EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Solid Waste and
Emergency Response
Publication: 9200.5-2151
August 1991
Superfund Design and
Construction Update
Office of Emergency and Remedial Response
Hazardous Site Control Division OS - 220W
Intermittent Bulletin
Volume 5 Number 3
CONFERENCE ON DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION ISSUES
AT HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES - A HUGE SUCCESS ^HBB
The first U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA)-spon-
sored national conference on
design and construction issues at
hazardous waste sites took place
between May 1-3,1991 at the
Downtown Hyatt Regency at
Reunion in Dallas Texas. Ninety-
five presentations of technical
papers and three panel discussions
on technical/policy issues and case
studies were held.
This national conference was
timely due to the increased com-
plexity of issues related to this
subject area and the growing
number of hazardous waste sites
entering design and construction.
The conference also had a different
intent, agenda, and format than
other major hazardous waste
conferences. The goal was to
promote formal and informal
discussion of design and construc-
tion issues, in order to encourage
national consistency, and to
develop more efficient and practi-
cal means of moving design and
construction projects through the
pipeline. Secondly, the conference
enabled EPA to augment current
efforts to revise its Superfund
design and construction guidance
and policies.
Topics covered a range of issues,
including pre-design activities,
construction administration and
claims, community relations,
health and safety, and government
policy. Participants included the
U.S. Department of Energy,
Department of Defense, Bureau of
Reclamation, and Army Corps of
Engineers, as well as EPA, numer-
ous design and construction
contractors and State agencies.
COST ESTIMATION WORKGROUP PROGRESS
An important aspect of controlling
or abating hazardous, toxic and
radiological waste (HTRW)
contamination is the determination
of costs and schedules to remedy
conditions which threaten human
health and the environment. Cost
and schedule estimates, especially
during design, are necessary to
obtain sufficient funding to
achieve cleanup goals and to judge
the appropriateness of cleanup
proposals.
The estimation of costs for HTRW
remediation is difficult because (1)
investigations often occur at
uncontrolled sites; (2) each site has
unique characteristics; (3) many
remediation technologies are new
The Office of Emergency and
Remedial Response wishes to
thank all of those who participated
in the first "Conference on Design
and Construction Issues at Haz-
ardous Waste Sites". It is EPA1 s
plan to sponsor this conference on
an annual basis over the next
several years. The next conference
is tentatively planned for April 21-
23,1992 in Chicago.
Future inquiries regarding this
conference and next year's planned
conference are encouraged to be
made in writing to the attention of:
Kenneth Ayers, Chief,
Design and Construction Management Branch,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
401M Street. SW, MaHcode OS-220W,
Washington DC 20460,
or
Contact EPA's Design and Construction
Management Branch at (703) 308-8393
and have had limited application;
and (4) at the present time there is
no collective source for obtaining
scope, schedules, and actual costs
of HTRW remediation activities.
Therefore, it is the purpose of the
Interagency Cost Estimating
Group (ICEG) to establish a
network among Federal agencies
for collecting and sharing HTRW
continued on page 2
-------
continued from page 1.
COST ESTIMATION
remediation cost information and
related experience. Since the
beginning of this network, the
group has grown to include over
100 persons representing the
Department of Energy, USEPA, US
Army Corps of Engineers, US
Navy, Bureau of Reclamation, US
Air Force and their contractors.
The overall objective of the ICEG
is to establish a network of existing
agency organizations for estimat-
ing costs of HTRW remediation.
Specific ICEG objectives include:
1. Collection and sharing of
HTRW remediation information,
consisting of scope, schedules, and
actual costs.
2. Establishment of a common
chart or code of accounts.
3. Peer review of agency-specific
existing and proposed cost estimat-
ing models or systems.
4. Development of additional
common or joint cost estimating
models or systems.
5. Development of appropriate
indices for adjusting costs
due to economic, technical, and
site-specific conditions.
6. Participation in education,
training, and information
transfer for Federal agencies and
other appropriate parties.
The last meeting of the ICEG was
held in Albuquerque, New Mexico
on March5 and 6, 1991. The next
meeting will be held in Las Vegas
on August27 and 28,1991.
EPA’s START TEAM at the Risk
Reduction Laboratory in Cincin-
nati is available to assist RPMs in
remedial action cost estimation.
This is a particularly useful
resource for ARCS projects. They
can be reached at FTS 684-7406.
For additional information on the
ICEG, please contact Mr. Thomas
A. Whalen, P.E., Design and
Construction Management Branch
at Fl ’S 398-8345 or (703) 308-8345.
The April 1991 edition of
“Superfund Design and Construc-
tion Update,” included an article
covering observed cost escalation
for low temperature volatilization
systems (LTVS), which are in-
cluded in the designs of four New
Jersey Superfund sites. The four
sites are Lipari Landfill, Waldick
Aerospace, Metaltec, and Caidwell
Trucking. Cost escalations, from
the estimates provided at the
Record of Decision (ROD) stage to
corresponding estimates at the
remedial design (RD) stage, were
cited.
The article incorrectly stated the
following,
‘The cost escalation number has
resulted in ROD amendments and
in the case of Lipari, a change in
the remedy.”
While the estimated cost of LTVS
has apparently increased from the
ROD to the RD stages, this has not
resulted in either a ROD amend-
ment away from LTVS for any of
the four sites, as implied in the
artide, or a change in remedy for
Lipari. In fact, there was a ROD
amendment for the Waldick site to
modify the remedy to LTVS from
another technology. The article
incorrectly states that LTVS was
considered in the original ROD for
Waldick.
In the case of the Upari Landfill,
LTVS is still being designed to
treat marsh soils, stream and lake
OF LOW
sediments. However, EPA is
evaluating whether all of the lake
and stream sediments can be or
need to be treated by LTVS prior to
disposal.
The remedy as specified in the
Lipan ROD, comprises removal
and dewatering of contaminated
soils from an adjacent marsh,
removal of sediments from a
downstreant lake and two streams,
treatment to drive off contami-
nants in a LTVS, and placement of
the cleaned soils and sediments as
non-hazardous materials.
For additional information, please
contact Mr. Ron Borsellino, Chief,
New Jersey Remedial Action
Branch at FTS 264-8667, or (202)
264-8667.
SURETY BONDS FOR REMEDIAL ACTION
Performance bonds are used in the ects. While bonds are normally
construction industry to insure the required for construction contracts;
completion of construction proj- in some instances, concern for
assuring performance has led to
the industry being required to
guarantee performance on work
________________ conthuied on page 3
ARTICLE CORRECTION: “COST ESCALATION
TEMPERATURE VOLATILIZATION SYSTEMS”
2
-------
continued from page 2
SURETY BONDS FOR REMEDIAL ACTION
elements that are characterized
primarily as service rather than
construction.
Bond availability problems and
contractor concerns have increased
over the past few years. In some
instances, firms responding to
remedial action (RA) contract
solicitations have not been able to
secure performance bonds. Some
firms have also reported that they
will not compete for BA contracts
because they know that they
cannot obtain the required surety
bonds.
The most effective strategies for
alleviating the difficulty in bond-
ing of RAs are those emphasizing
improved acquisition planning,
additional risk sharing based upon
careful consideration of the
bonding requirements, and
procurement methods and contract
type that will maximize qualified
contractor competition. These
strategies place the burden on the
contracting party to make appro-
priate decisions on matters which
may impact substantially the
competitive dimate for a particular
solicitation.
The contracting process, including
the bonding issues, should be
integrated into a project acquisi-
tion plan. An analysis of the risk
trade oils to the Contracting Party
must be incorporated into the
acquisition planning process for
BA projects. Performance bonds
provide assurance against the
uncertainty of project non-per-
formance on construction projects.
The cost of this protection should
approximate the cost of the
potential non-performance risk in
the long run. The trade offs of this
risk must be examined in the
acquisition planning process. The
process should analyze the bene-
fits and costs of assuming slightly
higher risks in project performance
and the resultant benefits and costs
of improving the competitive
climate for RA contracting and the
subsequent reduction in BA
contract prices. This may involve
the analysis of each phase of the
work and the appropriate level of
bonding that would afford ade-
quate protection for the contract-
ing party’s interests and still
encourage participation by the
industry. Careful examination of
the nature of the contract, method
of procurement, and type of
contract should be carried out by
an interdisciplinary team.
The steps in an acquisition plan-
ning process are as follows:
a. Decide whether to subdivide the
project into separate contracts.
b. Determine the nature of the
contract and appropriate labor
standards, eg., service, construc-
tion, or service with segregable
construction.
c. Determine whether sealed
bidding, competitive negotiation,
or non-competitive negotiation is
the appropriate method of pro-
curement for the project or por-
tions of the project.
d. Decide on contract type (consid-
eration of cost reimbursement
contracts versus to fixed price
contracts).
e. Decide on the appropriate
performance bonding level based
on risk analysis. Explicitly,
consider less than 100% bonding
for construction contracts and
greater than zero for service
contracts.
For additional information, please
contact Mr. Thomas Whalen, P.E.
at (703) 308-8345 or FTS 398-8345.
FIVE YEAR REVIEWS
The Office of Solid Waste and
Emergency Response (OSWER)
recently issued a directive
(OSWER 9355.7-02) that provided
guidance for planning and con-
ducting five year reviews. By
issuing the directive, OSWER
hopes to assure that reviews are
implemented in a consistent
manner, with appropriate consid-
eration of local concerns and site
conditions.
Section 121(c) of the Comprehen-
sive, Environmental, Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act
(CERCLA) requires five year
reviews where the remedial action
results in hazardous materials,
pollutants, or contaminants
remaining on-site (herein referred
to as Statutory Reviews). EPA will
conduct a Statutory Review of any
site at which a post-SARA remedy
will not allow unlimited use and
unrestricted exposure. As a policy,
EPA will conduct a five year
review at sites where (1) no
hazardous substances will remain
above levels that allow unlimited
use and unrestricted exposure
after completion of the remedial
action, but the cleanup levels will
require five or more years to attain
(e.g., Long Term Response Action
sites); and (2) sites addressed pre-
SARA at which the remedy, upon
co,uinued on page 4
3
-------
continued from page 3.
FIVE YEAR REVIEWS
attainment of the ROD cleanup
levels, will not allow unlimited use
and unrestrictive exposure. In
addition, EPA is planning to
examine previously deleted sites to
determine if a five year review is
appropriate under the policy.
Five year reviews are to be sched-
uled no less than five years after
the initiation of the remedial
action. EPA may terminate the
reviews when no hazardous
substances, pollutants, or contami-
nants remain at the site above
levels that allow for unrestricted
use and unlimited exposure. EPA
may authorize, through contracts
and/or other agreements, other
parties to perform portions of the
site review. Reports on each
review must be issued, following
the guidance that will be devel-
oped within Headquarters later
this year. Deletion of a site from
the NPL does not affect the site’s
potential need for a five year
review. Sites may be deleted form
the NPL upon satisifactory com-
pletion of the initial five year
review, however, five year reviews
must continue, until the hazardous
substances are not found above
levels allowing unrestricted use.
The focus of the five year review
will depend on the original goal of
the response action. If protective-
ness is being assured through
exposure protection (containment
through capping) and institutional
controls, the review should focus
on the integrity of the cap and that
the controls remain an effective
means of assuring protection.
On the other hand, a review at a
Long-term Remedial Action
(LTRA) site should focus on both
the effectiveness of the technology
and the specific performance levels
established in the ROD.
EPA has developed a three tiered
approach for the five year reviews.
EPA will determine the level of
review based on site specific
considerations, including the
nature of the response activities,
proximity to populated areas and
sensitive environmental areas, and
the interval since the last review.
• Level I Review: Lowest level of
evaluation of protectiveness. This
review is appropriate in all but a
relatively few cases where site-
specific circumstances suggest
another level.
• Level II Review: Intermediate
Level of Protectiveness. Appropri-
ate only if warranted by site
conditions. For example, the
absence of expected change in the
level of contaminants, as moni-
tored, might suggest additional
source control or migration system
sampling, or increased evaluation
of remedial components.
• Level ifi Review: Highest Level
of Review. It is unlikely that a
Region would propose a Level III
review until the five year review
(at a lower level) is in progress.
The directive contains a matrix
explaining the activities which
generally should be considerd in
determining the scope of reviews
proposed in future RODs and in
developing work plans for five
year reviews. The matrix is
designed to reflect the different
levels of review that may be
appropriate depending on the site-
specific circumstances or the status
of the site with regard to comple-
tion of the response action. Re-
views of ongoing remedial actions
might focus on proper operation or
implementation of the remedy,
while reviews of completed and
deleted sites would be more
extensive.
For additional information regard-
ing this directive, please contact
Mr. William Ross at (703) 308-8335
or FTS 398-8335.
REMEDIAL DESIGNIREMEDIAL ACTION COORDINATORS
Below is the list of current RD/RA Regional Coordinators. They are available to assist the Regions with technical issues
relating to design and construction, designs reviews, contract and procurement issues, RP oversight, and site closeouts.
Region 1: Jo Ann Griffith
(703)308-8353
FIS 398.8353
Region 2: Joe Cocoalis
(703)308.8336
Fl ’S 398.8356
Region 3: Florence Blair
(703) 308-8327
Fl’S 398-8327
Region 4: Ken Skahn
(703) 308-8355
FF5 398-8355
Region 5: Tracy Loy
(703) 308-8349
Fl’S 398-8349
Region 6: JoAnn Griffith
(703) 308-8353
FTS 398-8353
Region 10: Steve Chang
(703) 308-8393
FF5 308-8393
Region 7: Ken Skahn
(703) 308-8355
Fl’S 398-8355
Region 8: Barbara McDonough
(703) 308-8348
Fl ’S 398-8348
Region 9: Steve Chang
(703) 308-8393
FFS 308-8393
ABOUT THE UPDATE
For comments, ideas, submissions, or questions about the Update, please contact Jo Ann Griffith. Design and Consriuction Management
Branch. at FTS 398-8353 or commercially at (703) 308-8353.
4
------- |