-------
and long-term in settling disputes. From previous
experience in environmental projects, the A/E
contractor knew of the value of readily accessible
information to monitor the work accurately,
minimize disputes, and complete work in a timely
manner.
For quick and easy retrieval,, the A/E contractor
established and maintained computerized
information on daily inspection reports, technical
inspectors' photographs and video material, daily
analytical reports, daily quality control reports,
daily health and safety reports, remediation
contractor submittals, and correspondence. The
A/E contractor utilized digital terrain modeling
software to compute payment quantities and final
costs.
personnel were also maintained and used to
ensure personnel received the required medical
monitoring.
Inspectors' Daily Log Book
Information Management
The A/E contractor then used the information in
these databases to prepare daily and weekly
progress reports for the TNRCC and Region 6.
The one page composite daily report contained
information on weather, remediation contractor's
manpower and equipment used, and incineration
facility production. The daily report also included
extracts from the excavation, health and safety,
and incineration inspectors' daily reports. The
weekly composite report provided information on
weather, manpower, equipment used, and the
amount of billable incinerated material in a table
format on a single sheet. These two composite
reports provided the TNRCC and Region 6
project managers with a wealth of information on
just a few sheets of paper. Ad Hoc information
regarding a specific day, grid, or person can be
easily retrieved through these databases as well.
The A/E contractor can retrieve and construct a
chronology of events of the contractors activities
for a specific area or "grid," report the activities
that occurred on site for a given day, or report
when a specific person visited the site. Medical
surveillance data for all remediation contractor
ON-SITE OVERSIGHT TEAM
FIELD STAFF
• Four Incineration Inspectors
• Excavation Inspector
• Backfill Inspector
• Health and Safety Officer
OFFICE STAFF
• Secretary
• Chemist
• Computer Operator
• Office Engineer
• Construction Manager
Technical inspectors were on duty during the
remediation contractor's working hours.
Excavation and backfilling activities occurred from
Monday through Saturday, while the incinerator
operated 24-hours, seven days a week. The A/E
contractor trained its backfill inspector to fulfill
the responsibilities of the excavation inspector
when necessary, as a qualified person had to be
available to render decisions at all times. The
major field tools provided to the excavation and
backfill inspectors consisted of a camera, radio
and truck for moving around the large site.
The excavation inspector was supported by a
secretary, a computer aided design and
drafting/digital terrain modeling (CADD/DTM)
operator, and an on-site manager for quality
assurance/quality control (QA/QC) purposes.
The secretary provided the communication point
between the inspector and the remediation
contractor. The CADD/DTM operator provided
updates of drawings and quantity calculations.
CLEANUP APPROACH
In the design phase of the project, the
designers divided the 35-acres of
contaminated area to be incinerated into
fifty foot by fifty foot (50' X 50') grids. The "grid"
was the common term at the site for the
contractually required sampling area. The
designers determined a "bottom elevation" for
each grid that represented a depth one foot above
the anticipated depth of the contamination in that
-------
grid. The grids where then combined to form a
contour map of the entire area of excavation.
Excavation, sampling, analysis, and backfilling
activities by the remediation contractor were all
keyed on the grid concept.
The remediation contractor began excavation with
the intent to remove contaminated material to the
original contract contours. The excavation
inspector observed the excavation watching for
changes in the excavated material. Evidence of
change included variations in color, consistency
and granularity of the material. These changes
were a prime consideration in deciding when
excavation should cease. Upon reaching the
bottom elevation or observing a change in
material, whichever came first, excavation ceased
and the remediation contractor collected samples.
Sampling locations were determined by dividing
each grid into four quadrants. The remediation
contractor took a sample from the center of each
quadrant 3 to 9 inches below the surface. The
contractor then combined the four samples and
analyzed the composite sample to determine if
contaminant levels met the soil cleanup goals.
Contract requirements called for the submission
of analytical results to the oversight contractor
within 48 hours of sampling.
Excavation contours for a specific grid sometimes
varied with the physical evidence found in the
surrounding grids. If so, the excavation inspector,
observing the remediation contractor's excavation
hi adjacent grid(s), revised and issued new
contours prior to reaching the originally
anticipated contours. The excavation inspector
also provided revised contours to the remediation
contractor when excavation reached the excavation
contours in the original contract drawings, and
physical evidence in the field indicated additional
contaminated material existed. The remediation
contractor received all revisions to contours on an
8-1/2" x 11" enlarged portion of the contract
drawing formatted in a letter from the excavation
inspector. The inspector drew the contours free
hand and signed and dated the letter upon
delivery to the remediation contractor. Copies of
these letter revisions went to the CADD/DTM
operator to be digitized into the modeling
software for record purposes and cost projection.
Excavation continued until the physical evidence
would change or the remediation contractor
reached the revised contours. This sequence
continued until the contractor reached
contaminated material that met the soil cleanup
Tb:
MK
8-21-93 /1330 hit
(Wi Itodiid oontoum pw Spec. Section 0*410 to Grid P20,P.1fl H20
42 E30,E31,F29
i? F30AF31
29
(A/E KUnw) «w nodded on 8-19-93ihtt DM ratonnced OHIO
wm ID *» Mquktd oontoura. (A/E NVTM) h« determined II to
eppraprteted to mbo the EacMtfon Contoura to Ihet >hown
etaove. TN» a HeiHrton 2 lo Me arid.
A/E ReprawflMivt
Sample Contour Change Letter
goals. Then excavation was halted, samples taken,
and analysis performed as described above.
In isolated cases, particularly where there was a
potential for a dispute, extra work was underway,
or a difficult area was encountered, an inspector
was assigned solely to that particular excavation,
and the remediation contractor removed the
material to a visually acceptable condition. In
these cases, the inspector made determinations
without confirming compliance with contour
drawings, and informed the remediation
contractor when observed physical evidence
warranted sampling and analysis. The
remediation contractor halted the excavation, took
survey data, and collected soil samples for
analysis.
For both methods, once the analysis of the
samples collected indicated that the area met the
soils verification criteria, the A/E contractor
provided the remediation contractor with written
direction that backfilling could begin.
DISCUSSION
With remediation nearing completion, oversight
costs were running approximately 5-6 percent of
the total remedial action costs at the Sikes
Disposal Pits site. While these costs may appear
high, consider the following:
• Incinerator installation was 80 days ahead
-------
of schedule. The final cost of this phase
was $31,636,105 with less than one
percent in change orders ($230,778). The
A/E contractor's oversight costs were
$1,440,000, less than five percent (5%) of
the construction cost;
• After incinerating over 496,000 tons of
material, the project is 10 - 11 months
ahead of schedule; and
• Increases to the project's costs and
potential claims have been limited to
approximately 30%. Over 80% is a result
of increased quantities of contaminated
j materials.
i
These figures are impressive for a hazardous
waste remediation site of this magnitude. Region
6 and the TNRCC were able to develop a
proactive means of providing oversight to
maximize the relationship between Region 6 and
TNRCC and the remediation contractor.
Through this effort Region 6 and TNRCC were
able to preserve and enhance the quality of the
project, and control construction costs and time.
A primary reason for the success at the Sikes
Disposal Pits site was the empowerment of the
excavation inspector. The inspector's presence
during all excavation and ability to control the
depth of excavation in a specific grid minimized
delays to the remediation contractor. Without
this delegation of authority, the potential for
increased delays existed, along with frustration
between the contracting party (TNRCC) and the
remediation contractor.
In evaluating the project, Region 6 has identified
several areas where further improvements could
be made. Although the digital terrain modeling
system was beneficial in tracking excavation
progress, its potential was never fully realized. As
with most computer aided applications, the digital
terrain modeling system requires good up front
planning and experienced operators to realize its
full potential. The Region also cited the need for
specifications that are not only specific, but that
can not be misinterpreted.
SUMMARY
Quality in a project is achieved by all participants
working together to reach common goals. This
fact sheet demonstrates how Region 6 and the
TNRCC worked together to achieve their
common goal of a successful remediation of the
Sikes Disposal Pits site. The use of an oversight
contractor, the establishment of verification
sampling and testing procedures, and the use of a
computer based information management system
to record and track progress and costs are
examples of their willingness to commit sufficient
upfront resources to ensure good project planning
and management and avoid costly construction
delays and claims.
For more information contact Earl Hendrick, Region 6, at 214-665-8519 or Jo Ann
Griffith, US EPA Headquarters, at 703-603-8774.
X-/EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Washington, DC 20460
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use
$300
BULK RATE
POSTAGE & FEES PAID
EPA
PERMIT No. G-35
------- |