95.00 8.00 760.00 48.00 4560.00
80.00
63.00 50.00 3150.00
55.00
48.00 50.00 2400.00
42.00
42.00
33.00 12.00 396.00
45.00
25.00
35.00 16.00 560.00
35.00
23.00 1501.00 168.00 11110.00
Drill crew time is covered in the equipment section.
S&ME Proposal No. P1012-96V• Revision 1 11/15/96
Reporting
Subtask 2.4
Hours Cost
1.00 125.00
2.00 220.00
4.00 380.00
8.00 504.00
6.00 252.00
10.00 330.00
31.00 1811.00
Page6
Equipment
Type
Drill Crew and Rio , hr
Drill Crew and Rio , dav
Water Truck, Dav
4x4 Vehicle on Site, day
Std. Vehicle on Site. day
Explosimeter, day
Explosimeter, week
Toxic Vapor Analyzer. day
Toxic Vapor Analyzer. week
Oroanic Vapor Analyzer. day
Oroanic Vapor Analyzer. week
Landfill Gas Analyzer. day
Landfill Gas Analyzer. week
Sensidine Pump, Day
Conductivity Meter, day
Contractor Pumps, dav
Contractor Pumps. week
Generator, dav
Generator, week
Fan or Blower, week
Lioht Plant, mobilization
Liqht Plant, day
Light Plant, week
Fan or blower, day
Full Face Respirators. day
Air Line Respirators. day
pH Meter, day
S/S Hand Auoer & Extensions, dav
Submersible Pump, dav
Field Permeameter, day
Water Level Probe, week
Redi-Flo2 Pump (2"), day
Redi-Flo2 Controller, day
Steam Cleaner, day
Steam Cleaner, week
Air Compressor, dav
Compressed Argon (for DO Meas.)
Regulator, day
Storaoe Trailer, mob
Storaoe Trailer, month
Site Support Facilities
Bobcat, mob
Bobcat, month
Forklift Tines, month
Poly Tanks (2100 gallon). month
Metal Pan Fabrication
TOTALS:
WARREN COUNTY PCB LANDFILL
Addendum to Request for Proposal
TABLE 1 -DETAILED TASK AND SUBTASK COSTS -EQUIPMENT
TASK NO. 2: BOREHOLE/ WELL INSTALLATION
Project Management Field Activities QA/QC
Subtask No. 2.1 Subtask No. 2.2 Subtask No. 2.3
Rate Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost
125.00
1200.00 6.00 7200.00
125.00 6.00 750.00
55.00
25.00
78.00
235.00 1.00 235.00
120.00
360.00 1.00 360.00
120.00
360.00
125.00
375.00 1.00 375.00
25 .00
36.00
25.00
75.00 1.00 75.00
35.00
115.00 1.00 115.00
75.00 1.00 75.00
100.00
250.00
750.00
30.00
35.00
120.00
33.00
10.00
150.00
150.00
35.00
50.00
100.00
80.00
240.00 1.00 240.00
75.00
20.00
20.00
300.00
150.00
2000.00 0.25 500.00
125.00
1350.00 0.25 337.50
200.00 0.25 50.00
250.00
1200.00 1.00 1200.00
3562.50
Mobilization costs are estimated to require 8 hours of drill crew time
S&ME Proposal No. P1012-96V-Revision 1 11/15/96
Reporting
Subtask 2.4
Qty Cost
Page 7
Material
Item
Eauipment Decon Pad
55-Gallon Drum, ea
Drum Label, each
Plastic, roll
Hydroaen, per bottle
Calibration Gas Charae, ea
Grade D Breathina Air, Cylinder
Grade D Air Cylinder Rent. Month
PipeX -Metal X, Pail (For Decon)
lsopropyl Alcohol. liter
Liauinox, Gallon
DI Water, Gallon
Sensidyne Tubes, ea
Markers/Paint, etc.
Shelby Tubes, ea
Sample Cooler, use
Sample Shippina, ea
Well Casina, 6" x 1 0 '
Well Screen, 6" x 1 0'
Well Cap, 6"
Locking Cap, 6"
Padlock
Filter Sand, 50# Baa
Bentonite, 50# Pail
Cement, Sack
Bentonite Powder, 50# bag
Potable Water, unit
Decon Supplies, week
Tyveks, each
Vinyl Gloves, box
Nitrile Gloves, pair
Disposable Booties, pair
Respirator Cartridaes, ea
Level D PPE, day
Level C PPE, day
Level B PPE, day
TOTALS:
WARREN COUNTY PCB LANDFILL
Addendum to Request for Proposal
TABLE 1 -DETAILED TASK AND SUBTASK COSTS -MATERIAL
TASK NO. 2: BOREHOLE / WELL INSTALLATION
Project Management Field Activities QA/QC
Subtask No. 2.1 Subtask No. 2.2 Subtask No. 2.3
Rate Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost
250.00
30.00
3.00
70.00 4.00 280.00
55.00
10.00 2.00 20.00
20.00
20.00
55.00 ·1.50 82.50
10.00 0.50 5.00
20.00 1.00 20.00
0.60
12.00 5.00 60.00
25.00 1.00 25.00
9.00
10.00
35.00
120.00 2.00 240.00
155.00 4.00 620.00
40.00 2.00 80.00
32.00 2.00 64.00
10.00 2.00 20.00
3.00 30.00 90.00
32.00 6.00 192.00
8.00 10.00 80.00
9.00 1.00 9.00
125.00
100.00 1.00 100.00
6.00 33.00 198.00
15.00 3.00 45.00
7.50 8.00 60.00
5.00
3.00 40.00 120.00
45.00
60.00
120.00
2410.50
All drums and containers to be furnished by the DWM.
S&ME Proposal No. P1012-96V-Revision 1 11/15/96
Reporting
Subtask 2.4
Qty Cost
Page 8
WARREN COUNTY PCB LANDFILL
Addendum to Request for Proposal
TABLE1 -DETAILED TASK AND SUBTASK COSTS -SUBCONTRACT EXPENSE
TASK NO. 2: BOREHOLE/ WELL INSTALLATION
Subcontract Expense
Plastic Fusion Fabricators
IEA / North Carolina (Table 2)
ReadiMix Concrete (per yd delivered)
Surveyor
Physical Soil Testino
PortaJohn Service, Mobilization
Porta John Service. week
Phone Service
Security Service. week
TOTALS:
Project Management Field Activities
Subtask No. 2.1 Subtask No. 2.2
3200.00
740.00
100.00 1.00 100.00
2500.00
750.00
100.00
75.00 1.00 75.00
100.00
2900.00
175.00
WARREN COUNTY PCB LANDFILL
Addendum to Request for Proposal
QAJQC
Subtask No. 2.3
1.00 740.00
740.00
TABLE 1 -DETAILED TASK AND SUBTASK COSTS -MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSES
TASK NO. 2: BOREHOLE / WELL INSTALLATION
Project Management Field Activities QAJQC
Miscellaneous Subtask No. 2.1 Subtask No. 2.2 Subtask No. 2.3
Description
Mileaoe {car or pickup), per mile 0.35 500.00 175.00
Mileage (rig or heavy truck), per mile 1.00
Perdiem, per man/day 75.00
TOTALS: 175.00
TABLE2-SUMMARY OF COSTS
TASK NO. 2: BOREHOLE/WELL INSTALLATION
Project Management Field Activities QAJQC
Subtask No. 2.1 Subtask No. 2.2 Subtask No. 2.3
Description I I 1501 .00 I 17433.00 I 740.00
TOTAL TASK2 21485.00
S&ME Proposal No. P1012-96V-Revision 1 11/15/96
Reporting
Subtask 2.4
Reporting
Subtask 2.4
Reporting
Subtask 2.4
I 1811.00
Page9
WARREN COUNTY PCB LANDFILL
Addendum to Request for Proposal
TABLE 2 -SUMMARY OF LABORATORY ANALYSES
1. IDW Characterization
a. Composite sample of liquids, analysis and reporting of
PCBs Method 8080
b. Composite sample of solids, TCLP sample
preparation, analysis and reporting of PCBs
Notes:
Laboratory QA/QC Samples have been deleted
1.00 165.00 each
1.00 575.00 each
All Analyses will be performed according to standard turnaround times for reporting.
S&ME Proposal No. P1012-96V -Revision 1 11/15/96
165.00
575.00
740.00
Page 1
ATTACHMENT A
The cost prepared and submitted by S&ME in response to the Request for Clarification on
RFP (Memorandum dated November 8, 1996) includes several modifications to allow
reduced expenditures. These modifications to our Proposal No. P1012-96Vare consistent
with and meet the requirements of the November 8th Memorandum and the original RFP
dated September 18, 1996, and are presented below:
• Collection of QA/QC samples (Section 3.0, Sampling and Analysis Plan) and the
corresponding laboratory analyses have been eliminated. This includes collection
of the wipe samples, duplicates, equipment blanks, and trip blanks. We will
characterize the wastes as specified in the original RFP. While the QA/QC samples
and analyses are desirable if it should be necessary to defend the data, they are
not technically required to characterize liquid and solid wastes that will be generated
by the work. The wipe samples were originally included to demonstrate, through
analytical data, that the work had not resulted in a release of PCB containing
materials to the environment. We will still perform the work as originally planned,
using good work practices to prevent releases.
• The private security service has been eliminated . With the high-visibility of this site,
we felt that the service would be a positive influence in demonstrating a secure site
to area citizens during the planned activities at the site. The private service is not
a necessity to perform the work as specified in the RFP. If selected, we will work
with the DWM to secure the site with existing gates and fencing and address the
need for further security with the Warren County Sheriffs Department, should the
need arise.
• Shop-fabrication of two PVC boots to connect the wells to the top liner has been
eliminated. The boot may not be necessary, but was a conservative method of
assuring that leakage would not occur at the well location. A field-fabricated
mechanical seal will serve the same function and will be less expensive. The seal
will be fabricated using a stainless steel band clamp to attach the PVC liner to the
well casing.
• Adjustments have been made to the labor time required to complete the various
tasks where appropriate.
;::-p n N ~ 1 ~ 7 1 "i ;'. ,-. i:l "i C:: (\ I 1 r) 1,1 Q C:: T ;::-• 1 lJ
DMSI0N OF WASTE ~A0EMENT November 8, 1996
WARREN COlJNTV PCB LANDFILL
A.nnF,NDUM TO REOUE~T 14"O'R P'ROPOS ,I ,S
DUE n..4TH 12.•f,II nnnH ""--· ,. ·• 15. 1996
EV ALU A TI ON OF EXISTING INTEGRITY OF SURFICIAL LIN tR SYSTEM/CAP
:1TEM I
PRE-MOB ON SITE PROJEC~ TOTAL
MOBILIZATION ACTIVITIES MANAGl CMENT
!EQUIPMENT/
0SUPPLIES
I
SUB-
CONTRACTORS
MISCELLANEOUS
rorAL
1638.00
0.00
o.oo
'
' ' o.oo i
1638.00 I
' i
6758.00 725 00
2815.00 0 00
5015.00 0.00
140.00 0. DO
14728.00 725. )0
BOREHOLE/ EXCAVATION/ WELL INSTALLAT: ON
9121.00
2815.00
5015.00
140.00
17091.00
TEM PRE-MOB ON SITE PROJEC1 TOTAL
MOBILIZATION ACTIVITms MANAGE MENT
:"ABOR
. tQUIPMBNT/
UPPLIBS
I UB-
1 ~ONTRACTORS
lISCELLANBOUS
tOTAL
ec}mpany S&ME, Inc.
!
1000.00
o.oo
0.00
0.00
1000.00
11921.00 1501. ( 0 144?? 00
5973.00 o. cp 5973.00
915.00 o.op 120395.00
175.00 O.OD 175.00
1501. 0 ~1485.00
Slanaturc -----+------
-CDM
environmental
services
Camp Dresser & McKee
5400 Glenwood Avenue, Suite 300
Raleigh , North Carolina 27612
Tel: [phone] Fax: [phone]
November 15, 1996
Mr. William L. Meyer
Director
North Carolina Department of Environment, Health,
and Natural Resources
Division of Waste Management
P.O. Box 27687
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687
Re: Request for Clarification on RFP
Excavation, Handling, and Storage of PCB Contaminated Soils From the Warren
County PCB Landfill
Dear Mr. Meyer:
Camp Dresser & McKee (COM) is pleased to submit one copy of our response to the
Request for Clarification on the RFP for the Warren County PCB landfill.
The presence of methane gas was considered in our original proposal. As discussed in
Section 2 of our proposal, prior to mobilizing personnel and equipment to the project site, a
Health and Safety Plan (H&SP) will be prepared. The purpose of the H&SP is to establish
specific requirements for protecting the health and safety of personnel during field
activities. The H&SP will include provisions for the monitoring of air quality, including
methane gas concentrations, and will define action levels for continuation of site activities.
CDM will monitor for methane gas concentrations using a Combustible Gas Indicator (CCI)
during all intrusive activities.
Also attached to this letter is the completed Addendum to Request for Proposals, which
provides an itemized cost of the tasks included in the proposal. Because our project
management costs have been developed and spread among the two phases of the project,
this cost estimate assumes that the entire project will be awarded as originally proposed in
the RFP. If the scope of work is decreased or modified, or if only part of the original
proposal is awarded, our costs may have to be changed accordingly to reflect the change in
scope. This cost also assumes that no work stoppage will occur due to elevated methane or
other gas concentrations. Elevated methane gas concentrations are defined as greater than
25% of the lower explosion limit (LEL).
We appreciate the opportunity to present this supplemental information to our proposal
and look forward with great interest to hearing from you. Should you have any questions
or require any clarification, please do not hesitate to call us. We are looking forward to
working with the Division and the Working Group.
Very truly yours,
CAMP DRESSER & McKEE
Joseph F. Wiseman, Jr., P.E.
Associate
Timothy D. Grant, P.G.
Project Manager
' ,,-.;, -~
FROM 9197153605 SOLID WASTE DIU 11.08.1996 10:02 p. 3
: I '
i i
~MSION OF WASTEMANAO~ .. November 8, 1996
:
YtARREN~OUNTVPCBLANDFILL
A. hhlf.NIH 1M TO D'li",OTJE~T ~OR PRC.~.-., T.~
l
i I
i I nrr'l1 n~ rF 12.nn ......... :· .. ,~. 100" ; I ' I
l EVALUATION OF EXISTING mrEGRITY OF SURFICIAL LIN tR SYSTEM/CAP
I ! \
]ITEM fRE•MOB T .ON SITE PROJEC ro TOTAL i MOBILIZATioN ACTIVITIES MANAGl ~MENT
LABOR $3,450 I $4,000 : $3,05( $10,500 '
EQUIPMENT/ I I
SUPPLIES $ 200 I $ · 500 $ 200 $ 900
SUB-I !
CONTRACTORS I $11,500. $11,500
MISCELLANEOUS : l
: $1~000 i $2,000 $1,500 $ 4,500
l'OTAL $4,650 I $18,000 ; $4,750 $27.400
1 l ;
j BOREHOLE /EXC VATION i WELL INSTALLAT. ON
fTEM PRE-MOB b ON SITE PROJEC: TOTAL
MOBILIZATI N ACTMTIES MANAGi MENT
"'ABOR $7,200 l $11.225 $12.000 $10.42"1 I
lQUIPMENT/ I
st)PPLIES I
$ $ 1.100 $ 250 i $ 600 250 ¢UB-. i
ONTRACTORS I· $20.000 t20.ooo
¥1SCELLANEOUS l ..
I I
j $1,050 .,, '$ 2,2'25 $ 1.200 i 4.47"1
toTAL $ 8,500 I $34.050 $13,450 $56,000 I
I
; ' ' I --r~~ Cr,~, ' I C~mpany CAMP DRESSER & McKEE ! Signature
! (.) ' I I I I
1 I
i : I
I I l
li:30 PIS
,
r
14]001
PATTERSON
EXPLORATION SERVICES
Post Offic-~ 3008
Sanford. North Carolina.27.;,~l-3008
Phone: (919) 774-W0 F~ (919) Tl4-3Sl0
Fax To: ~ v-. \;V: l l i"ti.l°'-'\. L. 1/\1\.. e. '-!er Compa.nr-Dc-l-+N t,_ _ D w rVl
Phone Number: q 1'1-"7-:33-tJ--,q6 Fax Number: q 1'1 -'7.{<;°-3&o S-
Date: l\(\L-\(~lo From: Det1./\,-~ l-\i~r\cl.er
Number of Pages Transmitted (Including Trunsmittal Page) / :/ • If you have
any questions or have .difficulcy in receiving this transmittal, please: call (919) 774-3Tl0.
Comments:
Norta TO ll.£CIP1El',.'T: The: imaf1Il3tion contau1cd m. this facmnile me=ge is confideoti;u information intended only for the nse
of the indMdl!al or entity named as addressee above. If the ri::cdvu of this message: is 1Jot the inr=dcd rccipicni:. or the employee
Cit' the ~ent .rcsponsil>le to deiiver it to the intended re:ipicnt. yoa ;!l'"C: he:-i:by notified that any dissemination,. distribution or copying
oC this o:mmmic::a1irni is si:riruy profu.ciied.. If you have· reccived tfli<; commt1nicuioa in error, pl=e inuncdia!cly notify us by
telephone.
{Shipping.Add= 19()7 Boone TTriil. Road • &mfarri • North Camlina • V330}
11 11-1 :Bo n :;.iu (0 l_l l_J.:,
PATTERSON
EXPLORATION SERVICES
P.O_ BOX: 3008 -SANFORD, N.C. 27331-3008 -(919) 77!..-3770
FAX:[phone]
November 14, 1996
Mr. William L Meyer
Director
Division of Solid Waste Man~oement
Post Office Box Z7687
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687
RE: Oarifica.tion on RFP Associated With Excavatio~ Handling, and Storage of PCB
Cont.aminated Soils From Warren County PCB I..a.ndfiIL
In reference to your letter dated November 8, 1996t requesting clarification of our previous
proposal for excavation, handling, and storage of PCB contaminated s~il at the Warren County
PCB Landfill, Patterson Exploration Services is herewith submitting this packet which includes
the additional infonnation requested. Please add this information to our proposal dated October
9, 1996, and please -adjust our proposed costs as listed on the enclosed form.
Patterson Exploration Services has been involved with installing landfill gas (methane) recovery
and mitigation systems since the 1980's throughout North Carolina. Patterson Exploration
Services was one of the first companies to install a landfill gas collection system in North
Carolina (Le. Rowland Landfi.IL Ralei~ North Carolina).
We have enclosed a copy of a general health and safety plan that we use when working in
landfills which will be modified and completed for the Warren County PCB Landfill.
Furthermoret Patterson Exploration Services has state of the art Photo Ionization Detectors
(PID) for monitoring oxygen, methane, carbon monoxide, and hydrogen sulphide levels while
working in landfills.
When working in landfills, landfill gas is always a consideration that must be addressed.
Patterson Exploration Services will utilize a PID for detecting landfiII gas while working at the
site. We have also enclosed an itemized list and cost of all separate elements included in our
previous proposal as requested.
Patterson Exploration Services looks forward to working with you on this project. If you have
any questions or if you need additional informatio~ please don't hesitate to call.
Sincerely, 1 / .t/ /J
~-~ff77~
R Dennis Holder, Geologist
Environmental Division Manager
rdh.pcbres.pro
11114/96 li: 31 PXS
DIVISION OF W ASfE :MANAGEMENT
November 8~ 1996
-WARRENCOUNTYPCBLANDFILL
ADDENDUM TO REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS
DUE DATE 12:00 nnon November 15. 1996
EVALUATION OF EXISTING INTEGRITY OF SURF1CIAL LINER SYSTKM/CAP
ITEM PRE-MOB ON-SITE PROJECT TOTAL
MOBILIZATION ACTIVITIES :MANAGEMENT
IABOR $1,500 $800 $2,500 $4,800
EQUIPMENT/
SUPPLIES 0 0 ; 0 0
Sl.JB-
CONIRACTORS 0 $800 0 $800
MISCELLANEOUS 0 $2,175 0 $2,175
TOTAL $1,500 $3,775 $2,500 $7,775
BOREHOLE/EXCAVATION/WELL INSTALLATION
ITEM PRE-MOB ON-SI1E PROJECT TOTAL
MOBILIZATION ACTIVITIES MANAGEMENT
LABOR $4,500 $5,000 $4,000 $13,500
EQUIPMENT/
SUPPUES $14,000 0 0 $14,000
SUB-
CONTRACTORS $1,500 $15,000 0 $16,500
MISCELI.ANEOUS $0 $1,500 0 $1,500
TOTAL $20,000 $21,500 $4,000 $45,500
I 11/14 /96 17:32
~-·. . . . . '
PXS
HEALTH
and
SAFETY PLAN
(HASP)
FOR WORKING ON or NEAR
MSW LANDFILLS
14)00,1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
General. .. _ . . .. .. . . . . . . . .. . . . .. . . . . . . ... . . . . . .. .. .. .. _ . . . . . ... . .. .. ... . 1
Safety Equipment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • • . . 1 & 2
Personal Health & Hygiene • • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • • • . . . . . . . . . . . 2 & 3
Landfill Safety Procedures . . . . . . . . • • . • • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 & 4
Safety Procedures for Trenching & Pipe Installation . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 & 5
Shoring & Bracing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Sampling of Monitoring Wells . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Safety Man'½:,oement . . . . . . . . • • • • • • • . • . • . . . . . . . . ~ . . . . • • • 5 & 6
Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) & Safety Plan ............. 6 & 7
Table 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • • . . • . . . . . 8
Emergency Contacf:5 . . . . . . . . • • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Agreement & U nde~tanding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
If!'.] I.JI):)
PXS
HEAL1H and SAFETY PLAN
FOR WORKING ON or NEAR MSW LANDFILLS
A. GE~""ERAL
B.
The Occupational Safet;y and Health Act of 1970 im~ a duty on employers to furnish
a safe and healthful job environment for all employees. The employees are required to
comply with saf~ rules and regulations applicable to their activities and conduct.
Employers have the obligation not only to eliminate recognized hazards and to comply
with national safety and health hazards, but also to provide information and training to
create the necessary awareness on the part of the employees.
Landfill safety requires more than the common sense safety procedures common to all
industry. Bacterial decomposition of trash results in the formation of methane, a colorless,
odorless explosive gas that together with other volatile materials evolves into the
atmosphere and migrates through the soil into surrounding areas. Air qualify' studies
consistently show the concentrations of potentially hazardous substances (OSHA "Priority
Pollutants") in the ambient air in the vicin.icy of solid waste landfills are well below
threshold limits. However, in confined or enclosed areas on or adjacent to landfills,
~oerous concentrations of combusn"ble and possibly toxic gases may accumulate. Oxygen
depletion may also occur in these areas of confinement, therefore, safety procedures
should be followed at all times.
SAFETY EQUIPMENT
Workers engaged in construction or maintenance of landfill gas facilities shall wear
protective safecy eqmpment as follows:
1. Hard hats, if near moving or mechanical equipment
2. Steel-toed shoes or rainboots
3. Safety glasses or face shields
4. Protective gloves (ruliber or plastic if working wiJh wet solid waste or where exposure
to leachate/condensate i.s expected)
5. Hearing protectioI½ depending on noise level of work environment.
The following safecy equipment will be available at the job site in quantities sufficient to
cover the construction crew:
1. First aid kit(s)
-1-
l4l 006
lL'l-1 -'96 li: 33 PIS
2. Fire extinguishers (2) -25 lb. dry chemical
3. No Smoking signs
4. Acid vapor masks for all personnel
5. Parachute-type harnesses (2) and safety lines (for use i:n excavation., manhol.es, etc.)
6. Self-contained breathing apparatus (for rescue personnel trained t:o use this
equipment).
7. Methane/oxygen indicator (used by persons trained in it's operation).
8. Hydrogen sulfide indicator (used by persons trained in "it's operation).
9. Barricades for excavations that will remain open for any period of time.
10. Covers for excavations that will remain open for any period of time (wells).
11. Air-moving equipment that can provide ventilation if working in sub-standard air
environment (trenches, condensate dmin pits, etc.).
12 Fire blanket
13. Organic vapor masks
C. PERSONAL HEALTH and HYGIENE
1. Personal safety and the safety of fellow workers require that all employees are
mentally alert and in good general health. No alcohol or drugs are permitted..
Smoking shall be prohibited on the landfill. No worker should handle e:x:cavated
solid waste without wearing gloves. Parts of the body accidentally exposed to
waste, leachate or condensate shall be washed with soap and water immediately.
2. An annual medical examination also is recommended for workers whose activities
include daily exposure to solid waste or landfill gases. Any cut or abrasion shall
be treated immediately as the chance of infection is high when working on a
landfill. A tetanus shot is recommended at specified intervals for all personnel
involved in site construction.
3. Avoid contact with unfamiliar plants or those known to be hazardous growing on
the landfill.
4. Animals, snakes, spiders and other insects should be voided. Be particularly
careful around vaults and valve boxes. Fust aid supplies · should include a snake
bite kit
-2-
i4]00i
ll/14./96 1 i: 3-l PIS
5. The address, phone number and location map of the local hospital and medical
emergency room will be prominently posted. · In additio~ the phone number of
ambulance and fire department/rescue units will be postecl at · the construction
office. A list of emergency contacts and numbers is attached to this plan.
D. LANDFILL SAFETY PROCEDURES
1. When working on an active or completed solid waste landfilled area, be alert to
the existence of (or JJOtential. for) hazardo~ conditions, i.e., the presence of landfill
~-
Hazards that might occur could be one or more of the following:
a. Fire may start spontaneously from exposed and/or decomposing refuse.
b. Fires and explosions may occur in confined or enclosed spaces from the
presence of methane gas.
c. Landfill gases may cause an oxygen deficiency in underground trenches,
vaults, condnits and structures.
d. Hydrogen sulfide (H;P) may be present Hz$ is a colorless, very flammable
gas which, in fow concentrations, has an offensive odor descnbed as that
of rotten eggs.
2 A confined space is defined as a space where existing ventilation is insufficient to
remove dangerous air contamination and/or oxygen deficiency, and where ready
access to remove a disabled employee is difficult_ In the case of flammable gases
such as methane; a hazardous concentration is defined as any concentration greater
than 20% of the lower explosive limit (LEL). An immediately dangerous to life
and health atmosphere is one containing less than 195% oxygen by volume (Cal-
OSHA). In the absence of positive ventilation, a mixture of 5% landfill gas in air
will exceed both of these limits.
3. Vaults and ditches greater than 3 feet and other nonventilated confined spaces
should not be entered unless tested for flammable gas. Air blowers or fans should
be available for positive ventilation. Self contained breathing apparatus or
supplied-air masks must be used when entering areas containing hazardous and/or
oxygen deficient atmospheres.
"Chemical" cartridge respirators can be used for gaseous contaminants (not lizS)
if oxygen concentration is satisfactory. Mechanical filter respirators should be used
only for protection ~o-ainst particulate matter.
4. Fires or explosions in confined spaces require a source of ignition.. Smoking is
strictly forbidden e~pt in well ventilated areas. Non-sparking and/or explosion
-3-
i4]008
I . ' .
ll /1 4/96 li :35 PXS
proof tools should be used in vaults, trenches, or other enclosed areas. Positive
ventilation is required in construction shacks or other structures on or near a
Iandfi.ll Temporary structures on the landfill surface should be constructed on
blocks or other supports with a ventilated area under the main floor. Construction
equipment should be equipped with vertical exhaust and spark arrestors.
5. Hydrogen sulfide gas is present in some concentrations, generally below 100 parts
per million (ppm), in landfill gas. It is unlikely tba.t hazardous a:>ncentrations of
~Swill build up (See Table 1) except in vaults or other confined spaces where
oxygen deficiency may be a major haurrd Gas masks are not effective against ~S
and fresh air breathing equipment is required.
6. If the well construction is not completed by the end of the working day, the hole
shall be covered with a plate of sufficient burlap to prevent ao::ess to the hole and
to support expected loads and weighted dawn to cliscour~oe removal. The edges
of the plate should be covered with sufficient depth of wet dirt to prevent escape
of gas. Barricades shall be placed around the covered hole outside range of
possible cave-ins.
F. SAFETY PROCEDURES for TRENCHING and PIPE INSTALLATION
1. One person shall be present at all times during construction with the sole
responsibilicy of assuring the observance of all safety procedures. This person shall
be trained in the use of all the recommended safety equipment.
2. Smoking shall be prohibited within 50 feet of the construction area. No smoking
on the landfill is preferred.
3. Prior to the entry of any workers into an excavation deeper than three feet, and
periodically during ronstruction, the atmosphere in the excavation should be tested.
No worker shall be allowed to enter such an excavation without an acid vapor
mask.. If there is oxygen deficiency, hydrogen sulfide or a combustible InDctnre of
methane, precautionary measures should be taken.
4. No worker shall be allpwed to work alone at any time in or near the excavation..
An.other worker shall be present, beyond the area considered to be subject to the
possible effects of landfill gas.
5. Periodically during construction, the work area shall be monitored for levels of
methane and hydrogen sulfide.
6. No worker shall handle excavated solid waste without appropriate work gloves.
7. Construction equipment shall be equipped with a vertical exhaust at least five feet
above grade and/or with spark arrestors.
8. Motors utilized in the e-xcavation area shall be explosion proof.
--4-
l4J OOH
11 / 1-L' 9 6 1 i : 3 5 PIS
9. No welding shall be permitted in, on or immediately near the excavation area.
10. Soil sb.a11 be stockpiled near the excavation. to be used to smother any solid waste
combustion should it occur.
11. Solvent cleaning, gluing or bonding of pipe shall be performed to the extent
possible, outside the trench.
12. Forced ventila.tion shall be provided for work performed in a trench deeper than
three feet.
13. During piping assembly, all valves shall be closed immediately after installation.
14. As construction progresses, all valves shall be dosed as installed to prevent the
migration of gases through the pipeline and gas collection system.
G. SHORING and BRACING
No person shall enter any trench five feet or more in depth unless that trench as been
shore~ braced,. sloped, or other provisions made to prevent cave-in.
H. SAMPLING of MONITORING WELLS
Caution should be taken to observe potential hazardous conditions which may exist at
sampling points on or near the landfill The same conditions and the potential for the
above mentioned hazards may exist at the sampling points. While sampling monitoring
wells, care should be taken to realize that the monitoring well may be producing landfill
gas which can rob the work area of neces.sazy oxygen. Sampling of gas monitoring wells,
ground water monitoring wells, and smface water monitoring points should always be
accomplished with two people.
C.f.lJTJON: Care shoul.d be taken. when. opening a monitoring well An OVA should be ~d f,o
monitor for the. presence of a hazardous condition a:nd record readings on the jield log. Upon
completion of sa,npling or monitoring all personnel should thoroughly wash any exposed part of their
body which may have come -in contact with sampling devices or fluids from the wells.
I. SAFETY MANAGEl\.1El'iT
1. No safety program can. be effective without management suppart and interest.
2. Safety procedures shall be reviewed with all worke~ prior to the start of work
each day.
3. The Safety Officer shall be adequately qualified to insure that· he is aware of
requirements and safety concerns.
4. Weekly meetings shall be held to review unsafe acts.
-5-
[4]010
11/14,1 96 li: 36 PIS
5. Unsafe acts shall be stopped if discovered by. the· Safety·Officer.
6. Required safety equipment .shall . be ,·onsit~ · and · shall be checked to verify
completeness and. functionality •.
7. Contracts for landfill gas ·re::tiog~ construc:tiori _or operation shall include a safety
procedure dause_ ·· · ·· ·
8. All employees on the job site shall -~ -ili awareness document of their work
environment . . . .
9. Appropriate local authorities · (fire ~ ::dir quality, etc.) shall be notified
. prior to _·4filling· or flaring. • ' . .
10. A safety check list at the job site shail .be rrtiiirtafued..
J. PERSONAL-P-ROTECTIVE ·EoUIPMENT -rPPE> & :sAFETY PLAN
1. A. RECOVERY 'WELL INSTAl.LATiON
All work performed w.ill be at.Level "Dtt .or, in limited~, at Level "C.
If the Site Safety & Health Offi(?!r (SSHO) determines Level "Bit oonditions
mav exis~ all work. at that site wiILbe terminated until the SSHO
det~rmines the conditions have downgrad~d to Level ttC" or lower.
1. The emergency rescue personnel v.iil be prepared to enter the site
at Level "Bit. .
2. The SSHO -shaII.-be responsib~e _,ror determining the level of PPE.
. . . .
3. The SSHO shall ~ respoDSlllle for the Health and Safety Plan
(HASP). .
' ..
4._ The SSHO shall ·make--sure· 1$at all personnel comply with all
applicable standards: --•·· ..
B. PERSONAL PROTECTIVE :EQUIPMENT
. 1. Level "l)lt
a. Tyveks: or coveralls .
b. Gloves _ --surgical under . co#c,n
c. Hard hat
d. Steel . toed boots
-6-
141 Oll
ll/lJ/96 17 :37
2.
! . ' I
I .
e_ Safety glasses
...
2. Level "C" . .
a.. :. sarane:x: ~erillli;: · .:·.•· ...
b. · .. · N~prerie;; of Nitrile gioves
c.: Hard hat
d. Steel toed Pye J,oots
e. Air Purifyirigji~l:I'atory (AfR)
£
g. . Taped inteif~Jffewes and suit, suit and boots)
COILECTION SYSTEM: INSTALLATION
All work will be .at-Level "IY', viith pc~sible Level "C' conditions in excavations for
manholes and oondeosate traps. · .. Level :"C' conditions will he monitored for by the
SSHO. No work will be .performed~at levels above Level "C'. Emergency Rescue
personnel will be prepared to•. enter site at Level· "B".
I
.,In part taken : from: Safetv Guiddines For Wcirk On · Or Ne~ I..a.ndfilli;: · "Governmental Refuse,
Collection and Disposal Association ..., Landfill Gas ·eommittee"~ October7 1985. l . , . -. : -
. -7-
11/14/96 1 i: 38
TABLE I
PIS
PHYSIOLOGICAL RESPONSE TO VARIOUS
CONCENTRATIONS OF HYDROGEN SULFIDE
RE.5PONSE CONCEN'IRATION/PPM
Maximum allowable concentration for 10
prolonged exposure :
Slight ~toms after several hours 70 -150
Maxim.nm concentrations for one honr without 170 -300
serious consequences
Dangerous after exposure of 1/2 to 1 hour 400 -700
Note 1: Most landfills do not have ~S in concentrations greater than 10 ppm.
However, concentrations up to 250 ppm have been measured.
Note 2: In many cases, ·laboratories do not know how to properly analyze fur HzS.
Draeger tube check analyses are generally more accurate than most
laboratories.
-8-
11/14/96 1 i: 38
AGREEMENT & UNDERSTANDING
The undersigned has read, reviewe~ understands and has a copy of the Health and Saf.ety
Plan (HASP) for WORKING ON or NEAR MSW LANDFILLS.
The undersigned also acknowledges than anv iniury. regardless of how minor, even a
scratch, will be reported immediately to the Site Safety Supervisor.
Name Date
Name Date :
Name Date
Name Date
Name Date
Name Date
-10-
14.1 014
mIANGLE
ENVIRONMENTAL -·--... _.. ........ INC.
November 12, 1996
Mr. William L. Meyer, Director
Division of Solid Waste Management
North Carolina Department of Environment, Health
and Natural Resources
Post Office Box 27687
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687
Subject: Proposal for Professional Services
Excavation, Handling, Storage of PCB-Contaminated Soils
from Warren County PCB Landfill
Triangle Proposal No. P.1039 Amendment No. 1
Dear Mr. Meyer and Selection Committee:
P.O. Box 41087
Raleigh, NC 27629
919-876-5115
800-849-5115
FAX [phone]
Triangle Environmental, Inc. (Triangle) has reviewed the Request for Clarification on
the RFP dated November 8, 1996, from William L. Meyer. We have included herewith
the spreadsheet entitled "Warren County PCB Landfill, Addendum to Request for
Proposals" and completed the costing information.
We wish to make the following points regarding this resubmission:
1. We did consider methane gas in our proposed scope of services though that may not
have been apparent. In the Health and Safety Plan, Item 2 under Scope of Services,
Page 3, methane gas would be monitored prior to beginning and, if warranted,
during field activities.
2. Any methane concentrations detected will be reviewed and evaluated by Triangle's
Certified Industrial Hygienist who will institute appropriate safety precautions. We
believe that our proposed fees are adequate to handle any situations that will occur
as the result of methane generated within the landfill.
3. Our original breakdown of costs did not match the breakdown which you have
requested from us, though we did have all the elements we feel are necessary to
accomplish the objective laid our in the RFP from the Solid Waste Section and the
Technical Advisory Group. The revised spreadsheet provides the information in the
format you requested.
PROPOSAL IP I 039AM I .DOC
Division of Solid Waste Management
Triangle Proposal No. P1039-Amend. 1
November 12, 1996
Page 2
We appreciate the opportunity to submit this proposal for consultation services on this
most interesting and important project and look forward to working with you to a
successful conclusion. We wish to make the point that the three undersigned individuals
all have experience in public hearings and public presentations which we feel will
enhance our ability to serve the Division regarding concerns on relations with the
community and public relations. If you have any additional questions, or need
additional information, please contact us at 876-5115. Triangle looks forward to the
next step in your selection process.
With Best Regards,
TRIANGLE ENVIRONMENTAL, INC .
. }j/J
./
R. Stanley Tay or, P.E.
Vice President
~{~
John F. Sherrill, P.G. 1;:;:;;~~
Gerald W. Horton, P.E.
Project Manager
Enclosure
PROPOSAL\PI039AMI.DOC
4 'FR!M 9 197 15360 5 SOLID WAS TE D!U
<
l I I
bIVISION OF WASTE MANAOEME T
11.08 .1996 10:09
ovember 8, 1996
. EVALUATION OF EXISTING IN EGRITY OF SURFICIAL LIN R SYSTEM/CAP
IITEM
tABOR
IEQUIPMENT/
SUPPLJES
. UB·
ONTRACTORS
ISCELLANEOUS
OTAi
f~•MOB
MOBILIZAT ON
8 ~
3fJo
J~
ON SITE PROJEC
ACTIVITIES MANAG MENT
-300
f-e1J ~
7{)0 ~
-3bo
1760 (ocXJ
BOREHOLE/ EXC ATION I WELL INSTALLAT ON
TEM
QUIPMENT/
trPPLIES
UB-
ONTRACTORS
¥1S CELLANEOUS
!
tOTAL
,RE-MOB
MOBILIZATI N
~, .._ ,,.---.
So
ej,mpany< /e, f,w,/'011
;
\ 1
' ;
PROJEC
MANAG MENT
{)IJO
°2£)0
70@0
Soo
TOTAL
/07~
0to
3wo
TOTAL
/0{)8tJ
UJo
&7oo
76a>
P, 3
' " 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:
FROM:
Re~ondents
~~if) .vJ
~L.~er
November 8, 1996
SUBJECT: Request for clarification on RFP
AVA
DEHNR
The Division of Waste Management has received your response to the Request for Proposal
(RFP) for Excavation, handlinii, and storaae of PCB Contaminated Soils from the Warren County
PCB Landfill. The (RFP) did not clearly indicate that the respondents were to consider the presence
of landfill gases, particularly methane, in design and operation of tasks in the proposal. The
Division of Waste Management (DWM) has taken occasional gas measurements from the air vent
in the landfill. The majority of these measurements has indicated the presence of methane ;
however, these measurements range from no measured methane to approximately five percent
methane.
In order to clarify the RFP and responses, the DWM requests that the respondents indicate
consideration or lack of consideration of methane in your proposals to the DWM. In addition, the
DWM requests that all respondents include an itemized list and cost of all separate elements
included in your proposal response to the RFP by completing the attached sheet. Previous costs
will not be considered as each respondent must complete the attached form.
Respondents may add additional sheets or reference sheets in their proposal if you feel
further clarification is necessary.
These responses are due to the DWM by 12:00 noon, Friday, November 15, 1996.
Questions may be directed to Michael A. Kelly, Deputy Director at [phone] ext. 201. Please
acknowledge receipt of this fax by calling the DWM at [phone], ext. 201 upon receipt.
P.O. Box 27687,
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687
Voice 919-733-4996 f¢Mi:Jif4U@Ji
FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer
50% recycled/10% post-consumer paper
j ., )
;,
DIVISION OF WASTE MANAGEMENT November 8, 1996
WARREN COUNTY PCB LANDFILL
ADDENDUM TO REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS
DUE DATE 12;00 noon November 15, 1996
EVALUATION OF EXISTING INTEGRITY OF SURFICIAL LINER SYSTEM/CAP
ITEM PRE-MOB ON SITE PROJECT TOTAL
MOBILIZATION ACTIVITIES MANAGEMENT
LABOR
EQUIPMENT/
SUPPLIES
SUB-
CONTRACTORS
MISCELLANEOUS
TOTAL
BOREHOLE/ EXCAVATION/ WELL INSTALLATION
ITEM PRE-MOB ON SITE PROJECT TOTAL
MOBILIZATION ACTIVITIES MANAGEMENT
LABOR
EQUIPMENT/
SUPPLIES
SUB-
CONTRACTORS
MISCELLANEOUS
TOTAL
Company ----------Signature ----------
facsin,ile
TRANSMITTAL
to: R. Dennis Holder
fax#: [phone]
re: Request for clarification of RFP
date: November 8, 1996
pages: 3, including this cover sheet.
From the desk of ...
Bill Meyer
Director
Division of Solid Waste
Management
733-4996, ext. 202
Fax: [phone]
facsin,ile
TRANSMITTAL
to: R. Stanley Taylor
fax #: [phone]
re: Request for clarification of RFP
date: November 8, 1996
pages: 3, including this cover sheet.
From the desk of ...
Bill Meyer
Director
Division of Solid Waste
Management
733-4996, ext. 202
Fax: [phone]
tacsin,ile
TRANSMITTAL
to: Don Carter
fax#: [phone]
re: Request for clarification of RFP
date: November 8, 1996
pages: 3, including this cover sheet.
From the desk of ...
Bill Meyer
Director
Division of Solid Waste
Management
733-4996, ext. 202
Fax: [phone]
facsin,ile
TRANSMITTAL
to: Joseph F. Wiseman
fax#: [phone]
re: Request for clarification of RFP
date: November 8, 1996
pages: 3, including this cover sheet.
From the desk of. ..
Bill Meyer
Director
Division of Solid Waste
Management
733-4996, ext. 202
Fax: [phone]
""· State of North Carolina Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Solid Waste Management
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
William L. Meyer, Director
Memorandum
To: Doris Strickland
From: BillMeyer:gvll\
AVA
DEHNR
October 30, 1996
Subject: RFP response for "Excavation, Handling, and Storage of PCB contaminated soils
from the Warren County PCB Landfill"
Enclosed are the rankings for the four respondents to the RFP. The ranking was performed
independently by Joel Hirschhorn and Patrick Barnes (Science Advisors for the PCB Working Group)
and the Division. There was consensus that CDM would be the selected respondent. However, all
parties were concerned with the cost of CD M's proposal.
It is the Division's understanding that once the respondents have submitted proposals that only
personnel in the Department of Administration, Division of Purchase and Contract, may contact or
negotiate with respondents.
The Division would like to suggest that the appropriate agency consider options to address
cost concerns. One option is to send a request to all respondents requiring itemization of cost in
accordance with (a) through (k) of section 2.2.1. This could be accomplished before the final
respondent selection was made (May the Division do this?).
Another option may be to require CDM to submit the same itemization and use this to
negotiate costs (The Division assumes that only PNC can negotiate cost with CDM?).
Dee, I really appreciate all your help on this project and please let me know what you suggest
on our current efforts.
P.O. Box 27687 ,
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687
Voice 919-733-4996 lfPA'MJMN
FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer
50% recycled/10"/o post-consumer paper
· BF A E~viron~ental Consu,ltants
Barnes, Ferland and Associates, Inc.
MEMORANDUM
TO ·
FROM:
Bill Meyer
Pat Barnes
DATE: October 30, 1996
Post-ir Fax Note 7671
l~\ _ _Q
·~
BFA #95-01 7 00
Date IC
From
Co.
Phon<1 It
Fax#
SUBJECT: Response to Memo from Joel Hirschhorn about Selection of Soil Extraction
Contractor
Before negotiations, CDM should provide their detailed itemization of estimated cost sc; that
specific areas can be better targeted for modification by the State.
I disagree with eliminating the electrical leak detection. The RFP includes top liner assessmem
and this appears to be a comprehensive way of accomplishing that. Be(c>re we determine if it is
cost prohibitive we need to have CDM itemize its cost Generally speaking1 sudace geophysical
methods such as this are very cost effective.
Bill, please also inquire of CDM if their drilling subcontractor would consider replacing the
proposed 10-mil plastic containment system with a bermed steel pan A steel pan will provide a
much better working surface.
cc Technical Committee
The Hollister Building· 3535 Lawton Road• Suite 111 • Orlando, Florida 32803
Office [phone] • Fax [phone]
FROt1
October 29, 1996 .......................................................................... by FAX
To: Bill Meyer
From: Joel Hirschhorn
Subject: Response to pho.ue call about selection of sample e\..1ractiou contractor
I have taken another look at the CDM proposal and recommend the following approach for use
by the PurchasiJJg Dept.
--Have CDM revise its cost estimate by eliminatiug the activity consisting of using electrical leak
location method by a subcontractor to detennine PVC liner integrity.
This specific activity was u.ot requested in the RFP.
[If the state wants this work it can do so with its funds.]
--Have CDM revise its cost estimate by eliminating the onsite use of senior personnel who are not
resident in its Raleigh office.
--Have CDM revise its cost estimate by using a schedule that completes the project in no more
than 8 weeks.
--Have CDM revise its cost estimate by assn.ming that all solid and liquid materials extracted from
the landfill will either be containerized for use by the state or placed back into the land.fill.
P . I
--Have CDM revise its cost estimate by eliminating the meeting after comp1etion of the report. J l
l / ~C\~rk
cc: Technical Committee 1
1111
:1 ,1 \ { { A'v -h/ Y \; rvr c~J\J'V 0 • ~
~· \' 'I if" ~,d.t/J-.-r f ~ u; l I v· Lt ~ v~~ V-f'11
C jJ
WARREN COUNTY PCB LANDFILL
Bill, 10-23-96
Bid Evaluation
I looked at each of the criteria as listed in the RFP. I assigned a 1 to 4 value based on what I thought was
best or worst of the 4 plans. The final scores are as follows:
CDM with 70
S&ME with 61
Triangle with 60
Patterson with 49
Other observations:
PATTERSON
Patterson just falls short in too many areas and besides they are not the lowest bidder.
TRIANGLE
Triangle was the cheapest and was almost second in the scoring. It lacks some key points like:
* No surveying of boreholes
* Only 2 boreholes planned
* No contingency plan or monitoring plan for releases
It DOES include a provision for a Work Plan which might be used to beef up those areas not addressed in
the bid. Maybe the cheapest one can work if we can tailor the work plan to address those weak areas of
the bid. Experience does not appear to be as good as CDM or S&ME.
CDM
CDM I think has the best design with 4 boreholes but it was the second most expensive. CDM also
seemed to have the best experience including work with PCBs. The H&SP and Work Plan will need to be
developed which will gi ve an extra element of control. In addition to visual inspection and sampling of
the liner and clay, they also include an electronic leak detection plan to completely check upper liner
integrity which none of the others do.
S&ME
S&ME was the most expensive but only had 2 boreholes. It has an extensive QA/QC section but seems to
include a lot of unnecessary sampling and analytical tasks. They did not specifically address the issue of
wet & dry soils or how they were to be blended. S&ME probably has the best design with the steel
containment tray for contamination and to protect the landfill liner. They do however appear to be usini;
full sized drill rigs where the other companies are using lighter weight rigs to protect the integrity of the
top liner. Of course S&ME had a very good experience record.
This was not included in the RFP but no one proposed any air monitoring in their bids. I think this would
be a good thing for someone to do when this work actually starts. This will supply some data to show if
any airborne contamination was released.
I ,.
Bid Evaluation
Excavation, handling, and storage of PCB contaminated soils
from the Warren County PCB Landfill
Scale = 1 to 4 ( 4 is the best, 1 in the worst)
RFP
Crit. Patterson
2.2.la 3 (3 boreholes)
2.2.1 b 3 (survey)
2.2. lc 2(manually mixed)
2.2.ld 3 (low press veh.)
(plastic/boot)
(repair liner)
2.2. le 2 (visual/3 samples)
Triangle
2 (2 boreholes)
2 (1 sample/ft)
4 ( free drain)
3 (low press veh.)
(plywood/plastic)
(repair liner)
2 (visual/2 samples)
2.2. lf 3 (plastic/absorbants) 2 (plastic)
2.2. lg 2 (minimal/no figs) 2 (minimal/no figs)
2.2. lh 3 (outline) 2 (H&SP TBD)
2.2.1 i 1 (infiltration only) 3 (6" well/collar)
2.2. lj 2 (Pre-decon/plastic) 3 (Work Plan TBD)
2.2.lk NA NA
2.2.2a 2 (manually mixed) 4 (free drain)
2.2.2b 2 (manually mixed) 4 (proportioned)
2.2.2c 1 (plastic/bo_ot) 3 (plywood/plastic)
2.2.2d 1 (no mon. plan) 1 (no mon. plan)
2.2.2e 3 (adequate) 3 (adequate)
2.2.2f 3 (outline) 2 (H&SP TBD)
2.2.2g 2 3 (Work Plan TBD)
2.2.2h NA NA
(Sub-Section 2.2.3 deleted)
2.3.1 (See above)
2.3.2 (See above)
2.3.3 (Deleted)
2.3.4 3 ($47,000) 4 ($28,700)
2.4.1 2 (some) 2 (some)
2.4.2 (see 2.3.4)
2.4.3 1 (not stated) 3 (T &C form)'
2.4.4 1 2
2.4.5 4 4
Total 49 60
COM S&ME
4 ( 4 boreholes) 2 (2 boreholes)
3 (survey) 4 (survey/samples)
3 (pour off drum) 1 (not stated)
3 (light vehicle) 2 ( drill rig)
(plastic/gravel) (steel pan/plastic)
(repair liner) (repair liner)
4 (visual/4 samples) 3 (visual/2 samples)
( electric leak detect)
3 (plastic/absorbants) 4 (steel pan/plastic)
3 (better/ldiagram) 4 (best w/ diagrams)
2 (H&SP TBD) 2 (H&SP TBD)
3 (4" well/collar) 3 (6" well/collar)
3 (Work Plan TBD) 4 (QA/QC Plan)
NA extra sampling
:
3 (pour off drum) 1 (not stated)
4 (proportioned) 1 (not stated)
3 (plastic/gravel) 4 (steel pan/plastic)
3 (contig. plan) 3 (mon. plan)
3 (adequate) 3 (adequate)
2 (H&SP TBD) 2 (H&SP TBD)
3 (Work Plan TBD) ...
.)
NA NA
2 ($83,000) ($99,502)
4 (landfills/PCBs) ... (landfills) .)
4 4
4 ... .)
4 4
70 61
October 21, 1996
To: Technical Committee and Bill Meyer
From: Joel Hirschhorn
Subject: Evaluation of four proposals on excavation
I am using the following criteria:
quality of technical plan
schedule
relevant experience
pnce
I have scored the four proposals on the basis of 25 points maximum for each criterion.
Triangle Environmental
quality of technical plan: high (20)
schedule: good (six weeks) (20)
relevant experience: poor (no explicit PCB experience, little well installation, no detailed
information given on subcontractor that could be requested) ( 10)
price: very good ($28,700) (25)
total pts. 7 5
CD!\I
quality of technical plan: very high (25)
schedule: poor (three months) (5)
relevant experience: very good (25)
price: poor ($83,400) (5)
total pts. 60
1
Patterson
quality of technical plan: poor (some poor thinking, insufficient details) (5)
schedule: good (six to eight weeks) (15)
relevant experience: medium (no PCB experience) (15)
price: good ($47,000) (20)
total pts. 55
S&.ME
quality of technical plan: medium (15)
schedule: poor (10 weeks) (10)
relevant experience: very good (25)
price: poor ($99,502) (5)
total pts. 55
Summary: Triangle and COM have the best technical plans, but Triangle has a much lower cost
and faster schedule than COM.
Recommendation: I feel comfortable with selecting Triangle
Note:
My technical recommendations are that:
1. 'Ibe contractor be instructed to maximize the natural water content of the materials extracted
from the landfill so that the materials collected for technology testing are representative of the
landfill contents.
2. l11e contractor be instructed to evenly or proportionately distribute the extracted materials to
the four or five containers supplied by the state, so that each numbered container is representative
of all the materials extracted from the landfill.
3. ll1e contractor be informed that, after filling of the containers, it will obtain a composite
sample from each filled container (represented top, middle, and bottom levels) per instructions by
the state for laboratory testing paid for by the state (for PCBs and dioxins/furans).
2
MEMO
TO: Technical Committee
FROM: Pat Barnes, SA.
SUBJECT: Proposals for Landfill Soils Excavation
I have reviewed the four proposals to perform landfill material excavation.
Each proposal was scored based on the following evaluation categories and point scale.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Total
Score
Category
1. Experience with similar projects
2. Treatment of the Working Group component
3. Technical Approach
4. Understanding oflssues
5. Price and Schedule
Distribution of Points
Patterson Triangle
15 15
10 15
10 15
15 15
15 ·*20
65 80
* This value may be adjusted depending on response to questions.
S&ME
20
20
20
20
5
85
Max Points
20
20
20
20
20
CDM
20
18
18
18
8
82
Based on the above I recommend that the Working Group consider S&ME for the excavation services,
however it is important to note that their price was greater than three times that of Triangle. We need
to verify if Triangle's price is all inclusive. In my opinion any of the top three firms can perform the
necessary services.
September 20, 1996
MEMORANDUM:
TO: Potential respondents
FROM: William L. Meyer, Director
Division of Solid Waste Management
SUBJECT: Monitoring Wells for the Warren County PCB landfill
The Division of Solid Waste Management (Division) has drafted a request for proposals
(RFP) for work on the Warren County PCB landfill.
The scope of work is generally defined in the enclosed RFP. However, there may be
other issues or elements that should be included in the RFP. A pre-bid meetin~ is scheduled
for AT 8:30AM AT 401 OBERLIN ROAD, RALEIGH, NORTH
CAROLINA 27605 IN CONFERENCE ROOMS /fl.Ji> '5!'1:t:: Ul~ltSCl}:S,:)(;{t&O
4T /,'rl) -PIY1 ·
The Division realizes that this is short notice, however, due to the potential cost and
resources needed to provide data on the landfill, the Division has determined that feedback from
potential respondents at a pre-bid meeting is the most effective means of addressing questions on
the project.
The Division is looking forward to working with respondents on the PCB landfill.
Participation in the pre-bid conference is a pre-requisite for consideration of bid proposals.
I
Scope of Work -Part II Monitoring Wells
2.0 Background on Warren County PCB Landfill
2.0.1 The State of North Carolina (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 CFR 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.
2.0.3 The State is committed to detoxification of the PCB landfill utilizing
appropriate and feasible technology.
2.0.4 The State has established a Joint Warren County/State PCB Landfill
Working Group (Working Group) to evaluate technologies and tasks
associated with the detoxification of the landfill.
2.0.5 The Warren County PCB Landfill has four (4) existing monitoring wells
designated as MW-I, MW-2, MW-3, and MW-4 located approximately east,
north, west and south respectively from the fenced in area of the landfill.
These are shown on Figure 1 of this RFP.
2.0.6 The purpose of the RFP is to construct additional groundwater monitoring
wells in order to determine any extent or degree of contamination external to
the landfill. Any contaminated soil material and/or groundwater may require
detoxification in addition to the landfill contents which may effect
technology and scale of detoxification effotts.
2.0. 7 Organic contamination will be determined by the least available analytical
methods for trace orgnaics. Decontamination of all equipment and devices
utilized in the construction of the wells is essential.
2.1 Conceptual design considerations for the monitoring wells.
2.1.1 The location and identification of the new monitoring wells required per this
RFP are as described below and are shown in Figure 1.
WeH ID # llil21h Location
MW-IA Shallow East of the landfill ~25' from the fenceline
MW-IB Deep East of the landfill ~25' from the fenceline
MW-3A Deep West of the landfill ~25' from the fenceline
MW-4A Deep South of the landfill ~25' from the fenceline
I'
2.1.8 All drill cuttings are to be containerized in 55 gallon drums.
2.2 Deliverables
2.2.1 Bid options are to be submitted for:
-Mobilization ·
-Decontamination
-Materials
-Drilling
-Slug and/or pumping tests
-Cost per foot and total cost based on adherence to the EPA Standard
Operating Procedures and Quality Assurance Manual noted in 2.2.5 of this
RFP.
-Cost per foot and total cost with alternatives to the EPA Standard
Operating Procedures and Quality Assurance Manual that are equivalent.
2.3 Criteria for selection of respondent
2.3.0 Appropriate design and technology proposed
2.3 .1 Demonstrated experience and qualifications for landfill project with emphasis
on North Carolina projects. ·
2.3.2 Cost of bid option submittals
2. 3. 3 Financial capacity for assurance of performance and environmental
impairment protection.
2.3 .4 Past performance with respect to working relationships with clients and
compliance with project cost, schedules and management of change orders
resulting from unanticipated activities.
2.3.5 Capability and commitment to work with the Department and citizens
working group.
2.6 Process for selection of respondent
2.6.1 RFP sent to approximately 40 companies that have experience in working on
landfill projects in North Carolina.
2.6.2 PRE-BID CONFERENCE TO BE HELD AT:
401 OBERLIN ROAD,
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA, 27605
IN CONFERENCE ROOMS ON AT 8:30 AM.
Technical presentation by DWM staff, respond to questions and provide
I·
specific data needed for project. Members of the joint State/Warren County
Working Group will be encouraged to participate in the pre-bid conference.
(Attending pre-bid conference will be a prerequisite for consideration of bid
proposals).
2.6.3 A bid response date will be established at the pre-bid conference.
2.6.4 All respondents submittals will be reviewed and a selection of at least 3
proposals will be submitted for review to the Working Group. The Working
Group may request a presentation from the 3 selected proposals.
2.6.5 The Working Group will make a recommendation to the Department for
final selection of a contractor. ·
2.6.6 The Division of Solid Waste Management will draft a contract and negotiate
with the selected contractor.
2. 7 File information is available for review. Respondents should contact Pat Williamson, at
[phone], ext. 337 for a schedule of file reviews.
2.8 Attachments
2.8.1 Monitoring well location map -Figure 1
2.8.2 Location/vicinity maps -Figures 2 and 3
2.8.3 Two 3.5" diskettes of the US 'EPA Region IV "Environmental Investigations
Standard Operating Procedures and Quality Assurance Manual (May 1996)
) -/ \ / ,r--' , .. ---1-\ _,, . ___ _,,1 ----.,ft _,, ., , , -. I •✓ \ / \ \ . ' ' ' ' ~ 1 \ r·-' \ ' ' ~ .. _ ------· ·--, .. ,, 1''--., surface Waler (new) ) surface Waler (ex.isling) soil/se<limcnl ) monitoring wells !) ex.isling monitoring wells J leachate samples l_ -hrdo:immch_ ~ ,./" { • .. \~· " . -~~ lll\ • LAND. ,.,N w: L--l!_TE ' 8 G ~ltJl8 -I~ t:,. .. ,. ....... : -.... _ ........... ,, ---___ , ............ l">c-.... -.. .. _ --.. .... .... _____ _ I j ' ' \ I ' , .... , ................. ,, ....... __ , ........ ._.., ' ' \ ' ' \ •• • • • ' • ' ' ' , I I I , _,, /( \ '
I • --1. . .
I
I· .
I
l . --_, __ ··---·.
•
>
z
..
z
, C\ .0
• v1
~
October 21, 1996
To: Technical Committee and Bill Meyer
From: Joel Hirschhorn
Subject: Evaluation of four proposals on excavation
I am using the following criteria:
quality of technical plan
schedule
relevant experience
pnce
I have scored the four proposals on the basis of 25 points maximum for each criterion.
Triangle Environmental
quality of technical plan: high (20)
schedule: good (six weeks) (20)
relevant experience: poor (no explicit PCB experience, little well installation, no detailed
information given on subcontractor that could be requested) (IO)
price: very good ($28,700) (25)
total pts. 75
CDM
quality of technical plan: very high (25)
schedule: poor (three months) (5)
relevant experience: very good (25)
price: poor ($83,400) (5)
total pts. 60
l
..
Patterson
quality of teclmical plan: poor (some poor trunking, insufficient details) (5)
schedule: good (six to eight weeks) (15)
relevant experience: medium (no PCB experience) (15)
price: good ($47,000) (20)
total pts. 55
S&.ME
quality of technical plan: medium (15)
schedule: poor (10 weeks) (10)
relevant experience: ve1y good (25)
price: poor ($99,502) (5)
total pts. 55
Summary: Triangle and CDM have the best technical plans, but Triangle has a much lower cost
and faster schedule than CDM.
Recommendation: 1 feel comfortable with selecting Triangle
Note:
My teclmical recommendations are that:
1. 'Ibe contractor be instructed to maximize the natural water content of the materials extracted
from the landfill so that the materials collected for technology testing are representative of the
landfill contents.
2. The contractor be instructed to evenly or proportionately distribute the extracted materials to
the four or five containers supplied by the state, so that each numbered container is representative
of all the materials extracted from the landfill.
3. ll1e contractor be informed that, after filling of the containers, it will obtain a composite
sample from each filled container (represented top, middle, and bottom levels) per instructions by
the state for laborato1y testing paid for by the state (for PCBs and dioxins/furans).
2
MEMO
TO: Technical Committee
FROM: Pat Barnes, SA
SUBJECT: Proposals for Landfill Soils Excavation
I have reviewed the four proposals to perform landfill material excavation.
Each proposal was scored based on the following evaluation categories and point scale.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Total
Score
Category
1. Experience with similar projects
2. Treatment of the Working Group component
3. Technical Approach
4. Understanding of Issues
5. Price and Schedule
Patterson
15
15
15
65
Distribution of Points
Triangle
15
15
15
15
*20
80
* This value may be adjusted depending on response to questions.
S&ME
20
20
20
20
5
85
Max Points
20
20
20
20
20
20
18
18
18
8
82
Based on the above I recommend that the Working Group consider S&ME for the excavation services,
however it is important to note that their price was greater than three times that of Triangle. We need
to verify if Triangle's price is all inclusive. In my opinion any of the top three firms can perform the
necessary services.
I . , ....
' _, Bill, 10-23-96
Bid Evaluation
I looked at each of the criteria as listed in the RFP. I assigned a 1 to 4 value based on what I thought was
best or worst of the 4 plans. The final scores are as follows:
CDM with 70
S&ME with 61
Triangle with 60
Patterson with 49
Other observations:
PATTERSON
Patterson just falls short in too many areas and besides they are not the lowest bidder.
TRIANGLE
Triangle was the cheapest and was almost second in the scoring. It lacks some key points like:
* No surveying of boreholes
* Only 2 boreholes planned
* No contingency plan or monitoring plan for releases
It DOES include a provision for a Work Plan which might be used to beef up those areas not addressed in
the bid. Maybe the cheapest one can work if we can tailor the work plan to address those weak areas of
the bid. Experience does not appear to be as good as CDM or S&ME.
CDM
CDM I think has the best design with 4 boreholes but it was the second most expensive. CDM also
seemed to have the best experience including work with PCBs. The H&SP and Work Plan will need to be
developed which will give an extra element of control. In addition to visual inspection and sampling of
the liner and clay, they also include an electronic leak detection plan to completely check upper liner
integrity which none of the others do.
S&ME
S&ME was the most expensive but only had 2 boreholes. It has an extensive QA/QC section but seems to
include a lot of unnecessary sampling and analytical tasks. They did not specifically address the issue of
wet & dry soils or how they were to be blended. S&ME probably has the best design with the steel
containment tray for contamination and to protect the landfill liner. They do however appear to be using
full sized drill rigs where the other companies are using lighter weight rigs to protect the integrity of the
top liner. Of course S&ME had a very good experience record.
This was not included in the RFP but no one proposed any air monitoring in their bids. I think this would
be a good thing for someone to do when this work actually starts. This will supply some data to show if
any airborne contamination was released.
Bid Evaluation
Excavation, handling, and storage of PCB contaminated soils
from the Warren County PCB Landfill
Scale= 1 to 4 ( 4 is the best, 1 in the worst)
RFP
Crit. Patterson
2.2.1 a 3 (3 boreholes)
2.2.1 b 3 (survey)
2.2. lc 2 (manually mixed)
2.2.1 d 3 (low press veh.)
(plastic/boot)
( repair liner)
2.2. le 2 (visual/3 samples)
Triangle
2 (2 boreholes)
2 (I sample/ft)
4 (free drain)
3 (low press veh.)
(plywood/plastic)
(repair liner)
2 (visual/2 samples)
2.2.lf 3 (plastic/absorbants) 2 (plastic)
2.2. lg 2 (minimal/no figs) 2 (minimal/no figs)
2.2. l h 3 (outline) 2 (H&SP TBD)
2.2. l i I (infiltration only) 3 (6" well/collar)
2.2 . lj 2 (Pre-decon/plastic) 3 (Work Plan TBD)
2.2.lk NA NA
2.2.2a 2 (manually mixed) 4 (free drain)
2.2.2b 2 (manually mixed) 4 (proportioned)
2.2.2c l (plastic/boot) 3 (plywood/plastic)
2.2.2d l (no mon. plan) l (no mon. plan)
2.2.2e 3 (adequate) 3 (adequate)
2.2.2f 3 (outline) 2 (H&SP TBD)
2.2.2g 2 3 (Work Plan TBD)
2.2.2h NA NA
(Sub-Section 2.2.3 deleted)
2.3.1 (See above)
2.3.2 (See above)
2.3.3 (Deleted)
2.3.4 .., ($47,000) 4 ($28,700) .)
2.4.1 2 (some) 2 (some)
2.4.2 (see 2.3.4)
2.4.3 l (not stated) 3 (T&C form)"
2.4.4 I 2
2.4.5 4 4
Total 49 60
CDM S&ME
4 ( 4 boreholes) 2 (2 boreholes)
3 (survey) 4 (survey/samples)
3 (pour off drum) l (not stated)
3 (light vehicle) 2 ( drill rig)
(plastic/gravel) (steel pan/plastic)
(repair liner) (repair liner)
4 (visual/4 samples) 3 (visual/2 samples)
( electric leak detect)
3 (plastic/absorbants) 4 (steel pan/plastic)
3 (better/ldiagram) 4 (best w/ diagrams)
2 (H&SP TBD) 2 (H&SP TBD)
3 (4" well/collar) 3 (6" well/collar)
3 (Work Plan TBD) 4 (QA/QC Plan)
NA extra sampling
3 (pour off drum) I (not stated)
4 (proportioned) I (not stated)
3 (plastic/gravel) 4 ( steel pan/plastic)
3 (contig. plan) 3 (mon. plan)
3 (adequate) 3 (adequate)
2 (H&SP TBD) 2 (H&SP TBD)
3 (Work Plan TBD) ..,
.)
NA NA
2 ($83,000) ($99,502)
4 (landfills/PCBs) .., (landfills) .)
4 4
4 ..,
.)
4 4
70 61
October 15, 1996
Note
TO: Patrick Barnes
FROM:
Joel Hirschhorn /
Mike Kelly ~\JV
SUBJECT: RFP'S FOR EXCAVATION HANDLING AT PCB LANDFILL
Enclosed are three proposals for the handling of soils at the PCB landfill. We are also
sending one copy to the Committee. Please note that on the one from Soil & Material Engineers
are copies of pages which should be inserted into their proposal. These corrected pages were
received on Monday, the 14th. The new pages have been inserted into our copy and the
Committee's copy, but I left them out of yours so that you can see exactly what changes were
made, and why, in case there were any questions on them.
Thanks.
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
October 14, 1996
.A~A
DEHNR
To: Science Advisors Joel Hirschhorn, Patrick Barnes
From: Bill Meyer
Subject: RFPs, Schedules, Processes
♦ The responses to the RFP for providing soil materials from the landfill to vendors bench
scale investigations were due October 11, 1996. We received four responses.
♦ The Division will Federal Express copies to each science advisor on October 14, 1996.
Please provide recommendations for evaluation, review and selection process as deemed
appropriate. Please provide a schedule for the process.
The RFP for constructing additional groundwater monitoring wells was forwarded on September 20,
1996. Please provide comments and recommendations in order for the Division to prepare final draft
for consideration of Science Advisors/Technical Committee/Working Group. Any recommendations
on process and schedules for the final draft would be appreciated.
Before the new sampling plan can be implemented, the contract for new monitoring wells must be in
place. Any delay in the RFP for construction of monitoring wells will delay sampling. After
the RFP for new monitoring wells is finalized by Science Advisors/Technical Committee/Working
Group/State, approximately two weeks will be required to advertise and notice potential contractors.
This notice period will include a date for pre-bid conference and site visit.
After the pre-bid conference and site visit, approximately thirty days will be required for potential
contractors to submit final design (any recommendations at this time for response would be
appreciated). The contractor design selection by the Science Advisors/Technical Committee/
Working Group/State may require at least two weeks. If this process and schedule is accurate, it will
take approximately eight weeks before a contract is implemented. Any suggestions for accelerating
this process would be appreciated.
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
Oct.14, 1996
RFPs, Schedules, Processes
pg. 2
The Division intends to issue a sole source contract to Triangle Labs (RTP) for dioxin analysis. We
can defend the basis for a sole source contract: only Dioxin Lab in North Carolina; access if
question/problems occur; access for lab certification staff of State to review all processes, equipment
and procedures. However, there is some risk involved. Due to the anticipated amount of the
contract, competing labs may challenge the sole source award. While this is not anticipated, and we
can successfully defend the contract, it will cause a delay if challenged. The option is to advertise up
front and select the service from a more competitive process. This will add some time to selecting
a contract lab . Any suggestions, comments, or recommendations would be appreciated.
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
September 18, 1996
MEMORANDUM:
TO:
FROM:
Respondents to February 16, 1996 RFP
William L Meyer, Director~
Division of Waste Management
SUBJECT: Excavation, handling, storage of PCB contaminated soils from Warren County
PCB Landfill
Each of you participated in a pre-bid meeting and site visit on Friday, February 16, 1996
concerning a proposal for excavation, handling, and storage of PCB contaminated soils from the
Warren County Landfill.
Since the February 16, 1996 meeting, the Working Group has hired new science advisors.
The science advisors have developed a new Master Plan for selection of detoxification
technologies. One major change is for bench-scale treatability studies rather than pilot scale field
studies. This requires a modification in scale and processes for excavation, handling, and storage
of contaminated soils. The maximum volume needed for bench-scale will be four 55 gallon
drums. This volume would provide for both immediate treatability studies and for contingency for
any future additional studies.
The following are specific modifications to the request for proposals:
Sub-section 2.2.1 Excavation
This section heading is modified to read: Design for multiple six inch to 12 inch
cased extraction bore holes (wells). The minimum number of wells shall be two
with a maximum number of four. The amount of excavated materials shall be 24
to 28 cubic feet or four 55 gallon containers with at least one half cubic foot of
head space.
Sub-section elements A through Kare retained and not modified.
Sub-section 2.2.2 Handling of Excavated Materials
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ l 0% post-consumer paper
September 18, 1996
Excavation, Handling, Storage of PCB Contaminated Soils from Warren County Landfill
Page 2
This section is not modified; however, it should be noted that the design should be
based on placement of excavated materials into four 55 gallon containers.
Sub-Section 2.2.2 Storaie of Excavated Materials
This section is detected. The state will provide all containers, devices or structures
for storage of PCB contaminated soils.
Sub-section 2.3 Deliverables
Sub-section 2.3 .3 Storage design and implementation process is deleted.
Deliverables 2.3.2, 2.2.2 and 2.3.4 are retained and not modified.
All remaining sections are not modified.
The division is requesting that all respondents submit a response by October 11, 1996. If
any additional information or clarification is required, please contact Pat Williamson or Bill Meyer
at 919/733-4996.
c:\wpftles\pcblf\rfpmodif.mem
PRE BID CONFERENCE
WARREN COUNTY PCB LANDFILL OPEN/CLOSE
FEBRUARY 16, 1996
NAME COMPANY ADDRESS/PHONE
310l) :;PZ11.1.(,.. F"oll.ES'? /?. •
P.o. a.,.-S-io"q 919-812-
R"ALEl~JI~ o2-'?(,S"~-,.-) Z(,, t, o
I t)(!).,_"5 1 •'W'(" s.lc""~ "'-* 131 J" .
A.~.>-( I l-!-C. ::2. -s~
J 1, ,.. .r;,,..;.,1 Ii /4<-<r r /2 .t
~(h .<.. '2-7~ (I
s4o0 C:il.elwcco Aue -sv in: ~-co
J?.AL. tJ (. J_ 7 C,t ~
7 7Z/ Si t-fi,,,-k S d2,{ ~/k I J <
= _r ~,, ,'1 I ti t1 I fc. f U J/ c. 2 7' I 5-r, 7r,.-~ (.6 J"--
?. a. !Jc)(. 300 B' (jl'j-7"1Cf-rJ?
!a*r~o.,-, 6> /crod-/-.,,.._S~ Sqh...~ ~<._ ~ 7 ~°'>s/
'L 7?.-') M ,1/ bro-/2 cl'
/2a,,(L~~ /2 Al~ 77&o-4
PRE BID CONFERENCE
WARREN COUNTY PCB LANDFILL OPEN/CLOSE
FEBRUARY 16, 1996
NAME I COMP~ ADDRESS/PHONE
~\e} /AL~ (/)),-S.c__ L·t IA__ G-V\ r}-
ift /2?.J-/J..SJ;;l, 1?/
¼I ILL\&M DE\.\1---\'2.
~c';, "-?C:.>1'-l ~ u4 ~ ~.\;.D ,J~,,,rE" 9,~-7~~-o~-z_ i)J,,.,....
r; :r1-J D f-JC. ,.,. 0 (5,/.) l✓41-k
(1 t 1 ) =t J 3 -o b '1 L t_i:. Cd "17 ,..,-f.
Jj.' '( A){!___ ¼).1<--~ rfL 011[1..r-l I (. ·-', . tJ.·Jf . I c Jt'.\&ii , !lft}1ilT 111-73~3 _J/qqt, t I, . ;k ltl✓~-t '--_)
Lfo{l(,e. '-(}
C.,t,rv\ q)q 7'?."7 ~(o2.0
vV\tiJrP
4--SL, S-Pe.t 0 6 ~~ CS~ Joi c '::> M %.--3u e_ Jo'i'& e-1--)C\ g_ 'J:ii;-Gi / ~12.-0 Zcc::b I I ( °t I C)"', 'Z..-~{) -I °' <'.'.'.\ 2-
...,
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
Mr. Craig Brown
EPA Region IV
345 Courtland Street, NE
Atlanta, GA 30365
Dear Craig:
August 29, 1996
The Division of Waste Management (Division) presented a Request for Proposal to 11
potential respondents on February 16, 1996, to excavate, handle and store PCB contaminated
soils from the Warren County PCB Landfill. The excavated soils were to be used for pilot-scale
studies of detoxification technology. (RFP enclosure 1)
The Joint Warren County/State PCB Landfill Working Group (Working Group) recently
hired new science advisors. The science advisors have recommended and the Working Group has
approved new strategies for the detoxification effort. One element of the new strategy is to
implement bench-scale rather than field pilot-scale evaluation of detoxification technologies. This
will necessitate a modification of the current RFP. The basic change will be the number and size
of the excavation wells. The Division estimates that two to three 8 inch excavation wells will
provide 1,500 -2,000 pounds of contaminated soils. This quantity will be sufficient for multiple
bench-scale technologies and provide for contingencies such as duplicate or replicate testing.
The.Division requests that EPA provide assistance to resolve specific issues to ensure
appropriate and timely decisions on the detoxification efforts.
One issue is the process and time frame for approval of excavation of PCB contaminated
soils from the landfill for detoxification bench-scale testing. The proposal is for two to three 8 to
12 inch extraction wells. This will require a design that ensures the continued integrity of the top
and bottom liner system. The Division, through the RFP process, will review all responses and
submit the appropriate selected design to EPA Region IV Pesticides and Toxic Substances Branch
staff for approval. Approval is requested to be in the form of a permit revision to the "Final
Approval Conditions of PCB Chemical Waste Landfill in Warren County" issued December 14,
1981. The Division would appreciate a written description of the approval process and typical
time schedule for approval.
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper
I \
August 29, 1996
Mr. Craig Brown
Page 2
Approximately 1,500 -2,000 pounds of contaminated soils (wet weight) will be
excavated. The excavated materials will be contained in a maximum of four 55-gallon drums.
The 55-gallon drums will be placed in 85-gallon over pack drums. The void space in the over
pack drum will be filled with sorbent such as vermiculite. Both drums will be locked and sealed,
labeled with large PCB mark [40 CFR 761.45(a)], and constructed in accordance with 49 CFR
178.504-IA2. The excavated soils will be stored on the landfill site within the fenced area for less
than 30 days. Within 30 days, the drums will be transported to either ECOFLO, Inc.,
NCD 980842132 or Laidlaw Environmental Services, Ins., NCD000648451. Both are RCRA
permitted TSD facilities that are permitted for PCB storage. Appropriate manifests will be filed.
The Division would appreciate written concurrence on the appropriateness of this activity and
process. If there are any additional TSCA requirements, please inform the Division of those
requirements.
Vendors for bench-scale testing of appropriate and feasible technologies for detoxification
of the PCB Landfill will be selected. Vendors will be provided PCB contaminated soils from the
PCB storage facility. Prior to transfer of PCB contaminated soils to vendors, the Division will
require compliance with the August 21, 1986, "Draft Guidelines for Permit Applications and
Demonstration Test Plans for PCB Disposal by Non-thermal Alternative Methods." If the vendor
does not have a current TSCA permit or approval, the Division will ensure timely application to
the appropriate EPA agency in accordance with the attached Summary of Permit Approval
Authority (table 3 enclosed). The Division would appreciate a written response for the schedule
for permit/approval for the first three facility types included in this summary.
The Division and the Working Group sincerely appreciate the efforts that EPA Region IV
has provided to assist us in moving forward with detoxification of the Warren County PCB
Landfill. We look forward to continuing this working relationship and respectfully request as
much priority as possible to minimize delays. If there is anything the Division can do to minimize
delays, please let me know. Again, thanks for your help and I look forward to your response.
Enclosures
cc: Joel Hirschhorn
Patrick Barnes
Technical Committee
Sincerely,
~?~
William L. Meyer
I
' ' ,, ' .
-I
Table 3. Summary of Permit Approval Authority
Type facility
Alternative disposal methods which are mobile or are
of identical -design to be used in more than one EPA
Region
Research and development method~ disposing of
> 500 lb PCB-containing material
Research and development methods disposing of
~ 500 lb PCB-containing material
Site-specific alterna.tive disposal methods to be
used in only one EPA Region
Approval permit
authority
Assistant _Administra-.
tor for Pesticides ang
Toxic Substances· (AA)
AAa
Regional Administra-·
tors (RAs)
RAs
aAuthority has been delegated to the Division Director, Exposure Evaluation
Division, Office of Toxic Substances (DD/EEO).
5
7-:::22-1 S:l95 3 : I DAM FROM
February 20, 1.996 ..................................................................... by F.AX
To: Bill Meyer
From: Joel Hirschhorn
Subject: Recommendations for improving the RF.P for the PCB excavation job
Overall, I thought your draft RFP was quite good.. As I told you last week, after the pre-bid
meeting, I want to share some of my thinking V\iith you.
1. I think that the criterion 2.4. l should be expanded to in.elude compauy or subcontractor
ex-perience with placing monitoring we11s or borings through landfill caps with.out bamung cap
integrity, as well as experience with toxic or hazardous waste landfills.
2. I find the current draft RFP lacking information which I be]ieve should be presented, namely
the requirement that the contractor use some type of storage coutainer identification system so
that batch.es of material can be correlated to specific locations in the landfill.
3. The RFP also needs to address the ex1:ent to which specific batches of material removed from
the landfill must be tested for levels of PCBs and dioxins, probably after drying. Without
chemistries th.ere is no way to know whether "representative" materials relative to contaminated
soils are being removed. Such data would also be exiremely important for technology pilot test
vendors, if contaminant levels varied signi£cantly among batches. Such testing, however, would
add substantially to cost. The RFP may have to define the sizes of batches and specify storage
contain.er size as well.
4. 1 think the RFP should specify the number of excavation points, or a minimwn number.
5. Testing requirements for water removed should also be specified.
6. I do not share Patrick's ellthusiasm for providing 1na1;kedly more specs. A little more is
appropriate, but I think you can benefit from seeing some different approaches from bidders.
P. I
PRE BID CONFERENCE
WARREN COUNTY PCB LANDFILL OPEN/CLOSE
FEBRUARY 16, 1996
NAME COMPANY ADDRESS/PHONE
3101) SP'l:141(r ,:::-clLES1 cl
P.o . '3>-" S-'io 1,,9 919-812.-
J?A l£ I <P/1. ~.,,.,,.. 2 ~ t, o
l Oa.:5 1""v~'>~'-"'e""* "6[.J.,
A-?x, J-.l -C · ::2. -$(J·
3;,: ,;, Jjuh;,,7 r-i ,<,,wr (2 -i
~(h C. 2,.-7~,•
1,
54ot:> ~L-€N--v.XO Al/f= -SU lil= ~00
~L. ,-.J (. J._ 7£,1~
7 7 z, I Si r fb~ k S o2 ~ ~/J-r. I ~ ,
-.ruri,vi 1~11 I f?.{Ut' J/ c. z. 7, 15-c7<,.-~ {..&,j-
?. o , f3c )<. 300 8' {jr,-?'?Cf--37?
talk,£or1 b> lo--rttf-/,.,__J~ Sqh_~ .vc ,;) 7 '3">st
'\
'2... 77.---, M ,1/ brc-~, I( i2 d' 'iU,-tf115·
;2~~ · 4 /.l'C-~7ft?o 4
I. "· KJ o~ ~~r l
A/,(!_ .. ~7611
PRE BID CONFERENCE
WARREN COUNTY PCB LANDFILL OPEN/CLOSE
FEBRUARY 16, 1996
COMP ADDRESS/PHONE
DE\-\1....\'2,.
U'-' OfZ' ~\;x:,J~
·;;&ME I t·K . ,, -F'AX TRANSMITTAL
COVER SHEET
URGENT TRANSMISSION
Ptt1H Forw1rd lmmtdlaltt,
ID:9 19-876 -3958
TO: __,;13~\~~~~-~----~-
FIRM: -~-----------------
LOCATION:------~-------~--
FROM; boV\ tov:kr
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA
DATE: d'-,JL!)jp_ TIME: 3~~5 am~
RETURN FAX NUMBER: [phone] .
NUMBER OF PAGES INCLUDING COVER SHEET: L
(If all pages not received, call (919) 872·2660
.,
FEB 14 '96 15 :25 No .004 P .0 1
S&Mf.. Inc.
3100 Sp,lng forest Road
Ral•lgf\ North co,ollno 2760. (9f9) 172,2660
Fox (919) 790-e909
COMMENTS:--------~-------~~--~-----
113-et,. ~Dt1
S&Me Project Number: ----------~---------
1 Thlt oc,y., thH1 and lh• documtntt acc:oinpan)'lno 1h11 lelKopy llen,mlHIOi'I cone.In lnfoan&tlOI\ from S&ME. lno~ 'whi~h ,. conridentlal aAd legally
p,MltQeO. Tht lnfOJm,Uon It lntandod °"" tor lhe ~M Of Iha lnl1Mdv,1 Of tnllty namod on "'8 hntmlwon .,....._ I ,ou 1ra not tht lnl•l'dtd recl1>ftnl. rou art
Mrtby Mllftod ltlat an1 dltcloturt. ~no. dlavlMon o, ~ llkl"O ot tl'f'I action In rtn.ru on f\e,$f OOCutntntll It l1rlcfy ~1ohlbtttd. •
'
I S2xt·ff I t·-l C . I 11
ID:919-876-3958 FEE 14 '96 15:25 No.00 4 P .02 !:1.i_r-Jt,o~ {j)
/f4£f40
~.-i$_1// Afu;~
/;fM,~_~¥
'.
l}~t#-:/_ --~ /t lffC
• H OO O • 0 • H HO • f4i:d ,-. &,,,,..-.u.-1 s ,.,, /J va.H /..Ff_,,-e-4 c;IW'~;,,_, / ~ 1
s/~~~ ~ />C/4. C',..o>J/p~~ s-·,/1.t /'~. µ/.dry~ ~
. ?cg L1t-~.4/'//// · /4M. -~ .S:, lffG
_r:' tl __ "' ~11~ ~11,.,7;,.~ r.:t:.~ ~--vA('~~ c,y ~~ ~ ?n-t.J/~/1'~
~) -~'~s f:;._ _gr/>_ .....
. ·······
() Suib!?v 2::. 0? : :;~-/~ ~f ~i~ /k'¥,;n// ?
. " .
/J . ?~ L/-. 3 : V.:rt!:!J. ./ ~ ~ ~ -~ 6"JW1~1~,j 2>11~-1~~
/ __,, A ) /) ~ II t~• l4 L~ Znr 1'4-~?C' ..... c~r . 0 -~--I j)(J (Jn,
' /J 7 IX:!°~P-¥t«-•..... .. . . .. _ ..... .
Wt I I 6,rn.£, ~ t,,:_ '""f"" ;e./ ?
d t,v)e ~-~~ M4 ~ lo o/. ~-7 l?fUI/~
I D:9 19 -876-3958 FE B 14'96 15:26 No .00 4 P .03
~
... -·-... . . . .. ... . . -·· -. . . . . -·· -···-.. -·· -·-··· .. ,. .. .... ••,•· ...
0 -fLli~ (-fo;;h#I) 4riJ t01 1~c1~~-/cuf. lk/
.. 15 O??:~d s1(/"-//7 ~ we-~ ~(11;1,./_/ 11 le,
. ~.L<:1i/ .. : ... 7!~-f 7~ 0'½ /~l.?!17 c,__,:._ ___ /1/I. .. ~ ~6Y 1s~td1-
1:.r. II~ .. £fl',? . £//_~l/5 ~ ~~r (7'kt_:r'& .. M -~t/.O}f✓/
"'~'d""f"'7 hr~. s,~,7 "'il~ ~r tcr_~~-
;:_~ i?Af,:,-"72U,/ "-'f. "lid ~L .. &/~ ifk ~~, ..
. ~ --e ~ of lk. /4-f!(,_ d II# ~. . .. . -
.. . . •· . . -· -·· . . . ... ··--· ----···-•··· .. , ..... ···-·••·•··.. . . ....... -.•... '. .. . . . . . .. --·
0 v~ ti~(µ-J' .~~ re~.£~ -r-.z ~ _,£ k--
. -~~ ~ e.K/..7.u.-/ ~-.7'.t-Y'.'o . :7-¥.'~~,4,l!t~ .... ~~r.. -~r
I . a~. P to . .fe,d. sl,,,,.d,! ~a4•::vt.l 1.~ .. ~.rvj,fr .
I . er-I fpr/. .r! pm/~ pc,·l~ 04 ... /4 .... ~FY~:d _f~
I... ~4/ e,~--{,'uf _~-~-
" .) i "'1.1,'r ~& ? ..
... .. ········. -. ........ . .. ,. •·-.... ·-.. . ·•· .......... ······•-""''
0 tv~l11.. .J~✓---~<~--fo-t_ ~-µ/n,e.7
"wkd;;, ~~ /4-~4; ac;✓# ~ ?
o~ r~ ~~ ."' ... -
I
I.
ID:9 19-8 76-3958 FEE 14'96 15:26 No .0 04 P .04
@
() 1(/wf ,L, r..t .!YvW~ ✓~~,/ 2 ,.4d ~ ~ /t..R
. w,,,, ~ a ,""1' J ,.,,~ --h :,6 ,, c~t«4 · . tvt Md
t2,-~ lf,a,,y v4~ ft'--?'!1J '
• M •• • • • • /
/)µ,1,1{J: .· .. f ) ~ .. 7 /?, ~,-1 ~ s; ? "' · ....... ~, • _ .~ · . (!.,y, .... w · ,,,,,k.,--. -~s-He-,
.. , ;
_c, ,()~ ;:1/-½'7~ k /tt,w,vk,, vi Ml-4 // ~ ~ -fr
~~:-!.~ .. ~f~:fhv , . Y,i,v ry';d . CJ<ffi,,,; ~ I,
.. ;Pr~~</1 ~.f-/~ftJ14 f/,u. ~-J?~ ~ MU,f' d.-rA~ (~
~If/~ -/7,;.,/ 61'#~ tr -I~ ~~rkn7, fr ~~ ~1
cn:,t 1~} eA-t.c..,.,,..... ij,..,,d' ...., ~&.. k':/1,c/ 114 k-s -
• « • , 0 • ,I •• "' • •""''''"",•"" H "0 • ., ••
" W¥'f J) f~o/ ~{ c.._,_,f . ~dvn,1,,./J~/c,,/
. <lm-1 r" Is ~ . . .
"" i'r1'c,;i_ ? !Jzw,"s ef j1>'i«, ? /;,¢ ,,._(_ ~_;(, ?
. /wr~ ~.--etxe4t .~~--,S~ (11,()I r~a.d) ~>
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
ir1·,l\
Jl.2-5 --• a a
DEHNR
February 5, 1996
MEMORANDUM:
TO:
FROM:
Potential respondents
William L. Meyer, Direct~
Division of Solid Waste Management
SUBJECT: Excavation, handling, storage of PCB contaminated
soils from Warren County PCB landfill
The Division of Solid Waste Management (Division) has drafted a request for proposals
(RFP) for work on the Warren County PCB landfill.
The scope of work is generally defined in the enclosed RFP. However, there may be other
issues or elements that should be included in the RFP. A pre-bid meetin& is scheduled for
FRIDAY. FEBRUARY 16. 1996 AT 8:30AM AT 401 OBERLIN ROAD. RALEIGH.
NORTH CAROLINA 27605 IN THE D.O,T, TRAINING ROOM.
The Division realizes that this is short notice, however, due to the potential cost and
resources needed to provide data on the landfill, the Division has detennined that feedback from
potential respondents at a pre-bid meeting is the most effective means of addressing questions on
the project. ·
The Division is looking forward to working with respondents on the PCB landfill.
Participation in the pre-bid conference is a pre-requisite for consideration of bid proposals.
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opp;:>rtunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ l 0% post-consumer paper
I.
Scope ofWork-Part II Open/Close ofLandfill
2.0 Background on Warren County PCB Landfill
2.0.1 The State ofNorth Carolina (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 CFR
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.
2.0.3 The State is committed to detoxification of the PCB landfill utilizing
appropriate and feasible technology.
2.0.4 The State has established a Joint Warren County/State PCB Landfill
Working Group (Working Group) to evaluate technologies for
detoxification of the landfill.
2.0.5 The Working Group has determined that base catalyzed dechlorination
(BCD) technology is a potential appropriate and feasible technology for
detoxification of the landfill.
2.0.6 The Working Group has recommended BCD technology for consideration
of implementing pilot scale studies on the PCB landfill. The vendors are:
ETG Environmental/ Aquaterra Inc.
ETG contact: Loren Martin [phone]
660 Sentry Parkway, Blue-Bell, PA 19422
Aquaterra Inc.
Contact: Steven Lewis [phone]
4901 Waters Edge, Raleigh, NC 27606
SoilTech ATP Systems
Contact: Anthony Trentini [phone]
800 Canonie Drive, Porter, IN 46304
2.0.7 The vendors are currently seeking R&D permits for alternative disposal
from the USEP A Region IV TSCA program. Contact person:
Craig Brown
EPA Region IV
345 Courtland Street, NE
Atlanta, GA 30365
[phone]
2.0.8 The vendors have notified the State that a maximum of 10,S00lbs of
contaminated soils will be required for implementation of the pilot scale
studies.
2.0.9 The State has agreed to provide that PCB contaminated soils for the pilot
scale study(s) ifR&D permits are obtained from the USEPA.
2.0.10 The purpose of this request for proposals is to solicit pre-proposals for
excavation, handling and storage of 10,500 lbs of PCB contaminated soils
from the landfill for utilization in pilot-scale detoxification studies.
2.1 Description of the PCB Landfill
2.1. l The landfill is located on a 19.3 acre site. The landfill cell is 2.5 acres
(230'x475'). A 6' chain link fence (300'x560') encloses the landfill cell
(approximately 4.0 acres enclosed).
2.1.2 The surface slopes of the landfill are approximately 10% from the
centerline of the landfill to the edges of the cell and vegetated with fescue
grass.
2.1.3 Surface features and devices on the landfill cell include an irrigation system
(manifold with risers) along the centerline, a single central gas vent, pump
house, 2 leachate collection risers, 2 concrete tanks (1000 gal. each) for
treatment of leachate.
2.1.4 The surface liner system or cap consists of a sequence including vegetation
(fescue grass) in a l'topsoil layer, 1' of sandy liner protection soils, lOmil
plastic liner, 2' of l. Ox 10·7 clay liner, l' bridging material, and contaminated
soils.
2.1.5 Contaminated soils are generally coarse-grained with less than 30% passing
a #200 sieve. The liquid limit and plasticity index is 25 and 8 respectively.
Total organic or humic content is less than 2%.
.· .. -.
2.1. 6 Contaminated soils have an average PCB concentration of approximately
350ppm with a range of 150 to almost 900ppm. The PCB is a mixture of
congeners with approximately 61 weight percent (wt¾) arochlor 1260,
27wt% arochlor 1254, and 12wt% arochlor 1242. Other organic
contaminants include chlorinated benzene, furans and dioxins are present at
ppb and ppq concentrations.
2.1. 7 The PCB landfill contains a significant amount of water. At the center of
the landfill, the top 14' of contaminated soils (not including the top liner
system) is relatively dry. The depth of saturated soil is 10'. The total depth
of contaminated soils at this point is 24'. The depth of contaminated soils
(both dry and saturated) varies depending upon the difference in landfill
surface elevation and bottom and sidewalls of the landfill cell.
2.2 Conceptual design considerations for excavation, handling, storage of 10,500lbs of
contaminated soils from PCB landfill.
2.2.1 Excavation
• Design for multiple relatively large diameter cased bore holes (it
is estimated that four 2' diameter bore holes will yield 9lft3 of
material, eight I' dia:neter bore holes would provide the same
volume -approximately 10,500lbs. of materials).
a. Provisions for materials that represent the average
characteristics of the contaminated soils (number, depth,
location of bore holes).
b. Horizontal and vertical controls to obtain maximum
representative materials and provide protection of liner
systems on sidewalls and bottom oflandfill.
c. Consideration of dry and saturated soils in the landfill.
d. Protection of surface liner system integrity from all
excavation equipment and activity.
e. Evaluation of existing integrity of surficial liner system/cap
including vegetation/topsoil, physical conditions of I 0mil
PVC liner, physical conditions and impermeability of 2' clay
liner.
f. Control of any releases from excavation.
g. Description of all equipment and procedures to be utilized
for excavation.
h. Health and safety program for employees.
1. Design of bore hole closure to protect from infiltration and
provide accessibility for future excavation of water.
J. Quality control/assurance for excavation (QA/QC)
k. Other design considerations based on engineering
judgement of respondent with specific consideration for
protecting the long-term integrity of liner systems.
2.2.2 Handling of excavated materials
a. Proposal for process to drain saturated soils to gravity
moisture levels including management of residual water
other than discharge to surface water.
b. Proposal for blending dry and wet materials for uniform
consistency.
c. Prevention/control of releases and monitoring to
demonstrate no releases.
d. Contingency plan for releases and monitoring/sampling
releases.
e. Description of all equipment and procedures for handling
excavated materials including transfer to storage.
f. Health and safety plan for employees.
g. QA/QC for handling excavated materials
h. Other design consideration based on engineering judgement
of respondent.
-_I
r. I· .
2.3 Deliverables
2.2.3 Storage of excavated materials
a. Devices or structures for storage for example I TII-55gal
drums, 85gal overpack containers, 8 to 40yd3 metal
containers or other alternatives.
b. Secondary containment for storage of materials.
c. Compliance with TSCA 40CFR Part 761 for storage of
PCB contaminated soils.
d. Provisions and procedures for accessibility to materials in
storage by vendors performing pilot scale studies (501b
batches, 5001b total, and 20001b batches for 10,000lb total).
e. QA/QC for storage
f.. Other design considerations based on engineering
judgement of respondent.
2. 3 .1 Excavation design and implementation process
2.3.2 Handling design and implementation process
2.3 .3 Storage design and implementation process
2.3.4 Work plan, cost, schedules for implementation
2.4 Criteria for selection of respondent
2.4.1 Demonstrated experience and qualifications for landfill project with
emphasis on North Carolina projects.
2.4.2 Cost of proposal
2.4.3 Financial capacity for assurance of performance and environmental
impairment protection.
2.4.4 Past performance with respect to working relationships with clients and
compliance with project cost, schedules and management of change orders
resulting from unanticipated activities.
2.4.5 Capability and commitment to work with the Department and citizens
working group.
2.5 Process for selection of respondent
2.5.1 RFP sent to approximately 40 companies that have experience in working
on landfill projects in North Carolina.
2.5.2 PRE-BID CONFERENCE TO BE HELD AT 401 OBERLIN ROAD,
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA, 27605, IN THE DOT TRAINING
ROOM ON FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 16, 1996 AT 8:30AM. Technical
presentation by DSWM staff, respond to questions and provide specific
data needed for project. Members of the joint State/Warren County
Working Group will be encouraged to participate in the pre-bid conference.
(Attending pre-bid conference will be a pre-requisite for consideration of
bid proposals).
2.5.3 A bid response date will be established at the pre-bid conference.
2.5.4 All respondents submitals will be reviewed and a selection of at least 3
proposals will be submitted for review to the Working Group. The
Working Group may request a presentation from the 3 selected proposals.
2. 5. 5 The Working Group will make a recommendation to the Department for
final selection of a contractor.
2.5.6 The Division of Solid Waste Management will draft a contract and
negotiate with the selected contractor.
2.6 File information is available for review. Respondents should contact Pat Williamson, at
[phone], ext. 337 for a schedule of file reviews including:
2.6.1 As build plans/engineering drawings
2.6.2 Surveys of site/facility
2.6.3 Monitoring and analytical data
2.6.4 Other file data from 1978 until the present
2.6.5 TSCAPart 76140CFRPCB regulations
1.
2.7 Attachment
2.7.1 Copy of aerial photograph
2. 7 .2 Location/vicinity map
2.7.3 Physical characteristics oflandfill soil
2. 7.4 Chemical characteristics of soil
2.7.5 Section of liner design
.. . . '
WARREN COUNTY PCB LANDFILL srre
• , ✓-•.
J·~,-...
-,-.;::
""1· f .
,.. -)
t::o .i)
~ ~
.., .
... J •
I
.. , .........
\
0 (/ , ..
Physical Properties of landfill Contents -Quality Test .
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
MA T£RlALS A TEST UNJT
SOILS LABORATORY
T.LP. ID NO.:
REPORT ON SAMPLES OF: SOIL FOR QUALITY
PROJECT: MISC.
DA TE SAMPLED:
SAMPLED FROM:
COUNTY: WARR.EN
07128/9, RECEIVED: CUl/01/514
PCB LANDFILL
OWNER:
.REPORTED: 08/0.&19.a
BV:-
SUDM1TI'£D BY: • 1990 STD. SPECJFICATIONS
T£ST RES UL TS
08/Jl/9,&
PROJ. SAMPLE NO. Wl,002-LC
LAD. SAMPLE NO. 58707~
Rct:iincd #4 Sic,•c •1. l
Passini! 1110 Sieve "· ,s
Passini! #~0 Sic,·c "· 71
Passini! #200 Sieve •1• 28
MINUS #10 FRACTION
SOrL MORTAR -JOO •1.
Cu:irsc S:iiul Rel· IIGO e;. 4'4
Fine Sand Ret -#270 e;. 30
Sill 0.05 -0.005 mm •1. ' Cl:1v < 0.005 mm •1. ]7
J»assin! #40 Sieve % -
Pauine #200 Sieve % -LL .. 25
P.L II
MSHTO Classilicalion A•2-4COl
Tnture
St:alion
Hole No.
l>cnth (Ft)
to
ORGANIC 1.8
cc: .
SO~FIU
13
. I
• : J
..
CHEMICAL CHARACTERIZATION OF PCB CONTAMINATED SOILS IN WARREN COUNTY
\Chemi ¢it ldentjfi¢etitjp y Cop~entrition :::-:: ::::!\:)\::):
,•,·.·•,•,• ···.••,•·
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-I Zn-1 Cu-I Min 0.1 0.96 1.2 69 0.4 5.4 011 18 38.2 24.4 90 146 60 ,_ ,,, , __ _
M M "M ii. M "M t: 0 ell C/.l (J.) M p.. u 0 ~ z • I ~I UPPER LEACHATE COLLECTION · SYSTEM LE4CHATE COLLECTION PS---).a (J.) t: "M ..,J :>-, ell M u • JI N 30MIL PVC BOTTOM LINER. '· M M "M ii. t: ell (J.) M u • 0 FILTER FABRIC ___ _ LOWER -LEACHATE COLLECTION SYSTEM 1: 3 C. Of: LEACHATE REMOVAL PIPES (LOCATED IN N.E. CORNER)-SEE OET~IL BELOW LEGEND F x ., • •1 TOPSOIL rnzzz, CLAY .... .. SEAM TOP .LINER TO BOTTOM 1..INF.R t (! \ \ i Fl LL FOR BRIOG~. ANO LINER PR01.ECTaf ANO PIT CLOSE
PART II Open and Close of landfill
SCOPE OF WORK
2.0 Background
2.0.1 The State ofN.C. owns and maintains a 40,000 cubic yard PCB chemical
waste landfill. The landfill was permitted in accordance with the Toxic
Substance Control Act (TSCA) Part 761. In 1984 the State committed to
detoxify PCB contaminated soils in the landfill when appropriate and
feasible technology was available.
2.0.2 In 1994 the Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources
(Department) appointed a Joint Warren County/State PCB Landfill
Working Group (Working Group) to evaluate and recommend
technologies for detoxification of the landfill.
2.0.3 The Working Group has identified potential technologies for detoxification
of the landfill. Request for proposals (RFP'S) have been sent to vendors
for Pilot Scale Studies of base catalyzed dechlorination (BCD) as a
detoxification technology.
2.0.4 It is anticipated that additional pilot scale studies of other technologies will
be implemented.
2.0.5 The State has committed to providing sufficient PCB contaminated soils, to
vendors, from the landfill and returning the treated soils to the landfill.
2.1 Physical characteristics of the PCB contaminated soils in the landfill
2.1 .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 & 1 A)
2.2 Chemical characteristics of the PCB contaminated soils in the landfill
2.2.1 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%
ArocWor 1242. Other chemicals including cWorinated benezenes, furans &
dioxins are present in ppb or ppq concentrations. (Exhibit 2)
2.3 Water level in the landfill
IDEA: Change to read: Representative of wet and dry
2.3.1 The surface 10 to 12 feet of PCB contaminated landfill soil is relatively dry. PCB
contaminated soils below this level are saturated with water. 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 utilizing dry and saturated soils. A design for
excavation of dry materials and wet materials will be required.
2.3.2 Add statement for extraction of water
2.4 Engineering drawings and As Built Plans for PCB Waste Disposal Site Warren County
(Exhibit 3)
2.4.1 Index of drawings
Sheet Number
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
~
Cover sheet
Location and site map
General plan and boring locations
Logs of borings
Site grading and erosion control plan
Final grading plan
Carbon filter system
Misc. details
Cross sections
2.5 Design for providing access to PCB contaminated soils from PCB landfill
2.5.1 The cap on the PCB landfill consists of the following from the surface
down: 1. 0 feet of topsoil, 1. 0 feet of clean soil fill for bridging and liner
protection, lOmil PVC liner, 2.0 feet of 1.0 x 1.0-7 clay liner protection; 1.0
feet of clean soil fill for bridging between clay liner and PCB contaminated
soil.
2. 5 .2 Respondents shall submit a design to provide access to PCB contaminated
soils for excavation.
2.5.3 Design considerations shall include the following:
a. Location of area on landfill surface to be excavated
b. Size of area to be excavated
c. Relationship of existing structures and devices on landfill to excavated
area
d. Type of excavation process
e. Provide for temporary cover to minimize releases from the landfill and
prohibit infiltration into the landfill
f Cap reconstruction
g. Equipment and infrastructure to be operated and or located on the cap
2.6 Design considerations for excavation of PCB contaminated soils
2.6.1 Bearing capacity oflandfill cap
2.6.2 Equipment proposed for excavation
2.6.3 Alternative design for shallow (dry soil less than 10 feet) excavations and
deeper (wet soil greater than 10 feet) excavations
2.6.4 Consideration of slumping, caving or sloughing of soils from side walls of
excavation especially with respect to undermining portions of cap liner
system.
2.6.5 Design for five to twenty tons of contaminated soil for excavation
2.6.6 Control of potential releases to air, land surface during excavation
2.6. 7 Decontamination of excavation equipment after excavation
2.6.8 Contingency plan to address any failure of excavation process
2. 7 Design considerations for storage of PCB contaminated soils after excavation
2. 7. 1 Provide design of system or devices for storage of five to twenty tons of
PCB contaminated soil
2.7.2 Storage design must be in accordance with TSCA Part 271 that are
applicable to research and development or alternative disposal studies
2.7.3 Storage design and process for implementing shall demonstrate devices and
procedures to prevent unplanned releases from the system and prevention
of entry by rainfall and wildlife
2.7.4 Storage design shall include devices necessary for entry and removal of
contaminated soil on a routine basis
2.7.5 Storage design shall include secondary containment system sufficient to
contain any liquid or solid spill
2.8 Design considerations for transfer of contaminated soils to treatment devices
2.8.1 Design for transfer of PCB contaminated soils from storage treatment
devices in containers or other devices that will not result in spills or
releases during transfer
2.8.2 Contingency plan for spills or releases during transfer
2.9 Design considerations for transfer of treated soils to storage structures/devices
2.9.1 Design for non-contaminated soil storage
2.10.1 Design considerations for back fill of treated soils into landfill
2.10.1 Procedure and equipment for back fill
2.10.2 Procedures and equipment for placement and compaction
2.11 Design considerations for reconstruction of surface cap
2.11.1 Construction of top liner system
2.11 .2 Tying reconstruction to existing liner system
2.11 . 3 Establishment of final cover and re-vegetation
2.11.4 CQA and QC of the reconstruction of the cap
2.12 Design consideration for replacement of any existing structure or device on landfill
2.12.1 Reconstruction of vents, irrigation system or other structures that need
replacement
2.12.2 Testing of any reconstructed devices or structures to ensure operation
2.13 Design considerations for protection and monitoring of the excavation area
2.13 .1 The landfill area that is excavated must be covered to temporarily prevent
infiltration into the landfill and releases from the landfill.
2.13.2 The length of time for temporary cover is at approximately 180 days
2.13 .3 The landfll is currently undergoing anaerobic degradation of organic
materials, primarily grass, and generating typical gases associated with this
process
2.13 .4 The design must include a method of venting, collection and testing of
gases that are released into and from the excavation area
2.13 . 5 Analysis of gases may include PCB, furans and dioxins
2.14 Design for extraction of water
2.15 Security for activities
2.14.1 There must be 24 hour security for all activities at the landfill.
Add, at appropriate section(s), that the design is a "conceptional design" not "final detail"
design.
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Solid Waste Management Jr!·;~ ,_ --
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
William L. Meyer, Director
• a a
DEHNR
To:
From:
Date:
MEMORANDUM DRAFT
Bill Meyer, Director, Division of Solid Waste Management
Ed Mussier, Solid Waste Section, Division of Solid Waste Management~
Priscilla Tyree, Superfund Section, Division of Solid Waste Managem~
April 26, 1995
Subject: Engineering design for removal of material from PCB Landfill for Pilot
Scale Detoxification Project
Based upon a cursory review of the water level data and field notes from a recent
sampling event, we consider the following plan most viable, at this juncture, for the
removal of soil from the PCB landfill in Warren County. It is our understanding once the
volume of soil required is determined, we [ or others] will have the opportunity to finalize
the exact method suggested for the removal of the soil.
It is our understanding that for the purposes of this preliminary assessment our objectives
were as follows:
• approximately 5 -15 cubic yards of soil will be removed. For the purposes of
this preliminary assessment, we have used the 15-cubic yard volume
considering this volume to be the most conservative,
• the soil needed for the pilot study for detoxification will be dry. No wet soil
or slurry will be excavated,
• the landfill will be restored to conditions prior to the excavation of the soil,
and
• the excavation of landfill soil will be completed in accordance with all
applicable safety regulations and requirements.
We believe that 15 cubic yards of soil may be removed from the PCB landfill safely
without compromising the integrity and stability of the existing system. A drawing has
been attached to illustrate the preliminary extent of excavation. The general steps of the
excavation are listed below:
1. Remove the protective cover of the landfill (include ea2-foot protective and
vegetative layers).
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ l 0% post-consumer paper
DRAFT
2. Remove the 10-mil PVC liner.
3. Remove the ea2-foot compacted clay cap (ccc).
4. Remove the eal-foot of structural fill.
Memorandum to Bill Meyer
4/26/95
Page 2
5. Excavate an area with the following approximate dimensions: 8 feet wide by
17 feet long and 3 feet deep (volume= 408 cubic feet or 15 cubic yards). The
soils will be temporarily stored in a lined roll-off box located at the base of the
landfill. It is anticipated that the equipment required will include a low
ground pressure backhoe(%-to ½-cubic yard bucket). The exact equipment
to be used to transfer the excavated soil to the roll-off box will be determined
once the structural stability of the cap has been evaluated.
6. The ccc and structural fill will be used to backfill the excavation.
7. Clay meeting the same permeability from an off-site borrow source will be
brought to the site and used to repair the existing ccc. The permeability will
be verified once the clay is compacted in place.
8. A 20-foot wide by 23-foot long single sheet of 30-mil PVC liner will be
installed, welded to the existing liner, and leak-tested.
9. The protective cover will be replaced and re-seeded.
10. The areal limits of the excavation will be accurately surveyed and the current
landfill as-built drawings will be annotated appropriately.
It is emphasized that the preceding is only a preliminary assessment. Technical
specifications, construction specifications, quality control/quality assurance
specifications, and health and safety plans must be prepared to ensure that the method of
excavation incorporates sound technical judgment and safe work practices.
f -'"
I ,-····-•·· ····----· .. •·•• -.. ~--
I ....
l
d)
l
I-L&.·
<(
a==
C
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Solid Waste Management
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
William L. Meyer, Director
April 7, 1995
MEMORANDUM
TO: Pricilla Tryee, Superfund Section
Lebeed Kady, Hazardous Waste Section
Ed Mussier, Solid Waste Section
FROM: Bill Meyer~
SUBJECT: Engineering Design for removal of material from PCB Landfill for Pilot
Scale Detoxification Project.
A Pilot scale project to determine the applicability of Base Catalyzed Dechlorination
technology for detoxfication of PCB/Dioxin contaminated materials in the PCB Landfill
is being considered. In order to implement the project approximately 5 to 15 cubic
yards of the landfill content must be made available to the selected project vendor.
This will require removal of a portion of the top liner, excavation of landfill contents,
back fill to replace excavated materials and reconstruction of the liner. It is essential
that this be accomplished with the very best engineering judgement and skills available
to the Division. The goal is to provide materials for the project in as safe a process as
possible and maintain the integrity of the landfill. You have been selected to provide
the engineering expertise as part of a team to design this effort. Please meet with me
Monday April 10, 1995 from 3-5. I am looking forward to working with you on this
project.
cc: Dexter Matthews
Dan Bius
Jack Butler
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ l 0% post-consumer paper