United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Solid Waste and
Emergency Response
Publication 9200.5-2151
March 1990
Superfund Design and
Construction Update
Office of Emergency and Remedial Response
Hazardous Site Control Division OS - 220
Intermittent Bulletin
Volume 4 Number 1
REMEDIAL ACTION PRIORITIZATION
Prior to fiscal year 1989, the Superfund
program had sufficient funding to support
all remedial actions that were ready for
implementation. However, the remedial
action (RA)budgetforFY89 was severely
curtailed. By the fourth quarter, it ap-
peared that for the first time, funding was
not sufficient to cover all of the RA proj-
ects ready for funding. Because of the in-
adequate funding and the recommenda-
tions of the Superfund Management
Review (90-day study) for addressing the
worst sites first, a pnoritization process
was developed so that funds could be al-
located among RA projects on the basis
of environmental and public health para-
meters.
A ranking scheme for prioritizing projects
was developed. It consists of five catego-
ries and is based on the immanence and
risk level of the threat posed at a site. A
workgroup composed of one senior
management representative from each
Region and three from OERR was estab-
lished to implement the process. The
workgroup was charged to meet at least
twice annually to evaluate each candidate
site and to rank the site on the priorities
list. Sites are now funded in ranked order
during the year.
To initiate the funding process, a Region
must submit descriptions of the sites and
explanations of how the sites meet the
criteria for the funding category proposed
by the Region to the workgroup. After a
site is ranked, the Region must obtain an
RA Advice of Allowance. This will be is-
sued when three criteria are met. The
criteria are: (1) the remedial design must
be at least 90 percent complete, (2) the
Superfund State Contract (SSC) must be
in place, and (3) the State Capacity Assur-
ance Plan must be approved.
There are two exceptions to the ranking
process. One exception applies if the
project is determined to be ongoing. For
example, this would apply when a con-
tract has been awarded and additional
funding is requiredforcovering increased
quantities. Funding is guaranteed so
that work will not stop. The other excep-
tion applies to projects of less than $2.5
million that meet the criteria for issuing an
Advice of Allowance. These projects can
be funded out of order from a portion of
the RA funds set aside to help expedite
responses.
Any questions concerning RA prioritiza-
tion should be addressed to a Regional
workgroup member or to Tom Sheckells
or Ken Ayers of OERR at FTS 382-2466
or 475-6707, respectively.
NEW DEVELOPMENTS IN STATE AND LOCAL SUPERFUND INTERACTION
Superfund sites have been, and will
continue to be, of interest and concern to
people in surrounding communities and
to the general public. Information may be
limited, and citizens often feel that the
government is unconcerned about their
problems and uninterested in truly clean-
ing up the contaminated area. Often sites
are not identifiable as hazardous waste
sites because visible drums have been
removed or contamination is concealed
below the surface. In addition, a cleanup
can be long and uneventful, leaving the
impression that no action is being taken.
Increasing the public's awareness is
necessary to counteract widespread
Printed on Recycled Paper
confusion about Superfund projects, pre-
vent dissemination of wrong or falsely rep-
resented information, and prevent acci-
dents. The most recent, easiest, and per-
haps fastest way to inform and educate
interested parties is posting signs at every
Superfund site.
At each Superfund program area, regard-
less of site lead, EPA will require a sign to
be posted that:
• Identifies the site as an EPA Superfund
project, and
• Provides a phone numberfor reporting
criminal or suspicious activities
If necessary, the lead agency may use
the EPA Inspector General's toll-free num-
ber (800-424-4000), but, if available, a
State or Regional contact may be more
appropriate. EPA has proposed language
in 40 CFR, Part 35, Subpart O, Coopera-
tive Agreements and Superfund State
Contracts for Superfund Response Ac-
tions, that requires this action be taken to
encouragegreaterunderstandingofEPA
Superfund projects. (See Figure 1, on
page 2, for an example of a sign.)
To further a positive and growing rela-
tionship with affected communities and
Continued on page 2
-------
NEW DEVELOPMENTS IN STATE AND LOCAL SUPERFUND INTERACTION
(continued 1mm page 1)
the public. EPA suggests that the follow-
ing information be included on the sign:
EPA logo
Superfund program. Additional guidance
and specifications will be provided in the
Revised Remedial Design and Remedial
Action Guidance.
For further information, please contact
Ms. Nadine Shear, State and Local
Coordination Branch, at FTS 382-2450
or commercially at (202) 382-2450.
Name of site
• Name and number of Community
Relations Coordinator
• Funding amounts and sources,
including state matching funds
All signs should be constructed in dimen-
sions consistent with other EPA projects.
Prominently displayed, the sign can pro-
vide invaluable information to interested
parties.
In the past, similar initiatives have been
successfully implemented in other envi-
ronmental programs, including EPA’s
Office of Water. For example, posting
signs at sites is required by all construc-
lion contracts for water pollution control
facilities
By including the posting of signs as a
requirement of Cooperative Agreements
and State Contracts for Superfund (40
CFR, Part 35, Subpart 0), EPA hopes to
increase the overall effectiveness of the
Figure 1. Sample Superfund SIgn. (Depending on the iead agency and other circum-
stances of the site, a sign may contain some, but not all, of the contacts shown above.)
DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION ADVISOR
FOR ARCS PROJECTS
The successful execution of a construc-
tion projäct requires the application of
both technical and administrative skills.
The nature of construction projects is
such that work cannot be suspended
while issues are being resolved without
incurring substantial delay costs. In the
Alternative Remedial Contracting Strat-
egy (ARCS) Program, Remedial Project
Managers (RPMs) and contracting off i-
cers often will be required to interpret
technical specifications and contract
clauses while work is in progress. To
assist them, they need the services of an
experienced Design and Construction
Advisor (DCA).
The DCA must be a registered Profes-
sional Engineerwith significant construc-
tion management experience on projects
similar in size and complexity to ARCS
projects. Theoretically, the RPM and the
DCA could be the same individual if the
RPM has the required background. More
likely, however, many individuals in the
Agency may not have experience or may
occupy a more senior position than that
of an RPM Therefore, if no one is avail-
able to serve as a DCA, the RPM must
look to sources outside of the Agency.
The Bureau of Reclamation (BUREC) is
one potential outside source for DCAs.
DCAs are experienced construction-liai-
son engineers. They are available from
the Denver, Colorado, office on short
notice to advise RPMs and contracting
officers on ARCS technical issues. They
can provide the following services:
• Perform preliminary design reviews to
verify appropriateness and constructi-
bility.
• Perform preliminary design reviews to
verify appropriateness and constructi-
bility.
• Perform final design reviews with
claims prevention as the focus.
• Review the ARCS contractor’s work
plan for implementing and completing
the construction work.
• Participate in the preconstruction
conference.
• Analyze construction changes and
claim reviews, including cost estimates
and provide technical support to the
Region if litigation is involved.
• Participate in the pre-final inspection
of the construction site; review rec-
ords, tour the site; and assist in pre-
paring a “punch list” of items required
to complete the work at the site.
• Provide advice by telephone to the
RPM in response to issues that arise
at the construction site.
To supplement the DCAs, BUREC has a
Claims Analysts Section whose person-
nel can review high-cost or complex
construction changes and claims. The
staff includes registered Professional
Engineers and cost/price analysts repre-
senting a wide range of experience in
construction and claims issues.
EPA Headquarters has an Interagency
Agreement with BUREC to provide the
services of DCAs at no cost to the re-
questing Region. To arrange for a DCA
for your ARCS construction project,
contact Ms. Tracy Loy, Design and
Construction Management Branch, at
FTS 382-7997 or commercially at
(202) 382-7997.
1SIWERFUtW l, ANUP I
Name of Site
EPA Site #
$ Federal Government
$ State & Local Governments
To obtain more information on the site, contact:
• U.S. EPA Community Relations Coordinator:
• State/Local Community Relations Coordinator:
To report suspIcious/crImInal actIvities, contact:
• U.S. EPA Hotline: 1-800-424-4000
• State Agency
2
-------
EASEMENTS VS. ACCESS AGREEMENTS AT SUPERFUND SITES
With more pro jecis entering the remedial
action phase, RPMs are faced with in-
creasingly complex access issues at
Superfund sites. EPA Headquarters
ersonnel acknowledge confusion on the
part of the RPM in dealing with these
issues.
This article will provide the RPM with
guidance to obtain the necessary legal
documentation to permit entry and use of
property that is not contaminated and not
threatened by contamination.
EPA, under Section 104(o) of the Com-
prehensive Environmental Response.
Compensation, and Liability Act (CER-
CLA), has the authority to access any
private property that is contaminated or
threatened with contamination to under-
take a remedial action.
At some sites, a Region may determine
that access to portions of adjacent prop-
erty is necessary for construction pur-
poses or for long-term remedial action.
Two mechanisms for securing uncon-
taminated private property are access
agreements and easements. An access
agreement, negotiated between the
Region and the owner, should only be
used when entry to the property is neces-
sary for design work or additional testing.
A voluntary access agreement for uncon-
taminated private property is not binding
on the part of the owner and can be
revoked at any time. Because it is not
considered an interest in property, the
owner cannot be compensated for the
use or loss of use of the property.
The Region should consider access
agroementsonly inthose situationswhere
EPA will not be performing any type of in-
trusive action on the property. Because
the agreements are not tied to the prop-
erty title in any way and are revokable,
the Region should negotiate these types
of agreements on a short-term basis, up
to one year.
Easements, on the other hand, are con-
sidered interest in property and fall under
the acquisition provisions of Section 1 04 j)
of CEACLA. Property easements should
be acquired when EPA will take intrusive
actions on a portion of uncontaminated
private property. Examples of intrusive
actions include: constructing a RCRA
cap against the site boundary, making it
necessary to run bulldozers across the
adjacent property; grubbing and clearing
for site access purposes, using a private
road for transporting equipment; and
installing a buffer zone for a treatment
facility. Easements may be temporary,
during construction only, or long term, up
to completion of the remediation. Ease-
ments are attached to the title of the
property and are not revokable l y the
owner. A properly written easement speci-
fies the purpose for which EPA needs the
property, the condition in which the prop-
erty will be left, and the approximate
duration of the action.
Because an easement is considered an
acquisition, it must be approved by the
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency
Response and the Office of General
Counsel. Since acquiring an easement
may take up to six months, the RPM is
encouraged to begin the process as soon
in the design phase of the project as
practicable.
For additional information, please con-
tact Ms. Jo Ann Griffith, Design and Con-
struction Management Branch, at FTS
(202) 475-6704 or commercially at
(202) 475-6704.
BID TABULATIONS
Alladin Plating, PA
The Alladin Plating site is located in Lacka-
wanna County, Pennsylvania. The 2-acre
site contains an electroplating facility that
operated from 1947 to 1982. The source
control operable unit addresses offsite
treatment of soil contaminated with arse-
nic, chromium, and lead. The work bid
includes:
• Excavation and offsite treatment, via
stabilization, of approximately 12,000
cubic yards of contaminated soil
• Disposal of treated soils in an offsite
RCRA landfill in compliance with the
land disposal restrictions
• Replacement of the excavated soil
with clean fill
Sealed bids were solicited and five bids
were received and opened on July 18,
1989. Two bids were eliminated at the
opening because one bidder. withdrew
and one bidder did not provide a final cost
estimate. The low bidder, Chemical Waste
Management, was awarded the contract.
Description of
Offered Item
ALLADIN PLATING, PA
Mobilization/Demobilization
Estimated
Quantity
Chem. Waste Mgmt.
Clearing & Grubbing
Unit
Unit Price
Site Work
Estimated
Amount
Decontamination Facilities
Sevenson
12,342 IS 234 $114,270.00
LS
Unit
Price
Excavation & Transportation of Soil
IS
Estimated
Amount
Offsite Treatment & Disposal
16,381.00
LS
Site Restoration/Demobilization
12,000 CV
42,985.00
2,234 $223,526.00
39,304.00
12,000 CV
112,750.00
2,907,588.00
I-S
406,021.00
4,127,379.00
202,165.00
412,706.00
Total
2,774,700.00
5,135,978.00
$7,734,059.00
83,603.00
$8,865,297.00
3
-------
rhe Hollingsworth Solderless site is lo-
ated in Broward County, Florida. The
3.5-acre site contains a manufacturing
,iant that operated from 1968 to 1982.
rho operable unit addresses onsite treat-
Tient of soil and ground water contami-
iated with volatile organic contaminants
(VOCs) and organics. The work bid in-
cludes:
• Excavation, aeration, and onsite re-
placement of VOC-contaminated soils
• Recovery of contaminated ground
water from the sand zones followed
by treatment and reinjection
Sealed bids were solicited and two bids
were received and opened during the
summerof 1989. The low bidder. Westing-
house, was awarded the contract.
HOLLINGSWORTH SOLDERLESS, FL
DescriptIon of
Offered Item
Mobilization
Extraction Wells
Recharge Wells
Extrac. Well Pump & Piping + Instal.
VOC Stripping Towers & Controls
Purchase
Recharge Well Pump & Piping + Instal.
In Situ Soil Treatment
1St 12 feet in depth
AddI. 3 feet in depth
GW Treatment System O&M
Well Logging
Demonstration
Health & Safety Equip. & Plan
All Other Work
180 FT 132
240 FT 104
LS
LS
LS
75 CV 2,333
18 CV 678
40 Weeks 1.768
LS
LS
LS
LS
$33,400.00
23,760.00
24,960.00
118,381.00
127,000.00
68,689.00
174,975.00
12,204.00
70,720.00
20,300.00
13,300.00
15,000.00
3,917.00
$51,000.00
39 7,020.00
39 9,360.00
131,177.00
326,000.00
115,000.00
147,000.00
4,500.00
40,000.00
9,700.00
25,000.00
6,000.00
67,000.00
Total $706,606.00
$938,757.00
3 1D TABULATIONS (continued from page 3)
Iollingsworth Solderless, FL
Estimated
Quantity Unit
Westinghouse
Qualtec
Unit EstImated Unit Estimated
Price Amount Price Amount
1,960
250
1,000
ABOUT THE UPDATE
For comments, ideas, submissions, or questions about the Update, please contact Ms Jo Ann GntlIth, Design and Construction Management
Branch, at FTS 475-6704 or commercially at (202) 475-6704 For copies, contact EPA ’s Public Information Center at FTS 8-382-2080 or (202)
382-2080, or wnte to U.S Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M St S.W , Washington, D C 20460
I ,
------- |