SUPERFUND
DESIGN
and
CONSTRUCTION
From: Hazardous Site Control Division
To: EPA Regional Offices
Update
April 1989
Vol. 3, No. 2
SITE FIELD DEMONSTRATIONS
The results are in for 10 field demon-
strations conducted under the aegis of
the Superfund Innovative Technology
Evaluation (SITE) Program. The
demonstrations were conducted by
Soliditech, Inc., Ultrox International,
Inc., Chemfix Technologies, Inc.,
Hazcon, Inc., American Combustion,
Inc., TerraVa Inc., International Waste
Technologies, Inc., Haztech-Shirco
Infrared Systems, Inc., and C.F.
Systems Corp. SITE was created to
promote the development and use of
innovative technologies.
In this issue of the Update, the
Pyreton™ oxygen-air-fuel burner,
developed by American Combustion,
Inc., will be presented.
The Pyreton™ oxygen-air-fuel burner,
developed by American Combustion,
Inc. of Norcross, Georgia, was demon-
strated at EPA's Combustion Research
Facility (CRF) in Jefferson, Arkansas.
The primary objective of the demonstra-
tion, conducted between November
1987 and January 1988, was to
evaluate the performance of the
Pyreton™ oxygen burner at throughputs
higher than those of a conventional air-
based incineration system. For this
comparison, conventional air burners
were represented by the CRF rotary kiln
system. Eight comparison tests were
conducted using a mixture of contami-
nated soil from the Stringfellow Acid Pit
Superfund site, California, and a
decanter of tank tar sludge (listed waste
K087). Preliminary results indicate the
potential for significant cost savings
using the Pyreton™ burner to clean up
Superfund sites could save money.
For the conventional rotary kiln system,
the optimum feed charge was 21
pounds at a charging interval of 12
minutes. Higher feed rates destabilized
the process. Oxygen depletion in the
conventional kiln resulted in flameouts,
excessive carbon monoxide (CO)
exiting the kiln, and CO breakouts from
the afterburner. While attempts were
made to increase air flow and provide
additional oxygen, residence times
were reduced below levels necessary
for complete combustion.
During testing of the Pyreton™ oxygen
burner, the mass charge remained 21
pounds; however, throughput was
doubled because the charge interval
was reduced from 12 minutes to 6
minutes. At this rate, tests show that
the Pyreton™ oxygen burner provided
temperature control in both the kiln and
afterburner. Oxygen levels at the kiln
exit were maintained at sufficiently high
levels, and CO levels were kept to a
minimum, with no indication of CO in
the stack. Results from this test show
that the Pyreton™ burner maintained
sufficient oxygen concentration in the
kiln. CO levels at the kiln exit were well
within the capacities of the afterburner.
In addition, destruction and removal
efficiencies (DRE) exceeded 99.99
percent for all tests.
Reports on the test results of all ten
completed demonstrations will become
available throughout the next year.
SITE information is available to the
general public on the Superfund
Hotline, 202-382-3000 or 1 -800-424-
9346.
For additional information on the
program, contact John Kingscott, EPA
Headquarters. 202-382-4362.
To be put on the mailing list to receive
SITE demonstration project reports,
write to:
Dorothy Williams
USEPA/CERI
26 West Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268 •
Reaching the '175' RA Start Goal
Deadline: October 16,1989
r-175
-100
.Status as of
April 1989
-------
SOLI [ CffATIION OF §1 AL1ED I J [ DS
Most major construction projects are
procured either through the solicitation
of sealed bids or through a negotiated
procurement. Sealed bidding is used
when the required work is well defined
and of a kind that is familiar to the con-
struction community. Negotiated
procurement is used when the work is
less well defined or when there is a
desire to develop alternative technolo-
gies. A third method of solicitation—
two-step sealed bidding—combines
features of both sealed bidding and
negotiated procurement and is an
alternative means of procuring con-
struction activities. However, the
decision to use one method or another
is not cut and dried, and the methods
figure prominently in the procurement
of clean-up activities in the Superfund
program. Below is a description of the
salient features of the sealed bidding
method. A description of the negotiated
procurement method will be presented
in a subsequent issue of the Update.
Sealed bidding is a method of procure-
ment that gives all qualified contractors
an opportunity to compete for contracts
on the basis of price. The work desired
under the contract must be described
in sufficient detail to enable bidders to
understand fully what is required of
them for the prices of their bids. The
description of the work must also be
clear to ensure that all bidders will be
bidding on the same work and there-
fore be on an equal basis. For these
reasons, sealed bidding is usually done
on the basis of design specifications
that contain detailed plans and
specifications for all aspects of the
work.
IP RESOLICITATION
The plans and specifications are
developed before work is advertised.
They are included in an invitation for
Bids” (IFB), which also contains the
terms and conditions that will, along
with the plans and specifications,
become the basis of the contract upon
award to the successful bidder.
SOLICITATION AND RECEIPT OF
RIDS
The IFB is advertised publicly to create
as much competition as possible.
Bidders submit bids in sealed enve-
lopes at a prescribed location no later
than a specified date and time set for a
public bid opening. At that time, the
bids are opened and read. The
apparent low bid is announced. After
the announcement, and before award,
the bids are evaluated.
The low bid is evaluated to ensure that
it is responsive and that it conforms to
all the terms and conditions of the IFB.
All cost and price information is
checked for mistakes, oversights, and
omissions. The responsibility of the
bidder is then evaluated. Responsibility
refers to the bidder’s ability and
capacity to accomplish the work as
required under the bid. Items of respon-
sibility indude financial resources,
bonding, facilities and equipment,
record of performance, and ability to
comply with the required schedule.
(See Vol. 2, No. 5 of the Update for a
detailed discussion of responsiveness
and responsibility.)
The contract is awarded to the lowest
cost responsive and responsible bidder.
At the time of the award, or shortly
thereafter, a notice to proceed is issued
containing dates for the period of per-
formance. From this point, the contrac-
tor is responsible for performing the
work as described in the contract.
Changes in the work must be accom-
plished through “change orders”
while the work is in progress.
©©I 31T ©T oiri ii ra©i i
Counting from the date of the notice to
proceed, the contractor has a specified
number of days to complete the work.
Administration of the contract involves
monitoring progress to ensure that the
schedule is adhered to and to verify
the quality of work completed so that
partial payments can be made. Con-
struction inspection also monitors
compliance with the plans and specif i-
cation. Change orders, and the
resulting cost adjustments, are proc-
essed without interruption of the work
or the schedule. As the work is
completed, prefinal and final inspec-
tions are performed. When the
government or the owner’s engineers
and construction inspectors are
satisfied that all work has been
completed within the terms of the
contract, the project is accepted and
final payment is made.
One advantage of se led bidding is
that the method encourages price com-
petition. All responsive and responsible
bidders are placed on an equal basis
through the bidding process. In addi-
tion, sealed bidding shifts the risk
continued on p. 3
SCHEDULED TRAINIING
Hazardous Mateńais incident Response
Operations
(FIS 8.884-7537)
May 15 to May 19
May22 to May26
June 5 to June 9
introduction to Ground-Water
investigation
(FTS 8.382-2997)
Edison. NJ
Cinonnati, OH
Curionnati, OH
June 19 toJune 23
May23 to May25
June l3toJune 15
Edison. NJ
July lOtoJuly 14
July lOtoJuly 14
Region VII
Region Viii
Cinonnatu, OH
Edison. NJ
Envlronm.ntai Risk Assessment
(FiS 8-382-2997)
Pereonnei Protection and Safely
(FTS 8-684-7537)
June l3toJune 16
May 15to May 19
June 5 to June 9
July 18 toJuly 20
Region Vii
Region ii
Region V
Region iii
Sampling for Hazardous Materials
(FIB 8-255-2270)
Junel2toJunel6 RegiofiX
July lOtoJuly 14 ReguonX
Air Surveillance for Hazardo
Materials
(FIB 8-382-2997)
May22 to May26
June 19 toJune 23
July17 toJuly 21
June2otoJune22 Regioni
Juiyl8toJuly2O ReguonX
Advanced Air Sampling tar Hazardo
Materials
(FIB 8429.2353)
Region I
Region X
Region ii
June26toJune30 Cjnannati,OH
Hazardous Materials Treatment
Technologies
(FIB 8-382-2997)
July11 to July 14
Region V
2
-------
Solicitation of Sealed Bids continued from p. 2
involved in the construction of the
project to the construction contractor.
The contractor’s bid is a promise to
accomplish the required work for a
specific dollar amount. Because the
agency has taken the time and effort up
front to describe the work in great
detail, through detailed engineering
plans and specifications, the contractor
knows precisely what is required when
submitting a bid. Any changes are
handled through change orders, but the
work that was bid on must be accom-
plished as bid. The contractor is
allowed rekef, however, if unusual site
conditions are encountered. Sealed
bidding is the preferred method of
solicitation in Superfund projects when
the work is relatively easy to define. For
example, contracts for installing
drinking water wells and water mains
are usually solicited under sealed bids.
Excavation and hauling projects will
also be considered for sealed bid
solicitation. More complex jobs, such
as thermal destruction, are more likely
to be solicited through negotiated
procurements.°
— Jack Taylor
Hazardous Site Control Division
1 UREAU OF RECLAMATION PROVIDES TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE _____
The Memorandum of Understanding
between the U.S. Bureau of Reclama-
tion (BOR) and the EPA, signed on
October 9, 1987, provides for BOR
engineering, technical, and manage-
ment services to be made available to
the EPA in accomplishing Superfund
objectives. By the end of 1988, 19
Interagency Agreements (lAGs) had
been signed in nine states through four
EPA Regional offices. These lAGs
provide for technical review, training,
design, and construction oversight
services.
The BOA is a water-resources manage-
ment agency having a full range of
capabilities in planning, design,
construction management, research,
and operations. An example of the type
of services available to the Superfund
program is illustrated by the work the
BOA has done at the Smuggler
Mountain Superfund site in Aspen,
Colorado. Smuggler Mountain was the
first EPA remedial action project to be
designed by the BOR.
The site contains old mine and smelter
tailings produced during the 1880-1915
silver mining period. The tailings, which
were moved around extensively during
the development of the Aspen commu-
nity, are contaminated with heavy
metals, principally lead and cadmium.
Houses, condominiums, and mobile
homes are located on top of the
contaminated tailings.
The BOA’s team of scientists and engi-
neers conducted geotechnical and
hydrogeologic investigations to evalu-
ate the potential for waste repositories
at the site. The BOR’s design responsi-
bility includes removing approximately
60,000 cubic yards of contaminated
tailings from residential areas, followed
by placement of tailings in two capped,
permanent repository cells for contain-
ment and control. Plans for moving a 4-
foot-diameter irrigation pipeline that lies
beneath one of the cells will be imple-
mented this summer.
The BOR’s central point-of-contact is
Gerald F. Bowles, Denver, Colorado,
FTS 776-8646. The liaison between
EPA and the BOR is Jack Taylor, EPA
Headquarters, FTS 475-8246.°
CORPS OF ENGINEERS’ PAYMENT METHOD TEST
Since entering into a Memorandum of
Understanding with EPA in 1988, the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE)
has performed an ever-increasing
design and construction role in the
Superfund program. COE’s increasing
role has created the necessity to
streamline the process for its reim-
bursement for in-house costs and for its
payments to contractors. For almost 2
years, both COE and EPA have been
working to revise the payment proce-
dures. As a result of their efforts, a
simplified payment procedure is being
pilot tested at two sites: New Lyme,
Ohio, and Moyer’s Landf ill, Pennsylva-
nia. These sites are in Regions V and
Ill, respectively.
Under the current payment system,
COE pays all in-house costs and
contractor payments out of its non-
Superfund appropriations and then
requests reimbursement from EPA.
During the reimbursement process, in-
house costs and contractor payments
must be consolidated on one invoice
prior to submission. Due to the time
needed to process payments within
COE and then submit invoices to EPA,
the RPM often receives the invoices
several months after the fieldwork has
been completed. These consolidated
invoices, combined with delays in
processing, have caused problems in
interpreting and paying COE invoices.
The current payment system also has
drawn criticism during audits of COE
Superfund projects.
Under the procedures being pilot
tested, two methods of payment are
used in dealing with COE projects. All
in-house costs are paid by allocation
transfer. This means that the COE
estimates in-house costs for all projects
on a monthly basis, and EPA transfers
the funds to them. The COE is respon-
sible for documenting all costs for cost-
recovery. Contractors still submit
invoices to the COE, but the COE
project manager only certifies the
progress payment request and then for-
wards it to the EPA Finance Office in
Cincinnati for payment. EPA then pays
the contractor directly. The COE
project manager also forwards a copy
of the progress payment request to the
EPA RPM for his review and records.
Both project managers meet on a
routine basis to discuss the progress
payments and reconcile any differ-
ences.
Pilot testing began in November 1988,
at the New Lyme, Ohio site, and in
February, 1989, at the Moyer’s Landfill
site. Both tests will be evaluated in
June of this year, and a report will be
issued with recommendations for
adopting the procedures for all COE
assignments initiated in fiscal year
1990.
If you would like additional information
or have questions about these pilot
tests, please call Bill Zobel, EPA
Headquarters, at FTS 382-2347.
3
-------
BRUIN LAGOON BID TABULATION
Bruin Lagoon in Bruin Borough, Penn-
sylvania, contains acidic sludge from
white oil production waste. The work
bid involved:
• Excavating the sludge to bedrock
• Neutralizing the sludge with hydrated
lime
• Placing a 1-foot layer of lime on the
bedrock
• Replacing the sludge in the lagoon
area after the sludge and bedrock
have been stabilized
• Compacting the sludge
• Capping the area
• Installing monitoring wells and gas
vents
Sealed bids were solicited and five bids
were received and opened on October
6, 1988. The low bidder, GEO-CON,
was awarded the contract. The bids
ranged in price from $3,982,387 to
$9,474,427.
BID TABULATION
Government Estimate
GEO.cON, INC.
Pittsburgh, PA
LT Corporation
Monroevile, PA
Item
Unit Quantities Unit Cost Item Cost
Unit Cost item Cost Unit Cost ftem Cost
Miscellaneous
LS
1
$1,437,116
$1,437,116
$700,911
$700,911
81,000.670
$1,000,670
Groundwater
Diversion
Ditch
LS
1
$86,160
$86,160
$100,443
$100,443
$158,850
$158,850
Pre.Construction
Gas Vent Wells
LS
1
$58,734
$58,734
$131,825
$137,825
$304,660
$304,660
Sludge Excavabon
and Stabilization
(1V:1H Side Slopes)
a. EXCaVatIOn
(1) 1st 73,250 CV
CV
73,250
$14.74
$1,079,705
$15.02
$1,100,215
$17.00
$ ‘,245,250
(2) Over 73,250 CV
CV
8,140
$13.95
$113,553
$10.58
$85,958
$17.00
$138,380
b. Hydrated Lime
(extra 30%)
(1) First 2,940 tons
TON
2,940
$76.90
$226,086
$75.81
$222,881
$11000
$323,400
(2) Over 2,940 tons
TON
320
$72.90
$23,328
$75.81
$24,259
$110.00
$35,200
Bedrock Neutralization
a. Crushed Aggregate
(1) lst3,970 tons
TON
3,970
$1380
$54,786
$1422
$56,453
$23.00
$91,310
(2) Over 3,970 tons
TON
440
$1305
$5,742
$14.22
$8,257
$23.00
$10,120
b. Agricultural
Limestone
(Extra 15%)
(1) lst60tons
TON
60
$25.65
$1,539
$18.74
$1,124
$50000
$30,000
(2) Over 60 tons
TON
10
$24.20
$242
$18.74
$187
$430.00
$4,300
Dike Work
IS
I
$278,470
$278,470
$353,639
$353,639
$343,250
$343,250
Final Cover
IS
1
$706,390
$706,390
$636,496
$636,496
$677,750
$677,750
Access RoadlStorage
Area Regrading/
Seeding and
Mulching
LS
1
$41,111
$41,111
$14,734
$14,734
$46,100
$46,100
Construction Water
Treatment
a. flrst 738,000 gal&
GAl
738,000
$0.42
$309,980
$0.30
$221,400
$0.46
$339,480
b. Over 738,000 gals.
GAL
82,000
$0.40
$32,800
$0.30
$24,600
$0.44
$36,080
Monitoing, Sampling
and Testing
IS
1
$383,568
$383,568
$117,370
$117,370
$138,000
$138,000
Demobilization
IS
I
$140,142
$140,142
$168,569
$168569
$281,700
$281,700
One-Year Site
Maintenance
IS
1
$18839
$18,839
$9,084
$9,064
$9,064
$95,000
Total Bid
$4,998,271
$3,982,387
$5,299,500
ABOUT THE UPDATE
For comments, ideas, submissions, or questions about the Update, please contact Karen Locke at FIS 8-382-7997 or
commercially at (202) 382-7997. For copies, contact EPA’s Public Information Center at FTS 8-382-2080 or commercially
at (202) 382-2080.
4
------- |