&EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Solid Waste and
Emergency Response
(5102G)
EPA542-R-01-005
February 2001
www.brownfieldstsc.org
www.epa.gov/TIO
Brownfields Technology Primer:
Requesting and Evaluating Proposals That Encourage
Innovative Technologies for Investigation and Cleanup
-------
Brownfields Technology Primer:
Requesting and Evaluating Proposals That
Encourage Innovative Technologies for
Investigation and Cleanup
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
Washington, DC 20460
-------
BROWNFIELDS TECHNOLOGY PRIMER:
REQUESTING AND EVALUATING PROPOSALS THAT ENCOURAGE
INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGIES FOR INVESTIGATION AND CLEANUP
NOTICE
This document has been funded by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
under Contracts 68-W-99-003 and 68-W-99-020 to Tetra Tech EM Inc. The document was
subjected to the Agency's administrative and expert review and was approved for publication as
an EPA document. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute
endorsement or recommendation for use.
-------
BROWNFIELDS TECHNOLOGY PRIMER:
REQUESTING AND EVALUATING PROPOSALS THAT ENCOURAGE
INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGIES FOR INVESTIGATION AND CLEANUP
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The Technology Innovation Office would like to acknowledge and thank the individuals who
reviewed and provided comments on draft documents. The reviewers included representatives of
business and community organizations, legal institutions, EPA Headquarters and regional offices,
local government and city planning offices, and remediation contractors.
-------
BROWNFIELDS TECHNOLOGY PRIMER:
REQUESTING AND EVALUATING PROPOSALS THAT ENCOURAGE
INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGIES FOR INVESTIGATION AND CLEANUP
CONTENTS
Section Page
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Purpose 1
1.2 Background 2
1.3 Approach 3
2.0 ADVANTAGES AND USES OF INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGIES 4
2.1 Advancements in Innovative Technologies 4
2.2 Characterization and Monitoring Technologies 4
2.3 Remediation Technologies 5
2.4 Examples 6
3.0 INCORPORATING INNOVATIVE APPROACHES INTO YOUR RFP 8
3.1 Types of Information Contained in Requests for Proposals 8
3.2 Incorporating Innovative Technologies into the RFP 10
3.2.1 Site-Specific Information to be Included 11
3.2.2 Technologies Used At Similar Sites 13
3.2.3 Special Considerations for Brownfields Sites 18
3.2.4 Examples of RFP formats for Brownfields Sites 26
4.0 EVALUATING CONTRACTORS' PROPOSALS 27
4.1 Evaluating the Proposed Methodology 27
4.1.1 Characterization Technologies 27
4.1.1.1 Selection of Locations for Sampling Points 28
4.1.1.2 Hydrogeologic Conditions 29
4.1.1.3 Boreholes and Drilling Methods 29
4.1.1.4 Soil and Water Samples 29
4.1.2 Remediation Technologies 31
4.1.2.1 Treatability Studies 31
4.1.2.2 Full-Scale Remediation Technology 31
4.2 Evaluating Qualifications of Personnel 32
4.3 Evaluating Corporate Experience 33
4.3.1 Experience in Performing Similar Projects 33
4.3.2 Past Performance 34
4.4 Evaluating the Contractor's Quality Assurance and Quality Control Procedures 34
4.5 Evaluating the Contractor's Cost Proposal 35
4.6 Evaluating the Contractor's Insurance 35
-------
BROWNFIELDS TECHNOLOGY PRIMER:
REQUESTING AND EVALUATING PROPOSALS THAT ENCOURAGE
INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGIES FOR INVESTIGATION AND CLEANUP
TABLES
3-1 Publicly Available Documents and Reports That Provide Site Information 12
3-2 Examples of Publicly Available Information Resources 15
3-3 Selected Typical Brownfields Sites, Contaminants, and Media 18
3-4.a Special Considerations at Brownfields Sites for Selecting Innovative Characterization
Technologies - Examples of Sample Access, Collection, and Extraction Tools 19
3-4.b Special Considerations at Brownfields Sites for Selecting Innovative Characterization
Technologies - Examples of Sample Analysis Tools for VOCs, SVOCs, and Pesticides 20
3-4.c Special Considerations at Brownfields Sites for Selecting Innovative Characterization
Technologies - Examples of Sample Analysis Tools for Inorganics and Metals 22
3-5 Special Considerations at Brownfield Sites - Examples of Remediation Technologies 23
4-1 Environmental Insurance Products 31
APPENDIX
Sources of Innovative Technology Information
-------
BROWNFIELDS TECHNOLOGY PRIMER:
REQUESTING AND EVALUATING PROPOSALS THAT ENCOURAGE
INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGIES FOR INVESTIGATION AND CLEANUP
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Purpose
Innovative technologies and streamlined strategies
for assessing, characterizing, monitoring, and
remediating contamination have potential to
minimize the cost and time required to clean up
brownfields sites. With proper planning and
consideration of the options available for using
innovative technologies and streamlined
strategies, many of those sites will move faster to
the redevelopment phase than could be achieved
by using more traditional cleanup approaches. By
carefully selecting technologies and approaches
for conducting site investigations, and then
analyzing and using the data gathered as a basis
for evaluating all reasonable remediation options,
decision makers will be in a strong position to
select technologies that will achieve the cleanup
objectives at the site in timely manner, while
assuring the required protection of human health
and the environment.
The Brownfields Technology Support Center
(BTSC) (see box on the next page) prepared this
primer to assist site owners, project managers, and
others preparing requests for proposals (RFP) to
solicit support in conducting activities to
investigate and clean up contaminated sites. The
primer is not a general guidance document on
preparing RFPs for the investigation and cleanup
of sites. Rather, it is specifically intended to assist
those individuals in writing specifications that
encourage contractors and technology vendors
(both referred to as contractors in this document)
to propose options for using innovative
characterization and remediation technologies at
brownfields sites. The primer also provides
information, from a technology perspective, to
guide review teams in their evaluations of
proposals and the selection of qualified
contractors.
The BTSC previously issued a document titled
Assessing Contractor Capabilities for Streamlined
Site Investigations [EPA 542-R-00-001]. That
document provides information useful to
brownfields decision makers as they interview
contractors to determine each contractor's
qualifications to provide streamlined and
innovative strategies for conducting site
investigations. A number of Brownfields Pilot
Coordinators and others requested that the BTSC
supplement that document by developing this
primer. It is hoped that the use of the information
in this primer by the brownfields community will
encourage contractors to consider the use of
innovative technologies earlier in the proposal
"pipeline," preferably at the time the contractors
are preparing their proposals, and will create a
more receptive atmosphere for contractors that do
so. RFPs that clearly define the requirements and
expectations for contractors to use innovative
technologies will encourage contractors to "think
outside of the box" and consider non-traditional
approaches as they prepare their proposals.
-------
BROWNFIELDS TECHNOLOGY PRIMER:
REQUESTING AND EVALUATING PROPOSALS THAT ENCOURAGE
INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGIES FOR INVESTIGATION AND CLEANUP
When developing this primer, the BTSC reviewed
a number of RFPs prepared by brownfields
communities. Many of those communities
recognized the advantages of innovative
technologies and required their inclusion in
proposals. Although that trend is encouraging, the
use of innovative technologies could be much
more widespread at brownfields sites. Individuals
who prepare RFPs and evaluate proposals should
be aggressive in
identifying the many
contractors across
the nation that offer
innovative
technologies.
Brownfields Technology Support Center
The BTSC produced
this primer to serve
as a resource for
general information;
localities, states, and
federal brownfields
staff can turn to the
BTSC for further
assistance
addressing site-
specific issues. The
BTSC can assist
localities in scoping
potential technology
options for their
sites and using the
information obtained
in the RFP process.
The BTSC also can
identify other
sources of
information to assist
individuals who
prepare RFPs and
contractors who submit proposals in conducting
research to identify appropriate technology
options for the site under review.
1.2 Background
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
has defined brownfields sites as "abandoned,
idled, or under-used industrial and commercial
facilities where expansion or redevelopment is
complicated by real or perceived environmental
contamination." Numerous technology options
are available to assist those involved in the
cleanup of brownfields sites. EPA's Technology
Innovation Office (TIO) encourages the use of
innovative, cost-effective technologies to
characterize and clean up contaminated sites. An
innovative technology is a technology that has
been field-tested and applied to a hazardous waste
problem at a site,
but lacks a long
history of full-scale
use. Although
readily available
information about
its cost and how
well it works may
EPA established the Brownfields
Technology Support Center to ensure that
brownfields decision makers are aware of
the full range of technologies available for
conducting site assessments and
cleanup, and can make informed
decisions for their sites. The center can
help government decision makers
evaluate strategies to streamline the site
assessment and cleanup process, identify
and review information about complex
technology options, evaluate contractor
capabilities and recommendations,
explain complex technologies to
communities, and plan technology
demonstrations. The center is
coordinated through EPA's Technology
Innovation Office and works through
EPA's Office of Research and
Development laboratories. Localities can
submit requests for assistance:
Directly through their EPA Regional
Brownfields Coordinators
Online at
By calling 1 (877) 838-7220 (toll free).
For more information about the program, the central
point of contact is Dan Powell of the EPA Technology
Innovation Office at (703) 603-7196 or
.
be insufficient to
encourage use under
a wide variety of
operating
conditions, an
innovative
technology has
potential to
significantly
minimize the cost
and time required to
redevelop
brownfields sites.
The process of
redeveloping
brownfields sites
provides an
excellent framework
for using innovative
technologies
because: (1) state
and federal
regulators tend to be flexible in approving cleanup
plans for brownfields sites, particularly those sites
for which voluntary cleanup plans have been
submitted; (2) most of the current brownfields
sites are not encumbered by a history of litigation
or enforcement actions for which traditional
technologies may already have been specified; and
(3) redevelopment plans have been prepared for
many brownfields sites and are used to establish
site-specific cleanup targets and the time frames
-------
BROWNFIELDS TECHNOLOGY PRIMER:
REQUESTING AND EVALUATING PROPOSALS THAT ENCOURAGE
INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGIES FOR INVESTIGATION AND CLEANUP
for cleanup - this information provides an
excellent basis for tailoring innovative approaches
to the investigation and cleanup of individual
sites.
1.3 Approach
Although the structure of RFPs will vary, the
criteria listed below are those typically used to
evaluate and select contractors for individual
projects. Many RFPs specify how the criteria will
be used to evaluate individual proposals.
Contractors typically structure their proposals
according to the criteria to ensure they respond to
each item. The criteria are:
Proposed technical methodology based on site
requirements and the schedule for performing
the work
Qualifications of the contractor's proposed
project management team and other key staff
Corporate experience in performing similar
work
Proposed quality assurance and quality control
procedures
Proposed price to complete the project
Individuals preparing RFPs should define site-
specific conditions and potential challenges
clearly so that bidders can respond adequately to
each criterion. This primer provides information
on how to apply each criterion in preparing RFPs.
The primer illustrates the importance of providing
prospective bidders with as much site information
as possible. Individuals preparing RFPs should
ensure all relevant information is communicated
effectively to all prospective bidders. Contractors
then have the basis to fully understand the
conditions of the site and can provide proposals
that offer sound and viable approaches for
assessing and cleaning up the site. The selection
officials also should review all available
information to ensure they understand the site
requirements and will select a contractor with
qualified and experienced staff to perform the
work correctly.
In all cases, selection officials and contractors
should make every effort to tailor the RFPs and
the responses to those RFPs to the specific
redevelopment and regulatory goals for the site
under review. The use of generic objectives, such
as "define the nature and extent of contamination"
without the context of the ultimate site goals can
lead to costly, time-consuming site investigations
and cleanup activities.
-------
BROWNFIELDS TECHNOLOGY PRIMER:
REQUESTING AND EVALUATING PROPOSALS THAT ENCOURAGE
INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGIES FOR INVESTIGATION AND CLEANUP
2.0 ADVANTAGES AND USES OF
INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGIES
2.1 Advancements in Innovative
Technologies
The discussion below illustrates the uses and
advantages of innovative technologies for
characterization and remediation. Over the past
decade there have been significant advancements
in the development and use of innovative
technologies. Over the next decade, technology
advancements are expected to continue to increase
significantly as thousands of brownfields sites
across the nation, as well as outside the U.S., are
cleaned up.
2.2 Characterization and Monitoring
Technologies
In the past, characterizing a contaminated site
typically included: (1) reviewing past records of
the site, (2) drilling one well upgradient of the
contaminated area to obtain background
information, (3) drilling three wells downgradient
to locate and characterize the contamination, (4)
sending the samples to an off-site Contract
Laboratory Program (CLP) laboratory and waiting
several weeks or months for the results, and (5)
sometimes conducting a geophysical survey to
better understand the underground flow patterns
of contamination. This approach, which often
required several sampling events and
mobilizations to gather sufficient information to
accurately characterize the site and design valid
cleanup options, may not be efficient enough to
support brownfields redevelopment. New
technologies and approaches, developed and
optimized over the past 5 to 10 years, are now
emerging on the market. Such approaches are
designed to gather information in greater detail
and more frequently, with immediate or real-time
data output. Examples of new technologies and
approaches for characterization activities include:
(1) hand-held chemical screening tools that take
readings and display results immediately; (2)
direct-push drilling techniques rigged with
detection devices that collect samples as the probe
is penetrating the subsurface; and (3) on-site
mobile laboratories that provide results in 24
hours or less.
New, innovative characterization strategies also
include flexible or dynamic work plans, which
provide the basis for a continuous and efficient
characterization process. Under these strategies, a
work plan is designed to conduct sampling at
locations at which contamination is suspected. If
the locations investigated are not contaminated,
the sampling plan can be revised on site and the
sampling can continue, with the new information
obtained used to guide the additional sampling.
Through such an approach, repeated mobilizations
to the same site can be avoided. Since the amount
of funds available often determines the extent of
characterization work done at a site, effective
coupling of inexpensive field techniques with
limited off-site analyses can provide a more
complete picture of site conditions, thereby
reducing uncertainty.
-------
BROWNFIELDS TECHNOLOGY PRIMER:
REQUESTING AND EVALUATING PROPOSALS THAT ENCOURAGE
INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGIES FOR INVESTIGATION AND CLEANUP
Dynamic Work Plans
Planning
To Collect Data
Understand What Has
Happened
>
i
Determine End Goals
i
>
\
f
Select the Tools
Implementing
Data Collection Plans
Plan Field
Work
>
t
Conduct and
Document Field
Work
Comprehensive, up-front planning is essential to
effectively use innovative strategies for
characterizing sites. Proper planning will ensure
that the only data that will be collected are data
that will lead to decisions about the site and that
the data collection process is efficient. If known
at the time of characterization, the end use and
ultimate cleanup goals for the site should be used
as the basis for developing a sampling plan that
will ensure that the correct data are collected the
first time and will provide sufficient information
to support the design of remediation options. If
the reuse plan for the site is not fully defined at
characterization, those designing the sampling
plan should take advantage of the best information
available on the basis of zoning or other general
reuse plans for the area. In addition to providing
as accurate a picture as possible of the site, a well-
planned approach can help avoid delays and
expenses associated with unnecessary collection
of data.
In designing site characterization plans, every
effort should be made to collect the first time the
information needed to support future decisions
about remediation alternatives. Because the data
required for making decisions about remediation
technologies vary from technology to technology,
and from site to site, it is essential that contractors
carefully define the data that will be needed to
assess remediation options and include those data
points in their characterization plans.
Some sites require the use of more intricate
innovative methods than other sites. For example,
sites that are relatively uncontaminated with
simple and homogeneous geology and hydrology
typically lend themselves to a simpler collection
and analysis process than sites at which
complexities such as fractured rock are present.
For such sites, extensive data typically are needed
to identify accurately the vertical and lateral
extent of contamination.
The planning phase also should include early
coordination with the state regulatory authority to
ensure that the state is aware of the work that will
be performed. Although state approval generally
is not necessary for characterization activities,
state "buy-in" at this point will facilitate any
concurrences or approvals that may be necessary
as the project moves forward to redevelopment. It
may be beneficial to request the state's comments
on quality assurance and quality control plans or
other critical activities and take advantage of the
expertise and experience members of the state
staff have with similar sites.
2.3 Remediation Technologies
For remediation technologies, traditional
approaches of simple containment or "digging and
hauling" off-site can be replaced or augmented by
treatment technologies that use biological,
physical and chemical, and thermal processes.
Advances have been made in using containment to
eliminate the migration of contaminants on site.
New technologies and containment strategies can
be used for soil, sediments, sludges, groundwater,
surface water, and leachate. A key consideration
in selecting technologies at individual sites is
control of sources of contamination (hot spots). In
some cases, the sources can be removed; in other
cases, they can be contained, with or without
further treatment. Innovative technologies can be
used very effectively as a source control option.
The evaluation of remediation options requires
detailed information about the site, including the
past, current, and planned uses of the site. In
evaluating remediation options, consideration of
potential impacts on nearby neighborhoods and
potential long-term liabilities from remediation
-------
BROWNFIELDS TECHNOLOGY PRIMER:
REQUESTING AND EVALUATING PROPOSALS THAT ENCOURAGE
INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGIES FOR INVESTIGATION AND CLEANUP
activities must be factored into the decision-
making process. Decision makers also should
weigh the costs and benefits of treating
contaminants against the cost and benefits of
leaving them in place, untreated. Containment
options or the use of institutional controls, such as
deed restrictions, easements, zoning restrictions,
or prohibitions against drilling in the area of
contamination, may be considerably quicker and
cheaper than treatment alternatives. However,
decision makers should weigh the full costs of
such options, including capital costs, long-term
sampling and analysis costs, and replacement
costs for equipment, as well as concerns about
potential long-term risks associated with
contaminants left in place, against the cost options
that would permanently remove or destroy the
contaminants.
Example 1
The city of Newark, New Jersey successfully used
innovative characterization technologies to
support the redevelopment of a brownfields site
that consists of approximately 700 acres of public
and private property. The project was
administered by the city of Newark under an EPA
pilot grant. By using innovative characterization
approaches, assessments were completed for
portions of the site in only 20 days, instead of 120
days, as originally was anticipated. Cost savings
were realized by using a one-time mobilization
and minimizing the cost of analysis required.
Additional information about this project and the
names of individuals to contact can be found at
.
Decision makers also
should consider special
construction needs during
the remediation process.
Innovative technologies
provide excellent
alternatives for
remediating brownfields
sites where existing
buildings and other
structures are to be
preserved and not
damaged. For example,
steam injection has been
used successfully at sites where excavation of
contaminated soils under structures was not
feasible. Section 3 of the primer provides more
detailed information about considerations for
brownfields sites
2.4 Examples
The following examples illustrate how innovative
characterization and remediation technologies
expedited cleanup time frames, resulted in
significant cost savings, and achieved a better
result than traditional approaches that were
proposed or previously used at the sites.
Reasons for Considering Innovative
Treatment Options Include:
Cost (both capital and long-term
maintenance costs)
Time (when other alternatives require
long-term stewardship)
Permanent destruction (nondestructive
options often entail residual risk)
Neighborhood concerns (community
and nearby businesses)
Logistical considerations (applicability
with existing structures and space
requirement for equipment)
Example 2
The use of innovative
characterization
approaches, such as
immunoassay kits, resulted
in a faster and cheaper
cleanup than originally was
anticipated at the
Wenatchee Tree Fruit
Facility in the state of
Washington. The site was
contaminated with
pesticides. Originally, it
was estimated that it would
be necessary to evacuate
780 tons of soil and transport the soil to an off-site
incinerator, at a cost of $1 million. The U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE) proposed the
use of immunoassay kits to guide sampling,
removal, and disposal decisions, in one
mobilization effort under a dynamic work plan.
Using the USAGE approach, 334 tons of soil were
landfilled and 56 tons incinerated. The total
project cost was approximately $589,000, far less
than the estimate. Additional information about
this project can be found in the EPA publication
Innovations in Site Characterization Case Study:
Site Cleanup of the Wenatchee Tree Fruit Test
Pilot Site Using a Dynamic Work Plan (EPA 542-
R-00-009). The publication can be viewed online
at .
-------
BROWNFIELDS TECHNOLOGY PRIMER:
REQUESTING AND EVALUATING PROPOSALS THAT ENCOURAGE
INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGIES FOR INVESTIGATION AND CLEANUP
Example 3
In 1998, six-phase heating (SPH) technology was
implemented to remediate pools of dense non-
aqueous phase liquid (DNAPL) at a former
manufacturing facility near Chicago, Illinois. The
site was contaminated with trichloroethylene
(TCE) and 1,1,1-trichloroethane (TCA) and is
located in a tight, heterogeneous silty-clay
formation. Three sources of contamination (hot
spots) were identified, each having pools of
DNAPL. Before SPH, a combination of steam
injection and conventional groundwater and soil
vapor extraction (SVE) technologies had been in
operation since 1991. During the seven years of
operation, the groundwater extraction and SVE
removed 30,000 pounds of TCE and TCA; and
reduced the groundwater concentration to below
site-specific risk-based closure levels, but were
not successful in reducing the hot spots to
acceptable levels. SPH successfully removed free
phase of DNAPL present in approximately 24,000
cubic yards of subsurface materials in 130 days.
The hot spot concentrations were reduced to
below site-specific risk-based closure levels. A
case study on this project can be found on the
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
(FRTR) case study data base at
.
The Brownfields Technology Support Center Can Help!!!
The BTSC can provide assistance to local, state, and federal government
brownfields staff during the RFP process on:
Preliminary scoping of innovative approaches for site-specific needs
Identification of sources of information
Description(s) of a technology (or technologies)
-------
BROWNFIELDS TECHNOLOGY PRIMER:
REQUESTING AND EVALUATING PROPOSALS THAT ENCOURAGE
INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGIES FOR INVESTIGATION AND CLEANUP
3.0 INCORPORATING INNOVATIVE
APPROACHES INTO YOUR RFP
Standard
Requirements
and Conditions
Potential
Technology
Options
3.1
Types of Information Contained in
Requests for Proposals
An RFP serves as the mechanism through which
a site owner or operator procures the contractor
that offers the best approach, qualifications, and
cost estimate for the requested services. The
components that typically are found in RFPs for
cleaning up hazardous waste sites are:
Purpose: This section provides a concise
statement of the work the contractor is being
asked to perform, for example:
"The City of Pleasantville is soliciting proposals
to select a qualified consulting firm to perform a
Phase II/III Environmental Assessment ... ."
Background and Project Information: This
section provides relevant site information that
contractors should use to develop their
approaches and cost estimates. (Section 3.2.1
presents a detailed description of such
information.)
Scope of Work: The scope of work presents
the key information bidders use to prepare their
proposed methodologies. It provides detailed
information about each task the contractor is
being asked to perform and clearly identifies the
interim and final deliverables for each task. The
requirements in the scope of work also are used
as the basis for comparing the proposals
received for technical adequacy.
Inquiries: This section provides the name,
telephone number, and address of a contact
person(s) who can answer questions from
bidders and provide copies of reports or other
site information that is available to bidders. It
also specifies the procedure and deadline for
submitting inquiries.
Proposal Format and Submittal: This section
describes the information that must be included
in the written proposal, as well as the format to
be used. At a minimum, the required
information includes:
Corporate experience - Presents a
description of the contractor's experience
in performing similar projects over a
certain period of years (typically the past
three to five years) and the firm's
familiarity with applicable regulations and
provides references for the projects listed
Qualifications of key personnel, including
subcontractors - Presents a table of staff
that lists the project management team
and other key personnel assigned to the
project, including titles, functions,
locations, and availability for the project,
and resumes that demonstrate the
-------
BROWNFIELDS TECHNOLOGY PRIMER:
REQUESTING AND EVALUATING PROPOSALS THAT ENCOURAGE
INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGIES FOR INVESTIGATION AND CLEANUP
experience and qualifications of each key
staff member
Organizational chart - Shows the
responsibilities and lines of authority for
the project management team and support
staff
Technical methodology, implementation
plans, and schedule - Demonstrates the
contractor's understanding of the scope of
work and includes measurable
performance objectives and specific tasks,
descriptions of deliverables, descriptions
of the proposed methodology for each
task, and milestones and schedules for
completing tasks
Cost proposal - Identifies the components
and format for the cost proposal, for
example, as a lump sum or a time-and-
materials estimate
Quality assurance project plan (QAPP) -
Describes the quality assurance (QA) and
quality control (QC) requirements for
conducting the work
Insurance coverage - Presents the
information required to verify the
insurance program the contractor has in
place to guarantee successful completion
of the project
Terms and Conditions: This section identifies
the terms and conditions to which the contractor
must adhere. Examples of terms and conditions
are:
Conflict of interest - The RFP shall
specify the contractor must not create a
situation designed to influence activities
or decisions under the project in ways that
could lead to personal gain for the
contractor or give an improper advantage
to third parties in their dealings with the
site owner or operator
Compliance with relevant laws and
regulations - The RFP shall clearly
identify by reference the laws and
regulations that apply to the project
Termination of contract - The RFP shall
clearly identify conditions that will result
in termination of the contract
Validity of the proposal - The RFP shall
specify the time period for which the
proposal is to remain valid from the date
of submittal
Schedule of Events: This section identifies
deadlines for such events as the submittal of
questions and responses to questions and the bid
opening date.
Evaluation Criteria: The criteria that will be
used to evaluate proposals are discussed in this
section. A common evaluation method is to
assign points to each of the dominant criteria,
such as corporate qualifications to provide the
required services, the contractor's reputation for
competence in performing similar work, the
professional and educational experience of key
personnel to be assigned to the project, the
proposed cost to complete the project, and the
contractor's technical approach for completing
the project. A weighting factor is applied to the
points assigned to each of the criteria, typically
based upon the importance of that criterion to
each project.
For all RFPs for site cleanups, the technical
approach must be evaluated on the extent to
which the approach is based upon sound science
and logical strategies. For proposals involving
innovative approaches and technologies, the
contractor's proposed strategies must include
specific components to ensure the success of the
project. Those components should be defined in
the evaluation criteria and presented in the RFP
so that prospective bidders will understand the
importance of the components to the success of
the project. Those components include:
A direct and clear correlation between the
proposed analytical methods and the
decisions to be made and the data quality
required
Maximization of the use and capabilities
of field analytical tools to support
decisions
-------
BROWNFIELDS TECHNOLOGY PRIMER:
REQUESTING AND EVALUATING PROPOSALS THAT ENCOURAGE
INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGIES FOR INVESTIGATION AND CLEANUP
Minimization of the number of field
mobilizations
Thorough evaluation and consideration of
the use of treatment options that treat
waste in place
Minimization of long-term maintenance
and monitoring requirements
Minimization of restrictions on future site
use
Those considerations are key to the success of
many brownfields projects for which an
efficient and expeditious cleanup is required and
the site must be made available for a specific
reuse.
Oral Presentations: It is becoming more
common to require contractors to make oral
presentations in conjunction with the submittal
of their written proposals. For example, a
screening of written proposals for such key
elements as corporate or personnel
qualifications may be conducted. Those bidders
who qualify would then make oral presentations
to the selection officials about their technical
methodology. Oral presentations provide a
more interactive framework than written
proposals and can expedite the selection
process.
In conducting oral presentations, selection
officials should prepare in advance a standard
list of questions to ask each contractor to ensure
that officials are asking appropriate questions
and will obtain the information they need.
Using a standard list of questions also ensure
that all contractors are treated fairly and
equitably during the oral presentations. The
document Assessing Contractor Capabilities for
Streamlined Site Investigations provides a series
of questions that selection officials can use
when interviewing contractors. The box above
provides additional information about the
document.
»»EPA *««»ina Contractor C«p»bltiti«i
for Streamlined Srte iiweslisatien
Assessing
Contractor
Capabilities for
Streamlined Site
Investigations
(EPA542-R-00-001)
This document
familiarizes and
encourages
brownfields decision
makers to
investigate and
employ innovative
methods for characterizing their sites and to assist
decision makers in assessing contractors'
capabilities and familiarity with those methods, as
well as to suggest additional items that contractors
should consider in conducting their activities. The
document can be viewed online at
or ordered through the
National Service Center for Environmental
Publications (NSCEP) at 1 (800) 490-9198.
3.2 Incorporating Innovative
Technologies into the RFP
Currently, many RFPs for characterization and
remediation work: (1) allow bidders to include
in their proposals options for innovative
approaches, in addition to traditional
approaches; (2) encourage bidders to submit
alternative approaches, including separate cost
proposals for the innovative approaches; or (3)
require bidders to provide such information.
Although such scenarios encourage contractors
to consider innovative approaches, the
responsibility for the thought process of
considering and selecting technology options
rests solely with the prospective bidders.
Individuals preparing RFPs should identify
opportunities to encourage contractors to use
innovative technologies by: (1) ensuring that all
available, non-confidential, relevant site-specific
information, including the goals for cleanup and
redevelopment, is included in the RFP so that
bidders can identify appropriate technology
options and (2) specifying potential options for
innovative technologies that must be considered
on the basis of use of those technologies at
similar sites. The two steps are discussed in
more detail in sections 3.2.1 and 3.2.2.
10
-------
BROWNFIELDS TECHNOLOGY PRIMER:
REQUESTING AND EVALUATING PROPOSALS THAT ENCOURAGE
INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGIES FOR INVESTIGATION AND CLEANUP
Providing comprehensive site-specific
information and taking advantage of experiences
at other sites reduces the likelihood that
arbitrary decisions will be made about
technologies and increases the chances of
success in cleaning up sites correctly the first
time. Those preparing RFPs and prospective
contractors must understand the redevelopment
goals for the site, if they have been established,
and how the goals affect the selection of
characterization and remediation technologies.
If the redevelopment goals have not been
established, the proposed zoning and potential
general uses of the site (residential, commercial,
or industrial) should be used as a guide for
selecting technologies. In all cases, presenting
site-specific goals, rather than using generic
boilerplate language in the discussion of cleanup
objectives, will better guide the selection of
technologies.
3.2.1 Site-Specific Information to be
Included
Studies and reports completed for many
brownfields sites, typically referred to as Phase
I, II, or III site assessments or site remediation
plans, are an excellent source of information for
crafting RFPs for characterization and
remediation work. The information provided in
such documents should be included in the RFP.
As a cleanup progresses through the
characterization, monitoring, and remediation
phases, the level of detail available about the
site increases significantly, enhancing the ability
to make decisions about technologies.
Site-Specific Drivers
Redevelopment objectives
Past use
Geology
Climate
Structures
Water bodies
Listed below are the types of information
typically found in site reports and studies:
Phase I Reports - Environmental Assessments
Physical information about the site, including
location, size, prominent features, geology,
physiography, and environmental setting
Historical information about the site and its
adjacent properties, including chronology of
ownership, past and present operations and
processes, inventory of products and wastes
handled at the site, locations of product and
waste storage and disposal areas, transcripts
of interviews with knowledgeable
individuals, and reviews of past
environmental investigations and cleanups
Results of physical reconnaissance of the site
Recommendations for the Phase II work
Development of cleanup levels in accordance
with federal, state, or local regulations in
light of future land use
Development of corrective action alternatives
and detailed evaluations of each alternative,
using such criteria as effectiveness,
efficiency, implementability, and cost
Presentation of preferred remediation
alternatives
Phase II Reports - Environmental Assessments
Site maps that indicate all areas of concern
identified in the Phase I environmental
assessment
Locations of sampling grids for each
environmental medium
Results of analysis of samples from each
sampling location
Rationale for selecting sampling locations
and analytical parameters
Description of sampling protocol and
analytical methods
Description of QA/QC procedures
11
-------
BROWNFIELDS TECHNOLOGY PRIMER:
REQUESTING AND EVALUATING PROPOSALS THAT ENCOURAGE
INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGIES FOR INVESTIGATION AND CLEANUP
Phase III Reports -
Environmental
Assessments and
Corrective Action and
Remediation Plans
Information about
the nature, effects,
and magnitude of
contamination
In addition to the
Phase I, II, and III
reports, other sources
of publicly available
information about the site or the area in the
vicinity of the site may provide useful information
for the RFP. For example, many states require
studies to identify leaks from underground storage
tanks. Individuals preparing an RFP should
research thoroughly information about the site,
checking with the engineering department of the
city, state regulatory officials, and others who
have knowledge of the site or who may be able to
provide past reports and studies. Table 3-1
The Brownfields Technology
Support Center Can Help!!!
Help to identify qualifications to implement
innovative approaches
Help to determine the QA and QC requirements to
support streamlined approaches for the project
Help in the selection of site-specific evaluation
criteria and weighting factors to determine the
success of innovative approaches
Help to define the site-specific information that can
be included in the RFP to encourage innovative
approaches
provides additional
examples of publicly
available documents
and reports that
contain site-specific
information or
information about the
area adjacent to or
near a site that could
enhance the quality of
an RFP. Commonly
available documents,
such as utility
records, can provide
useful information in
a variety of ways. For example, older records
will show the names of businesses that were
located at the site, which may indicate the types
of activities conducted and the contaminants
potentially generated. Utility records also can
show the layout of water supply lines and
service structures, potential pathways for
exposure at the site. The Internet and other
electronic means of dissemination give potential
bidders easy access to such documents.
TABLE 3-1
PUBLICLY AVAILABLE DOCUMENTS AND REPORTS THAT PROVIDE SITE
INFORMATION
Documents/Reports
Superfund Records
of Decision (RODs)
for target sites or for
nearby or adjacent
properties
USGS Reports
Utility Records
Tax Records
Administrative and
Enforcement Orders
Soil Conservation
Studies
Type of Information Provided
Site
History
and Past
Uses
/
/
/
/
Assessment of
Potential
Contaminants
of Concern
(COQ
/
/
/
Assessment
of COCs
Migration
/
/
/
/
Assessment of
Sensitive
Environments
in the Vicinity
of the Site
/
Assessment
of Potential
Characterization
or Remediation
Options
/
/
/
/
Source of the
Document/Report
Abstract:
http://www.epa.gov/superfund
Hard copy: National Technical
Information Service
Springfield, Virginia 22161
(703) 605-6000 or
http://usgs.gov
Local Utility Company
State or Local Government
Office
EPA or State Public Record
Office
http://usda.gov
12
-------
BROWNFIELDS TECHNOLOGY PRIMER:
REQUESTING AND EVALUATING PROPOSALS THAT ENCOURAGE
INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGIES FOR INVESTIGATION AND CLEANUP
3.2.2 Technologies Used At Similar Sites
In addition to including site-specific information,
individuals preparing RFPs also should take the
initiative to provide suggestions for the use of
innovative technologies at their site. Taking that
extra step will: (1) demonstrate to prospective
bidders that the decision makers for the contract
are committed to the use of innovative
technologies and (2) facilitate the process of
reviewing proposals and selecting the most
qualified contractor. However, identifying
innovative technologies during the preparation of
an RFP is a challenging step, particularly for
individuals who have little or no technical
experience in site cleanup activities, a common
situation in the case of brownfields sites, at which
the economic development staffer other staff who
traditionally do not prepare RFPs for site cleanup
work frequently are responsible for soliciting
proposals. Fortunately, a number of excellent
resources are available that provide information
about innovative technologies and their
application at sites.
Those resources, including the Brownfields
Technology Support Center, EPA Regional
Brownfields Coordinators, the EPA National
Center for Environmental Research Information,
USAGE, and the hazardous substance research
centers including the Technical Assistance to
Brownfields (TAB) program, are available to
discuss potential technology options for individual
sites and to provide assistance in sorting through
the large amounts of published information.
The Directory of Technology Support Services to
Brownfields Localities (EPA 542-B-99-005)
provides information about EPA offices, non-
government organizations funded by EPA, and
other federal agencies that may be able to provide
expertise to assist in the selection of technologies
for characterizing and cleaning up brownfields
properties. The directory is available online at
. The box above
provides additional information about the TAB
Program.
Reports and many online databases list new
technologies and discuss how they are used,
whether they have been demonstrated and proven
effective and reliable, the types of conditions
Technical Assistance to
Brownfields (TAB) Program
< h ttp://www. toscprogram. org/tab-o verview. h tml>
The TAB program has been established to help
communities cleanup and redevelop properties that
have been damaged by or undervalued because of
environmental contamination through workshops,
such as those on leadership training, risk
assessment, brownfields processes, site
assessment, and cleanup alternatives.
Center Program Contacts:
Great Lakes/Mid-Atlantic:
Lisa Szymecko
1 (800) 490-3890
szymecko@egr.msu.edu
Great Plains/Rocky Mountains:
Blase Leven Terrie Boguski
(785) 532-0780 (913) 780-3328
baleven@ksu.edu mboguski@tfs.net
Northeast:
William Librizzi
(873) 596-5846
librizzi@admin.njit.edu
South & Southwest:
Bob Schmitter
(404) 894-8064
bob.schmitter@gtri.gatech.edu
Western:
Michael Fernandez
(541)737-4023
Michael.Fernandez@orst.edu
National Program Contact:
Nigel Fields, Program Assistant
U.S. EPA (MC 8703)
1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 564-6936
fields.nigel@epa.gov
under which they have been the most effective,
and their performance specifications. One of
those resources is EPA's Treatment Technologies
for Site Cleanup: Annual Status Report (ASR)
(ninth edition), April 1999 (EPA 542-R-99-001).
The report also is available online at .
Listed below are examples of site characterization
and remediation technology databases:
EPA REmediation And CHaracterization
Innovative Technologies (EPA REACH IT) at
13
-------
BROWNFIELDS TECHNOLOGY PRIMER:
REQUESTING AND EVALUATING PROPOSALS THAT ENCOURAGE
INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGIES FOR INVESTIGATION AND CLEANUP
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
(FRTR) Field Sampling and Analysis
Technologies Matrix and Reference Guide at
FRTR Screening Matrix and Reference Guide
at
FRTR Cost and Performance Reports and
Internet site at
U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Preferred
Alternatives Matrix at
DOE Vendor Database for Environmental
Applications at
For more information about the seminars, the central
point of contact is Jeff Heimerman of the EPA
Technology Innovation Office at (703) 603-7191 or
.
Road Map to Understanding Innovative Technology Options for Brownfields
Investigation and Cleanup, Second Edition
(EPA 542-B-99-009)
The Road Map to Understanding Innovative Technology Options for Brownfields
Investigation and Cleanup is a companion document to the Tool Kit of Information
Resources for Brownfields Investigation and Cleanup. Used together, the
resources link technology options to the general steps involved in the
characterization and cleanup of a brownfields site. The road map is intended for
the various individuals involved in or affected by the redevelopment of brownfields
sites, whether public projects, private developments, or projects pursued under
public-private partnerships. The second edition has been expanded significantly
to include new and updated resources. The document can be viewed online at
-------
BROWNFIELDS TECHNOLOGY PRIMER:
REQUESTING AND EVALUATING PROPOSALS THAT ENCOURAGE
INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGIES FOR INVESTIGATION AND CLEANUP
TABLE 3-2
EXAMPLES OF PUBLICLY AVAILABLE INFORMATION RESOURCES
(Page 1 of 3)
Resource
EPA REACH IT
http://www. epareachit. org
FRTR Case Studies
http://www.frtr.gov/cost/
FRTR Remediation Technologies
Screening Matrix
http://www.frtr.gov/matrix2/top _page.html
FRTR Characterization Technologies
Matrix
http://www.frtr.gov/site
CLU-IN
http://clu-in. org
Citizens' Guides to Innovative Treatment
Technologies
http://clu-in. org/publ.htm
A Guideline for Dynamic Workplans and
Field Analytics: The Keys to Cost-Effective
Site Characterization and Cleanup
http://clu-in. org/publ.htm
A Dynamic Site Investigation: Adaptive
Sampling and Analysis Program for
Operable Unit 1 at Hanscom Air Force
Base, Bedford, Massachusetts
http://clu-in. org/publ.htm
Application of Field-Based
Characterization Tools in the Waterfront
Voluntary Setting
http://clu-in. org/publ.htm
TYPES OF INFORMATION
Remedial
Evaluation
/
Characterization
Strategies/Plans
/
/
Characterization
Technologies
(Monitoring,
Health,
and Safety
Analytical)
/
/
/
Remediation
Technologies
/
/
/
/
Site Types
Addressed
/
/
/
/
Contaminants
Addressed
/
/
/
/
Cost
Information
/
/
/
/
Performance
Information
/
/
/
/
General
Information on
Characterization
and Remediation
Technologies
/
15
-------
BROWNFIELDS TECHNOLOGY PRIMER:
REQUESTING AND EVALUATING PROPOSALS THAT ENCOURAGE
INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGIES FOR INVESTIGATION AND CLEANUP
TABLE 3-2
EXAMPLES OF PUBLICLY AVAILABLE INFORMATION RESOURCES
(Page 2 of 3)
Resource
Assessing Contractor Capabilities for
Streamlined Site Investigations
EPA542-R-00-001
http://brownfieldstsc. org
Assessment of Phytoremediation as an
In Situ Technique for Cleaning
Oil-Contaminated Sites
http://clu-in. org/publ.htm
Directory of Technology Support Services
to Brownfields Localities
EPA 542-B-99-005
http://bro\vnfieldstsc. org
Field Analytical and Site Characterization
Technologies - Summary of Applications
EPA542-R-97-011
http://clu-in. org/publ.htm
Phytoremediation Decision Tree
http://clu-in. org/publ.htm
Quality Assurance Guidance for
Conducting Brownfields Site Assessments
EPA 540-R-98-038
http://clu-in. org/publ.htm
Road Map to Understanding Innovative
Technology Options for Brownfields
Investigation and Cleanup, Second Edition
EPA 542-B-99-009
http://brownfieldstsc. org
Tool Kit of Information Resources for
Brownfields Investigation and Cleanup
EPA 542-B-99-009
http://clu-in. org/publ.htm
TYPES OF INFORMATION
Remedial
Evaluation
/
/
Characterization
Strategies/Plans
/
/
Characterization
Technologies
(Monitoring,
Health,
and Safety
Analytical)
/
/
/
Remediation
Technologies
/
/
/
Site Types
Addressed
/
/
Contaminants
Addressed
/
/
/
Cost
Information
Performance
Information
/
General
Information on
Characterization
and Remediation
Technologies
/
/
16
-------
BROWNFIELDS TECHNOLOGY PRIMER:
REQUESTING AND EVALUATING PROPOSALS THAT ENCOURAGE
INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGIES FOR INVESTIGATION AND CLEANUP
TABLE 3-2
EXAMPLES OF PUBLICLY AVAILABLE INFORMATION RESOURCES
(Page 3 of 3)
Resource
Field Analytic Technologies Encyclopedia
(FATE)
http://fa.te. clu-in. org
DOE Vendor Database for Environmental
Applications
http://www. cmst. org/vendor
Hazardous Waste Site Characterization (on
CD-ROM)
http://www.epa.gov/ncepihom
Ames Laboratory's Environmental
Protection Sciences
http://www. epsci. ameslab.gov
Evaluation of Selected Environmental
Decision Support Software
http://clu-in. org/publ.htm
Uncertainty Management: Expediting
Cleanup Through Contingency Planning
http://clu-in. org/publ.htm
Environmental Technology Verification
Reports, Site Characterization and
Monitoring Technologies (43 verified as of
9/1/00)
http://www.epa.gov/etv/02/02 main. htm
Treatment Technologies for Site Cleanup:
Annual Status Report (ninth edition)
EPA542-R-99-001
http:// clu-in. org/products/asr/index2. html
TYPES OF INFORMATION
Remedial
Evaluation
/
/
Characterization
Strategies/Plans
/
/
/
Characterization
Technologies
(Monitoring,
Health,
and Safety
Analytical)
/
/
/
Remediation
Technologies
/
Site Types
Addressed
/
/
Contaminants
Addressed
/
/
Cost
Information
/
Performance
Information
/
General
Information on
Characterization
and Remediation
Technologies
Notes:
See Appendix A for details on how to access the resources.
17
-------
BROWNFIELDS TECHNOLOGY PRIMER:
REQUESTING AND EVALUATING PROPOSALS THAT ENCOURAGE
INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGIES FOR INVESTIGATION AND CLEANUP
3.2.3 Special Considerations
for Brownfields Sites
For many brownfields sites, special considerations
must be factored into the selection of
characterization and remediation technologies.
Typically, such considerations affect brownfields
sites that are located in residential or business
areas, that contain buildings and structures that
will remain in place, and that are targeted for a
specific reuse. Among the special considerations
that could significantly influence the selection of
characterization or remediation technologies:
The characterization and or remediation
process must be completed within a defined
time frame for redevelopment
Community concerns about the potential risks
posed by cleanup activities must be addressed
Noise and traffic during cleanup must be
minimized in residential neighborhoods
Access to the contamination present is difficult
because the contamination is adjacent to or
under a building or other structure that will
remain in place
Site activities must not cause damage to
historic buildings located on site or near the
site
The impact of site activities on on-going
businesses must be minimized
The proposed location of new buildings,
structures, and parking lots limits the feasibility
of some characterization and remediation
options
The effects of long-term monitoring and
remediation activities must be considered
relative to the proposed site design
Table 3-3 provides a general overview of
contaminants and media at five common types of
brownfields sites. Tables 3-4.a, 3-4.b, and 3-4.c
present special considerations related to
commonly used characterization technologies that
may influence the selection of those technologies
for individual sites. Table 3-5 provides similar
information for remediation technologies.
TABLE 3-3
SELECTED TYPICAL BROWNFIELDS SITES, CONTAMINANTS, AND MEDIA
No.
1
2
3
4
5
Site Type
Dry Cleaning
Operation
Wood Treating
Operation
Gas Station and
Tank Farm
Railroad Yard
Manufactured
Gas Plant (MGP)
Contaminants
Solvent containing halogenated VOCs and SVOCs, such as PCE
TPH, PAHs, PCP, creosote, and metals, such as chromated copper
arsenate (CCA)
TPH, BTEX, VOCs, and SVOCs
TPH, phthalates, carbazole, dibenzofurans, dieldrin, PAHs, metals
(lead, copper, zinc, nickel, antimony, and mercury), and
chlorinated and non-chlorinated solvents.
Non-halogenated VOCs and non-halogenated SVOCs, such as
PAHs and carcinogenic PAHs, including naphthalene,
phenanthrene and anthracene chrysene and benzo(a)pyrene.
Media
Soil, groundwater, surface
water, and sediment
Soil, sludge, groundwater,
surface water, and sediment
Soil, groundwater, surface
water, and sediment
Soil, sediment, sludge,
groundwater, and surface
water
Soil, sediment, sludge,
groundwater, and surface
water
Notes:
VOC
SVOC
PCE
TPH
Volatile organic compound
Semivolatile organic compound
Perchloroethylene
Total petroleum hydrocarbon
PAH = Polyaromatic hydrocarbons
PCP = Pentachlorophenol
BTEX = Benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylenes
18
-------
BROWNFIELDS TECHNOLOGY PRIMER:
REQUESTING AND EVALUATING PROPOSALS THAT ENCOURAGE
INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGIES FOR INVESTIGATION AND CLEANUP
TABLE 3-4.31
SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS AT BROWNFIELDS SITES
FOR SELECTING INNOVATIVE CHARACTERIZATION TECHNOLOGIES
Examples of Sample Access, Collection, and Extraction Tools
Technology
Hollow-Stem Auger
Directional Drilling
Cable Tool
Cone Penetrometer
(CPT)
Direct Push Sampler
CONSIDERATIONS
Potential Impact
on Buildings and
Other Structures
Yes
(when it is performed
in close proximity to
buildings or
structures, it may
cause formation and
foundation fractures)
No
No
No
No
Impact to Nearby
Businesses
or Community
Yes
(potential disruption
resulting from
vibration, noise, and
foundation fractures)
No
Yes
(potential disruption
from noises)
No
No
Media
Soil and
Groundwater (for
unconsolidated
formations)
Soil and
Groundwater (for
unconsolidated
formations)
Soil and
Groundwater (for
consolidated
formations)
Soil, Groundwater
Soil, Soil Gas, and
Groundwater
Range of Nominal
Working Depth
Up to 200 feet
Up to 100 feet
Less than 5,000 feet
Up to 100 feet
Up to 100 feet
Sample Acquisition
Time2
Immediate
Rapid
Rapid
Immediate
Immediate
Status of
Technology
Commercially
available and
routinely used field
technology
Commercially
available and
routinely used field
technology
Commercially
available and
routinely used field
technology
Commercially
available and
routinely used field
technology
Commercially
available and
routinely used field
technology
Relative Cost per
Sample
or per Analysis
Average
Expensive
Expensive
Average
Least expensive
Notes:
1 . Adapted from the Field-Based Site Characterization Technologies Course, Participant Manual, USEPA, CERCLA Education Center,
Matrix by the FRTR (http://www.frtr.gov/site). All techniques are site-specific.
2. Immediate = generally less than 10 minutes; rapid = generally less than 1 hour
TIO, September 1 999, and from the Field Sampling and Analysis Technologies
19
-------
BROWNFIELDS TECHNOLOGY PRIMER:
REQUESTING AND EVALUATING PROPOSALS THAT ENCOURAGE
INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGIES FOR INVESTIGATION AND CLEANUP
TABLE 3-4.b
SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS AT BROWNFIELDS SITES
FOR SELECTING INNOVATIVE CHARACTERIZATION TECHNOLOGIES
Examples of Sample Analysis Tools for VOCs, SVOCs, and Pesticides
(Page 1 of 2)
TECHNOLOGY
Laser-Induced
Fluorescence (LIE)
Gas
Chromatography/
Mass Spectrometry
(GC/MS)
Gas Chromatography
- Photo-Ionization
Detector (GC - PID)
Gas Chromatography
- Flame-Ionization
Detector (GC - FID)
CONSIDERATIONS
Media
Soil and
Groundwater
Soil,
Groundwater, and
Gas (extraction
required except
for gas)
Soil,
Groundwater, and
Gas (extraction
required except
for gas)
Soil,
Groundwater, and
Gas (extraction
required except
for gas)
Throughput
Average of 300 feet
per day, continuous
reading
30-50 samples per
day
30-50 samples per
day
30-50 samples per
day
Status
of Technology
Commercially
available and
routinely used
field technology
Commercially
available and
routinely used
field technology
Commercially
available and
routinely used
field technology
Commercially
available and
routinely used
field technology
Advantages
Continuous, real-
time data
No soil cuttings
Quick
decontamination
Definitive
compound
identification
Identify
components that
cannot be detected
by PID and FID
Available in
portable units
Produce definitive
data with proper
QA/QC
Proven technique
No solvents
needed for VOC
analysis
Produce definitive
data with proper
QA/QC
Proven technique
No solvents
needed for VOC
analysis
FID is stable, low-
maintenance
detector
Limitations
Expensive on small
projects
Large equipment
Difficult mobilization for
rough terrain
Expensive
High degree of
experience needed to
operate instrumentation
Need experienced
operator
Sensitive to moisture
Dual columns are
required for positive
identification of analytes
Need experienced
operator
Dual columns are
required for positive
identification of analytes
In Situ
or Ex Situ
Technology
In situ
Ex situ
Ex situ
Ex situ
Unit Cost
Rental: $2,000 to
$3,000 per day,
including operators
Purchase: $50,000-
$100,000 per unit
Rental: $5,000 per
month
Purchase: $10,000 to
$50,000
Rental: $1,000 to
$3,000 per month
Purchase: $10,000 to
$50,000
Rental: $1,000 to
$3,000 per month
Data Application
Delineation of gross
contamination, monitor
well placement, source
identification, and
geological data/profile.
Site assessments, site
investigations, site
characterizations, and
cleanup monitoring
Site assessments, site
investigations, site
characterization, cleanup
monitoring, and removal
monitoring
Site assessments, site
investigations, site
characterization, cleanup
monitoring, and removal
monitoring
20
-------
BROWNFIELDS TECHNOLOGY PRIMER:
REQUESTING AND EVALUATING PROPOSALS THAT ENCOURAGE
INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGIES FOR INVESTIGATION AND CLEANUP
TABLE 3-4.b
SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS AT BROWNFIELDS SITES
FOR SELECTING INNOVATIVE CHARACTERIZATION TECHNOLOGIES
Examples of Sample Analysis Tools for VOCs, SVOCs, and Pesticides
(Page 2 of 2)
TECHNOLOGY
Detector Tubes
(Colorimetric
Indicator Tubes)
Immunoassay
CONSIDERATIONS
Media
Soil,
Groundwater, and
Gas (extraction
required except
for gas)
Soil and
Groundwater
Throughput
>100
measurements per
day
up to 50 samples
per day
Status
of Technology
Commercially
available and
routinely used
field technology
Commercially
available
technology with
moderate field
experience
Advantages
Small size
Easy to use
Rapid analysis
Cost effective
Small size
Easy to use
Rapid analysis
Cost effective
Limitations
Semiquantitative
(subjective) results
Interference from similar
compounds
Matrix-dependent results
(soil)
In Situ
or Ex Situ
Technology
Ex situ
Ex situ
Unit Cost
Purchase:
Tube: $3 - $10 per
tube
Pump: $300 - $400
$10 - $50 per sample
(supplies and reagents
only)
Data Application
Health and safety
monitoring
Site assessments, site
investigations, site
characterization, and
cleanup monitoring
Notes:
Adapted from the Field-Based Site Characterization Technologies Course, Participant Manual, USEPA, CERCLA Education Center, TIO, September 1999, and from the Field Sampling and Analysis Technologies Matrix
by the FRTR (http://www.frtr.gov/site).
21
-------
BROWNFIELDS TECHNOLOGY PRIMER:
REQUESTING AND EVALUATING PROPOSALS THAT ENCOURAGE
INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGIES FOR INVESTIGATION AND CLEANUP
TABLE 3-4.c
SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS AT BROWNFIELDS SITES
FOR SELECTING INNOVATIVE CHARACTERIZATION TECHNOLOGIES
Examples of Sample Analysis Tools for Inorganics and Metals
TECHNOLOGY
Inductively-Coupled
Plasma-Atomic
Emission
Spectroscopy (ICP-
AES)
X-Ray Fluorescence
Mercury Vapor
Analyzers
CONSIDERATIONS
Media
Soil,
Groundwater, and
Gas (extraction
required except
for gas)
Soil,
Groundwater, and
Gas (extraction
required for gas)
Soil and Gas
Throughput
25 to 50 samples
per day
50 to 100
samples per
day (ex situ)
> 100 samples
per day (in
situ)
Hundreds of
measurements
per day
Status of
Technology
Commercially
available
technology
with limited
field
experience
Commercially
available and
routinely used
field
technology
Commercially
available
technology
with moderate
field
experience
Advantages
Multielement technique
Low detection limit
Definitive data with
appropriate QA/QC
Portable
Relatively easy to use
Fast and multielement
analysis
Non-destructive technique
Definitive results with
appropriate QA/QC
Portable
Easy to use
Rapid response
Limitations
Expensive
Interference from iron
and uranium
High detection limit
(tens to thousands of
parts per million)
Involves the use of
radioactive sources
Matrix-variable results
Potential interference
from sulfur
In situ/
Ex situ
Technology
Ex situ
In situ and
Ex situ
Ex situ
Unit Cost
Expensive
Purchase: $20,000-
$60,000
Rental: $1,000 to
$2,000 per week
Purchase: $5,000-
$7,000
Rental: $400 to $700
per week
Data Application
Site assessment, site
characterization, and
long-term monitoring
Site characterizations,
site assessments, and
monitoring of remedial
activities
Health and safety
monitoring, identifying
hot spots or sources, and
identifying locations for
confirmatory samples
Notes:
Adapted from the Field-Based Site Characterization Technologies Course, Participant Manual, USEPA, CERCLA Education Center, TIO, September 1999, and from the Field Sampling and Analysis Technologies Matrix
by the FRTR (http://www.frtr.gov/site).
22
-------
BROWNFIELDS TECHNOLOGY PRIMER:
REQUESTING AND EVALUATING PROPOSALS THAT ENCOURAGE
INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGIES FOR INVESTIGATION AND CLEANUP
TABLE 3-5
SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS AT BROWNFIELD SITES -
Examples of Remediation Technologies
(Page 1 of 3)
TECHNOLOGY
SVE
Bioventing
Phytoremediation
Natural
Attenuation
Chemical
Oxidation
CONSIDERATIONS
In situ/
Ex situ
Technology
In situ
In situ
In situ
In situ
In situ
Space Requirement for
Treatment
Treatment areas will be the
same size as the
contamination area.
Designated area is required
to house the aboveground
treatment unit (e.g.
compressor and emission
control unit).
Treatment area will be the
same size as the
contamination area.
Designated area is required
to house the aboveground
treatment unit (e.g.
blower).
Treatment area will be the
same size as the
contamination area.
No treatment area is
required.
Treatment area will be the
same size as the
contamination area.
Designated area is required
to house the aboveground
treatment unit such as
pumps and chemical
injection unit.
Potential
Impact to
Buildings
and Structures*
No
No
Yes
(Potential
foundation
fracture caused
by root
penetrations)
No
Yes
(Potential
formation and
foundation
fractures caused
by pressure
buildup from
chemical
reaction and
injection)
Impact
to Nearby
Businesses2 or
Community*
Yes
(Potential vapor
buildup in basements
within the radius
influence of air
injection wells)
Yes
(Potential vapor
buildup in basements
within the radius
influence of air
injection wells)
No
No
Yes
(Potential pressure
buildup from chemical
reaction and high-
pressure injection
system)
Remediation
Time Frame4
Contaminant
specific
Contaminant
specific
Long
Long
Short
Cost Range5
$10 - $40 /ay
$10 - $50 lay
$60,000 -
$100,000 per
acre (50 cm
deep)
Site specific
Site-specific
Frequency
of Use/
Status of
Technology
Full Scale
Full Scale
Emerging
Full Scale
Full Scale
Targeted
Contaminant
(Organics/
Metals)
Semivolatile
and volatile
organics
Semivolatile
and volatile
organics
Organics
Organics and
inorganics
Organics and
Metals
Targeted Media
(Groundwater,
Soil, Sludge)
Soil
Soil
Soil and Sludge
Groundwater,
Soil, and Sludge
Groundwater
Management of
Residues
Yes
(Emission control unit
is required.)
None
(No additional process
is required to treat air
emission.)
Yes
(Treatment is required
for destruction of
concentrated
contaminants stored in
the plants.)
None.
(Natural attenuation is a
passive technology; no
action in terms of
treatment.)
None
(Contaminants are
converted into non-
hazardous products.)
Reuse Limitation"
Maybe restricted
for residential use
during remediation
Maybe restricted
for residential use
during remediation
23
-------
BROWNFIELDS TECHNOLOGY PRIMER:
REQUESTING AND EVALUATING PROPOSALS THAT ENCOURAGE
INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGIES FOR INVESTIGATION AND CLEANUP
TABLE 3-5
SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS AT BROWNFIELD SITES -
Examples of Remediation Technologies
(Page 2 of 3)
TECHNOLOGY
Solidification /
Stabilization
Landfarming
Low Temperature
Thermal
Desorption
Air Sparging
Dual Phase
Extraction
CONSIDERATIONS
In situ/
Ex situ
Technology
In situ
Ex situ
Ex situ
In situ
In situ
Space Requirement for
Treatment
Treatment area will be the
same size as the
contamination area.
Landfarming requires a
vast footprint because soil
or sludge will be spread
out in one 1 8-inch lift.
Staging and treatment area
outside of the
contaminated zone is
required.
Treatment area will be the
same size as the
contamination area.
Designated area is required
to house the aboveground
treatment unit.
Treatment area will be the
same size as the
contamination area.
Designated area is required
to house the aboveground
treatment unit.
Potential
Impact to
Buildings
and Structures1
No
No
No
No
No
Impact
to Nearby
Businesses2 or
Community3
Yes
(Traffic congestion
from heavy
equipment)
Yes
(Traffic congestion
during earth-moving
operation and air
quality issues;
potential volatile air
emissions)
Yes
(Potential noise,
vibration, and traffic
congestion;
potential volatile air
emissions)
No
No
Remediation
Time Frame*
Short
Average
Short
Average
Average
Cost Range5
$40 - $60 / cy
- shallow
$150- $250 /
cy - deep
< $75/cy
(Only
includes costs
of excavation,
placement of
soil on a
prepared
liner, and ex
situ
treatment)
$40 - $300
/ton
(excluding
excavation,
transport, and
utilities)
$150,000-
$350,000 per
acre
(only 1
estimate)
$2,500 -
$4,000 per
month for
dual pumping
system
Frequency
of Use/
Status of
Technology
Full Scale
Full Scale
Full Scale
Full Scale
Full Scale
Targeted
Contaminant
(Organics/
Metals)
Metals
Organics
Organics
Organics
Organics
Targeted Media
(Groundwater,
Soil, Sludge)
Soil and Sludge
Soil and Sludge
Soil and Sludge
Groundwater
Groundwater
Management of
Residues
None
(Contaminants are
immobilized and left in
place.)
Yes
(Emission control may
be required.)
Yes
(Emission control may
be required.)
Yes
(Emission control may
be required.)
Yes
(Additional treatment
may be required for the
air emissions and
produced water.)
Reuse Limitation'
Directional
extraction wells
might be necessary
for recreational-
related and
residential area
reuse
24
-------
BROWNFIELDS TECHNOLOGY PRIMER:
REQUESTING AND EVALUATING PROPOSALS THAT ENCOURAGE
INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGIES FOR INVESTIGATION AND CLEANUP
TABLE 3-5
SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS AT BROWNFIELD SITES -
Examples of Remediation Technologies
(Page 3 of 3)
TECHNOLOGY
Thermally
Enhanced SVE
Landfill
Bioreactor
CONSIDERATIONS
In situ/
Ex situ
Technology
In situ
Ex situ
Ex situ
Space Requirement for
Treatment
Treatment area will be the
same size as the
contamination area.
Designated area is required
to house the aboveground
treatment unit.
Treatment area will be the
same as the contamination
area.
Treatment area will be the
same size as the
contamination area.
Designated area is required
to house the aboveground
treatment unit.
Potential
Impact to
Buildings
and Structures1
Yes
(Potential
formation and
foundation
fracture from
high-pressure
injection system
- if steam is
used. In
addition, the use
of steam on clay
formation may
cause settling)
No
No
Impact
to Nearby
Businesses2 or
Community3
Yes
(Potential disruption
due to potential
damage to buildings
and structures;
potential vapor build-
up in basements
within the radius of
influence; and air
emissions)
Yes
(Traffic congestion
during landfill
construction;
noise, vibration, and
potential air emissions
from earth-moving
activities)
Yes
(Traffic congestion, air
emissions, noise, and
vibration during earth-
moving operations)
Remediation
Time Frame*
Short
Short
Average
Cost Range5
$43/cy for
VOCs
$80 - $100/cy
for SVOCs
$175,000 per
acre (RCRA
D)
$225,000 per
acre (RCRA
C)
Site-specific
Frequency
of Use/
Status of
Technology
Full Scale
Full Scale
Full Scale
Targeted
Contaminant
(Organics/
Metals)
Organics
Organics and
metals
Organics
Targeted Media
(Groundwater,
Soil, Sludge)
Soil and Sludge
Soil and Sludge
Groundwater
Management of
Residues
Yes
(Additional treatment
may be required for the
air emissions and
produced water.)
Yes
(Additional treatment
may be required for the
leachate and air
emissions.)
None.
(Contaminants are
converted into non-
hazardous products.)
Reuse Limitation'
Reuse is limited to
activities that will
not disturb the
integrity of the cap,
such as a parking
lot or a golf course
Notes:
1 Potential damage might be in the form of foundation fracture.
2 Disruptions might be in the form of noise, vibration, traffic from heavy equipment, and air emissions
during remediation stages.
3 Risk to the community, such as air emissions, potential vapor buildup in basements, noise, vibrations,
and ingestion and inhalation of contaminated materials, may occur during and after remediation.
Long = more than 3 years for in situ soil; more than 1 year for ex situ soil; and more than 10 years for water
Average =1-3 years for in situ soil; 0.5 - 1 year for ex situ soil; and 3-10 years for groundwater
Short = less than 1 year for in situ soil; less than 0.5 year for ex situ soil; and less than 3 years for
groundwater.
Adapted from the Technologies Screening Matrix of the FRTR (http://www.frtr.gov/site)
The reuse limitation applies to the period after remediation, unless otherwise noted. Examples of site reuse
include use as an industrial park, a commercial parking lot, a soccer field, a golf course, a stadium, a public
park, or a residential area.
25
-------
BROWNFIELDS TECHNOLOGY PRIMER:
REQUESTING AND EVALUATING PROPOSALS THAT ENCOURAGE
INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGIES FOR INVESTIGATION AND CLEANUP
3.2.4 Examples of RFP Formats
for Brownfields Sites
This section presents examples of two RFP
formats for brownfields sites that illustrate how
innovative approaches are incorporated into RFPs.
Only portions of the language in the RFPs are
included.
A national brownfields site assessment pilot city
issued an RFP to solicit services to perform a
Phase II/III environmental assessment for a 1,200-
acre site in the city. The site is designated for
reuse as an agribusiness park because it has
extensive infrastructure suitable to serve
agribusiness needs. The language used in the RFP
was:
"Option A: Provide costs for each boring and/or test
for an estimated 50 temporary boring wells.
Temporary Well: The cost to construct and
install a temporary well shall be quoted on a per
linear foot basis. ...
Soil Sampling: BTEX using Method OA-1 ...
Groundwater Sampling: BTEX using Method
OA-1, base neutral and acid extractables in
water using USEPA Method 8270,..."
"Option B: Cost for each boring and/or test described
above in Option A shall be provided by using a direct
push method with a mobile lab for an estimated 50
temporary boring wells. Describe whom the lab is
certified by or the time frame for obtaining
certification. In addition, indicate if more stringent
standards will be applied to ensure quality
assurance/quality control and explain them. State the
level of expertise that the project operator has with
this equipment. Describe the cost savings advantages
of this approach."
The RFP encouraged potential bidders to use an
innovative approach by specifying a technology,
in this case direct-push technology. The RFP
prompted contractors to provide two optional
approaches, traditional drilling with off-site
laboratory analysis and the direct-push method
with on-site mobile laboratory analysis. The RFP
requested the total cost for each option and a
description of the cost savings anticipated through
the use of the innovative technology. In this RFP,
the city established the requirements for the cost
format using the traditional approach, in this case
auger drilling, while leaving flexibility for the cost
format for the innovative approach. Defining the
innovative technology in the RFP makes it easier
for decision makers who have only limited
understanding of innovative approaches to review
proposals.
On the other hand, the reference to specific
methods may discourage contractors from
proposing alternative approaches. By adding the
phrase "or equivalent" to the language,
brownfields communities can encourage
contractors to propose solutions that provide data
of a sufficient quality to support decision-making
needs. Communities should avoid absolute
language and instead ensure that analyses and
cleanup techniques are relevant to the decisions to
be made and, if known, the ultimate or proposed
site use.
A second pilot city issued its RFP for site
investigations that were being conducted in its
efforts to redevelop a 214-acre area along a creek.
The planned future use is commercial
redevelopment. The proposal encouraged the use
of innovative characterization approaches, but did
not define specific options. The language in the
RFP stated:
"The contractor shall test for the presence of various
contaminants, using field screening sampling
techniques and innovative technologies where
appropriate ... ."
The "open-ended" or general style of language
allows a wide range of responses by the
contractors. The disadvantage of the approach is
that it is difficult for decision makers who are not
familiar with the proposed options to compare and
evaluate proposals.
26
-------
BROWNFIELDS TECHNOLOGY PRIMER:
REQUESTING AND EVALUATING PROPOSALS THAT ENCOURAGE
INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGIES FOR INVESTIGATION AND CLEANUP
4.0 EVALUATING CONTRACTORS' PROPOSALS
4.1 Evaluating the Proposed Methodology
When evaluating proposals, decision makers
should carefully assess the reasonableness and
completeness of the information submitted for
each technical task. Decision makers also should
be confident that the methodology in the selected
proposal is appropriate for the site and that the
contractor's proposed work activities will not
cause damage or pollution problems. Proposals
for site cleanup activities typically present
information that requires an understanding of the
technical concepts of site characterization and
remediation. Discussed below are technical
activities typically addressed in proposals for
innovative (and traditional) approaches for
cleaning up sites. Some of the information
presented may include more technical detail than
decision makers typically see in proposals. When
in-house expertise is not available, and for those
who seek assistance to better understand the
technical concepts, a number of resources are
available, as noted in Section 3.2.2. The
assistance of the resources listed there is free and
usually provided on a quick-turnaround basis.
4.1.1 Characterization Technologies
Contractors that propose innovative sampling and
cleanup technologies may include field-based site
characterization technologies to supplement
traditional approaches to sampling and analysis.
Field-based technologies span a broad spectrum of
analytical techniques, ranging from indicator tubes
to field laboratories that provide gas
chromatography/mass spectrometry (GC/MS)
analysis. Because innovative technologies are
used to expedite characterization and cleanup
processes and reduce the costs of those activities,
the contractor should demonstrate how innovative
site characterization technologies would achieve
that goal for the site.
In evaluating proposals, the decision makers must
carefully evaluate the contractor's proposed
approach for developing a QA plan and sampling
plan for the site. The contractor must clearly lay
out the decision logic that will be followed in
determining data needs and describe how the
proposed approach for collecting and analyzing
samples will support the decision logic. A clear
delineation of the logic also will assist in
presenting information to and obtaining
concurrence from regulatory officials for the use
of innovative options. The logic used and plans
prepared are essential in defending any decisions
about the selection of remediation approaches at
the site.
Field-based site characterization technologies
expedite the cleanup process in several ways. For
example, field-based techniques can provide data
in hours instead of days, weeks, or even months.
Such rapid turnaround reduces the
characterization time by eliminating the time spent
waiting for analytical results from an off-site
laboratory. In addition, rapid analytical
27
-------
BROWNFIELDS TECHNOLOGY PRIMER:
REQUESTING AND EVALUATING PROPOSALS THAT ENCOURAGE
INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGIES FOR INVESTIGATION AND CLEANUP
turnaround may allow project managers to modify
the sampling plan during the characterization
process and more accurately characterize the site,
in less time than traditional methods take. When a
site is rapidly and, more important, accurately
characterized during the first mobilization,
subsequent mobilizations are eliminated, saving
time and money.
Expediting the site characterization process also
can reduce on-site labor costs
and analytical expenses.
Further, field analytical
techniques can produce data
for a fraction of the cost of
fixed laboratory analysis. For
example, immunoassay test
kits can produce quantitative
data for as little as $20 to $40
per sample, compared with
$500 per sample for fixed
laboratory data. Again, the
appropriate use of data from
both field and fixed
laboratories must be judged in
accordance with the level of
data quality required to
support the decisions to be
made.
The Brownfields
Technology Support
Center Can Help!!!
The BTSC also can provide assistance
in evaluating technical aspects of the
contractors' proposals for site-
specific needs, including:
sampling and fixed laboratory analysis, they still
may be very effective as a supplement.
Proposals that include the use of dynamic work
plans should describe the contractor's plan for
ensuring effective communication and facilitating
on-site decision making among the members of
the project team. The plan should describe:
(1) the procedures for managing and interpreting
(potentially large quantities of) field data daily or
more quickly; (2) roles and
responsibilities among
contractor staff for making
decisions about the need to
obtain additional field data;
and (3) communication of
those decisions in a timely
manner to the site owner and
regulatory staff, if so
required.
Identification of characterization
technologies on the basis of the
characteristics of the site, such as
selection of drilling methods, and
sampling instruments and methods
Identification of remediation
technologies that provide the most
innovative approaches that save
time and money
Discussed below is the
evaluation of key aspects of
methodologies proposed by
contractors. Because each
methodology must be tailored
to the site under review, not
every item may be applicable
to every proposal.
Because innovative technologies are not as widely
used as more traditional approaches, a contractor
that proposes innovative approaches should be
able to explain why it believes its proposed
approach is feasible and specify its potential
advantages for the site. Whether proposing an
innovative or a traditional approach, the contractor
should demonstrate a thorough knowledge of
potential limitations and problems with proposed
technologies and describe contingencies for
adjusting the approach should it be necessary. As
with any analytical approach, such knowledge is
crucial in presenting plans to regulators and
addressing their concerns about limitations of the
chosen field methods. A qualified contractor must
be able to explain why data are being collected
and how the data will advance decision making at
a site, regardless of the technique or technology
that is proposed.
In cases in which innovative site characterization
techniques may not be a substitute for traditional
4.1.1.1 Selection of Locations
for Sampling Points
The geology of a site controls the migration of
contaminants. Once the geology at a site has been
defined, predictions of the direction of migration
become more reliable. Higher detection rates then
can be achieved by selecting locations at which
the pattern of migration indicates contamination is
present. The contractor's proposed methodology
can describe:
Data or other considerations that will influence
the contractor's selection of borehole or
sampling locations other than upgradient or
downgradient locations
Statistical methods or modeling programs the
contractor will use to assist in the selection of
sampling locations
28
-------
BROWNFIELDS TECHNOLOGY PRIMER:
REQUESTING AND EVALUATING PROPOSALS THAT ENCOURAGE
INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGIES FOR INVESTIGATION AND CLEANUP
Geophysical methods the contractor will use to
gain a better understanding of the geology at
the site
Geophysical methods the contractor will use to
determine the locations of subsurface utilities
or underground structures
Geological information that will influence the
contractor's selection of sampling locations
Additional geological information the
contractor will seek and its significance
4.1.1.2 Hydrogeologic Conditions
Hydrological information typically is obtained
from regional groundwater flow maps or from
potentiometric plots derived from groundwater
levels taken from existing wells. New
groundwater flow meters are available that attach
to drilling equipment, such as cone penetrometry
technology (CPT) probes that can place flow
meters at any particular saturated layer. Another
option is to use pore information from CPT or
geoprobe technologies to obtain detailed
information about flow patterns at a particular
site. The contractor's proposed methodology can
describe:
The proposed method for determining detailed
groundwater flow patterns at the site
The proposed method of using the flow pattern
information in selecting sampling locations
The contractor's capability to obtain
information about groundwater flow patterns
by means other than the use of published
potentiometric surfaces
4.1.1.3 Boreholes and Drilling Methods
With today's technologies, soil depth profiles may
be obtained quickly (within minutes to hours) with
direct-push techniques, providing geological
information continuously as the probe penetrates
the subsurface. The probe can be withdrawn
while exuding grouting material so that the
borehole is sealed and no well remains to be
maintained. The information obtained can be used
to prepare a complete record of the site. The
contractor's proposed methodology can describe:
Factors that influence the contractor's decision
to use direct-push methods rather than standard
drilling procedures
The contractor's rationale for the determination
of the number of samples required
Information about how subsurface soil depth
profiles will be used in determining what soil
samples are to be taken
The method to be used to collect soil samples
for analysis
4.1.1.4 Soil and Water Samples
Many test kits and hand-held instruments for
analyzing soil and water in the field are available.
Such techniques often are used to quickly gather
information about contamination that then is used
as a guide to determine whether more detailed
laboratory analysis is warranted. Generally, site
managers and regulators will stipulate the
percentage of duplicate analyses that must be run
by standardized methods to ensure the quality of
the field analysis methods. That percentage
should be based on site-specific conditions. A
proper QC protocol must be constructed to
support specific aspects of data quality that are
important in defending site-specific decisions. A
QA protocol must describe the process that will be
followed to ensure that matrix interferences,
equipment malfunction, and other issues will not
cause data to be ambiguous or misleading. Many
field methods have been verified for their
accuracy, precision, and reliability through formal
verification programs, but site-specific
performance always should be assessed. Using a
mix of field methods and standard analysis
methods expedites the field program and increases
the quality of the data and their usefulness in
supporting conclusions about the site's condition.
An understanding of the analytefs] (specific
chemicalfs] or contaminants]) that the technology
targets and the principles upon which the
technology is based is essential to the selection of
the correct technology for a site. No single
technology is effective for every contaminant, and
29
-------
BROWNFIELDS TECHNOLOGY PRIMER:
REQUESTING AND EVALUATING PROPOSALS THAT ENCOURAGE
INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGIES FOR INVESTIGATION AND CLEANUP
each has various advantages and limitations. For
example, a test kit may be marketed as a
technology for detecting polychlorinated
biphenyls (PCB). However, the kit may respond
to any organochloride (chlorinated hydrocarbon
pesticide such as DDT) because of the chemical
reaction the kit uses. In such a case, the kit would
in fact, be effective in identifying most
organochlorides but would not distinguish
between chlorinated pesticides and PCBs.
Therefore, if the goal is to establish the presence
of organochlorides, the
test kit would be
effective. However, if
the goal is to quantitate
PCBs in the presence
of chlorinated
organics, the test kit
would not be effective.
Cross-reactivity is
another potential
concern associated
with test kits used
during site
characterization.
Cross-reactivity is the
degree to which a test
kit responds to
compounds other than
the target analyte. For
example, organic
immunoassay test kits
designed for PCBs
usually are calibrated
with a specific Aroclor
(trade name of PCBs),
but the kits will
respond to other
congeners (compounds
within the same class)
on the basis of degree of chlorination. When a
contractor proposes technologies that do not
produce definitive data, the contractor should
demonstrate an understanding of cross-reactivity
and interferences. Further, the contractor should
demonstrate an understanding of how those issues
affect data quality and the overall site
characterization project.
Field-based site characterization technologies
produce data quality ranging from qualitative to
Factors That May Necessitate
Innovative Cleanup Approaches
Stakeholders prefer that contamination be treated
in place rather than disturbed and moved off site.
Site owners may prefer fully treating contaminants
over containment remedies or long-term
institutional controls to offset long-term risk,
residual liability, and long-term operations and
maintenance costs.
The excavation of contaminated soils under
existing buildings and structures is not feasible
because of potential damage to those buildings or
structures or disruption of ongoing businesses.
Cleanup must be accomplished within a specified
time frame to meet milestones for redevelopment of
the site. Time factors also may favor the use of an
innovative approach over a traditional response
that involves a long-term remedy.
Full reuse plans have not been developed for the
site, and interim treatment activities, such as
phytoremediation, allow treatment to proceed while
final decisions are being made.
The budget for cleanup is limited, and innovative
approaches offer less expensive options than
traditional approaches.
Innovative approaches can be designed and
configured to blend in with the proposed reuses of
the site.
definitive. The type of data generated by field-
based technologies depends on the degree of
sophistication of the technology and the QA/QC
measures implemented. Some methods produce
only qualitative information, with no quantitative
information. Others provide quantitative
information that is above or below a designated
level and is referred to as semi-quantitative data.
That term can describe data showing a range of
concentrations. Quantitative data pro vide an
analyte concentration for a sample, and definitive
data, usually produced
by GC/MS, confirm
the presence of the
analyte and its
concentration. The use
to which the field
analytical data will be
put usually determines
the degree of QA/QC
required. Data used to
confirm the presence
or absence of a
contaminant, thereby
allowing the project
manager to more
accurately direct
further sampling and
analysis, usually
require less stringent
QA/QC. Qualitative or
semi-quantitative data
may be sufficient for
such requirements.
However, if the field
analytical data are used
to confirm the presence
or absence of a
contaminant and must
withstand legal
scrutiny, the data must
be definitive, and a sophisticated technique, such
as GC/MS, must be employed.
The contractor's proposed methodology can
describe:
Field analytical methods for identification of
volatile contaminants, such as benzene or
trichloroethylene (TCE), particular
semivolatile contaminants, or metals
30
-------
BROWNFIELDS TECHNOLOGY PRIMER:
REQUESTING AND EVALUATING PROPOSALS THAT ENCOURAGE
INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGIES FOR INVESTIGATION AND CLEANUP
The selection of field test kits for the proj ect
The method of determining the locations and
number of samples
The strategy or justification for the mix of field
analytical methods and laboratory analysis that
is proposed
The procedure for confirming the accuracy of
the measurements
4.1.2 Remediation Technologies
When evaluating remediation options, a number of
factors should be considered to identify the most
technically feasible and cost-effective technology
for a specific site. The general considerations for
all sites are applicability, implementability,
effectiveness, remediation time frame, cost, and
regulatory compliance. Specific factors may
include current or future use of the site,
remediation objectives, proximity to neighbors or
businesses, proximity to historic buildings,
potential long-term liability and risk, future reuse,
and regulatory considerations, as well as
evaluation of treatment options compared with
containment and institutional controls. For
individual sites, one or more factors may be
dominant. RFPs should clearly state extenuating
circumstances that may require innovative cleanup
approaches rather than traditional containment or
removal.
Because the performance of each technology
depends heavily on site-specific conditions and
characteristics, a treatability study should be
conducted before full-scale implementation of any
technology, innovative or traditional. The
following sections present information for use in
evaluating such proposed activities.
4.1.2.1 Treatability Studies
Before the final remediation technology is
selected, a treatability study should be conducted
to demonstrate that the treatment technology will
work at that site. To avoid problems and delays
that may occur if a technology fails to perform as
intended, the treatability study should be
performed as early as possible in the study phases
of the project. The requirements for a treatability
study that are set forth in an RFP should be
tailored to the complexity of the site. At a
minimum, the RFP should specify that the
contractor must demonstrate that the technology
will work before the contractor proceeds with
remediation activities. The expenses of the
treatability study are paid in various manners. In
some cases, the contractor performing the
treatability study may assume such expenses
because the study is an opportunity to further test
the technology and obtain performance data for it.
In other cases, the RFP may stipulate that the
contractor will be reimbursed for the cost of the
treatability study upon successful completion of
that study.
Many treatment technologies are patented, and the
patent owner may be reluctant to sell patent rights
or licensing agreements to another vendor or
contractor. An RFP for remediation work must
define clearly the process by which the patent
holder will allow another vendor or contractor to
use the technology, if the patent holder is not to
perform the work. On the other hand, many
companies may be reluctant to participate in a
treatability study if their participation would
preclude them from later bidding on the
remediation contract. Local conflict of interest
procedures should be checked carefully to ensure
that contractors are not precluded from future
work in such situations.
4.1.2.2 Full-Scale Remediation
Technology
It first must be determined whether the proposed
technology is applicable and implementable for
the site, in light of the contaminant(s) of concern
(COC) and the site characteristics. For example,
phytoremediation is not appropriate if the
concentrations of contaminants are toxic to plants,
nor is it implementable if the contamination is
located in the deep strata of a geological formation
beyond the root zones of plants that could be used
at the site. Soil vapor extraction (SVE) alone is
not applicable for treating a site at which a tight
clay formation is present because the SVE process
depends on the ability of the subsurface area to
exchange air. SVE also is not applicable for a site
contaminated with non-volatile COCs, inorganic
compounds, or metals because volatilization is the
prime removal mechanism in SVE.
31
-------
BROWNFIELDS TECHNOLOGY PRIMER:
REQUESTING AND EVALUATING PROPOSALS THAT ENCOURAGE
INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGIES FOR INVESTIGATION AND CLEANUP
The proposed methodology then must be
evaluated for short-term and long-term
effectiveness. Short-term effectiveness is related
to potential risks to the community and
construction workers during remediation, while
long-term effectiveness is related to risks to the
community that remain after remediation work has
been completed. For example, a proposed
innovative technology that uses a cap consisting of
a shallow layer of compacted soil for a site in a
proposed residential area that is contaminated
with friable asbestos may be an effective approach
for the short term. Risk to construction workers
during remediation can be mitigated by providing
workers with appropriate personal protective
equipment (PPE). However, such a cap may not
be an effective solution for the long term because
the contaminant remains in place and any number
of potential residential activities could disturb the
structure of the cap and expose the contaminants.
Third, the time frame of the proposed remediation
technology must be consistent with the future use
of the site. Brownfields sites for which
commercial or residential use or redevelopment as
industrial parks has been designated typically are
on a fast-track schedule for transfer. A technology
such as phytoremediation would not be an
acceptable option for fast-track sites because it
may take a number of years to completely
remediate the site by such an approach.
Fourth, the proposed remediation must be cost-
effective. For a project for which the budget is
limited, cost can be a determining factor in the
selection of a technology. However, since the
least costly approach may not bring about the
most expeditious site remediation, a balance
between potential cost savings and time frames
may be necessary. Similarly, both short-term
construction costs and long-term operation and
maintenance costs must be considered. For
example, a cap for soil and a pump-and-treat
remedy for groundwater initially may be
considered preferred options because those
options would move a site quickly to
redevelopment and would appear to be cost-
effective, as well. However, in assessing the cost
of such an option, the cost of maintaining a cap
over a long period of time, 30 years or more, as
well as construction costs, must be considered.
For pump-and-treat systems and other long-term
remedies that require operating equipment, site
owners should consider replacement costs as well
as maintenance costs because pumps and other
equipment eventually may need to be replaced.
Finally, the proposed methodology must comply
with state regulations governing cleanups. In all
cases, localities should work with state and federal
regulators to ensure that regulatory requirements
are addressed appropriately in the RFP.
Depending upon the complexity of the site, the
past history of the site, and the procedures
regulators require for cleanups at brownfields
sites, compliance may require full review and
approval by the state or less formal concurrence.
In some cases, application of the risk-based
corrective action (RBCA) standards may affect the
selection of technologies. Approval of the state
may be required for specific remediation
activities, such as air emissions, groundwater re-
injection, or health and safety procedures. The
various ways in which states regulate or limit the
use of some technologies could affect the use of
those technologies at particular sites. For
example, although land farming is an established
technology for remediating sites contaminated
with fuel or petroleum, some states limit the use of
land farming as a remediation technology. (Land
farming relies on biological and chemical
reactions in soil to degrade, transform, or
immobilize hazardous constituents.) Similarly,
design and operating requirements may differ
according to the location of the land-farming site.
For a site in an urban area, the state may require
an enclosure and off-gas treatment unit control for
emissions of VOCs, but such requirements might
not be applicable in a rural setting.
Table 3-5, which presents an overview of a
number of innovative technologies, can be used as
a reference when evaluating the contractor's
proposed remediation technologies.
4.2 Evaluating Qualifications of Personnel
To effectively implement innovative technologies,
the contractor staff must be fully qualified and
experienced in the proposed work. To ensure that
the contractor selected has the appropriate
qualified staff to perform the work, RFPs should
require that bidders provide information that
demonstrates:
32
-------
BROWNFIELDS TECHNOLOGY PRIMER:
REQUESTING AND EVALUATING PROPOSALS THAT ENCOURAGE
INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGIES FOR INVESTIGATION AND CLEANUP
The experience of each key staff member in
using innovative technologies under site
conditions covered by the RFP
The availability of the full range of technical
disciplines needed
Care should be taken to ensure that the
contractor's personnel have expertise in the
specialized disciplines needed to support
innovative technologies.
Various factors determine the disciplines required
to support the cleanup of a specific site. The types
of contaminants at the site may require a chemist
who has highly specialized experience, the
physical characteristics of the site might require
an in-depth understanding of local geology or
hydrogeology, or implementation of a technology
might require an understanding of specialized
modeling software. Similarly, analytical quality
control protocols must be designed by a qualified
analytical chemist who can ensure that analytical
methods will produce data of a quality adequate to
support the decisions to be made or to maximize
the efficiency of in-field analyses. In addition,
trained scientists or engineers must be on site to
interpret the data as they are generated.
Staff who have the appropriate background in
chemistry can predict the mobility of
contaminants. For example, if metals were
released at the site, the mobility of the metals is
dependent on the speciation of the metals, which
in turn is dependent on the reduction oxidation
(redox) conditions at the site. For example, metals
such as chromium (commonly used in industry)
exist in various states. However, chromium is
mobile only in the CrVI state. Therefore, a
chemist can predict whether chromium will
migrate to the groundwater and determine where
to sample. On the other hand, if the contaminant
is a solvent, it very likely will migrate with the
groundwater and break down to other chemical
species.
Resumes of key staff members must describe their
experience in using field analytical methods, test
kits, and field screening methods or in designing
site-specific remediation plans. Information about
the technical experience of the staff must establish
a direct correlation between that experience and
the needs of the project. Further, the capabilities
of the contractor's proposed management and
coordination teams must be assessed carefully
against the requirements of the project. For
example, individuals who demonstrate experience
in managing characterizations of large, complex
sites and the ability to meet short deadlines may
be needed to complete a specific project.
Another consideration is the experience of the
contractor's staff in working in the state in which
the site is located. It is advantageous for the staff
to be familiar with that state's regulations and
procedures for characterizing and remediating
contaminated sites and policies related to the
cleanup and redevelopment of brownfields sites,
including familiarity with state voluntary cleanup
programs and procedures for obtaining "no further
action" letters. The contractor's team also should
include a registered professional engineer and a
licensed geologist, ideally with registry and
licensing in the state in which the site is located.
Individuals who have such credentials can
facilitate the processes of obtaining operating
permits and approvals of technical designs.
In summary, the contractor must have access to a
multidisciplined team that can address all aspects
of the project. In general, teams should include
individuals who have expertise in chemistry,
geochemistry, geology, hydrogeology, biology,
toxicology, civil engineering, and soil sciences.
Depending upon site-specific conditions and
proposed remediation options, other expertise also
may be required. Specialized expertise may be
required to conduct environmental and public
health risk assessments, operate models, or
perform complicated statistical analyses.
4.3 Evaluating Corporate Experience
Bidders must demonstrate the corporate
experience that will enable them to complete the
proposed project successfully. They should
describe their experience in completing similar
projects and provide references for those projects.
4.3.1 Experience in Performing Similar
Projects
Depending upon the specifications for the project,
bidders must be able to demonstrate their
experience in selecting and using specialized field
33
-------
BROWNFIELDS TECHNOLOGY PRIMER:
REQUESTING AND EVALUATING PROPOSALS THAT ENCOURAGE
INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGIES FOR INVESTIGATION AND CLEANUP
equipment, designing remediation plans, and
performing remediation activities in similar
settings. In their proposals, contractors should
identify problems that might affect the project and
describe how they would resolve such problems.
Their recommendations could be based on
"lessons learned" from similar projects. A
contractor's ability to clearly define potential
problems and provide sound resolutions is a good
indication that the contractor understands the
details of the project and the issues that might
affect it. The use of dynamic work plans and
other innovative strategies includes an inherent
element of uncertainty. The contractor might
encounter problems that may require creative,
sound thinking to resolve the problems and keep
the project moving forward. As an alternative, the
contractor's ability to respond to problems could
be tested by including in the RFP a list of
potential problems and requiring contractors to
submit resolutions in their proposals.
4.3.2 Past Performance
As is the case in selecting a contractor for any
type of work, a good, reliable contractor should be
able to provide references for past performance.
RFPs should require a minimum number of
references for projects similar to the proposed
project. The RFP should require specific
information about each project used as a
reference, including: (1) the name and location of
the project; (2) a brief description of the project;
(3) the period of performance; and (4) the name,
address, and telephone number of a contact
person. The RFP should specify how far into the
past the contractor can reach in selecting recent
reference projects. Because innovative
technologies and streamlined strategies evolve
quickly, shorter time periods, such as one to two
years, may be appropriate for projects that involve
such options.
4.4 Evaluating the Contractor's Quality
Assurance and Quality Control
Procedures
Contractors must understand the importance of
using sound quality assurance and quality control
procedures in completing their work, and they
must be prepared to fully implement those
procedures, as well. In general terms, QA is an
integrated system of management activities carried
out to ensure that the work performed and the
products provided are of the type and quality
needed and expected. QC is the system of
technical activities that measure and control
quality to ensure that data meet the needs of users.
In characterizing and monitoring brownfields
sites, errors can occur in the field or laboratory;
therefore, QA/QC procedures must be built into
all key activities. Contractors must be prepared to
implement QA/QC procedures for all aspects of
the project, including planning, sample collection,
laboratory analysis, data review, and data
assessment.
RFPs for any type of technical activity usually
include specific procedures that contractors must
implement to ensure that federal, state, or local
QA/QC requirements are met. A contractor must
establish and carry out a sound QA/QC program
to ensure that all data the contractor provides is
defensible and that officials can have a high level
of confidence in using the data to support
decisions about the potential reuse of the site.
Depending on the site-specific situation, the types
of decisions to be made about the site, and the
entity that will make those decisions, it may be
necessary that data be defensible on a regulatory
or a scientific basis, or both.
A major challenge associated with the
redevelopment of brownfields sites is uncertainty
about potential environmental risks and liability
related to contamination that has not been
characterized properly. Requiring contractors to
explain their proposed QA/QC procedures for
individual sites and ensuring that those procedures
meet established requirements for collecting and
analyzing environmental data will reduce that
uncertainty. All RFPs that include site
investigation activities and monitoring should
require that each bidder include a detailed quality
assurance project plan (QAPP) in its proposal. The
objectives of the QAPP are to ensure the accuracy,
precision, comparability, representativeness, and
completeness of the data generated.
Streamlined investigation and monitoring
strategies rely heavily on comprehensive, up-front
planning designed to collect only data that will
support the decisions to be made about the site,
34
-------
BROWNFIELDS TECHNOLOGY PRIMER:
REQUESTING AND EVALUATING PROPOSALS THAT ENCOURAGE
INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGIES FOR INVESTIGATION AND CLEANUP
while simultaneously gathering all the data
necessary to support a defensible decision. That
planning process is done through the development
of a conceptual site model and the establishment
of data quality objectives (DQO). Contractors
must be able to demonstrate relevant experience in
conducting the DQO process and be prepared to
participate in that process. Further, contractors
must be able to demonstrate how they will
maintain QA/QC as they implement their site
assessment work plan. Because site
characteristics, the decisions to be made, and data
quality needs vary from site to site, the
contractor's qualifications should be evaluated
against the particular requirements for the site
covered by the RFP.
Additional information about the QA process is
available in the Quality Assurance Guidance for
Conducting Brownfields Site Assessments, EPA
540-R-98-038, September 1998. Another source
of information is the EPA waste methods guidance
Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste,
Physical/Chemical Methods (SW-846). SW-846
is a compendium of sampling and analytical
methods that have been evaluated and approved
for use in complying with regulations under
RCRA. Although a number of states have ratified
SW-846 methods formally, the methods, as stated
by EPA, are intended as a guide. In many cases
the use of other methods is permitted if it can be
demonstrated they are sufficiently sensitive,
adequate, and precise to support the decisions to
be made. Again, the site-specific data quality
requirements that support decisions about a site
should be the principal consideration for the
technology selection.
4.5 Evaluating the Contractor's Cost
Proposal
A variety of factors could influence the selection
of the appropriate type of pricing mechanism(s)
for a particular site. Generally, site
characterization work entails more uncertainties
than cleanup work. Contractors commonly
propose different pricing mechanisms for different
types of activities - for example, time-and-
materials or a combination of time-and-materials
and fixed- price contracting mechanisms for
characterization projects and fixed-price or fixed-
unit-price mechanism for cleanup projects.
Fixed-price contracting may be appropriate when
activities are defined clearly. Contracts that
incorporate performance specifications or a
combination of lump-sum payments and fixed unit
prices for work that cannot be defined clearly at
the time of the bid add flexibility to the fixed-
price procurement process, while adding a level of
protection against cost overruns. Unit pricing is
appropriate for potentially high-volume or
unpredictable items, such as clearing, backfilling,
installation of wells, and treatment of
contaminated media. If the actual quantity of a
given item varies significantly from the estimated
quantity set forth in the contract, it may be
beneficial to negotiate a reduction in the unit price
for that item.
Contracting for innovative treatment technologies
may require the examination of special
considerations in soliciting bids, evaluating cost
proposals, and preparing contracts, particularly
when the entity soliciting the bid has little or no
experience in purchasing such services or when
the conditions at the site are complex or
undefined. In many cases, actual costs of
treatment have varied significantly from budget
estimates and bids because the extent and types of
contamination were not characterized adequately
or the quantities of waste, soil, or groundwater to
be treated were estimated poorly. Further, some
treatment technologies, because they are not
typical construction projects, are better scoped out
and priced under a service contract.
RFPs may specify innovative contracting
approaches as one of the requirements for the
proposal. For example, pay-for-performance
cleanup agreements might be established; under
such agreements, preestablished payments are
made to the contractor as the project reaches
measurable environmental goals. Paying for
cleanups through such agreements rewards
contractors for reaching cleanup goals quickly and
efficiently.
4.6 Evaluating the Contractor's
Insurance
Insurance coverage of several types is appropriate
for protection against potential damages and
liabilities associated with characterization and
remediation activities at contaminated sites. Some
-------
BROWNFIELDS TECHNOLOGY PRIMER:
REQUESTING AND EVALUATING PROPOSALS THAT ENCOURAGE
INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGIES FOR INVESTIGATION AND CLEANUP
coverage may be standard requirements in any
contract issued by a brownfields community,
private company, or other entity. Other
specialized coverage may be required for a
particular site or project. Typically, those entities
that issue contracts take the prime responsibility
for determining their insurance needs for the
project because they could be ultimately
responsible for any damages, both environmental
and business. For brownfields sites, banks and
other lending institutions will specify the
insurance coverage that must be in place to protect
their loans. Before any contract is signed, it is
incumbent upon all parties to understand their
potential risks and to be assured that all
appropriate coverage is in place. Table 4-1 lists
information about six types of environmental
insurance products that should be considered.
At any contaminated site, there is potential risk
that site investigation and remediation activities
could disturb the contaminants and cause
pollution damage. The types of insurance
necessary and the limits of coverage will vary
from site to site. Such factors as the potential
types of contaminants present, proximity to
groundwater, the degree to which the site has been
properly characterized, and proximity to ongoing
businesses and population centers must be
considered in determining the types and level of
insurance necessary. Questions about the
availability and selection of insurance products for
a specific site should be directed to insurance
companies and underwriters that specialize in
environmental insurance products.
TABLE 4-1
ENVIRONMENTAL INSURANCE
PRODUCTS
Type of
Coverage
Bodily injury
and property
damage
Contract
damages
Environmental
cleanup costs
Remediation
cost overruns
(also called
cleanup cost
cap or stop-
loss insurance)
Business
interruption
Legal defense
expenses
Key Features of Coverage
Provides compensation for bodily
injury and property damage caused
by a pollution condition, such as a
release of hazardous or toxic
materials. Covers injuries to
others that occur on site or off site.
Provides compensation when
pollution impairs the insured's
ability to perform under a contract.
Pays for the costs the insured must
incur to address its pollution
problems and comply with
government standards established
to protect human health and the
environment. Covered costs
include those for site investigation
and for the removal, treatment, or
disposal of wastes.
Pays for cleanup costs, including
remediation costs, that
substantially exceed the budget.
The insurer pays only if the project
cost exceeds the estimated project
cost, plus an agreed-upon buffer
amount over the estimated cost.
Pays for internal costs, such as loss
of income or salary to employees,
that the insured suffers as a result
of pollution.
Coverage pays for the insured's
legal costs incurred to defend or
settle a dispute about liability for
pollution.
36
-------
BROWNFIELDS TECHNOLOGY PRIMER:
REQUESTING AND EVALUATING PROPOSALS THAT ENCOURAGE
INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGIES FOR INVESTIGATION AND CLEANUP
Appendix
Sources of Innovative Technology Information
-------
BROWNFIELDS TECHNOLOGY PRIMER:
REQUESTING AND EVALUATING PROPOSALS THAT ENCOURAGE
INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGIES FOR INVESTIGATION AND CLEANUP
BULLETINS, FACT SHEETS, JOURNALS, AND NEWSLETTERS
Bibliography for Innovative Site Clean-Up Technologies, August 1999 Update
http://clu-in. org/publ. htm
The bibliography is a comprehensive list of information resources related to innovative site cleanup
technologies that includes titles and document numbers. The bibliography lists resources by
categories, including: technology survey reports; information about programs of the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA); groundwater (in situ) treatment; thermal treatment;
bioremediation; soil vapor extraction (SVE) and enhancements of that technology; physical and
chemical treatment; conferences and international surveys; technical support; community relations;
bulletin board systems, databases, software, and the Internet; technology newsletters; and innovative
site remediation engineering technology monographs. Information on how to order individual
documents also is provided.
Citizen's Guides to Understanding Innovative Treatment Technologies
http://clu-in. org/publ. htm
The Citizen's Guides to Understanding Innovative Treatment Technologies fact sheets are four-page
guides prepared by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to provide site managers with
non-technical outreach materials. The guides, which are available in English and Spanish, are
intended to be shared with communities in the vicinity of a cleanup site at which innovative treatment
technologies are in use or under consideration. The guides present information about innovative
treatment technologies that have been selected or applied at some cleanup sites, provide overviews of
innovative treatment technologies, and present success stories about sites at which innovative
treatment technologies have been applied. The second document number listed after each title is the
document number of the guide in Spanish.
Ground Water Currents
http://clu-in. org/products/newsltrs/tt&gwc. htm
Ground Water Currents is a leading source of information about recent developments in innovative
groundwater treatment, characterization, sampling, and monitoring technologies. The newsletter
provides information about developments and demonstrations, new regulations, conferences, and
publications. For example, the June 1999 issue features topics related to the flushing of dense non-
aqueous phase liquids (DNAPL) with alcohol, cost-effective sampling of groundwater monitoring
wells, in situ chemical oxidation through recirculation, and a new remediation group for dry-cleaner
sites convened in April 1999.
Tech Trends
http://clu-in. org/products/newltrs/tt&gwc. htm
Tech Trends focuses on recent applications of innovative technologies for site characterization and
remediation. The newsletter includes descriptions of and performance data for innovative source
control and site characterization technologies that have been applied in the field. The newsletter,
which is updated quarterly, is a valuable tool for keeping abreast of the most recent developments in
innovative technologies and can be subscribed at the web address provided above.
Appendix A-l Sources of Innovative Treatment Information
-------
BROWNFIELDS TECHNOLOGY PRIMER:
REQUESTING AND EVALUATING PROPOSALS THAT ENCOURAGE
INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGIES FOR INVESTIGATION AND CLEANUP
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 3 Industry Profile Fact Sheets
http://www.epa.gov/reg3hwmd/brownfldAndustry.htm
Developed by EPA Region 3, the fact sheets are designed to assist in the initial planning and
evaluation of sites that are under consideration for remediation, redevelopment, or reuse. The fact
sheets provide general descriptions of site conditions and contaminants commonly found at selected
industrial sites. Each fact sheet provides information about the processes conducted in the industry;
raw materials characteristic of the industry; environmental media that could be affected; sampling
strategies; and suggested parameters for analysis.
DATABASES AND SOFTWARE
Completed North America Innovative Remediation Technology Demonstration Projects Database
http://clu-in. org/publ. htm
The searchable database contains information about more than 300 completed innovative technology
field demonstration projects conducted in North America. The database consolidates key information
from innovative demonstration projects in a single source. Information is presented in a format that
enables the user to easily identify innovative technologies that may be appropriate to the user's
particular site remediation needs. The database, which is limited to completed demonstration projects
and a small number of full-scale cleanup efforts, does not include emerging technologies or
laboratory-scale projects.
Evaluation of Selected Environmental Decision Support Software
http://clu-in. org/publ. htm
Developed by DOE's Office of Environmental Management, the report evaluates decision support
software (DSS), computer-based systems that facilitate the use of data, models, and structured
decision processes in making decisions related to environmental management. The report evaluates
19 such systems through the application of a rating system that favors software that simulates a wide
range of environmental problems. It includes a glossary of terms and a statement of the rationale for
the selection of various aspects of the performance of the DSS for evaluation.
Tank RACER 99
http://www. epa.gov/swerustl/tnkracrl. htm
Tank RACER 99 is a Windows-based PC software that provides fast, accurate, and comprehensive
cost estimates for cleanups at leaking underground storage tank (UST) sites. The software estimates
costs for UST cleanups on a site-specific basis for all phases of remediation, including site
assessment, remedial design, remedial action, operations and maintenance, closure of tanks, and site
work and utilities, as well as the costs of using alternative technologies, such as air sparging,
bioremediation, bioventing, groundwater extraction wells, land farming, natural attenuation, soil vapor
extraction (SVE), and thermal desorption. The web site also provides information about training
workshops that are available.
Appendix A-2 Sources of Innovative Treatment Information
-------
BROWNFIELDS TECHNOLOGY PRIMER:
REQUESTING AND EVALUATING PROPOSALS THAT ENCOURAGE
INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGIES FOR INVESTIGATION AND CLEANUP
ONLINE REFERENCES AND RESOURCES
Field Analytic Technologies Encyclopedia (FATE)
http://fate. clu-in. org
EPA's Technology Innovation Office, in collaboration with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
developed a new online encyclopedia of field analytic technologies. This encyclopedia is intended to
provide information about technologies that can be used in the field to characterize contaminated soil
and groundwater, monitor the progress of remedial efforts, and in some cases, for confirmation
sampling and analysis for site close out. The encyclopedia posted on the web provides information on
ten classes of technologies, but EPA intends to expand the encyclopedia with additional field
analytical technology classes in the future.
Field Sampling and Analysis Technologies Matrix, Version 1.0
http://www.frtr.gov/site
The Field Sampling and Analysis Technologies Matrix Version 1.0 is an online tool that can be used
to conduct initial screening of site characterization and monitoring technologies. The matrix,
developed by member agencies of the Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable (FRTR), is a
quick-reference chart that provides consumer-response-style ratings in several categories for various
site characterization, monitoring, and sampling technologies. Each technology is rated in a number of
performance categories, such as detection limits, applicable media, selectivity, and turnaround time.
Other useful information provided includes technology descriptions; data on commercial status, cost,
and certification; and evaluation reports. The matrix is extremely helpful to users who are not
familiar with specific characterization, monitoring, or sampling technologies, but who know baseline
information about a site, such as contaminants and media; for such users, the matrix can identify and
screen technologies for potential use at a site.
Innovative Remediation and Site Characterization Technologies Resources CD-ROM
http://www. epa.gov/ncepihom
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
(OSWER) Technology Innovation Office (TIO) Innovative Remediation and Site Characterization
Technologies Resources CD-ROM contains resources that provide information to help federal, state,
and private-sector site managers evaluate site assessment and cleanup alternatives. The ability to gain
access to resources that provide information about innovative site characterization and remediation
technologies will increase understanding of those technologies and of the cost and performance
factors related to them. Such understanding is essential to the consideration of those technologies for
use in addressing contamination at hazardous waste sites. The CD-ROM can be ordered by calling the
National Service Center for Environmental Publications at (800) 490-9198 or (513) 489-8190 or by
faxing a request to (513) 489-8695. The order number for the CD-ROM is EPA 542-C-99-001.
National Exposure Research Laboratory (NERL) Hazardous Waste Site
Characterization CD-ROM
http:///www. epa.gov/ncepihom
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) National Exposure Research Laboratory (NERL)
Hazardous Waste Site Characterization CD-ROM, developed by NERL's Environmental Sciences
Division - Las Vegas (ESD-LV), contains guidance documents and related software designed to aid
environmental professionals in the characterization of hazardous waste sites. The CD-ROM is a
Appendix A-3 Sources of Innovative Treatment Information
-------
BROWNFIELDS TECHNOLOGY PRIMER:
REQUESTING AND EVALUATING PROPOSALS THAT ENCOURAGE
INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGIES FOR INVESTIGATION AND CLEANUP
compilation of computer programs developed by EPA and publications related to EPA's Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and Superfund programs that can be printed, as well as
searched by key word. The CD-ROM requires a 386 IBM-compatible computer with DOS Version
3.0 or higher, 640 K RAM, and 3 MB of hard-disk space. A math co-processor is recommended but
not required. The CD-ROM can be ordered by calling the National Service Center for Environmental
Publications at (800) 490-9198 or (513) 489-8190 or by faxing your request to (513) 891-8695. The
order number for the CD-ROM is EPA-600-C-96-001.
Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix and Reference Guide
http://www.frtr.gov/matrix2/top_page.html
The Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix and Reference Guide, prepared for federal agencies
that participate in the Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable (FRTR), provides information
about remediation technologies. The on-line searchable guide is intended to assist remedial project
managers (RPM) in screening and evaluating candidate cleanup technologies and selecting the best
remedial alternative(s). The guide includes available cost and performance data and focuses primarily
on demonstrated technologies. Information about emerging technologies also is included in the guide.
This guide is continuously updated.
Site Characterization Library, Volume 1, Release 2.0, April 1998
http://www. epa.gov/ncepihom
The Site Characterization Library, Volume 1, Release 2.0 (October 1998) CD-ROM, developed by the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) National Exposure Research Laboratory (NERL),
contains a variety of guidance documents, standard operating procedures (SOP), and risk assessment
guidelines, as well as a large collection of software tools, including groundwater flow and transport
models and statistical packages. The CD-ROM can be ordered from the National Service Center for
Environmental Publications at (800) 490-9198 or (513) 489-8190 or by fax at (513) 891-8695. The
order number for the CD-ROM is EPA-600-C-98-001.
The Hazardous Waste Clean-up Information (CLU-IN) Web Site
http://clu-in. org
This web site is searchable and provides information about innovative treatment and site
characterization technologies to the hazardous waste remediation community. It contains information,
publications, and software, many of which can be downloaded or viewed online from the site;
remediation and site characterization technology selection tools; recently published articles; and
information about partnerships and consortia and vendor support, as well as links to related web sites.
U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Preferred Alternatives Matrices (PAMs)
http://www.em.doe.gov/deflne
PAMs provides the user access to evaluations of site characterization and remediation technologies
preferred by DOE on the basis of the types of contaminants and contaminated media selected. PAMs
was developed by DOE's Office of Environmental Restoration (EM-40) to assist decision makers in
selecting the most appropriate cleanup alternatives for remediation, waste processing, and
decommissioning of sites. It provides a tool for field personnel to use in focusing remedy selection;
expediting implementation of preferred alternatives; eliminating the cost of excessive or redundant
treatability studies; and allowing preselection of effective, low-cost remediation alternatives.
Appendix A-4 Sources of Innovative Treatment Information
-------
BROWNFIELDS TECHNOLOGY PRIMER:
REQUESTING AND EVALUATING PROPOSALS THAT ENCOURAGE
INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGIES FOR INVESTIGATION AND CLEANUP
U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Vendor Database for Environmental Applications
http://www. cmst. org/vendor
This DOE web site is devoted to supporting the chemical and physical property measurements of
environmental samples. The Characterization, Monitoring & Sensor Technology - Cross Cutting
Program (CMST-CP) of DOE maintains this vendor database as a focal point for environmental
measurement technologies. The database contains information about 200 vendors that provide
equipment related to the analysis of environmental samples.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) REmediation And CHaracterization Innovative
Technologies (REACH IT)
http://www. epareachit. org
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) REmediation And CHaracterization Innovative
Technologies (REACH IT) online searchable database, developed by EPA's Technology Innovation
Office (TIO), provides users with comprehensive, up-to-date information about more than 150
characterization technologies and 1,300 remediation technologies offered by more than 750 service
providers. Information provided by service providers is matched with comprehensive information
submitted by project managers for EPA, the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD), and the U.S.
Department of Energy (DOE) about treatment technology projects at Superfund, DoD, and DOE sites.
EPA REACH IT is accessible through the Internet; the guided and advanced search capabilities allow
users to develop custom searches based on such criteria as media, contaminant type, site type, and
technology type to gather information about innovative technology solutions and service providers
that meet their needs.
PUBLICATIONS
A Guideline for Dynamic Workplans and Field Analytics: The Keys to Cost-Effective Site
Characterization and Cleanup
http://clu-in. org/publ. htm
This guideline provides users with information about the many factors that are to be considered in
incorporating field analytical instruments and methods into an adaptive sampling and analysis
program for expediting the site investigation process. One of the primary goals of the expedited site
characterization process is to minimize the collection and analysis of uninformative samples, thereby
saving time and money. The guideline was developed by Tufts University, Massachusetts, in
cooperation with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and was funded under President
Clinton's Environmental Technology Initiative (ETI). The guideline is intended to help federal and
state regulators, site owners, consulting engineers, and remediation companies understand how to
develop, maintain, and update a dynamic work plan.
Application of Field-Based Characterization Tools in the Waterfront Voluntary Setting
http://clu-in. org/publ. htm
Voluntary action to redevelop potentially contaminated property operates under vastly different
market constraints than mandated corrective action programs. Pressures affect the time scale, cost-to-
benefit ratio, priorities, and resources that allow the action to take place, non-market pressures,
usually in the form of regulation, also affect decisions over the course of redevelopment. Together,
those forces also determine the technologies and methods used to characterize the property, as well as
the media sampled. This report investigates the reasons behind the use of and details the current level
Appendix A-5 Sources of Innovative Treatment Information
-------
BROWNFIELDS TECHNOLOGY PRIMER:
REQUESTING AND EVALUATING PROPOSALS THAT ENCOURAGE
INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGIES FOR INVESTIGATION AND CLEANUP
of application of field-based characterization tools at 115 waterfront brownfield and voluntary cleanup
program (VCP) sites.
Assessing Contractor Capabilities for Streamlined Site Investigations
http://brownfieldstsc. org
Innovative technologies are having a significant effect on the cost, schedule, and effectiveness of
environmental cleanup projects. The impact of these technologies has been demonstrated during
CERCLA and RCRA investigations, and such technologies should be incorporated into brownfields
projects, as well. The purpose of this document is: (1) to familiarize brownfields decision makers
with innovative methods for characterizing their sites and encourage them to investigate and employ
such methods; (2) to assist brownfields decision makers in assessing contractors' capabilities and
familiarity with such methods; and (3) to suggest additional factors for contractors to consider in
conducting their activities.
Assessment of Phytoremediation as an In Situ Technique for Cleaning Oil-Contaminated Sites
http://clu-in. org/publ. htm
Drawing on a review of the relevant literature, this document provides examples of the
phytoremediation of petroleum hydrocarbons and discusses the key mechanisms, as well as the special
considerations, involved in phytoremediation of petrochemicals. The benefits, limitations, and costs
of phytoremediation, compared with those of alternative approaches - including natural attenuation,
engineering and bioremediation - also are discussed.
Brownfields Technology Primer: Selecting and Using Phytoremediation for Site Cleanup
http://brownfieldstsc. org
The Brownfields Technology Support Center developed this document to provide an educational tool
for site owners, project managers, and regulators to help evaluate the applicability of the
phytoremediation process at brownfields sites. The primer explains the types of biological processes
involved in phytoremediation; provides examples of the sites and contaminants where
phytoremediation has been applied; and discusses technical considerations in selecting and designing
phytoremediation systems, activities necessary to operate and maintain phytoremediation systems, and
examples of estimated potential cost savings from using phytoremediation versus more conventional
treatment processes. The primer also provides a comprehensive list of other resources that are
available to assist decision makers in evaluating phytoremediation as an option for cleaning up
contaminated sites.
Characterization, Monitoring, and Sensor Technology Crosscutting Program (CMST-CP)
Rainbow Book
http://em-52. em. doe.gov/ifd/RbBooks/cmst/cmstrb.htm
The CMST-CP Rainbow Book developed in August 1996, under the CMST-CP program provides the
user information about specific technologies and detailed descriptions of how each technology works.
The book provides information about characterization, monitoring, and sensor technology for DOE's
Office of Waste Management (EM-30), Office of Environmental Restoration (EM-40), and Office of
Nuclear Material and Facility Stabilization (EM-60). The book is designed to ensure that technology
development is cost-effective and appropriate, and recommends that the technology development
effort be concentrated on the following focus areas: subsurface contaminants; high-level waste tank
remediation; mixed waste characterization, treatment, and disposal; and decommissioning and final
disposition of facilities.
Appendix A-6 Sources of Innovative Treatment Information
-------
BROWNFIELDS TECHNOLOGY PRIMER:
REQUESTING AND EVALUATING PROPOSALS THAT ENCOURAGE
INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGIES FOR INVESTIGATION AND CLEANUP
Directory of Technology Support Services to Brownfields Localities
http://brownfieldstsc. org
This directory provides information about EPA offices, non-government organizations funded by
EPA, and other federal agencies, that may be able to provide expertise to assist in the selection of
technologies to characterize and cleanup brownfields properties.
EPA Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA) Sector Notebooks
http://es. epa.gov/oeca/sector
EPA's OECA has developed a series of profiles or notebooks that provide information about selected
major industries that focus on key indicators that holistically present air, water, and land pollutant
release data and have been reviewed thoroughly by experts from both inside and outside EPA. The
notebooks provide a comprehensive environmental profile and information about industrial processes,
pollution prevention techniques, pollutant release data, regulatory requirements, compliance and
enforcement history, government and industry partnerships, innovative programs, contact names,
bibliographic references, and descriptions of research methodology for such industries as iron and
steel, metal mining, oil and gas extraction, and more.
Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) Site Characterization and Monitoring Technologies
Pilot (SCMT): Technology Verification Statements and Reports
http://www. epa.gov/etv/02/ 02_main. htm
The Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) Site Characterization and Monitoring
Technologies Pilot (SCMT) web site provides access to ETV technology verification statements and
reports about site characterization technologies. To date, verification statements and reports are
available for the following technologies: cone penetrometer-deployed sensor; field-portable gas
chromatograph/mass spectrometer; field-portable x-ray fluorescence analyzer; technologies for
analysis for polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB); technologies for well-head monitoring for volatile
organic compounds (VOC); and soil sampling technologies. The SCMT pilot was established as one
of 12 pilots currently implemented by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) ETV
Program. The pilot is a partnership program of EPA, the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD), and the
U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and is responsible for evaluating and verifying the performance of
innovative and alternative monitoring, measurement, and site characterization technologies. The pilot
provides support for technology developers, evaluates and verifies data generated during technology
demonstrations, and develops and disseminates information about the performance of site
characterization technologies.
Federal Facilities Forum Issue: Field Sampling and Selecting On-Site Analytical Methods for
Explosives in Soil, November 1996
http://www. epa.gov/clarit on/clhtml/pubtitle.html
Federal Facilities Forum Issue: Field Sampling and Selecting On-Site Analytical Methods for
Explosives in Soil was produced by the U.S. Environmental Agency's (EPA) Federal Facilities Forum,
a group of EPA scientists and engineers who represent federal facility remediation interests. The
document identifies screening procedures for characterizing soils contaminated with explosive and
propellant compounds. (To find this document using the URL listed above, use the Find in Page
feature of your browser and type in 540R97501.)
Appendix A-7 Sources of Innovative Treatment Information
-------
BROWNFIELDS TECHNOLOGY PRIMER:
REQUESTING AND EVALUATING PROPOSALS THAT ENCOURAGE
INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGIES FOR INVESTIGATION AND CLEANUP
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable (FRTR) Case Studies
http://www.frtr.gov/cost
The Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable (FRTR) case studies contain detailed information
about specific remedial technology applications. FRTR case studies are developed by the U.S.
Department of Defense (DoD), the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE), the U.S. Navy, the U.S.
Air Force (USAF), the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), the U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI),
and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). As of September 1998, FRTR published and
made available on its Internet site 140 cost and performance case studies. The case studies focus on
full-scale and large field demonstration projects and include background information about the site, a
description of the technology, cost and performance data for the technology application, and a
discussion of lessons learned. Both innovative and conventional treatment technologies for
contaminated soil, groundwater, and solid media are included. A search function on the web site
allows a user to search the case studies using key words for media, contaminant, and primary and
supplemental technologies.
Field Analytical and Site Characterization Technologies - Summary of Applications,
November 1997
http://clu-in. org/publ. htm
Field Analytical and Site Characterization Technologies - Summary of Applications lists more than
200 sites at which 23 different field analytical and site characterization technologies have been used.
The information about the application of each technology was obtained from federal and state
program managers and provides insights into their experiences with the technology. The information
presented for each technology includes the types of pollutants and media for which the technology has
been used; reported advantages and limitations of the technology; and cost data for the technology,
when available.
Ground-Water Remediation Technologies Analysis Center (GWRTAC) Technology
Overview Reports
http://www.gwrtac. org/html/tech_over. html
These reports provide general overviews and introductions to specific groundwater remediation
technologies. Information for the reports is gathered from a range of sources, including project
documents, reports, periodicals, Internet searches, and personal communications with parties involved
in the use of the technologies.
Innovations in Site Characterization Case Study: Hanscom Air Force Base, Operable Unit 1,
September 1998
http://clu-in. org/publ. htm
Innovations in Site Characterization Case Study: Hanscom Air Force Base, Operable Unit 1 presents a
case study of a dynamic site investigation. The case study describes a 10-day adaptive sampling and
analysis program (SAP) under which six technologies were used to take more than 600 soil samples
and conduct quantitative analysis for volatile organic compounds (VOC), polychlorinated biphenyls
(PCB), polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH), and metals. The report documents cost savings
and discusses the other advantages of the use of the adaptive SAP.
Appendix A-8 Sources of Innovative Treatment Information
-------
BROWNFIELDS TECHNOLOGY PRIMER:
REQUESTING AND EVALUATING PROPOSALS THAT ENCOURAGE
INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGIES FOR INVESTIGATION AND CLEANUP
Phytoremediation Decision Tree
http://clu-in. org/publ. htm
This document, produced by the Interstate Technology Regulatory Cooperation (ITRC) workgroup,
provides a tool that can be used to determine whether phytoremediation can be effective at a given
site. It is designed to complement existing phytoremediation documents. It allows the user to use
basic information about a specific site, through a flow chart layout, to decide whether
phytoremediation is feasible at that site.
Quality Assurance Guidance for Conducting Brownfields Site Assessments, September 1998
http://clu-in. org/publ. htm
Quality Assurance Guidance for Conducting Brownfields Site Assessments provides information for
brownfields site managers about concepts and issues related to quality assurance and provides
step-by-step instructions for identifying the type and quality of environmental data needed to present a
clear picture of environmental conditions at a given site.
Remediation Technologies Development Forum Reports
http://www.rtdf.org
The series of documents, prepared by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Office of
Research and Development (ORD), summarizes the activities of the Remediation Technologies
Development Forum (RTDF). The RTDF is a consortium of partners who represent industry,
government agencies, and academia and who work together to develop more effective, less costly
hazardous waste characterization and treatment technologies. It is designed to foster partnerships
between public-sector and private-sector entities to conduct laboratory and field research to develop,
test, and evaluate innovative technologies. Five action teams have been formed to address priority
research areas in the development, testing, and evaluation of in situ remediation technologies. Each
document in the series describes the purpose and activities of one of the action teams, identifies the
members of that team, and provides contact information.
Road Map to Understanding Innovative Technology Options for Brownfields Investigation
and Cleanup
http://brownfieldstsc. org
and
Tool Kit of Information Resources for Brownfields Investigation and Cleanup
http://clu-in. org/publ. htm
The Road Map to Understanding Innovative Technology Options for Brownfields Investigation and
Cleanup focuses on the site characterization and cleanup phase of brownfields redevelopment. It
provides a logical framework of steps involved in the characterization and cleanup of a brownfields
site to link technology options and resources to each of those steps. In addition, the road map is
linked to an accompanying document, the Tool Kit of Information Resources for Brownfields
Investigation and Cleanup, which describes information resources developed by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to support innovative characterization and cleanup
technologies. It is intended to be used by local citizens and community groups that are not familiar
with available environmental cleanup resources. The tool kit provides abstracts of and access
information about a variety of resources, including electronic databases, newsletters, regulatory and
policy guidance, and technical reports.
Appendix A-9 Sources of Innovative Treatment Information
-------
BROWNFIELDS TECHNOLOGY PRIMER:
REQUESTING AND EVALUATING PROPOSALS THAT ENCOURAGE
INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGIES FOR INVESTIGATION AND CLEANUP
Site Remediation Technology InfoBase: A Guide to Federal Programs, Information Resources, and
Publications on Contaminated Site Cleanup Technologies, First Edition, August 1998
http://clu-in. org/publ. htm
This guide was prepared by the member agencies of the Federal Remediation Technologies
Roundtable (FRTR). The guide identifies programs, resources, and publications of the federal
government related to technologies for the cleanup of contaminated sites. It presents information
about federal cleanup programs, federal site remediation technology development assistance
programs, federal site remediation technology development electronic databases, federal electronic
resources for site remediation technologies, and other electronic resources for site remediation
technology information. In addition, it provides a selected bibliography of federal publications on
alternative and innovative site remediation technologies, and technology program contacts at federal
agencies.
Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation (SITE) Innovative Technology Evaluation
Reports (ITER)
http:7epa.gov. ORD/SITE/reports.html
SITE ITERs provide the user information about independent data evaluation information about
specific site characterization technologies and how they work. SITE ITERs developed by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) National Environmental Research Laboratory (NERL), Las
Vegas, are designed to assist decision makers in reviewing technology options and assessing a
technology's applicability to a particular site. The reports include an evaluation of available
information about a technology; provide an analysis of its overall applicability to site characteristics,
waste types, and waste matrices; and present testing procedures, performance and cost data, and
quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) standards. The ITERs provide information about the
following technologies: the clor-n-soil polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) test kit, Dexsil Corp.;
envirogard PCB test kit, Millipore, Inc.; field analytical screening program: pentachlorophenol (PCP)
method; HNU-Hanby environmental test kit for PCP; and PCP immunoassay technologies.
Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation (SITE) Technology Profiles - Tenth Edition,
February 1999
http://www. epa.gov/ORD/SITE/proflles3. html
SITE Technology Profiles - Tenth Edition provides the user information about specific site
characterization technologies and how they work. The document, prepared between July 1998 and
October 1999, is intended as a reference guide for those interested in technologies included in the Site
Demonstration Program (Volume I); the Emerging Technology Program (Volume II); and the
Monitoring and Measurement Technologies (MMT) Program (Volume III). The two-page profiles are
organized into two sections for each program (except the MMT program) for completed and ongoing
projects, and are presented in alphabetical order by name of the developer. Reference tables for SITE
program participants precede the sections and provide contact information for representatives of both
EPA and the developer. Each technology profile includes: (1) a technology developer and process
name; (2) a technology description, including a schematic diagram or photograph of the process, if
available; (3) a discussion of applicability to wastes; (4) a project status report; and (5) contact
information for the EPA project manager and the technology developer.
Appendix A-10 Sources of Innovative Treatment Information
-------
BROWNFIELDS TECHNOLOGY PRIMER:
REQUESTING AND EVALUATING PROPOSALS THAT ENCOURAGE
INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGIES FOR INVESTIGATION AND CLEANUP
Test Methods for Evaluating Waste, Physical/Chemical Methods (SW-846)
http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/test/sw846.htm
The SW-846 Internet site provides the user access to the third edition of the SW-846 base manual, as
well as finalized updates I, II, IIA, IIB, III, and IIIA; the fully integrated manual contains
approximately 3,500 pages. Developed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Office
of Solid Waste (OSW), SW-846 is a compendium of analytical and sampling methods that have been
evaluated and approved for use in complying with the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA) regulations. Advances in analytical instrumentation and techniques are continually reviewed
by OSW and incorporated into periodic updates to SW-846 to support changes in the regulatory
program and to improve method performance and cost effectiveness. The Methods Team of OSW has
also published Draft Update FVA for public use and is currently working on Draft Update FVB.
Treatment Technologies for Site Cleanup: Annual Status Report, Ninth Edition, April 1999
http://clu-in.org/products/asr/index2.html
The report documents, as of the summer of 1998, the status of treatment technology applications at
more than 900 soil and groundwater cleanup projects in the Superfund program, selected Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) corrective action sites, and U.S. Department of Energy
(DOE) and U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) sites. It also includes information about 217
incineration and solidification and stabilization projects not previously covered. For the most
frequently selected technologies, the report analyzes selection trends over time, contaminant groups
addressed, quantities of soil treated, and the status of the project. For each technology application,
information about specific sites has been incorporated into the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) REmediation And CHaracterization Innovative Technologies (REACH IT) on-line database.
Information included in previous editions of this report is included in this edition.
Uncertainty Management: Expediting Cleanup Through Contingency Planning
http://clu-in. org/publ. htm
This guide describes techniques for managing project uncertainty through decision rules and
contingency planning. This document was issued jointly by DOE and EPA.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE) Technical Project Planning (TPP) Process
http://www.usace.army.mil/inet/usace-docs/eng-manuals/em200-l-2
The USACE's engineering manual published in August 1998 that describes the four-phase TPP
process can help project managers, technical personnel, customers, regulators, and stakeholders
identify project objectives and design data collection programs for hazardous, toxic, and radioactive
waste (HTRW) sites. The TPP process helps ensure that the requisite type, quality, and quantity of
data are obtained to satisfy project objectives that lead to informed decisions and site closeout.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Office of Research and Development (ORD)
Brownfields Guides
http://www. epa.gov/ncepihom
The series of publications are designed to assist communities, states, municipalities, and the private
sector to address brownfields sites more effectively. The guides provide decision makers, such as city
planners, private sector developers, and others who are involved in redeveloping brownfields, with a
better understanding of the technical issues involved in assessing and cleaning up automotive repair
sites, iron and steel mill sites, and metal finishing sites. After reading the guides, the user will have a
better understanding of activities commonly carried out at such sites and how those activities might
Appendix A-11 Sources of Innovative Treatment Information
-------
BROWNFIELDS TECHNOLOGY PRIMER:
REQUESTING AND EVALUATING PROPOSALS THAT ENCOURAGE
INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGIES FOR INVESTIGATION AND CLEANUP
cause the release of contaminants into the environment. The guides also provide information about
the types of contaminants often found at such sites; a discussion of site assessment, screening and
cleanup levels, and cleanup technologies; a conceptual framework for identifying potential
contaminants; information about developing a cleanup plan; and a discussion of issues and special
factors that should be considered when developing plans and selecting technologies. The following
guides are available:
Technical Approaches to Characterizing and Cleaning Up Automotive Repair Sites Under the
Brownfields Initiative (EPA 625-R-98-008)
Technical Approaches to Characterizing and Cleaning Up Iron and Steel Mill Sites Under the
Brownfields Initiative (EPA 625-R-98-007)
Technical Approaches to Characterizing and Cleaning Up Metal Finishing Sites Under the
Brownfields Initiative (EPA 625-R-98-006)
Writing a Request for Proposals: A Primer for Brownfield Pilots
http://www. engg. ksu. edu/HSRC/Tosc/toschome. html
This document was prepared by the Great Plains/Rocky Mountain Hazardous Substance Research
Center at Kansas State University. The purpose of the primer is to guide those who need to solicit
proposals for environmental assessments of brownfields. Communities that receive a Brownfields
Pilot Grant typically need to hire a contractor to conduct an environmental assessment of the property.
PROGRAMS
Ames Laboratory's Environmental Technology Development Program
http://www. epsci. ameslab.gov
Ames Laboratory, located in Ames, Iowa, was initiated by DOE through its Environmental
Management Division. A DOE Headquarters and Ames Lab work together to speed development and
transfer of technologies for faster, safer, better, and cheaper characterization, monitoring, and sensing
work. One such approach is Expedited Site Characterization (ESC). ESC is a team effort between
DOE's Environmental Restoration Program, U.S. EPA, state regulators, and Westinghouse Savannah
River Corporation.
California Environmental Technology Certification Program California Certified
Technologies List
http://www.calepa.ca.gov/calcert/certifled.htm
The California Environmental Protection Agency's (Cal/EPA) Environmental Technology
Certification program Internet site provides the user access to the California Certified Technologies
List. The document, last updated on August 19, 1998, provides a list of technologies and their
respective vendors that have been certified by the state of California. Certification is granted to
technologies on the basis of an independent, third-party verification of the technology's performance
and ability to meet regulatory specifications and requirements. Developers and manufacturers define
quantitative performance claims for their technologies and provide supporting documentation.
Cal/EPA reviews that information and, when necessary, conducts additional testing to verify the
claims. Technologies, equipment, and products that are proven to work as claimed receive official
state certification.
Appendix A-12 Sources of Innovative Treatment Information
-------
For additional information, please see these other publications
issued by the Brownfields Technology Support Center:
Road Map to Understanding Innovative Technology Options for
Brownfields Investigation and Cleanup, Second Edition
EPA 542-B-99-009
Directory of Technology Support Services to Brownfields Localities
EPA 542-B-99-005
Assessing Contractor Capabilities for Streamlined Site Investigations
EPA 542-R-00-001
Brownfields Technology Primer: Selecting and Using
Phytoremediation for Site Cleanup
EPA542-R-01-006
These publications are available online at:
http://www. brownfieldstsc. org
or can be ordered by contacting:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
National Service Center for Environmental Publications
(NSCEP)
P.O. Box42419
Cincinnati, OH 45242-2419
1 (800)490-9198
FAX (513) 489-8695
-------
E PA 542-R-01-005
February 2001
Brownfields Technology Primer:
Requesting and Evaluating Proposals That Encourage
Innovative Technologies for Investigation and Cleanup
Visit the Brownfields Technology
Support Center Web Site at:
http://www.brownfieldstsc.org
------- |