united states office of solid waste and environmental protection

EPA

United StatesEnvironmental ProtectionAgency

Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (5102G)

EPA 542-R-01-005February 2001wwwbrownfieldstscorgwwwepagovTIO

Brownfields Technology Primer Requesting and Evaluating Proposals That EncourageInnovative Technologies for Investigation and Cleanup

Brownfields Technology Primer Requesting and Evaluating Proposals That

Encourage Innovative Technologies forInvestigation and Cleanup

US Environmental Protection AgencyOffice of Solid Waste and Emergency Response

Technology Innovation OfficeWashington 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 wassubjected to the Agencyrsquos administrative and expert review and was approved for publication asan EPA document Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constituteendorsement or recommendation for use


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The Technology Innovation Office would like to acknowledge and thank the individuals whoreviewed and provided comments on draft documents The reviewers included representatives ofbusiness and community organizations legal institutions EPA Headquarters and regional officeslocal government and city planning offices and remediation contractors


i

CONTENTS

Section Page

10 INTRODUCTION 1

11 Purpose 112 Background 213 Approach 3

20 ADVANTAGES AND USES OF INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGIES 4

21 Advancements in Innovative Technologies 422 Characterization and Monitoring Technologies 423 Remediation Technologies 524 Examples 6

30 INCORPORATING INNOVATIVE APPROACHES INTO YOUR RFP 8

31 Types of Information Contained in Requests for Proposals 832 Incorporating Innovative Technologies into the RFP 10

321 Site-Specific Information to be Included 11322 Technologies Used At Similar Sites 13323 Special Considerations for Brownfields Sites 18324 Examples of RFP formats for Brownfields Sites 26

40 EVALUATING CONTRACTORSrsquo PROPOSALS 27

41 Evaluating the Proposed Methodology 27

411 Characterization Technologies 27

4111 Selection of Locations for Sampling Points 284112 Hydrogeologic Conditions 294113 Boreholes and Drilling Methods 294114 Soil and Water Samples 29

412 Remediation Technologies 31

4121 Treatability Studies 314122 Full-Scale Remediation Technology 31

42 Evaluating Qualifications of Personnel 3243 Evaluating Corporate Experience 33

431 Experience in Performing Similar Projects 33432 Past Performance 34

44 Evaluating the Contractorrsquos Quality Assurance and Quality Control Procedures 3445 Evaluating the Contractorrsquos Cost Proposal 3546 Evaluating the Contractorrsquos Insurance 35


ii

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

3-4a Special Considerations at Brownfields Sites for Selecting Innovative Characterization Technologies ndash Examples of Sample Access Collection and Extraction Tools 19

3-4b Special Considerations at Brownfields Sites for Selecting Innovative Characterization Technologies ndash Examples of Sample Analysis Tools for VOCs SVOCs and Pesticides 20

3-4c Special Considerations at Brownfields Sites for Selecting Innovative Characterization Technologies ndash Examples of Sample Analysis Tools for Inorganics and Metals 22

3-5 Special Considerations at Brownfield Sites ndash Examples of Remediation Technologies 23

4-1 Environmental Insurance Products 31

APPENDIX

Sources of Innovative Technology Information


1

10 INTRODUCTION

11 Purpose

Innovative technologies and streamlined strategiesfor assessing characterizing monitoring andremediating contamination have potential tominimize the cost and time required to clean upbrownfields sites With proper planning andconsideration of the options available for usinginnovative technologies and streamlinedstrategies many of those sites will move faster tothe redevelopment phase than could be achievedby using more traditional cleanup approaches Bycarefully selecting technologies and approachesfor conducting site investigations and thenanalyzing and using the data gathered as a basisfor evaluating all reasonable remediation optionsdecision makers will be in a strong position toselect technologies that will achieve the cleanupobjectives at the site in timely manner whileassuring the required protection of human healthand the environment

The Brownfields Technology Support Center(BTSC) (see box on the next page) prepared thisprimer to assist site owners project managers andothers preparing requests for proposals (RFP) tosolicit support in conducting activities toinvestigate and clean up contaminated sites Theprimer is not a general guidance document onpreparing RFPs for the investigation and cleanupof sites Rather it is specifically intended to assistthose individuals in writing specifications thatencourage contractors and technology vendors

(both referred to as contractors in this document)to propose options for using innovativecharacterization and remediation technologies atbrownfields sites The primer also providesinformation from a technology perspective toguide review teams in their evaluations ofproposals and the selection of qualifiedcontractors

The BTSC previously issued a document titledAssessing Contractor Capabilities for StreamlinedSite Investigations [EPA 542-R-00-001] Thatdocument provides information useful tobrownfields decision makers as they interviewcontractors to determine each contractorrsquosqualifications to provide streamlined andinnovative strategies for conducting siteinvestigations A number of Brownfields PilotCoordinators and others requested that the BTSCsupplement that document by developing thisprimer It is hoped that the use of the informationin this primer by the brownfields community willencourage contractors to consider the use ofinnovative technologies earlier in the proposalldquopipelinerdquo preferably at the time the contractorsare preparing their proposals and will create amore receptive atmosphere for contractors that doso RFPs that clearly define the requirements andexpectations for contractors to use innovativetechnologies will encourage contractors to ldquothinkoutside of the boxrdquo and consider non-traditionalapproaches as they prepare their proposals


2

Brownfields Technology Support Center

EPA established the BrownfieldsTechnology Support Center to ensure thatbrownfields decision makers are aware ofthe full range of technologies available forconducting site assessments andcleanup and can make informeddecisions for their sites The center canhelp government decision makersevaluate strategies to streamline the siteassessment and cleanup process identifyand review information about complextechnology options evaluate contractorcapabilities and recommendationsexplain complex technologies tocommunities and plan technologydemonstrations The center iscoordinated through EPArsquos TechnologyInnovation Office and works throughEPArsquos Office of Research andDevelopment laboratories Localities cansubmit requests for assistance

bull Directly through their EPA RegionalBrownfields Coordinators

bull Online at lthttpbrownfieldstscorggt

bull By calling 1 (877) 838-7220 (toll free)

For more information about the program the centralpoint of contact is Dan Powell of the EPA TechnologyInnovation Office at (703) 603-7196 orltpowelldanepagovgt

When developing this primer the BTSC revieweda number of RFPs prepared by brownfieldscommunities Many of those communitiesrecognized the advantages of innovativetechnologies and required their inclusion inproposals Although that trend is encouraging theuse of innovative technologies could be muchmore widespread at brownfields sites Individualswho prepare RFPs and evaluate proposals shouldbe aggressive inidentifying the manycontractors acrossthe nation that offerinnovativetechnologies

The BTSC producedthis primer to serveas a resource forgeneral informationlocalities states andfederal brownfieldsstaff can turn to theBTSC for furtherassistanceaddressing site-specific issues TheBTSC can assistlocalities in scopingpotential technologyoptions for theirsites and using theinformation obtainedin the RFP process The BTSC also canidentify othersources ofinformation to assistindividuals whoprepare RFPs andcontractors who submit proposals in conductingresearch to identify appropriate technologyoptions for the site under review 12 Background

The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)has defined brownfields sites as ldquoabandonedidled or under-used industrial and commercialfacilities where expansion or redevelopment is

complicated by real or perceived environmentalcontaminationrdquo Numerous technology optionsare available to assist those involved in thecleanup of brownfields sites EPArsquos TechnologyInnovation Office (TIO) encourages the use ofinnovative cost-effective technologies tocharacterize and clean up contaminated sites Aninnovative technology is a technology that hasbeen field-tested and applied to a hazardous waste

problem at a sitebut lacks a longhistory of full-scaleuse Althoughreadily availableinformation aboutits cost and howwell it works maybe insufficient toencourage use undera wide variety ofoperatingconditions aninnovativetechnology haspotential tosignificantlyminimize the costand time required toredevelopbrownfields sites

The process ofredevelopingbrownfields sitesprovides anexcellent frameworkfor using innovativetechnologiesbecause (1) stateand federal

regulators tend to be flexible in approving cleanupplans for brownfields sites particularly those sitesfor which voluntary cleanup plans have beensubmitted (2) most of the current brownfieldssites are not encumbered by a history of litigationor enforcement actions for which traditionaltechnologies may already have been specified and(3) redevelopment plans have been prepared formany brownfields sites and are used to establishsite-specific cleanup targets and the time frames


3

for cleanup ndash this information provides anexcellent basis for tailoring innovative approachesto the investigation and cleanup of individualsites

13 Approach

Although the structure of RFPs will vary thecriteria listed below are those typically used toevaluate and select contractors for individualprojects Many RFPs specify how the criteria willbe used to evaluate individual proposals Contractors typically structure their proposalsaccording to the criteria to ensure they respond toeach item The criteria are

Proposed technical methodology based on siterequirements and the schedule for performingthe work

Qualifications of the contractorrsquos proposedproject management team and other key staff

Corporate experience in performing similarwork

Proposed quality assurance and quality controlprocedures

Proposed price to complete the project

Individuals preparing RFPs should define site-specific conditions and potential challengesclearly so that bidders can respond adequately toeach criterion This primer provides informationon how to apply each criterion in preparing RFPs

The primer illustrates the importance of providingprospective bidders with as much site informationas possible Individuals preparing RFPs shouldensure all relevant information is communicatedeffectively to all prospective bidders Contractorsthen have the basis to fully understand theconditions of the site and can provide proposalsthat offer sound and viable approaches forassessing and cleaning up the site The selectionofficials also should review all availableinformation to ensure they understand the siterequirements and will select a contractor withqualified and experienced staff to perform thework correctly

In all cases selection officials and contractorsshould make every effort to tailor the RFPs andthe responses to those RFPs to the specificredevelopment and regulatory goals for the siteunder review The use of generic objectives suchas ldquodefine the nature and extent of contaminationrdquowithout the context of the ultimate site goals canlead to costly time-consuming site investigationsand cleanup activities


4

20 ADVANTAGES AND USES OFINNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGIES

21 Advancements in InnovativeTechnologies

The discussion below illustrates the uses andadvantages of innovative technologies forcharacterization and remediation Over the pastdecade there have been significant advancementsin the development and use of innovativetechnologies Over the next decade technologyadvancements are expected to continue to increasesignificantly as thousands of brownfields sitesacross the nation as well as outside the US arecleaned up

22 Characterization and MonitoringTechnologies

In the past characterizing a contaminated sitetypically included (1) reviewing past records ofthe site (2) drilling one well upgradient of thecontaminated area to obtain backgroundinformation (3) drilling three wells downgradientto locate and characterize the contamination (4)sending the samples to an off-site ContractLaboratory Program (CLP) laboratory and waitingseveral weeks or months for the results and (5)sometimes conducting a geophysical survey tobetter understand the underground flow patternsof contamination This approach which oftenrequired several sampling events andmobilizations to gather sufficient information toaccurately characterize the site and design validcleanup options may not be efficient enough tosupport brownfields redevelopment New

technologies and approaches developed andoptimized over the past 5 to 10 years are nowemerging on the market Such approaches aredesigned to gather information in greater detailand more frequently with immediate or real-timedata output Examples of new technologies andapproaches for characterization activities include (1) hand-held chemical screening tools that takereadings and display results immediately (2)direct-push drilling techniques rigged withdetection devices that collect samples as the probeis penetrating the subsurface and (3) on-sitemobile laboratories that provide results in 24hours or less

New innovative characterization strategies alsoinclude flexible or dynamic work plans whichprovide the basis for a continuous and efficientcharacterization process Under these strategies awork plan is designed to conduct sampling atlocations at which contamination is suspected Ifthe locations investigated are not contaminatedthe sampling plan can be revised on site and thesampling can continue with the new informationobtained used to guide the additional sampling Through such an approach repeated mobilizationsto the same site can be avoided Since the amountof funds available often determines the extent ofcharacterization work done at a site effectivecoupling of inexpensive field techniques withlimited off-site analyses can provide a morecomplete picture of site conditions therebyreducing uncertainty


5

ImplementingData Collection Plans

Plan FieldWork

Conduct and Document Field

Work

PlanningTo Collect Data

Understand What Has Happened

Determine End Goals

Select the Tools

Dynamic Work Plans


Plan FieldWork


Work




Determine End GoalsDetermine End Goals

Select the ToolsSelect the Tools

Dynamic Work Plans

Comprehensive up-front planning is essential toeffectively use innovative strategies forcharacterizing sites Proper planning will ensurethat the only data that will be collected are datathat will lead to decisions about the site and that the data collection process is efficient If knownat the time of characterization the end use andultimate cleanup goals for the site should be usedas the basis for developing a sampling plan thatwill ensure that the correct data are collected thefirst time and will provide sufficient informationto support the design of remediation options Ifthe reuse plan for the site is not fully defined atcharacterization those designing the samplingplan should take advantage of the best informationavailable on the basis of zoning or other generalreuse plans for the area In addition to providingas accurate a picture as possible of the site a well-planned approach can help avoid delays andexpenses associated with unnecessary collectionof data

In designing site characterization plans everyeffort should be made to collect the first time theinformation needed to support future decisionsabout remediation alternatives Because the datarequired for making decisions about remediationtechnologies vary from technology to technologyand from site to site it is essential that contractorscarefully define the data that will be needed toassess remediation options and include those datapoints in their characterization plans

Some sites require the use of more intricateinnovative methods than other sites For examplesites that are relatively uncontaminated withsimple and homogeneous geology and hydrologytypically lend themselves to a simpler collectionand analysis process than sites at whichcomplexities such as fractured rock are present For such sites extensive data typically are neededto identify accurately the vertical and lateralextent of contamination

The planning phase also should include earlycoordination with the state regulatory authority toensure that the state is aware of the work that willbe performed Although state approval generallyis not necessary for characterization activitiesstate ldquobuy-inrdquo at this point will facilitate anyconcurrences or approvals that may be necessaryas the project moves forward to redevelopment Itmay be beneficial to request the statersquos commentson quality assurance and quality control plans orother critical activities and take advantage of theexpertise and experience members of the statestaff have with similar sites

23 Remediation Technologies

For remediation technologies traditionalapproaches of simple containment or ldquodigging andhaulingrdquo off-site can be replaced or augmented bytreatment technologies that use biologicalphysical and chemical and thermal processes Advances have been made in using containment toeliminate the migration of contaminants on site New technologies and containment strategies canbe used for soil sediments sludges groundwatersurface water and leachate A key considerationin selecting technologies at individual sites iscontrol of sources of contamination (hot spots) Insome cases the sources can be removed in othercases they can be contained with or withoutfurther treatment Innovative technologies can beused very effectively as a source control option

The evaluation of remediation options requiresdetailed information about the site including thepast current and planned uses of the site Inevaluating remediation options consideration ofpotential impacts on nearby neighborhoods andpotential long-term liabilities from remediation


6

Reasons for Considering InnovativeTreatment Options Include

bull Cost (both capital and long-termmaintenance costs)

bull Time (when other alternatives requirelong-term stewardship)

bull Permanent destruction (nondestructiveoptions often entail residual risk)

bull Neighborhood concerns (communityand nearby businesses)

bull Logistical considerations (applicabilitywith existing structures and spacerequirement for equipment)

activities must be factored into the decision-making process Decision makers also shouldweigh the costs and benefits of treatingcontaminants against the cost and benefits ofleaving them in place untreated Containmentoptions or the use of institutional controls such asdeed restrictions easements zoning restrictionsor prohibitions against drilling in the area ofcontamination may be considerably quicker andcheaper than treatment alternatives Howeverdecision makers should weigh the full costs ofsuch options including capital costs long-termsampling and analysis costs and replacementcosts for equipment as well as concerns aboutpotential long-term risks associated withcontaminants left in place against the cost optionsthat would permanently remove or destroy thecontaminants

Decision makers alsoshould consider specialconstruction needs duringthe remediation process Innovative technologiesprovide excellentalternatives forremediating brownfieldssites where existingbuildings and otherstructures are to bepreserved and notdamaged For examplesteam injection has beenused successfully at sites where excavation ofcontaminated soils under structures was notfeasible Section 3 of the primer provides moredetailed information about considerations forbrownfields sites

24 Examples

The following examples illustrate how innovativecharacterization and remediation technologiesexpedited cleanup time frames resulted insignificant cost savings and achieved a betterresult than traditional approaches that wereproposed or previously used at the sites

Example 1The city of Newark New Jersey successfully usedinnovative characterization technologies tosupport the redevelopment of a brownfields sitethat consists of approximately 700 acres of publicand private property The project wasadministered by the city of Newark under an EPApilot grant By using innovative characterizationapproaches assessments were completed forportions of the site in only 20 days instead of 120days as originally was anticipated Cost savingswere realized by using a one-time mobilizationand minimizing the cost of analysis required Additional information about this project and thenames of individuals to contact can be found atlthttpwwwepagovr02earthsuperfndbrownfldnewrkcvhtmgt

Example 2The use of innovativecharacterizationapproaches such asimmunoassay kits resultedin a faster and cheapercleanup than originally wasanticipated at theWenatchee Tree FruitFacility in the state ofWashington The site wascontaminated withpesticides Originally itwas estimated that it wouldbe necessary to evacuate

780 tons of soil and transport the soil to an off-siteincinerator at a cost of $1 million The USArmy Corps of Engineers (USACE) proposed theuse of immunoassay kits to guide samplingremoval and disposal decisions in onemobilization effort under a dynamic work plan Using the USACE approach 334 tons of soil werelandfilled and 56 tons incinerated The totalproject cost was approximately $589000 far lessthan the estimate Additional information aboutthis project can be found in the EPA publicationInnovations in Site Characterization Case StudySite Cleanup of the Wenatchee Tree Fruit TestPilot Site Using a Dynamic Work Plan (EPA 542-R-00-009) The publication can be viewed onlineat lthttpwwwclu-inorgpub1htmgt


7

The Brownfields Technology Support Center Can Help

The BTSC can provide assistance to local state and federal governmentbrownfields staff during the RFP process on

bull Preliminary scoping of innovative approaches for site-specific needs

bull Identification of sources of information

bull Description(s) of a technology (or technologies)

Example 3In 1998 six-phase heating (SPH) technology wasimplemented to remediate pools of dense non-aqueous phase liquid (DNAPL) at a formermanufacturing facility near Chicago Illinois Thesite was contaminated with trichloroethylene(TCE) and 111-trichloroethane (TCA) and islocated in a tight heterogeneous silty-clayformation Three sources of contamination (hotspots) were identified each having pools ofDNAPL Before SPH a combination of steaminjection and conventional groundwater and soilvapor extraction (SVE) technologies had been inoperation since 1991 During the seven years of

operation the groundwater extraction and SVEremoved 30000 pounds of TCE and TCA andreduced the groundwater concentration to belowsite-specific risk-based closure levels but werenot successful in reducing the hot spots toacceptable levels SPH successfully removed freephase of DNAPL present in approximately 24000cubic yards of subsurface materials in 130 days The hot spot concentrations were reduced tobelow site-specific risk-based closure levels Acase study on this project can be found on theFederal Remediation Technologies Roundtable(FRTR) case study data base atlthttpwwwfrtrgovgt


8

30 INCORPORATING INNOVATIVE APPROACHES INTO YOUR RFP

31 Types of Information Contained inRequests for Proposals

An RFP serves as the mechanism through whicha site owner or operator procures the contractorthat offers the best approach qualifications andcost estimate for the requested services Thecomponents that typically are found in RFPs forcleaning up hazardous waste sites are

Purpose This section provides a concisestatement of the work the contractor is beingasked to perform for example

ldquoThe City of Pleasantville is soliciting proposalsto select a qualified consulting firm to perform aPhase IIIII Environmental Assessment hellip rdquo

Background and Project Information Thissection provides relevant site information thatcontractors should use to develop theirapproaches and cost estimates (Section 321presents a detailed description of suchinformation)

Scope of Work The scope of work presentsthe key information bidders use to prepare theirproposed methodologies It provides detailedinformation about each task the contractor isbeing asked to perform and clearly identifies theinterim and final deliverables for each task Therequirements in the scope of work also are used

as the basis for comparing the proposalsreceived for technical adequacy

Inquiries This section provides the nametelephone number and address of a contactperson(s) who can answer questions frombidders and provide copies of reports or othersite information that is available to bidders Italso specifies the procedure and deadline forsubmitting inquiries

Proposal Format and Submittal This sectiondescribes the information that must be includedin the written proposal as well as the format tobe used At a minimum the requiredinformation includes

Corporate experience ndash Presents adescription of the contractorrsquos experiencein performing similar projects over acertain period of years (typically the pastthree to five years) and the firmrsquosfamiliarity with applicable regulations andprovides references for the projects listed

Qualifications of key personnel includingsubcontractors ndash Presents a table of staffthat lists the project management teamand other key personnel assigned to theproject including titles functionslocations and availability for the projectand resumes that demonstrate the


9

experience and qualifications of each keystaff member

Organizational chart ndash Shows theresponsibilities and lines of authority forthe project management team and supportstaff

Technical methodology implementationplans and schedule ndash Demonstrates thecontractorrsquos understanding of the scope ofwork and includes measurableperformance objectives and specific tasksdescriptions of deliverables descriptionsof the proposed methodology for eachtask and milestones and schedules forcompleting tasks

Cost proposal ndash Identifies the componentsand format for the cost proposal forexample as a lump sum or a time-and-materials estimate

Quality assurance project plan (QAPP) ndashDescribes the quality assurance (QA) andquality control (QC) requirements forconducting the work

Insurance coverage ndash Presents theinformation required to verify theinsurance program the contractor has inplace to guarantee successful completionof the project

Terms and Conditions This section identifiesthe terms and conditions to which the contractormust adhere Examples of terms and conditionsare

Conflict of interest ndash The RFP shallspecify the contractor must not create asituation designed to influence activitiesor decisions under the project in ways thatcould lead to personal gain for thecontractor or give an improper advantageto third parties in their dealings with thesite owner or operator

Compliance with relevant laws andregulations ndash The RFP shall clearlyidentify by reference the laws andregulations that apply to the project

Termination of contract ndash The RFP shallclearly identify conditions that will resultin termination of the contract

Validity of the proposal ndash The RFP shallspecify the time period for which theproposal is to remain valid from the dateof submittal

Schedule of Events This section identifiesdeadlines for such events as the submittal ofquestions and responses to questions and the bidopening date

Evaluation Criteria The criteria that will beused to evaluate proposals are discussed in thissection A common evaluation method is toassign points to each of the dominant criteriasuch as corporate qualifications to provide therequired services the contractorrsquos reputation forcompetence in performing similar work theprofessional and educational experience of keypersonnel to be assigned to the project theproposed cost to complete the project and thecontractorrsquos technical approach for completingthe project A weighting factor is applied to thepoints assigned to each of the criteria typicallybased upon the importance of that criterion toeach project

For all RFPs for site cleanups the technicalapproach must be evaluated on the extent towhich the approach is based upon sound scienceand logical strategies For proposals involvinginnovative approaches and technologies thecontractorrsquos proposed strategies must includespecific components to ensure the success of theproject Those components should be defined inthe evaluation criteria and presented in the RFPso that prospective bidders will understand theimportance of the components to the success ofthe project Those components include

A direct and clear correlation between theproposed analytical methods and thedecisions to be made and the data qualityrequired

Maximization of the use and capabilitiesof field analytical tools to supportdecisions


10

AssessingContractor

Capabilities forStreamlined SiteInvestigations

(EPA 542-R-00-001)

This documentfamiliarizes andencouragesbrownfields decisionmakers toinvestigate andemploy innovative

methods for characterizing their sites and to assistdecision makers in assessing contractorscapabilities and familiarity with those methods aswell as to suggest additional items that contractorsshould consider in conducting their activities Thedocument can be viewed online atlthttpbrownfieldstscorggt or ordered through theNational Service Center for EnvironmentalPublications (NSCEP) at 1 (800) 490-9198

Minimization of the number of fieldmobilizations

Thorough evaluation and consideration ofthe use of treatment options that treatwaste in place

Minimization of long-term maintenanceand monitoring requirements

Minimization of restrictions on future siteuse

Those considerations are key to the success ofmany brownfields projects for which anefficient and expeditious cleanup is required andthe site must be made available for a specificreuse

Oral Presentations It is becoming morecommon to require contractors to make oralpresentations in conjunction with the submittalof their written proposals For example ascreening of written proposals for such keyelements as corporate or personnelqualifications may be conducted Those bidderswho qualify would then make oral presentationsto the selection officials about their technicalmethodology Oral presentations provide amore interactive framework than writtenproposals and can expedite the selectionprocess

In conducting oral presentations selectionofficials should prepare in advance a standardlist of questions to ask each contractor to ensurethat officials are asking appropriate questionsand will obtain the information they need Using a standard list of questions also ensurethat all contractors are treated fairly andequitably during the oral presentations Thedocument Assessing Contractor Capabilities forStreamlined Site Investigations provides a seriesof questions that selection officials can usewhen interviewing contractors The box aboveprovides additional information about thedocument

32 Incorporating InnovativeTechnologies into the RFP

Currently many RFPs for characterization andremediation work (1) allow bidders to includein their proposals options for innovativeapproaches in addition to traditionalapproaches (2) encourage bidders to submitalternative approaches including separate costproposals for the innovative approaches or (3)require bidders to provide such information Although such scenarios encourage contractorsto consider innovative approaches theresponsibility for the thought process ofconsidering and selecting technology optionsrests solely with the prospective bidders

Individuals preparing RFPs should identifyopportunities to encourage contractors to useinnovative technologies by (1) ensuring that allavailable non-confidential relevant site-specificinformation including the goals for cleanup andredevelopment is included in the RFP so thatbidders can identify appropriate technologyoptions and (2) specifying potential options forinnovative technologies that must be consideredon the basis of use of those technologies atsimilar sites The two steps are discussed inmore detail in sections 321 and 322


11

Site-Specific Drivers

Redevelopment objectives

Past use

Geology

Climate

Structures

Water bodies



Past use

Geology

Climate

Structures

Water bodies

Providing comprehensive site-specificinformation and taking advantage of experiencesat other sites reduces the likelihood thatarbitrary decisions will be made abouttechnologies and increases the chances ofsuccess in cleaning up sites correctly the firsttime Those preparing RFPs and prospectivecontractors must understand the redevelopmentgoals for the site if they have been establishedand how the goals affect the selection ofcharacterization and remediation technologies If the redevelopment goals have not beenestablished the proposed zoning and potentialgeneral uses of the site (residential commercialor industrial) should be used as a guide forselecting technologies In all cases presentingsite-specific goals rather than using genericboilerplate language in the discussion of cleanupobjectives will better guide the selection oftechnologies

321 Site-Specific Information to beIncluded

Studies and reports completed for manybrownfields sites typically referred to as PhaseI II or III site assessments or site remediationplans are an excellent source of information forcrafting RFPs for characterization andremediation work The information provided insuch documents should be included in the RFP As a cleanup progresses through thecharacterization monitoring and remediationphases the level of detail available about thesite increases significantly enhancing the abilityto make decisions about technologies

Listed below are the types of informationtypically found in site reports and studies

Phase I Reports ndash Environmental Assessments

Physical information about the site includinglocation size prominent features geologyphysiography and environmental setting

Historical information about the site and itsadjacent properties including chronology ofownership past and present operations andprocesses inventory of products and wasteshandled at the site locations of product andwaste storage and disposal areas transcriptsof interviews with knowledgeableindividuals and reviews of pastenvironmental investigations and cleanups

Results of physical reconnaissance of the site

Recommendations for the Phase II work

Development of cleanup levels in accordancewith federal state or local regulations inlight of future land use

Development of corrective action alternativesand detailed evaluations of each alternativeusing such criteria as effectivenessefficiency implementability and cost

Presentation of preferred remediationalternatives

Phase II Reports ndash Environmental Assessments

Site maps that indicate all areas of concernidentified in the Phase I environmentalassessment

Locations of sampling grids for eachenvironmental medium

Results of analysis of samples from eachsampling location

Rationale for selecting sampling locationsand analytical parameters

Description of sampling protocol andanalytical methods

Description of QAQC procedures


12

The Brownfields TechnologySupport Center Can Help

bull Help to identify qualifications to implementinnovative approaches

bull Help to determine the QA and QC requirements tosupport streamlined approaches for the project

bull Help in the selection of site-specific evaluationcriteria and weighting factors to determine thesuccess of innovative approaches

bull Help to define the site-specific information that canbe included in the RFP to encourage innovativeapproaches

Phase III Reports ndashEnvironmentalAssessments andCorrective Action andRemediation Plans

Information aboutthe nature effectsand magnitude ofcontamination

In addition to thePhase I II and IIIreports other sourcesof publicly availableinformation about the site or the area in thevicinity of the site may provide useful informationfor the RFP For example many states requirestudies to identify leaks from underground storagetanks Individuals preparing an RFP shouldresearch thoroughly information about the sitechecking with the engineering department of thecity state regulatory officials and others whohave knowledge of the site or who may be able toprovide past reports and studies Table 3-1

provides additionalexamples of publiclyavailable documentsand reports thatcontain site-specificinformation orinformation about thearea adjacent to ornear a site that couldenhance the quality ofan RFP Commonlyavailable documentssuch as utilityrecords can provideuseful information in

a variety of ways For example older recordswill show the names of businesses that werelocated at the site which may indicate the typesof activities conducted and the contaminantspotentially generated Utility records also canshow the layout of water supply lines andservice structures potential pathways forexposure at the site The Internet and otherelectronic means of dissemination give potentialbidders easy access to such documents

TABLE 3-1PUBLICLY AVAILABLE DOCUMENTS AND REPORTS THAT PROVIDE SITE

INFORMATION

DocumentsReports

Type of Information Provided

Source of theDocumentReport

SiteHistoryand Past

Uses

Assessment ofPotential

Contaminantsof Concern

(COC)

Assessmentof COCsMigration

Assessment ofSensitive

Environmentsin the Vicinity

of the Site

Assessmentof Potential

Characterizationor Remediation

Options

Superfund Recordsof Decision (RODs)for target sites or fornearby or adjacentproperties

7 7 7 7 7 AbstracthttpwwwepagovsuperfundHard copy National TechnicalInformation ServiceSpringfield Virginia 22161(703) 605-6000 orlthttpwwwntisgovgt

USGS Reports 7 7 httpusgsgov

Utility Records 7 7 Local Utility Company

Tax Records 7 7 State or Local GovernmentOffice

Administrative andEnforcement Orders

7 7 7 EPA or State Public RecordOffice

Soil ConservationStudies

7 7 httpusdagov


13

Technical Assistance to Brownfields (TAB) Program

lthttpwwwtoscprogramorgtab-overviewhtmlgt

The TAB program has been established to helpcommunities cleanup and redevelop properties thathave been damaged by or undervalued because ofenvironmental contamination through workshopssuch as those on leadership training riskassessment brownfields processes siteassessment and cleanup alternatives

Center Program ContactsGreat LakesMid-Atlantic

Lisa Szymecko1 (800) 490-3890szymeckoegrmsuedu

Great PlainsRocky MountainsBlase Leven(785) 532-0780balevenksuedu

Terrie Boguski(913) 780-3328mboguskitfsnet

NortheastWilliam Librizzi(873) 596-5846librizziadminnjitedu

South amp SouthwestBob Schmitter(404) 894-8064bobschmittergtrigatechedu

WesternMichael Fernandez(541) 737-4023MichaelFernandezorstedu

National Program ContactNigel Fields Program AssistantUS EPA (MC 8703)1200 Pennsylvania Ave NWWashington DC 20460(202) 564-6936fieldsnigelepagov

322 Technologies Used At Similar Sites

In addition to including site-specific informationindividuals preparing RFPs also should take theinitiative to provide suggestions for the use ofinnovative technologies at their site Taking thatextra step will (1) demonstrate to prospectivebidders that the decision makers for the contractare committed to the use of innovativetechnologies and (2) facilitate the process ofreviewing proposals and selecting the mostqualified contractor However identifyinginnovative technologies during the preparation ofan RFP is a challenging step particularly forindividuals who have little or no technicalexperience in site cleanup activities a commonsituation in the case of brownfields sites at whichthe economic development staff or other staff whotraditionally do not prepare RFPs for site cleanupwork frequently are responsible for solicitingproposals Fortunately a number of excellentresources are available that provide informationabout innovative technologies and theirapplication at sites

Those resources including the BrownfieldsTechnology Support Center EPA RegionalBrownfields Coordinators the EPA NationalCenter for Environmental Research InformationUSACE and the hazardous substance researchcenters including the Technical Assistance toBrownfields (TAB) program are available todiscuss potential technology options for individualsites and to provide assistance in sorting throughthe large amounts of published information

The Directory of Technology Support Services toBrownfields Localities (EPA 542-B-99-005)provides information about EPA offices non-government organizations funded by EPA andother federal agencies that may be able to provideexpertise to assist in the selection of technologiesfor characterizing and cleaning up brownfieldsproperties The directory is available online atlthttpbrownfieldstscorggt The box aboveprovides additional information about the TABProgram

Reports and many online databases list newtechnologies and discuss how they are usedwhether they have been demonstrated and proveneffective and reliable the types of conditions

under which they have been the most effectiveand their performance specifications One ofthose resources is EPAlsquos Treatment Technologiesfor Site Cleanup Annual Status Report (ASR)(ninth edition) April 1999 (EPA 542-R-99-001) The report also is available online at lthttpclu-inorgpub1htmgt

Listed below are examples of site characterizationand remediation technology databases

EPA REmediation And CHaracterization Innovative Technologies (EPA REACH IT) atlthttpwwwepareachitorggt


14

Road Map to Understanding Innovative Technology Options for BrownfieldsInvestigation and Cleanup Second Edition

(EPA 542-B-99-009)

The Road Map to Understanding Innovative Technology Options for BrownfieldsInvestigation and Cleanup is a companion document to the Tool Kit of InformationResources for Brownfields Investigation and Cleanup Used together theresources link technology options to the general steps involved in thecharacterization and cleanup of a brownfields site The road map is intended forthe various individuals involved in or affected by the redevelopment of brownfieldssites whether public projects private developments or projects pursued underpublic-private partnerships The second edition has been expanded significantlyto include new and updated resources The document can be viewed online atlthttpbrownfieldstscorg or ordered through the National Service Center forEnvironmental Publications (NSCEP) at 1 (800) 490-9198

Internet TechnologySeminars

EPArsquos Technology InnovationOffice offers an InternetTechnology Seminar Series as

an efficient and cost effective alternative totraditional conferences and classroom training Theseminars are open to the public Between theinitiation of the series in the fall of 1998 and January2001 EPA offered 28 Internet seminars Topicsinclude

bull Dynamic Data Collection Strategy SystematicPlanning for Field-Based Measurements

bull Specific Field Analytical Technologies(Monitoring VOCs in Groundwater Immunoassayfor PCBs)

bull Cleanup Approaches (Permeable ReactiveWalls In-Situ Bioremediation NaturalAttenuation)

More than 4500 persons in both public and privatesectors have participated in the seminars Participants have joined from over 350municipalities in 49 states and over 20 countries onsix continents EPArsquos Office of Research andDevelopment EPArsquos Office of Solid Waste the USArmy Corps of Engineers and the InterstateTechnology and Regulatory Cooperative Workgrouphave co-sponsored and contributed to the seminars

The schedule and descriptions of upcomingseminars as well as information about anddescriptions of past seminars (which have beenarchived) are available online at

lthttpclu-inorgstudiogt

For more information about the seminars the centralpoint of contact is Jeff Heimerman of the EPATechnology Innovation Office at (703) 603-7191 orltheimermanjeffepagovgt

Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable(FRTR) Field Sampling and AnalysisTechnologies Matrix and Reference Guide atlthttpwwwfrtrgovsitegt

FRTR Screening Matrix and Reference Guideat lthttpwwwfrtrgovmatrix2top_pagehtmlgt

FRTR Cost and Performance Reports andInternet site at lthttpwwwfrtrgovcostgt

US Department of Energy (DOE) PreferredAlternatives Matrix atlthttpwwwemdoegovdefinegt

DOE Vendor Database for EnvironmentalApplications at lthttpwwwcmstorgvendorgt

Other resources include the EPA InternetTechnology Seminar Series and the Road Map toUnderstanding Innovative Technology Options forBrownfields Investigation and Cleanup TheInternet Technology Seminar Series providesonline seminar sessions to discuss innovativeremediation approaches Each topic is packagedin a 2- to 2 frac12-hour session Participants can listento presenters over the Internet or telephone andview presentation slides online See the boxes tothe right and below for additional informationabout the Internet seminars and the road map

Table 3-2 provides a comprehensive list ofinformation resources and the types of informationeach provides Appendix A presents moreinformation about these and other resources


15

TABLE 3-2EXAMPLES OF PUBLICLY AVAILABLE INFORMATION RESOURCES

( of 3)

Resource

TYPES OF INFORMATION

RemedialEvaluation

CharacterizationStrategiesPlans

CharacterizationTechnologies (Monitoring

Health and SafetyAnalytical)

RemediationTechnologies

Site TypesAddressed

ContaminantsAddressed

CostInformation

PerformanceInformation

GeneralInformation on

Characterizationand Remediation

Technologies

EPA REACH IThttpwwwepareachitorg

7 7 7 7 7 7

FRTR Case Studieshttpwwwfrtrgovcost

7 7 7 7 7

FRTR Remediation TechnologiesScreening Matrixhttpwwwfrtrgovmatrix2top_pagehtml

7 7 7 7 7

FRTR Characterization TechnologiesMatrixhttpwwwfrtrgovsite

7 7 7 7 7

CLU-INhttpclu-inorg

7

Citizensrsquo Guides to Innovative TreatmentTechnologieshttpclu-inorgpub1htm

7 7

A Guideline for Dynamic Workplans andField Analytics The Keys to Cost-EffectiveSite Characterization and Cleanuphttpclu-inorgpub1htm

7

A Dynamic Site Investigation AdaptiveSampling and Analysis Program forOperable Unit 1 at Hanscom Air ForceBase Bedford Massachusettshttpclu-inorgpub1htm

7

Application of Field-BasedCharacterization Tools in the WaterfrontVoluntary Settinghttpclu-inorgpub1htm

7


(Page 2 of 3)


Resource


RemedialEvaluation





Site TypesAddressed


CostInformation




Technologies

16

Assessing Contractor Capabilities forStreamlined Site InvestigationsEPA 542-R-00-001httpbrownfieldstscorg

Assessment of Phytoremediation as an In Situ Technique for CleaningOil-Contaminated Siteshttpclu-inorgpub1htm

7 7

Directory of Technology Support Servicesto Brownfields LocalitiesEPA 542-B-99-005httpbrownfieldstscorg

7

Field Analytical and Site CharacterizationTechnologies - Summary of ApplicationsEPA 542-R-97-011 httpclu-inorgpub1htm

7 7 7 7

Phytoremediation Decision Treehttpclu-inorgpub1htm

7 7

Quality Assurance Guidance forConducting Brownfields Site AssessmentsEPA 540-R-98-038 httpclu-inorgpub1htm

7

Road Map to Understanding InnovativeTechnology Options for BrownfieldsInvestigation and Cleanup Second EditionEPA 542-B-99-009httpbrownfieldstscorg

7 7 7 7 7

Tool Kit of Information Resources forBrownfields Investigation and CleanupEPA 542-B-99-009httpclu-inorgpub1htm

7


(Page 3 of 3)


Resource


RemedialEvaluation





Site TypesAddressed


CostInformation




Technologies

17

Field Analytic Technologies Encyclopedia(FATE)httpfateclu-inorg

7

DOE Vendor Database for EnvironmentalApplicationshttpwwwcmstorgvendor

7

Hazardous Waste Site Characterization (onCD-ROM)httpwwwepagovncepihom

7

Ames Laboratorys EnvironmentalProtection Scienceshttpwwwepsciameslabgov

7

Evaluation of Selected EnvironmentalDecision Support Softwarehttpclu-inorgpub1htm

7 7

Uncertainty Management ExpeditingCleanup Through Contingency Planninghttpclu-inorgpub1htm

7

Environmental Technology VerificationReports Site Characterization andMonitoring Technologies (43 verified as of9100)httpwwwepagovetv0202_mainhtm

7 7 7 7 7

Treatment Technologies for Site Cleanup Annual Status Report (ninth edition)EPA 542-R-99-001httpclu-inorgproductsasrindex2html

7 7 7

NotesSee Appendix A for details on how to access the resources


18

323 Special Considerationsfor Brownfields Sites

For many brownfields sites special considerationsmust be factored into the selection ofcharacterization and remediation technologies Typically such considerations affect brownfieldssites that are located in residential or businessareas that contain buildings and structures thatwill remain in place and that are targeted for aspecific reuse Among the special considerationsthat could significantly influence the selection ofcharacterization or remediation technologies

The characterization and or remediationprocess must be completed within a definedtime frame for redevelopment

Community concerns about the potential risksposed by cleanup activities must be addressed

Noise and traffic during cleanup must beminimized in residential neighborhoods

Access to the contamination present is difficultbecause the contamination is adjacent to or

under a building or other structure that willremain in place

Site activities must not cause damage tohistoric buildings located on site or near thesite

The impact of site activities on on-goingbusinesses must be minimized

The proposed location of new buildingsstructures and parking lots limits the feasibilityof some characterization and remediationoptions

The effects of long-term monitoring andremediation activities must be consideredrelative to the proposed site design

Table 3-3 provides a general overview ofcontaminants and media at five common types ofbrownfields sites Tables 3-4a 3-4b and 3-4cpresent special considerations related tocommonly used characterization technologies thatmay influence the selection of those technologiesfor individual sites Table 3-5 provides similarinformation for remediation technologies

TABLE 3-3SELECTED TYPICAL BROWNFIELDS SITES CONTAMINANTS AND MEDIA

No Site Type Contaminants Media

1 Dry CleaningOperation

Solvent containing halogenated VOCs and SVOCs such as PCE Soil groundwater surfacewater and sediment

2 Wood TreatingOperation

TPH PAHs PCP creosote and metals such as chromated copperarsenate (CCA)

Soil sludge groundwatersurface water and sediment

3 Gas Station andTank Farm

TPH BTEX VOCs and SVOCs Soil groundwater surfacewater and sediment

4 Railroad Yard TPH phthalates carbazole dibenzofurans dieldrin PAHs metals(lead copper zinc nickel antimony and mercury) andchlorinated and non-chlorinated solvents

Soil sediment sludgegroundwater and surfacewater

5 ManufacturedGas Plant (MGP)

Non-halogenated VOCs and non-halogenated SVOCs such asPAHs and carcinogenic PAHs including naphthalenephenanthrene and anthracene chrysene and benzo(a)pyrene


Notes VOC = Volatile organic compoundSVOC = Semivolatile organic compound PCE = Perchloroethylene TPH = Total petroleum hydrocarbon

PAH = Polyaromatic hydrocarbons PCP = PentachlorophenolBTEX = Benzene toluene ethylbenzene and xylenes


19

TABLE 3-4a1

SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS AT BROWNFIELDS SITES FOR SELECTING INNOVATIVE CHARACTERIZATION TECHNOLOGIES ndash

Examples of Sample Access Collection and Extraction Tools

Technology

CONSIDERATIONS

Potential Impacton Buildings andOther Structures

Impact to NearbyBusinesses

or Community MediaRange of Nominal

Working DepthSample Acquisition

Time2Status of

Technology

Relative Cost perSample

or per Analysis

Hollow-Stem Auger Yes (when it is performedin close proximity to

buildings orstructures it may

cause formation andfoundation fractures)

Yes(potential disruption

resulting fromvibration noise andfoundation fractures)

Soil andGroundwater (forunconsolidated

formations)

Up to 200 feet Immediate Commerciallyavailable and

routinely used fieldtechnology

Average

Directional Drilling No No Soil andGroundwater (forunconsolidated

formations)

Up to 100 feet Rapid Commerciallyavailable and


Expensive

Cable Tool No Yes (potential disruption

from noises)

Soil andGroundwater (for

consolidatedformations)

Less than 5000 feet Rapid Commerciallyavailable and


Expensive

Cone Penetrometer(CPT)

No No Soil Groundwater Up to 100 feet Immediate Commerciallyavailable and


Average

Direct Push Sampler No No Soil Soil Gas andGroundwater



Least expensive

Notes1 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 (httpwwwfrtrgovsite) All techniques are site-specific2 Immediate = generally less than 10 minutes rapid = generally less than 1 hour


20

TABLE 3-4bSPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS AT BROWNFIELDS SITES

FOR SELECTING INNOVATIVE CHARACTERIZATION TECHNOLOGIES ndashExamples of Sample Analysis Tools for VOCs SVOCs and Pesticides

(Page 1 of 2)

TECHNOLOGY

CONSIDERATIONS

Media ThroughputStatus

of Technology Advantages Limitations

In Situor Ex Situ

Technology Unit Cost Data Application

Laser-InducedFluorescence (LIF)

Soil andGroundwater

Average of 300 feetper day continuous

reading

Commerciallyavailable androutinely used

field technology

bull Continuous real-time data

bull No soil cuttingsbull Quick

decontamination

bull Expensive on smallprojects

bull Large equipmentbull Difficult mobilization for

rough terrain

In situ Rental $2000 to$3000 per dayincluding operators

Delineation of grosscontamination monitorwell placement sourceidentification andgeological dataprofile

GasChromatographyMass Spectrometry(GCMS)

SoilGroundwater and

Gas (extractionrequired except

for gas)

30 - 50 samples perday


field technology

bull Definitivecompoundidentification

bull Identifycomponents thatcannot be detectedby PID and FID

bull Available inportable units

bull Expensivebull High degree of

experience needed tooperate instrumentation

Ex situ Purchase $50000 -$100000 per unitRental $5000 permonth

Site assessments siteinvestigations sitecharacterizations andcleanup monitoring

Gas Chromatography- Photo-IonizationDetector (GC - PID)

SoilGroundwater and


for gas)



field technology

bull Produce definitivedata with properQAQC

bull Proven techniquebull No solvents

needed for VOCanalysis

bull Need experiencedoperator

bull Sensitive to moisturebull Dual columns are

required for positiveidentification of analytes

Ex situ Purchase $10000 to$50000Rental $1000 to$3000 per month

Site assessments siteinvestigations sitecharacterization cleanupmonitoring and removalmonitoring

Gas Chromatography- Flame-IonizationDetector (GC - FID)

SoilGroundwater and


for gas)



field technology




bull FID is stable low-maintenancedetector


bull Dual columns arerequired for positiveidentification of analytes





(Page 2 of 2)


TECHNOLOGY

CONSIDERATIONS



In Situor Ex Situ


21

Detector Tubes(ColorimetricIndicator Tubes)

SoilGroundwater and


for gas)

gt 100measurements per

day


field technology

bull Small sizebull Easy to usebull Rapid analysisbull Cost effective

bull Semiquantitative(subjective) results

Ex situ PurchaseTube $3 - $10 pertubePump $300 - $400

Health and safetymonitoring

Immunoassay Soil andGroundwater

up to 50 samplesper day

Commerciallyavailable

technology withmoderate field

experience


bull Interference from similarcompounds

bull Matrix-dependent results(soil)

Ex situ $10 - $50 per sample(supplies and reagentsonly)

Site assessments siteinvestigations sitecharacterization andcleanup monitoring

NotesAdapted 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 Matrixby the FRTR (httpwwwfrtrgovsite)


22

TABLE 3-4cSPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS AT BROWNFIELDS SITES

FOR SELECTING INNOVATIVE CHARACTERIZATION TECHNOLOGIES ndashExamples of Sample Analysis Tools for Inorganics and Metals

TECHNOLOGY

CONSIDERATIONS

Media ThroughputStatus of

Technology Advantages Limitations

In situ Ex situ


Inductively-CoupledPlasma-AtomicEmissionSpectroscopy (ICP-AES)

SoilGroundwater and


for gas)

25 to 50 samplesper day


technologywith limited

fieldexperience

bull Multielement techniquebull Low detection limitbull Definitive data with

appropriate QAQC

bull Expensivebull Interference from iron

and uranium

Ex situ Expensive Site assessment sitecharacterization andlong-term monitoring

X-Ray Fluorescence SoilGroundwater and

Gas (extractionrequired for gas)

bull 50 to 100samples perday (ex situ)

bull gt 100 samplesper day (insitu)


fieldtechnology

bull Portablebull Relatively easy to usebull Fast and multielement

analysisbull Non-destructive techniquebull Definitive results with

appropriate QAQC

bull High detection limit(tens to thousands ofparts per million)

bull Involves the use ofradioactive sources

bull Matrix-variable results

In situ andEx situ

Purchase $20000 -$60000Rental $1000 to$2000 per week

Site characterizationssite assessments andmonitoring of remedialactivities

Mercury VaporAnalyzers

Soil and Gas Hundreds ofmeasurements

per day


technologywith moderate

fieldexperience

bull Portablebull Easy to usebull Rapid response

bull Potential interferencefrom sulfur

Ex situ Purchase $5000 -$7000Rental $400 to $700per week

Health and safetymonitoring identifyinghot spots or sources andidentifying locations forconfirmatory samples



23

TABLE 3-5SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS AT BROWNFIELD SITES ndash

Examples of Remediation Technologies(Page 1 of 3)

TECHNOLOGY

CONSIDERATIONS

In situ Ex situ

TechnologySpace Requirement for

Treatment

PotentialImpact toBuildings

and Structures1

Impact to Nearby

Businesses2 orCommunity3

RemediationTime Frame4 Cost Range5

Frequencyof Use

Status ofTechnology

TargetedContaminant

(OrganicsMetals)

Targeted Media(Groundwater

Soil Sludge)Management of

Residues Reuse Limitation6

SVE In situ Treatment areas will be thesame size as the

contamination area Designated area is requiredto house the aboveground

treatment unit (egcompressor and emission

control unit)

No Yes(Potential vapor

buildup in basementswithin the radiusinfluence of airinjection wells)

Contaminantspecific

$10 - $40 cy Full Scale Semivolatileand volatile

organics

Soil Yes(Emission control unit

is required)

Maybe restrictedfor residential useduring remediation

Bioventing In situ Treatment area will be thesame size as the


treatment unit (egblower)



Contaminantspecific


organics

Soil None(No additional processis required to treat air

emission)


Phytoremediation In situ Treatment area will be thesame size as the

contamination area

Yes(Potentialfoundation

fracture causedby root

penetrations)

No Long $60000 -$100000 peracre (50 cm

deep)

Emerging Organics Soil and Sludge Yes(Treatment is required

for destruction ofconcentrated

contaminants stored inthe plants)

NaturalAttenuation

In situ No treatment area isrequired

No No Long Site specific Full Scale Organics andinorganics

GroundwaterSoil and Sludge

None(Natural attenuation is apassive technology no

action in terms oftreatment)

ChemicalOxidation

In situ Treatment area will be thesame size as the


treatment unit such aspumps and chemical

injection unit

Yes (Potential

formation andfoundation

fractures causedby pressure

buildup fromchemical

reaction andinjection)

Yes(Potential pressure

buildup from chemicalreaction and high-pressure injection

system)

Short Site-specific Full Scale Organics andMetals

Groundwater None(Contaminants areconverted into non-

hazardous products)




TECHNOLOGY

CONSIDERATIONS

In situ Ex situ


Treatment


and Structures1

Impact to Nearby



Frequencyof Use

Status ofTechnology

TargetedContaminant

(OrganicsMetals)




24

Solidification Stabilization


contamination area

No Yes(Traffic congestion

from heavyequipment)

Short $40 - $60 cy- shallow

$150 - $250 cy - deep

Full Scale Metals Soil and Sludge None(Contaminants are

immobilized and left inplace)

Landfarming Ex situ Landfarming requires avast footprint because soilor sludge will be spreadout in one 18-inch lift


during earth-movingoperation and air

quality issuespotential volatile air

emissions)

Average lt $75cy(Only

includes costsof excavationplacement of

soil on aprepared

liner and exsitu

treatment)

Full Scale Organics Soil and Sludge Yes(Emission control may

be required)

Low TemperatureThermalDesorption

Ex situ Staging and treatment areaoutside of the

contaminated zone isrequired

No Yes(Potential noise

vibration and trafficcongestion

potential volatile airemissions)

Short $40 - $300ton

(excludingexcavation

transport andutilities)


be required)

Air Sparging In situ Treatment area will be thesame size as the


treatment unit

No No Average $150000 -$350000 per

acre (only 1

estimate)

Full Scale Organics Groundwater Yes(Emission control may

be required)

Dual PhaseExtraction



treatment unit

No No Average $2500 -$4000 permonth for

dual pumpingsystem

Full Scale Organics Groundwater Yes(Additional treatment

may be required for theair emissions andproduced water)

Directionalextraction wellsmight be necessaryfor recreational-related andresidential areareuse




TECHNOLOGY

CONSIDERATIONS

In situ Ex situ


Treatment


and Structures1

Impact to Nearby



Frequencyof Use

Status ofTechnology

TargetedContaminant

(OrganicsMetals)




25

ThermallyEnhanced SVE



treatment unit

Yes(Potential


fracture fromhigh-pressure

injection system- if steam is

used Inaddition the useof steam on clayformation maycause settling)

Yes(Potential disruption

due to potentialdamage to buildings

and structurespotential vapor build-

up in basementswithin the radius ofinfluence and air

emissions)

Short $43cy forVOCs

$80 - $100cyfor SVOCs

Full Scale Organics Soil and Sludge Yes (Additional treatment


Landfill Ex situ Treatment area will be thesame as the contamination

area


during landfillconstruction

noise vibration andpotential air emissions

from earth-movingactivities)

Short $175000 peracre (RCRA

D)$225000 peracre (RCRA

C)

Full Scale Organics andmetals

Soil and Sludge Yes(Additional treatment

may be required for theleachate and air

emissions)

Reuse is limited toactivities that willnot disturb theintegrity of the capsuch as a parkinglot or a golf course

Bioreactor Ex situ Treatment area will be thesame size as the


treatment unit

No Yes(Traffic congestion airemissions noise and

vibration during earth-moving operations)

Average Site-specific Full Scale Organics Groundwater None(Contaminants areconverted into non-

hazardous products)

Notes1 Potential damage might be in the form of foundation fracture2 Disruptions might be in the form of noise vibration traffic from heavy equipment and air emissions

during remediation stages3 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

4 Long = more than 3 years for in situ soil more than 1 year for ex situ soil and more than 10 years for waterAverage = 1 - 3 years for in situ soil 05 - 1 year for ex situ soil and 3 - 10 years for groundwaterShort = less than 1 year for in situ soil less than 05 year for ex situ soil and less than 3 years forgroundwater

5 Adapted from the Technologies Screening Matrix of the FRTR (httpwwwfrtrgovsite)6 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 publicpark or a residential area


26

324 Examples of RFP Formatsfor Brownfields Sites

This section presents examples of two RFPformats for brownfields sites that illustrate howinnovative approaches are incorporated into RFPs Only portions of the language in the RFPs areincluded

A national brownfields site assessment pilot cityissued an RFP to solicit services to perform aPhase IIIII environmental assessment for a 1200-acre site in the city The site is designated forreuse as an agribusiness park because it hasextensive infrastructure suitable to serveagribusiness needs The language used in the RFPwas

ldquoOption A Provide costs for each boring andor testfor an estimated 50 temporary boring wells

bull Temporary Well The cost to construct andinstall a temporary well shall be quoted on a perlinear foot basis

bull Soil Sampling BTEX using Method OA-1 bull Groundwater Sampling BTEX using Method

OA-1 base neutral and acid extractables inwater using USEPA Method 8270 rdquo

ldquoOption B Cost for each boring andor test describedabove in Option A shall be provided by using a directpush method with a mobile lab for an estimated 50temporary boring wells Describe whom the lab iscertified by or the time frame for obtainingcertification In addition indicate if more stringentstandards will be applied to ensure qualityassurancequality control and explain them State thelevel of expertise that the project operator has withthis equipment Describe the cost savings advantagesof this approachrdquo

The RFP encouraged potential bidders to use aninnovative approach by specifying a technologyin this case direct-push technology The RFPprompted contractors to provide two optionalapproaches traditional drilling with off-sitelaboratory analysis and the direct-push methodwith on-site mobile laboratory analysis The RFP

requested the total cost for each option and adescription of the cost savings anticipated throughthe use of the innovative technology In this RFPthe city established the requirements for the costformat using the traditional approach in this caseauger drilling while leaving flexibility for the costformat for the innovative approach Defining theinnovative technology in the RFP makes it easierfor decision makers who have only limitedunderstanding of innovative approaches to reviewproposals

On the other hand the reference to specificmethods may discourage contractors fromproposing alternative approaches By adding thephrase ldquoor equivalentrdquo to the languagebrownfields communities can encouragecontractors to propose solutions that provide dataof a sufficient quality to support decision-makingneeds Communities should avoid absolutelanguage and instead ensure that analyses andcleanup techniques are relevant to the decisions tobe made and if known the ultimate or proposedsite use

A second pilot city issued its RFP for siteinvestigations that were being conducted in itsefforts to redevelop a 214-acre area along a creek The planned future use is commercialredevelopment The proposal encouraged the useof innovative characterization approaches but didnot define specific options The language in theRFP stated

ldquoThe contractor shall test for the presence of variouscontaminants using field screening samplingtechniques and innovative technologies whereappropriate rdquo

The ldquoopen-endedrdquo or general style of languageallows a wide range of responses by thecontractors The disadvantage of the approach isthat it is difficult for decision makers who are notfamiliar with the proposed options to compare andevaluate proposals


27

40 EVALUATING CONTRACTORSrsquo PROPOSALS

41 Evaluating the Proposed Methodology

When evaluating proposals decision makersshould carefully assess the reasonableness andcompleteness of the information submitted foreach technical task Decision makers also shouldbe confident that the methodology in the selectedproposal is appropriate for the site and that thecontractorrsquos proposed work activities will notcause damage or pollution problems Proposalsfor site cleanup activities typically presentinformation that requires an understanding of thetechnical concepts of site characterization andremediation Discussed below are technicalactivities typically addressed in proposals forinnovative (and traditional) approaches forcleaning up sites Some of the informationpresented may include more technical detail thandecision makers typically see in proposals Whenin-house expertise is not available and for thosewho seek assistance to better understand thetechnical concepts a number of resources areavailable as noted in Section 322 Theassistance of the resources listed there is free andusually provided on a quick-turnaround basis

411 Characterization Technologies

Contractors that propose innovative sampling andcleanup technologies may include field-based sitecharacterization technologies to supplementtraditional approaches to sampling and analysis Field-based technologies span a broad spectrum of

analytical techniques ranging from indicator tubesto field laboratories that provide gaschromatographymass spectrometry (GCMS)analysis Because innovative technologies areused to expedite characterization and cleanupprocesses and reduce the costs of those activitiesthe contractor should demonstrate how innovativesite characterization technologies would achievethat goal for the site

In evaluating proposals the decision makers mustcarefully evaluate the contractorrsquos proposedapproach for developing a QA plan and samplingplan for the site The contractor must clearly layout the decision logic that will be followed indetermining data needs and describe how theproposed approach for collecting and analyzingsamples will support the decision logic A cleardelineation of the logic also will assist inpresenting information to and obtainingconcurrence from regulatory officials for the useof innovative options The logic used and plansprepared are essential in defending any decisionsabout the selection of remediation approaches atthe site

Field-based site characterization technologiesexpedite the cleanup process in several ways Forexample field-based techniques can provide datain hours instead of days weeks or even months Such rapid turnaround reduces thecharacterization time by eliminating the time spentwaiting for analytical results from an off-sitelaboratory In addition rapid analytical


28

The BrownfieldsTechnology SupportCenter Can Help

The BTSC also can provide assistancein evaluating technical aspects of thecontractorsrsquo proposals for site-specific needs including

bull Identification of characterizationtechnologies on the basis of thecharacteristics of the site such asselection of drilling methods andsampling instruments and methods

bull Identification of remediationtechnologies that provide the mostinnovative approaches that savetime and money

turnaround may allow project managers to modifythe sampling plan during the characterizationprocess and more accurately characterize the sitein less time than traditional methods take When asite is rapidly and more important accuratelycharacterized during the first mobilizationsubsequent mobilizations are eliminated savingtime and money

Expediting the site characterization process alsocan reduce on-site labor costsand analytical expenses Further field analyticaltechniques can produce datafor a fraction of the cost offixed laboratory analysis Forexample immunoassay testkits can produce quantitativedata for as little as $20 to $40per sample compared with$500 per sample for fixedlaboratory data Again theappropriate use of data fromboth field and fixedlaboratories must be judged inaccordance with the level ofdata quality required tosupport the decisions to bemade

Because innovative technologies are not as widelyused as more traditional approaches a contractorthat proposes innovative approaches should beable to explain why it believes its proposedapproach is feasible and specify its potentialadvantages for the site Whether proposing aninnovative or a traditional approach the contractorshould demonstrate a thorough knowledge ofpotential limitations and problems with proposedtechnologies and describe contingencies foradjusting the approach should it be necessary Aswith any analytical approach such knowledge iscrucial in presenting plans to regulators andaddressing their concerns about limitations of thechosen field methods A qualified contractor mustbe able to explain why data are being collectedand how the data will advance decision making ata site regardless of the technique or technologythat is proposed

In cases in which innovative site characterizationtechniques may not be a substitute for traditional

sampling and fixed laboratory analysis they stillmay be very effective as a supplement

Proposals that include the use of dynamic workplans should describe the contractorrsquos plan forensuring effective communication and facilitatingon-site decision making among the members ofthe 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 andresponsibilities amongcontractor staff for makingdecisions about the need toobtain additional field dataand (3) communication ofthose decisions in a timelymanner to the site owner andregulatory staff if sorequired

Discussed below is theevaluation of key aspects ofmethodologies proposed bycontractors Because eachmethodology must be tailoredto the site under review notevery item may be applicableto every proposal

4111 Selection of Locationsfor Sampling Points

The geology of a site controls the migration ofcontaminants Once the geology at a site has beendefined predictions of the direction of migrationbecome more reliable Higher detection rates thencan be achieved by selecting locations at whichthe pattern of migration indicates contamination ispresent The contractorrsquos proposed methodologycan describe

Data or other considerations that will influencethe contractorrsquos selection of borehole orsampling locations other than upgradient ordowngradient locations

Statistical methods or modeling programs thecontractor will use to assist in the selection ofsampling locations


29

Geophysical methods the contractor will use togain a better understanding of the geology atthe site

Geophysical methods the contractor will use todetermine the locations of subsurface utilitiesor underground structures

Geological information that will influence thecontractorrsquos selection of sampling locations

Additional geological information thecontractor will seek and its significance

4112 Hydrogeologic Conditions

Hydrological information typically is obtainedfrom regional groundwater flow maps or frompotentiometric plots derived from groundwaterlevels taken from existing wells Newgroundwater flow meters are available that attachto drilling equipment such as cone penetrometrytechnology (CPT) probes that can place flowmeters at any particular saturated layer Anotheroption is to use pore information from CPT orgeoprobe technologies to obtain detailedinformation about flow patterns at a particularsite The contractorrsquos proposed methodology candescribe

The proposed method for determining detailedgroundwater flow patterns at the site

The proposed method of using the flow patterninformation in selecting sampling locations

The contractorrsquos capability to obtaininformation about groundwater flow patternsby means other than the use of publishedpotentiometric surfaces

4113 Boreholes and Drilling Methods

With todayrsquos technologies soil depth profiles maybe obtained quickly (within minutes to hours) withdirect-push techniques providing geologicalinformation continuously as the probe penetratesthe subsurface The probe can be withdrawnwhile exuding grouting material so that theborehole is sealed and no well remains to bemaintained The information obtained can be used

to prepare a complete record of the site Thecontractorrsquos proposed methodology can describe

Factors that influence the contractorrsquos decisionto use direct-push methods rather than standarddrilling procedures

The contractorrsquos rationale for the determinationof the number of samples required

Information about how subsurface soil depthprofiles will be used in determining what soilsamples are to be taken

The method to be used to collect soil samplesfor analysis

4114 Soil and Water Samples

Many test kits and hand-held instruments foranalyzing soil and water in the field are available Such techniques often are used to quickly gatherinformation about contamination that then is usedas a guide to determine whether more detailedlaboratory analysis is warranted Generally sitemanagers and regulators will stipulate thepercentage of duplicate analyses that must be runby standardized methods to ensure the quality ofthe field analysis methods That percentageshould be based on site-specific conditions Aproper QC protocol must be constructed tosupport specific aspects of data quality that areimportant in defending site-specific decisions AQA protocol must describe the process that will befollowed to ensure that matrix interferencesequipment malfunction and other issues will notcause data to be ambiguous or misleading Manyfield methods have been verified for theiraccuracy precision and reliability through formalverification programs but site-specificperformance always should be assessed Using amix of field methods and standard analysismethods expedites the field program and increasesthe quality of the data and their usefulness insupporting conclusions about the sitersquos condition

An understanding of the analyte[s] (specificchemical[s] or contaminant[s]) that the technologytargets and the principles upon which thetechnology is based is essential to the selection ofthe correct technology for a site No singletechnology is effective for every contaminant and


30

Factors That May NecessitateInnovative Cleanup Approaches

bull Stakeholders prefer that contamination be treatedin place rather than disturbed and moved off site

bull Site owners may prefer fully treating contaminantsover containment remedies or long-terminstitutional controls to offset long-term riskresidual liability and long-term operations andmaintenance costs

bull The excavation of contaminated soils underexisting buildings and structures is not feasiblebecause of potential damage to those buildings orstructures or disruption of ongoing businesses

bull Cleanup must be accomplished within a specifiedtime frame to meet milestones for redevelopment ofthe site Time factors also may favor the use of aninnovative approach over a traditional responsethat involves a long-term remedy

bull Full reuse plans have not been developed for thesite and interim treatment activities such asphytoremediation allow treatment to proceed whilefinal decisions are being made

bull The budget for cleanup is limited and innovativeapproaches offer less expensive options thantraditional approaches

bull Innovative approaches can be designed andconfigured to blend in with the proposed reuses ofthe site

each has various advantages and limitations Forexample a test kit may be marketed as atechnology for detecting polychlorinatedbiphenyls (PCB) However the kit may respondto any organochloride (chlorinated hydrocarbonpesticide such as DDT) because of the chemicalreaction the kit uses In such a case the kit wouldin fact be effective in identifying mostorganochlorides but would not distinguishbetween chlorinated pesticides and PCBs Therefore if the goal is to establish the presenceof organochlorides thetest kit would beeffective However ifthe goal is to quantitatePCBs in the presenceof chlorinatedorganics the test kitwould not be effective

Cross-reactivity isanother potentialconcern associatedwith test kits usedduring sitecharacterization Cross-reactivity is thedegree to which a testkit responds tocompounds other thanthe target analyte Forexample organicimmunoassay test kitsdesigned for PCBsusually are calibratedwith a specific Aroclor(trade name of PCBs)but the kits willrespond to othercongeners (compoundswithin the same class)on the basis of degree of chlorination When acontractor proposes technologies that do notproduce definitive data the contractor shoulddemonstrate an understanding of cross-reactivityand interferences Further the contractor shoulddemonstrate an understanding of how those issuesaffect data quality and the overall sitecharacterization project

Field-based site characterization technologiesproduce data quality ranging from qualitative to

definitive The type of data generated by field-based technologies depends on the degree ofsophistication of the technology and the QAQCmeasures implemented Some methods produceonly qualitative information with no quantitativeinformation Others provide quantitativeinformation that is above or below a designatedlevel and is referred to as semi-quantitative data That term can describe data showing a range ofconcentrations Quantitative data provide ananalyte concentration for a sample and definitive

data usually producedby GCMS confirmthe presence of theanalyte and itsconcentration The useto which the fieldanalytical data will beput usually determinesthe degree of QAQCrequired Data used toconfirm the presenceor absence of acontaminant therebyallowing the projectmanager to moreaccurately directfurther sampling andanalysis usuallyrequire less stringentQAQC Qualitative orsemi-quantitative datamay be sufficient forsuch requirements However if the fieldanalytical data are usedto confirm the presenceor absence of acontaminant and mustwithstand legalscrutiny the data must

be definitive and a sophisticated technique suchas GCMS must be employed

The contractorrsquos proposed methodology candescribe

Field analytical methods for identification ofvolatile contaminants such as benzene ortrichloroethylene (TCE) particularsemivolatile contaminants or metals


31

The selection of field test kits for the project

The method of determining the locations andnumber of samples

The strategy or justification for the mix of fieldanalytical methods and laboratory analysis thatis proposed

The procedure for confirming the accuracy ofthe measurements


When evaluating remediation options a number offactors should be considered to identify the mosttechnically feasible and cost-effective technologyfor a specific site The general considerations forall sites are applicability implementabilityeffectiveness remediation time frame cost andregulatory compliance Specific factors mayinclude current or future use of the siteremediation objectives proximity to neighbors orbusinesses proximity to historic buildingspotential long-term liability and risk future reuseand regulatory considerations as well asevaluation of treatment options compared withcontainment and institutional controls Forindividual sites one or more factors may bedominant RFPs should clearly state extenuatingcircumstances that may require innovative cleanupapproaches rather than traditional containment orremoval

Because the performance of each technologydepends heavily on site-specific conditions andcharacteristics a treatability study should beconducted before full-scale implementation of anytechnology innovative or traditional Thefollowing sections present information for use inevaluating such proposed activities

4121 Treatability Studies

Before the final remediation technology isselected a treatability study should be conductedto demonstrate that the treatment technology willwork at that site To avoid problems and delaysthat may occur if a technology fails to perform asintended the treatability study should beperformed as early as possible in the study phasesof the project The requirements for a treatability

study that are set forth in an RFP should betailored to the complexity of the site At aminimum the RFP should specify that thecontractor must demonstrate that the technologywill work before the contractor proceeds withremediation activities The expenses of thetreatability study are paid in various manners Insome cases the contractor performing thetreatability study may assume such expensesbecause the study is an opportunity to further testthe technology and obtain performance data for it In other cases the RFP may stipulate that thecontractor will be reimbursed for the cost of thetreatability study upon successful completion ofthat study

Many treatment technologies are patented and thepatent owner may be reluctant to sell patent rightsor licensing agreements to another vendor orcontractor An RFP for remediation work mustdefine clearly the process by which the patentholder will allow another vendor or contractor touse the technology if the patent holder is not toperform the work On the other hand manycompanies may be reluctant to participate in atreatability study if their participation wouldpreclude them from later bidding on theremediation contract Local conflict of interestprocedures should be checked carefully to ensurethat contractors are not precluded from futurework in such situations

4122 Full-Scale RemediationTechnology

It first must be determined whether the proposedtechnology is applicable and implementable forthe site in light of the contaminant(s) of concern(COC) and the site characteristics For examplephytoremediation is not appropriate if theconcentrations of contaminants are toxic to plantsnor is it implementable if the contamination islocated in the deep strata of a geological formationbeyond the root zones of plants that could be usedat the site Soil vapor extraction (SVE) alone isnot applicable for treating a site at which a tightclay formation is present because the SVE processdepends on the ability of the subsurface area toexchange air SVE also is not applicable for a sitecontaminated with non-volatile COCs inorganiccompounds or metals because volatilization is theprime removal mechanism in SVE


32

The proposed methodology then must beevaluated for short-term and long-termeffectiveness Short-term effectiveness is relatedto potential risks to the community andconstruction workers during remediation whilelong-term effectiveness is related to risks to thecommunity that remain after remediation work hasbeen completed For example a proposedinnovative technology that uses a cap consisting ofa shallow layer of compacted soil for a site in aproposed residential area that is contaminatedwith friable asbestos may be an effective approachfor the short term Risk to construction workersduring remediation can be mitigated by providingworkers with appropriate personal protectiveequipment (PPE) However such a cap may notbe an effective solution for the long term becausethe contaminant remains in place and any numberof potential residential activities could disturb thestructure of the cap and expose the contaminants

Third the time frame of the proposed remediationtechnology must be consistent with the future useof the site Brownfields sites for whichcommercial or residential use or redevelopment asindustrial parks has been designated typically areon a fast-track schedule for transfer A technologysuch as phytoremediation would not be anacceptable option for fast-track sites because itmay take a number of years to completelyremediate the site by such an approach

Fourth the proposed remediation must be cost-effective For a project for which the budget islimited cost can be a determining factor in theselection of a technology However since theleast costly approach may not bring about themost expeditious site remediation a balancebetween potential cost savings and time framesmay be necessary Similarly both short-termconstruction costs and long-term operation andmaintenance costs must be considered Forexample a cap for soil and a pump-and-treatremedy for groundwater initially may beconsidered preferred options because thoseoptions would move a site quickly toredevelopment and would appear to be cost-effective as well However in assessing the costof such an option the cost of maintaining a capover a long period of time 30 years or more aswell as construction costs must be considered For pump-and-treat systems and other long-term

remedies that require operating equipment siteowners should consider replacement costs as wellas maintenance costs because pumps and otherequipment eventually may need to be replaced

Finally the proposed methodology must complywith state regulations governing cleanups In allcases localities should work with state and federalregulators to ensure that regulatory requirementsare addressed appropriately in the RFP Depending upon the complexity of the site thepast history of the site and the proceduresregulators require for cleanups at brownfieldssites compliance may require full review andapproval by the state or less formal concurrence In some cases application of the risk-basedcorrective action (RBCA) standards may affect theselection of technologies Approval of the statemay be required for specific remediationactivities such as air emissions groundwater re-injection or health and safety procedures Thevarious ways in which states regulate or limit theuse of some technologies could affect the use ofthose technologies at particular sites Forexample although land farming is an establishedtechnology for remediating sites contaminatedwith fuel or petroleum some states limit the use ofland farming as a remediation technology (Landfarming relies on biological and chemicalreactions in soil to degrade transform orimmobilize hazardous constituents) Similarlydesign and operating requirements may differaccording to the location of the land-farming site For a site in an urban area the state may requirean enclosure and off-gas treatment unit control foremissions of VOCs but such requirements mightnot be applicable in a rural setting

Table 3-5 which presents an overview of anumber of innovative technologies can be used asa reference when evaluating the contractorrsquosproposed remediation technologies

42 Evaluating Qualifications of Personnel

To effectively implement innovative technologiesthe contractor staff must be fully qualified andexperienced in the proposed work To ensure thatthe contractor selected has the appropriatequalified staff to perform the work RFPs shouldrequire that bidders provide information thatdemonstrates


33

bull The experience of each key staff member inusing innovative technologies under siteconditions covered by the RFP

bull The availability of the full range of technicaldisciplines needed

Care should be taken to ensure that thecontractorrsquos personnel have expertise in thespecialized disciplines needed to supportinnovative technologies

Various factors determine the disciplines requiredto support the cleanup of a specific site The typesof contaminants at the site may require a chemistwho has highly specialized experience thephysical characteristics of the site might requirean in-depth understanding of local geology orhydrogeology or implementation of a technologymight require an understanding of specializedmodeling software Similarly analytical qualitycontrol protocols must be designed by a qualifiedanalytical chemist who can ensure that analyticalmethods will produce data of a quality adequate tosupport the decisions to be made or to maximizethe efficiency of in-field analyses In additiontrained scientists or engineers must be on site tointerpret the data as they are generated

Staff who have the appropriate background inchemistry can predict the mobility ofcontaminants For example if metals werereleased at the site the mobility of the metals isdependent on the speciation of the metals whichin turn is dependent on the reduction oxidation(redox) conditions at the site For example metalssuch as chromium (commonly used in industry)exist in various states However chromium ismobile only in the CrVI state Therefore achemist can predict whether chromium willmigrate to the groundwater and determine whereto sample On the other hand if the contaminantis a solvent it very likely will migrate with thegroundwater and break down to other chemicalspecies

Resumes of key staff members must describe theirexperience in using field analytical methods testkits and field screening methods or in designingsite-specific remediation plans Information aboutthe technical experience of the staff must establisha direct correlation between that experience andthe needs of the project Further the capabilities

of the contractorrsquos proposed management andcoordination teams must be assessed carefullyagainst the requirements of the project Forexample individuals who demonstrate experiencein managing characterizations of large complexsites and the ability to meet short deadlines maybe needed to complete a specific project

Another consideration is the experience of thecontractorrsquos staff in working in the state in whichthe site is located It is advantageous for the staffto be familiar with that statersquos regulations andprocedures for characterizing and remediatingcontaminated sites and policies related to thecleanup and redevelopment of brownfields sitesincluding familiarity with state voluntary cleanupprograms and procedures for obtaining ldquono furtheractionrdquo letters The contractorrsquos team also shouldinclude a registered professional engineer and alicensed geologist ideally with registry andlicensing in the state in which the site is located Individuals who have such credentials canfacilitate the processes of obtaining operatingpermits and approvals of technical designs

In summary the contractor must have access to amultidisciplined team that can address all aspectsof the project In general teams should includeindividuals who have expertise in chemistrygeochemistry geology hydrogeology biologytoxicology civil engineering and soil sciences Depending upon site-specific conditions andproposed remediation options other expertise alsomay be required Specialized expertise may berequired to conduct environmental and publichealth risk assessments operate models orperform complicated statistical analyses

43 Evaluating Corporate Experience

Bidders must demonstrate the corporateexperience that will enable them to complete theproposed project successfully They shoulddescribe their experience in completing similarprojects and provide references for those projects

431 Experience in Performing SimilarProjects

Depending upon the specifications for the projectbidders must be able to demonstrate theirexperience in selecting and using specialized field


34

equipment designing remediation plans andperforming remediation activities in similarsettings In their proposals contractors shouldidentify problems that might affect the project anddescribe how they would resolve such problems Their recommendations could be based onldquolessons learnedrdquo from similar projects Acontractorrsquos ability to clearly define potentialproblems and provide sound resolutions is a goodindication that the contractor understands thedetails of the project and the issues that mightaffect it The use of dynamic work plans andother innovative strategies includes an inherentelement of uncertainty The contractor mightencounter problems that may require creativesound thinking to resolve the problems and keepthe project moving forward As an alternative thecontractorrsquos ability to respond to problems couldbe tested by including in the RFP a list ofpotential problems and requiring contractors tosubmit resolutions in their proposals

432 Past Performance

As is the case in selecting a contractor for anytype of work a good reliable contractor should beable to provide references for past performance RFPs should require a minimum number ofreferences for projects similar to the proposedproject The RFP should require specificinformation about each project used as areference including (1) the name and location ofthe project (2) a brief description of the project(3) the period of performance and (4) the nameaddress and telephone number of a contactperson The RFP should specify how far into thepast the contractor can reach in selecting recentreference projects Because innovativetechnologies and streamlined strategies evolvequickly shorter time periods such as one to twoyears may be appropriate for projects that involvesuch options

44 Evaluating the Contractorrsquos QualityAssurance and Quality ControlProcedures

Contractors must understand the importance ofusing sound quality assurance and quality controlprocedures in completing their work and theymust be prepared to fully implement those

procedures as well In general terms QA is anintegrated system of management activities carriedout to ensure that the work performed and theproducts provided are of the type and qualityneeded and expected QC is the system oftechnical activities that measure and controlquality to ensure that data meet the needs of users In characterizing and monitoring brownfieldssites errors can occur in the field or laboratorytherefore QAQC procedures must be built intoall key activities Contractors must be prepared toimplement QAQC procedures for all aspects ofthe project including planning sample collectionlaboratory analysis data review and dataassessment

RFPs for any type of technical activity usuallyinclude specific procedures that contractors mustimplement to ensure that federal state or localQAQC requirements are met A contractor mustestablish and carry out a sound QAQC programto ensure that all data the contractor provides isdefensible and that officials can have a high levelof confidence in using the data to supportdecisions about the potential reuse of the site Depending on the site-specific situation the typesof decisions to be made about the site and theentity that will make those decisions it may benecessary that data be defensible on a regulatoryor a scientific basis or both

A major challenge associated with theredevelopment of brownfields sites is uncertaintyabout potential environmental risks and liabilityrelated to contamination that has not beencharacterized properly Requiring contractors toexplain their proposed QAQC procedures forindividual sites and ensuring that those proceduresmeet established requirements for collecting andanalyzing environmental data will reduce thatuncertainty All RFPs that include siteinvestigation activities and monitoring shouldrequire that each bidder include a detailed qualityassurance project plan (QAPP) in its proposal Theobjectives of the QAPP are to ensure the accuracyprecision comparability representativeness andcompleteness of the data generated

Streamlined investigation and monitoringstrategies rely heavily on comprehensive up-frontplanning designed to collect only data that willsupport the decisions to be made about the site


35

while simultaneously gathering all the datanecessary to support a defensible decision Thatplanning process is done through the developmentof a conceptual site model and the establishmentof data quality objectives (DQO) Contractorsmust be able to demonstrate relevant experience inconducting the DQO process and be prepared toparticipate in that process Further contractorsmust be able to demonstrate how they willmaintain QAQC as they implement their siteassessment work plan Because sitecharacteristics the decisions to be made and dataquality needs vary from site to site thecontractorrsquos qualifications should be evaluatedagainst the particular requirements for the sitecovered by the RFP

Additional information about the QA process isavailable in the Quality Assurance Guidance forConducting Brownfields Site Assessments EPA540-R-98-038 September 1998 Another sourceof information is the EPA waste methods guidanceTest Methods for Evaluating Solid WastePhysicalChemical Methods (SW-846) SW-846is a compendium of sampling and analyticalmethods that have been evaluated and approvedfor use in complying with regulations underRCRA Although a number of states have ratifiedSW-846 methods formally the methods as statedby EPA are intended as a guide In many casesthe use of other methods is permitted if it can bedemonstrated they are sufficiently sensitiveadequate and precise to support the decisions tobe made Again the site-specific data qualityrequirements that support decisions about a siteshould be the principal consideration for thetechnology selection

45 Evaluating the Contractorrsquos CostProposal

A variety of factors could influence the selectionof the appropriate type of pricing mechanism(s)for a particular site Generally sitecharacterization work entails more uncertaintiesthan cleanup work Contractors commonlypropose different pricing mechanisms for differenttypes of activities ndash for example time-and-materials or a combination of time-and-materialsand fixed- price contracting mechanisms forcharacterization projects and fixed-price or fixed-unit-price mechanism for cleanup projects

Fixed-price contracting may be appropriate whenactivities are defined clearly Contracts thatincorporate performance specifications or acombination of lump-sum payments and fixed unitprices for work that cannot be defined clearly atthe time of the bid add flexibility to the fixed-price procurement process while adding a level ofprotection against cost overruns Unit pricing isappropriate for potentially high-volume orunpredictable items such as clearing backfillinginstallation of wells and treatment ofcontaminated media If the actual quantity of agiven item varies significantly from the estimatedquantity set forth in the contract it may bebeneficial to negotiate a reduction in the unit pricefor that item

Contracting for innovative treatment technologiesmay require the examination of specialconsiderations in soliciting bids evaluating costproposals and preparing contracts particularlywhen the entity soliciting the bid has little or noexperience in purchasing such services or whenthe conditions at the site are complex orundefined In many cases actual costs oftreatment have varied significantly from budgetestimates and bids because the extent and types ofcontamination were not characterized adequatelyor the quantities of waste soil or groundwater tobe treated were estimated poorly Further sometreatment technologies because they are nottypical construction projects are better scoped outand priced under a service contract

RFPs may specify innovative contractingapproaches as one of the requirements for theproposal For example pay-for-performancecleanup agreements might be established undersuch agreements preestablished payments aremade to the contractor as the project reachesmeasurable environmental goals Paying forcleanups through such agreements rewardscontractors for reaching cleanup goals quickly andefficiently

46 Evaluating the ContractorrsquosInsurance

Insurance coverage of several types is appropriatefor protection against potential damages andliabilities associated with characterization andremediation activities at contaminated sites Some


36

coverage may be standard requirements in anycontract issued by a brownfields communityprivate company or other entity Otherspecialized coverage may be required for aparticular site or project Typically those entitiesthat issue contracts take the prime responsibilityfor determining their insurance needs for theproject because they could be ultimatelyresponsible for any damages both environmentaland business For brownfields sites banks andother lending institutions will specify theinsurance coverage that must be in place to protecttheir loans Before any contract is signed it isincumbent upon all parties to understand theirpotential risks and to be assured that allappropriate coverage is in place Table 4-1 listsinformation about six types of environmentalinsurance products that should be considered

At any contaminated site there is potential riskthat site investigation and remediation activitiescould disturb the contaminants and causepollution damage The types of insurancenecessary and the limits of coverage will varyfrom site to site Such factors as the potentialtypes of contaminants present proximity togroundwater the degree to which the site has beenproperly characterized and proximity to ongoingbusinesses and population centers must beconsidered in determining the types and level ofinsurance necessary Questions about theavailability and selection of insurance products fora specific site should be directed to insurancecompanies and underwriters that specialize inenvironmental insurance products

TABLE 4-1ENVIRONMENTAL INSURANCE

PRODUCTS

Type ofCoverage Key Features of Coverage

Bodily injuryand propertydamage

Provides compensation for bodilyinjury and property damage causedby a pollution condition such as arelease of hazardous or toxicmaterials Covers injuries toothers that occur on site or off site

Contractdamages

Provides compensation whenpollution impairs the insuredrsquosability to perform under a contract

Environmentalcleanup costs

Pays for the costs the insured mustincur to address its pollutionproblems and comply withgovernment standards establishedto protect human health and theenvironment Covered costsinclude those for site investigationand for the removal treatment ordisposal of wastes

Remediationcost overruns (also calledcleanup costcap or stop-loss insurance)

Pays for cleanup costs includingremediation costs thatsubstantially exceed the budget The insurer pays only if the projectcost exceeds the estimated projectcost plus an agreed-upon bufferamount over the estimated cost

Businessinterruption

Pays for internal costs such as lossof income or salary to employeesthat the insured suffers as a resultof pollution

Legal defenseexpenses

Coverage pays for the insuredrsquoslegal costs incurred to defend orsettle a dispute about liability forpollution


Appendix



Appendix A-1 Sources of Innovative Treatment Information

BULLETINS FACT SHEETS JOURNALS AND NEWSLETTERS

Bibliography for Innovative Site Clean-Up Technologies August 1999 Updatehttpclu-inorgpub1htm

The bibliography is a comprehensive list of information resources related to innovative site cleanuptechnologies that includes titles and document numbers The bibliography lists resources bycategories including technology survey reports information about programs of the USEnvironmental Protection Agency (EPA) groundwater (in situ) treatment thermal treatmentbioremediation soil vapor extraction (SVE) and enhancements of that technology physical andchemical treatment conferences and international surveys technical support community relationsbulletin board systems databases software and the Internet technology newsletters and innovativesite remediation engineering technology monographs Information on how to order individualdocuments also is provided

Citizens Guides to Understanding Innovative Treatment Technologieshttpclu-inorgpub1htm

The Citizens Guides to Understanding Innovative Treatment Technologies fact sheets are four-pageguides prepared by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to provide site managers withnon-technical outreach materials The guides which are available in English and Spanish areintended to be shared with communities in the vicinity of a cleanup site at which innovative treatmenttechnologies are in use or under consideration The guides present information about innovativetreatment technologies that have been selected or applied at some cleanup sites provide overviews ofinnovative treatment technologies and present success stories about sites at which innovativetreatment technologies have been applied The second document number listed after each title is thedocument number of the guide in Spanish

Ground Water Currentshttpclu-inorgproductsnewsltrsttampgwchtm

Ground Water Currents is a leading source of information about recent developments in innovativegroundwater treatment characterization sampling and monitoring technologies The newsletterprovides information about developments and demonstrations new regulations conferences andpublications 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 monitoringwells in situ chemical oxidation through recirculation and a new remediation group for dry-cleanersites convened in April 1999

Tech Trendshttpclu-inorgproductsnewltrsttampgwchtm

Tech Trends focuses on recent applications of innovative technologies for site characterization andremediation The newsletter includes descriptions of and performance data for innovative sourcecontrol and site characterization technologies that have been applied in the field The newsletterwhich is updated quarterly is a valuable tool for keeping abreast of the most recent developments ininnovative technologies and can be subscribed at the web address provided above



US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 3 Industry Profile Fact Sheetshttpwwwepagovreg3hwmdbrownfldindustryhtm

Developed by EPA Region 3 the fact sheets are designed to assist in the initial planning andevaluation of sites that are under consideration for remediation redevelopment or reuse The factsheets provide general descriptions of site conditions and contaminants commonly found at selectedindustrial sites Each fact sheet provides information about the processes conducted in the industryraw materials characteristic of the industry environmental media that could be affected samplingstrategies and suggested parameters for analysis

DATABASES AND SOFTWARE

Completed North America Innovative Remediation Technology Demonstration Projects Database httpclu-inorgpub1htm

The searchable database contains information about more than 300 completed innovative technologyfield demonstration projects conducted in North America The database consolidates key informationfrom innovative demonstration projects in a single source Information is presented in a format thatenables the user to easily identify innovative technologies that may be appropriate to the usersparticular site remediation needs The database which is limited to completed demonstration projectsand a small number of full-scale cleanup efforts does not include emerging technologies orlaboratory-scale projects

Evaluation of Selected Environmental Decision Support Softwarehttpclu-inorgpub1htm

Developed by DOErsquos Office of Environmental Management the report evaluates decision supportsoftware (DSS) computer-based systems that facilitate the use of data models and structureddecision processes in making decisions related to environmental management The report evaluates19 such systems through the application of a rating system that favors software that simulates a widerange of environmental problems It includes a glossary of terms and a statement of the rationale forthe selection of various aspects of the performance of the DSS for evaluation

Tank RACER 99 httpwwwepagovswerust1tnkracr1htm

Tank RACER 99 is a Windowstrade-based PC software that provides fast accurate and comprehensivecost estimates for cleanups at leaking underground storage tank (UST) sites The software estimatescosts for UST cleanups on a site-specific basis for all phases of remediation including siteassessment remedial design remedial action operations and maintenance closure of tanks and sitework and utilities as well as the costs of using alternative technologies such as air spargingbioremediation bioventing groundwater extraction wells land farming natural attenuation soil vaporextraction (SVE) and thermal desorption The web site also provides information about trainingworkshops that are available



ONLINE REFERENCES AND RESOURCES

Field Analytic Technologies Encyclopedia (FATE)httpfateclu-inorg

EPArsquos Technology Innovation Office in collaboration with the US Army Corps of Engineersdeveloped a new online encyclopedia of field analytic technologies This encyclopedia is intended toprovide information about technologies that can be used in the field to characterize contaminated soiland groundwater monitor the progress of remedial efforts and in some cases for confirmationsampling and analysis for site close out The encyclopedia posted on the web provides information onten classes of technologies but EPA intends to expand the encyclopedia with additional fieldanalytical technology classes in the future

Field Sampling and Analysis Technologies Matrix Version 10httpwwwfrtrgovsite

The Field Sampling and Analysis Technologies Matrix Version 10 is an online tool that can be usedto conduct initial screening of site characterization and monitoring technologies The matrixdeveloped by member agencies of the Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable (FRTR) is aquick-reference chart that provides consumer-response-style ratings in several categories for varioussite characterization monitoring and sampling technologies Each technology is rated in a number ofperformance categories such as detection limits applicable media selectivity and turnaround timeOther useful information provided includes technology descriptions data on commercial status costand certification and evaluation reports The matrix is extremely helpful to users who are notfamiliar with specific characterization monitoring or sampling technologies but who know baselineinformation about a site such as contaminants and media for such users the matrix can identify andscreen technologies for potential use at a site

Innovative Remediation and Site Characterization Technologies Resources CD-ROMhttpwwwepagovncepihom

The US Environmental Protection Agencyrsquos (EPA) Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response(OSWER) Technology Innovation Office (TIO) Innovative Remediation and Site CharacterizationTechnologies Resources CD-ROM contains resources that provide information to help federal stateand private-sector site managers evaluate site assessment and cleanup alternatives The ability to gainaccess to resources that provide information about innovative site characterization and remediationtechnologies will increase understanding of those technologies and of the cost and performancefactors related to them Such understanding is essential to the consideration of those technologies foruse in addressing contamination at hazardous waste sites The CD-ROM can be ordered by calling theNational Service Center for Environmental Publications at (800) 490-9198 or (513) 489-8190 or byfaxing 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 SiteCharacterization CD-ROMhttpwwwepagovncepihom

The US Environmental Protection Agencys (EPA) National Exposure Research Laboratory (NERL)Hazardous Waste Site Characterization CD-ROM developed by NERLs Environmental SciencesDivision - Las Vegas (ESD-LV) contains guidance documents and related software designed to aidenvironmental professionals in the characterization of hazardous waste sites The CD-ROM is a



compilation of computer programs developed by EPA and publications related to EPAs ResourceConservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and Superfund programs that can be printed as well assearched by key word The CD-ROM requires a 386 IBM-compatible computer with DOS Version30 or higher 640 K RAM and 3 MB of hard-disk space A math co-processor is recommended butnot required The CD-ROM can be ordered by calling the National Service Center for EnvironmentalPublications at (800) 490-9198 or (513) 489-8190 or by faxing your request to (513) 891-8695 Theorder number for the CD-ROM is EPA-600-C-96-001

Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix and Reference Guidehttpwwwfrtrgovmatrix2top_pagehtml

The Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix and Reference Guide prepared for federal agenciesthat participate in the Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable (FRTR) provides informationabout remediation technologies The on-line searchable guide is intended to assist remedial projectmanagers (RPM) in screening and evaluating candidate cleanup technologies and selecting the bestremedial alternative(s) The guide includes available cost and performance data and focuses primarilyon demonstrated technologies Information about emerging technologies also is included in the guide This guide is continuously updated

Site Characterization Library Volume 1 Release 20 April 1998httpwwwepagovncepihom

The Site Characterization Library Volume 1 Release 20 (October 1998) CD-ROM developed by theUS Environmental Protection Agencys (EPA) National Exposure Research Laboratory (NERL)contains a variety of guidance documents standard operating procedures (SOP) and risk assessmentguidelines as well as a large collection of software tools including groundwater flow and transportmodels and statistical packages The CD-ROM can be ordered from the National Service Center forEnvironmental Publications at (800) 490-9198 or (513) 489-8190 or by fax at (513) 891-8695 Theorder number for the CD-ROM is EPA-600-C-98-001

The Hazardous Waste Clean-up Information (CLU-IN) Web Sitehttpclu-inorg

This web site is searchable and provides information about innovative treatment and sitecharacterization technologies to the hazardous waste remediation community It contains informationpublications and software many of which can be downloaded or viewed online from the siteremediation and site characterization technology selection tools recently published articles andinformation about partnerships and consortia and vendor support as well as links to related web sites

US Department of Energy (DOE) Preferred Alternatives Matrices (PAMs)httpwwwemdoegovdefine

PAMs provides the user access to evaluations of site characterization and remediation technologiespreferred by DOE on the basis of the types of contaminants and contaminated media selected PAMswas developed by DOErsquos Office of Environmental Restoration (EM-40) to assist decision makers inselecting the most appropriate cleanup alternatives for remediation waste processing anddecommissioning of sites It provides a tool for field personnel to use in focusing remedy selectionexpediting implementation of preferred alternatives eliminating the cost of excessive or redundanttreatability studies and allowing preselection of effective low-cost remediation alternatives



US Department of Energy (DOE) Vendor Database for Environmental Applicationshttpwwwcmstorgvendor

This DOE web site is devoted to supporting the chemical and physical property measurements ofenvironmental samples The Characterization Monitoring amp Sensor Technology - Cross CuttingProgram (CMST-CP) of DOE maintains this vendor database as a focal point for environmentalmeasurement technologies The database contains information about 200 vendors that provideequipment related to the analysis of environmental samples

US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) REmediation And CHaracterization InnovativeTechnologies (REACH IT)httpwwwepareachitorg

The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) REmediation And CHaracterization InnovativeTechnologies (REACH IT) online searchable database developed by EPAs Technology InnovationOffice (TIO) provides users with comprehensive up-to-date information about more than 150characterization technologies and 1300 remediation technologies offered by more than 750 serviceproviders Information provided by service providers is matched with comprehensive informationsubmitted by project managers for EPA the US Department of Defense (DoD) and the USDepartment 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 allowusers to develop custom searches based on such criteria as media contaminant type site type andtechnology type to gather information about innovative technology solutions and service providersthat meet their needs

PUBLICATIONS

A Guideline for Dynamic Workplans and Field Analytics The Keys to Cost-Effective SiteCharacterization and Cleanup httpclu-inorgpub1htm

This guideline provides users with information about the many factors that are to be considered inincorporating field analytical instruments and methods into an adaptive sampling and analysisprogram for expediting the site investigation process One of the primary goals of the expedited sitecharacterization process is to minimize the collection and analysis of uninformative samples therebysaving time and money The guideline was developed by Tufts University Massachusetts incooperation with the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and was funded under PresidentClintons Environmental Technology Initiative (ETI) The guideline is intended to help federal andstate regulators site owners consulting engineers and remediation companies understand how todevelop maintain and update a dynamic work plan

Application of Field-Based Characterization Tools in the Waterfront Voluntary Settinghttpclu-inorgpub1htm

Voluntary action to redevelop potentially contaminated property operates under vastly differentmarket 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 pressuresusually in the form of regulation also affect decisions over the course of redevelopment Togetherthose forces also determine the technologies and methods used to characterize the property as well asthe media sampled This report investigates the reasons behind the use of and details the current level



of application of field-based characterization tools at 115 waterfront brownfield and voluntary cleanupprogram (VCP) sites

Assessing Contractor Capabilities for Streamlined Site Investigationshttpbrownfieldstscorg

Innovative technologies are having a significant effect on the cost schedule and effectiveness ofenvironmental cleanup projects The impact of these technologies has been demonstrated duringCERCLA and RCRA investigations and such technologies should be incorporated into brownfieldsprojects as well The purpose of this document is (1) to familiarize brownfields decision makerswith innovative methods for characterizing their sites and encourage them to investigate and employsuch methods (2) to assist brownfields decision makers in assessing contractors capabilities andfamiliarity with such methods and (3) to suggest additional factors for contractors to consider inconducting their activities

Assessment of Phytoremediation as an In Situ Technique for Cleaning Oil-Contaminated Siteshttpclu-inorgpub1htm

Drawing on a review of the relevant literature this document provides examples of thephytoremediation of petroleum hydrocarbons and discusses the key mechanisms as well as the specialconsiderations involved in phytoremediation of petrochemicals The benefits limitations and costsof phytoremediation compared with those of alternative approaches ndash including natural attenuationengineering and bioremediation ndash also are discussed

Brownfields Technology Primer Selecting and Using Phytoremediation for Site Cleanuphttpbrownfieldstscorg

The Brownfields Technology Support Center developed this document to provide an educational toolfor site owners project managers and regulators to help evaluate the applicability of thephytoremediation process at brownfields sites The primer explains the types of biological processesinvolved in phytoremediation provides examples of the sites and contaminants wherephytoremediation has been applied and discusses technical considerations in selecting and designingphytoremediation systems activities necessary to operate and maintain phytoremediation systems andexamples of estimated potential cost savings from using phytoremediation versus more conventionaltreatment processes The primer also provides a comprehensive list of other resources that areavailable to assist decision makers in evaluating phytoremediation as an option for cleaning upcontaminated sites

Characterization Monitoring and Sensor Technology Crosscutting Program (CMST-CP)Rainbow Bookhttpem-52emdoegovifdRbBookscmstcmstrbhtm

The CMST-CP Rainbow Book developed in August 1996 under the CMST-CP program provides theuser information about specific technologies and detailed descriptions of how each technology works The book provides information about characterization monitoring and sensor technology for DOErsquosOffice of Waste Management (EM-30) Office of Environmental Restoration (EM-40) and Office ofNuclear Material and Facility Stabilization (EM-60) The book is designed to ensure that technologydevelopment is cost-effective and appropriate and recommends that the technology developmenteffort be concentrated on the following focus areas subsurface contaminants high-level waste tankremediation mixed waste characterization treatment and disposal and decommissioning and finaldisposition of facilities



Directory of Technology Support Services to Brownfields Localitieshttpbrownfieldstscorg

This directory provides information about EPA offices non-government organizations funded byEPA and other federal agencies that may be able to provide expertise to assist in the selection oftechnologies to characterize and cleanup brownfields properties

EPA Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA) Sector Notebookshttpesepagovoecasector

EPArsquos OECA has developed a series of profiles or notebooks that provide information about selectedmajor industries that focus on key indicators that holistically present air water and land pollutantrelease data and have been reviewed thoroughly by experts from both inside and outside EPA Thenotebooks provide a comprehensive environmental profile and information about industrial processespollution prevention techniques pollutant release data regulatory requirements compliance andenforcement history government and industry partnerships innovative programs contact namesbibliographic references and descriptions of research methodology for such industries as iron andsteel metal mining oil and gas extraction and more

Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) Site Characterization and Monitoring TechnologiesPilot (SCMT) Technology Verification Statements and Reports httpwwwepagovetv02 02_mainhtm

The Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) Site Characterization and MonitoringTechnologies Pilot (SCMT) web site provides access to ETV technology verification statements andreports about site characterization technologies To date verification statements and reports areavailable for the following technologies cone penetrometer-deployed sensor field-portable gaschromatographmass spectrometer field-portable x-ray fluorescence analyzer technologies foranalysis for polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB) technologies for well-head monitoring for volatileorganic compounds (VOC) and soil sampling technologies The SCMT pilot was established as oneof 12 pilots currently implemented by the US Environmental Protection Agencys (EPA) ETVProgram The pilot is a partnership program of EPA the US Department of Defense (DoD) and theUS Department of Energy (DOE) and is responsible for evaluating and verifying the performance ofinnovative and alternative monitoring measurement and site characterization technologies The pilotprovides support for technology developers evaluates and verifies data generated during technologydemonstrations and develops and disseminates information about the performance of sitecharacterization technologies

Federal Facilities Forum Issue Field Sampling and Selecting On-Site Analytical Methods forExplosives in Soil November 1996httpwwwepagovclarit onclhtmlpubtitlehtml

Federal Facilities Forum Issue Field Sampling and Selecting On-Site Analytical Methods forExplosives in Soil was produced by the US Environmental Agencys (EPA) Federal Facilities Foruma group of EPA scientists and engineers who represent federal facility remediation interests Thedocument identifies screening procedures for characterizing soils contaminated with explosive andpropellant compounds (To find this document using the URL listed above use the Find in Pagefeature of your browser and type in 540R97501)



Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable (FRTR) Case Studies httpwwwfrtrgovcost

The Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable (FRTR) case studies contain detailed informationabout specific remedial technology applications FRTR case studies are developed by the USDepartment of Defense (DoD) the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) the US Navy the USAir Force (USAF) the US Department of Energy (DOE) the US Department of the Interior (DOI)and the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) As of September 1998 FRTR published andmade available on its Internet site 140 cost and performance case studies The case studies focus onfull-scale and large field demonstration projects and include background information about the site adescription of the technology cost and performance data for the technology application and adiscussion of lessons learned Both innovative and conventional treatment technologies forcontaminated soil groundwater and solid media are included A search function on the web siteallows a user to search the case studies using key words for media contaminant and primary andsupplemental technologies

Field Analytical and Site Characterization Technologies - Summary of ApplicationsNovember 1997 httpclu-inorgpub1htm

Field Analytical and Site Characterization Technologies - Summary of Applications lists more than200 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 stateprogram managers and provides insights into their experiences with the technology The informationpresented for each technology includes the types of pollutants and media for which the technology hasbeen used reported advantages and limitations of the technology and cost data for the technologywhen available

Ground-Water Remediation Technologies Analysis Center (GWRTAC) TechnologyOverview Reports httpwwwgwrtacorghtmltech_overhtml

These reports provide general overviews and introductions to specific groundwater remediationtechnologies Information for the reports is gathered from a range of sources including projectdocuments reports periodicals Internet searches and personal communications with parties involvedin the use of the technologies

Innovations in Site Characterization Case Study Hanscom Air Force Base Operable Unit 1September 1998 httpclu-inorgpub1htm

Innovations in Site Characterization Case Study Hanscom Air Force Base Operable Unit 1 presents acase study of a dynamic site investigation The case study describes a 10-day adaptive sampling andanalysis program (SAP) under which six technologies were used to take more than 600 soil samplesand conduct quantitative analysis for volatile organic compounds (VOC) polychlorinated biphenyls(PCB) polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) and metals The report documents cost savingsand discusses the other advantages of the use of the adaptive SAP




This document produced by the Interstate Technology Regulatory Cooperation (ITRC) workgroupprovides a tool that can be used to determine whether phytoremediation can be effective at a givensite It is designed to complement existing phytoremediation documents It allows the user to usebasic information about a specific site through a flow chart layout to decide whetherphytoremediation is feasible at that site

Quality Assurance Guidance for Conducting Brownfields Site Assessments September 1998httpclu-inorgpub1htm

Quality Assurance Guidance for Conducting Brownfields Site Assessments provides information forbrownfields site managers about concepts and issues related to quality assurance and providesstep-by-step instructions for identifying the type and quality of environmental data needed to present aclear picture of environmental conditions at a given site

Remediation Technologies Development Forum Reportshttpwwwrtdforg

The series of documents prepared by the US Environmental Protection Agencys (EPA) Office ofResearch and Development (ORD) summarizes the activities of the Remediation TechnologiesDevelopment Forum (RTDF) The RTDF is a consortium of partners who represent industrygovernment agencies and academia and who work together to develop more effective less costlyhazardous waste characterization and treatment technologies It is designed to foster partnershipsbetween public-sector and private-sector entities to conduct laboratory and field research to developtest and evaluate innovative technologies Five action teams have been formed to address priorityresearch areas in the development testing and evaluation of in situ remediation technologies Eachdocument in the series describes the purpose and activities of one of the action teams identifies themembers of that team and provides contact information

Road Map to Understanding Innovative Technology Options for Brownfields Investigationand Cleanuphttpbrownfieldstscorgand

Tool Kit of Information Resources for Brownfields Investigation and Cleanuphttpclu-inorgpub1htm

The Road Map to Understanding Innovative Technology Options for Brownfields Investigation andCleanup focuses on the site characterization and cleanup phase of brownfields redevelopment Itprovides a logical framework of steps involved in the characterization and cleanup of a brownfieldssite to link technology options and resources to each of those steps In addition the road map islinked to an accompanying document the Tool Kit of Information Resources for BrownfieldsInvestigation and Cleanup which describes information resources developed by the USEnvironmental Protection Agency (EPA) to support innovative characterization and cleanuptechnologies It is intended to be used by local citizens and community groups that are not familiarwith available environmental cleanup resources The tool kit provides abstracts of and accessinformation about a variety of resources including electronic databases newsletters regulatory andpolicy guidance and technical reports



Site Remediation Technology InfoBase A Guide to Federal Programs Information Resources andPublications on Contaminated Site Cleanup Technologies First Edition August 1998 httpclu-inorgpub1htm

This guide was prepared by the member agencies of the Federal Remediation TechnologiesRoundtable (FRTR) The guide identifies programs resources and publications of the federalgovernment related to technologies for the cleanup of contaminated sites It presents informationabout federal cleanup programs federal site remediation technology development assistanceprograms federal site remediation technology development electronic databases federal electronicresources for site remediation technologies and other electronic resources for site remediationtechnology information In addition it provides a selected bibliography of federal publications onalternative and innovative site remediation technologies and technology program contacts at federalagencies

Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation (SITE) Innovative Technology EvaluationReports (ITER)httpepagovORDSITEreportshtml

SITE ITERs provide the user information about independent data evaluation information aboutspecific site characterization technologies and how they work SITE ITERs developed by the USEnvironmental Protection Agencyrsquos (EPA) National Environmental Research Laboratory (NERL) LasVegas are designed to assist decision makers in reviewing technology options and assessing atechnologyrsquos applicability to a particular site The reports include an evaluation of availableinformation about a technology provide an analysis of its overall applicability to site characteristicswaste types and waste matrices and present testing procedures performance and cost data andquality assurancequality control (QAQC) standards The ITERs provide information about thefollowing technologies the clor-n-soil polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) test kit Dexsil Corpenvirogard 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 EditionFebruary 1999 httpwwwepagovORDSITEprofiles3html

SITE Technology Profiles - Tenth Edition provides the user information about specific sitecharacterization technologies and how they work The document prepared between July 1998 andOctober 1999 is intended as a reference guide for those interested in technologies included in the SiteDemonstration Program (Volume I) the Emerging Technology Program (Volume II) and theMonitoring and Measurement Technologies (MMT) Program (Volume III) The two-page profiles areorganized into two sections for each program (except the MMT program) for completed and ongoingprojects and are presented in alphabetical order by name of the developer Reference tables for SITEprogram participants precede the sections and provide contact information for representatives of bothEPA and the developer Each technology profile includes (1) a technology developer and processname (2) a technology description including a schematic diagram or photograph of the process ifavailable (3) a discussion of applicability to wastes (4) a project status report and (5) contactinformation for the EPA project manager and the technology developer



Test Methods for Evaluating Waste PhysicalChemical Methods (SW-846) httpwwwepagovepaoswerhazwastetestsw846htm

The SW-846 Internet site provides the user access to the third edition of the SW-846 base manual aswell as finalized updates I II IIA IIB III and IIIA the fully integrated manual containsapproximately 3500 pages Developed by the US Environmental Protection Agencyrsquos (EPA) Officeof Solid Waste (OSW) SW-846 is a compendium of analytical and sampling methods that have beenevaluated and approved for use in complying with the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act(RCRA) regulations Advances in analytical instrumentation and techniques are continually reviewedby OSW and incorporated into periodic updates to SW-846 to support changes in the regulatoryprogram and to improve method performance and cost effectiveness The Methods Team of OSW hasalso published Draft Update IVA for public use and is currently working on Draft Update IVB

Treatment Technologies for Site Cleanup Annual Status Report Ninth Edition April 1999 httpclu-inorgproductsasrindex2html

The report documents as of the summer of 1998 the status of treatment technology applications atmore than 900 soil and groundwater cleanup projects in the Superfund program selected ResourceConservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) corrective action sites and US Department of Energy(DOE) and US Department of Defense (DoD) sites It also includes information about 217incineration and solidification and stabilization projects not previously covered For the mostfrequently selected technologies the report analyzes selection trends over time contaminant groupsaddressed quantities of soil treated and the status of the project For each technology applicationinformation about specific sites has been incorporated into the US 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 Planninghttpclu-inorgpub1htm

This guide describes techniques for managing project uncertainty through decision rules andcontingency planning This document was issued jointly by DOE and EPA

US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Technical Project Planning (TPP) Processhttpwwwusacearmymilinetusace-docseng-manualsem200-1-2

The USACErsquos engineering manual published in August 1998 that describes the four-phase TPPprocess can help project managers technical personnel customers regulators and stakeholdersidentify project objectives and design data collection programs for hazardous toxic and radioactivewaste (HTRW) sites The TPP process helps ensure that the requisite type quality and quantity ofdata are obtained to satisfy project objectives that lead to informed decisions and site closeout

US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Office of Research and Development (ORD)Brownfields Guideshttpwwwepagovncepihom

The series of publications are designed to assist communities states municipalities and the privatesector to address brownfields sites more effectively The guides provide decision makers such as cityplanners private sector developers and others who are involved in redeveloping brownfields with abetter understanding of the technical issues involved in assessing and cleaning up automotive repairsites iron and steel mill sites and metal finishing sites After reading the guides the user will have abetter understanding of activities commonly carried out at such sites and how those activities might



cause the release of contaminants into the environment The guides also provide information aboutthe types of contaminants often found at such sites a discussion of site assessment screening andcleanup levels and cleanup technologies a conceptual framework for identifying potentialcontaminants information about developing a cleanup plan and a discussion of issues and specialfactors that should be considered when developing plans and selecting technologies The followingguides are available

bull Technical Approaches to Characterizing and Cleaning Up Automotive Repair Sites Under theBrownfields Initiative (EPA 625-R-98-008)

bull Technical Approaches to Characterizing and Cleaning Up Iron and Steel Mill Sites Under theBrownfields Initiative (EPA 625-R-98-007)

bull Technical Approaches to Characterizing and Cleaning Up Metal Finishing Sites Under theBrownfields Initiative (EPA 625-R-98-006)

Writing a Request for Proposals A Primer for Brownfield PilotshttpwwwenggksueduHSRCTosctoschomehtml

This document was prepared by the Great PlainsRocky Mountain Hazardous Substance ResearchCenter at Kansas State University The purpose of the primer is to guide those who need to solicitproposals for environmental assessments of brownfields Communities that receive a BrownfieldsPilot Grant typically need to hire a contractor to conduct an environmental assessment of the property

PROGRAMS

Ames Laboratorys Environmental Technology Development Programhttpwwwepsciameslabgov

Ames Laboratory located in Ames Iowa was initiated by DOE through its EnvironmentalManagement Division A DOE Headquarters and Ames Lab work together to speed development andtransfer of technologies for faster safer better and cheaper characterization monitoring and sensingwork One such approach is Expedited Site Characterization (ESC) ESC is a team effort betweenDOEs Environmental Restoration Program US EPA state regulators and Westinghouse SavannahRiver Corporation

California Environmental Technology Certification Program mdash California CertifiedTechnologies Listhttpwwwcalepacagovcalcertcertifiedhtm

The California Environmental Protection Agencyrsquos (CalEPA) Environmental TechnologyCertification program Internet site provides the user access to the California Certified TechnologiesList The document last updated on August 19 1998 provides a list of technologies and theirrespective vendors that have been certified by the state of California Certification is granted totechnologies on the basis of an independent third-party verification of the technologyrsquos performanceand ability to meet regulatory specifications and requirements Developers and manufacturers definequantitative performance claims for their technologies and provide supporting documentation CalEPA reviews that information and when necessary conducts additional testing to verify theclaims Technologies equipment and products that are proven to work as claimed receive officialstate certification

For additional information please see these other publicationsissued by the Brownfields Technology Support Center

bull Road Map to Understanding Innovative Technology Options forBrownfields Investigation and Cleanup Second EditionEPA 542-B-99-009

bull Directory of Technology Support Services to Brownfields LocalitiesEPA 542-B-99-005

bull Assessing Contractor Capabilities for Streamlined Site InvestigationsEPA 542-R-00-001

bull Brownfields Technology Primer Selecting and UsingPhytoremediation for Site CleanupEPA 542-R-01-006

These publications are available online athttpwwwbrownfieldstscorg

or can be ordered by contacting

US Environmental Protection AgencyNational Service Center for Environmental Publications

(NSCEP)PO Box 42419

Cincinnati OH 45242-24191 (800) 490-9198

FAX (513) 489-8695

EPAEPA 542-R-01-005

February 2001

Brownfields Technology Primer Requesting and Evaluating Proposals That Encourage Innovative Technologies for Investigation and Cleanup

Visit the Brownfields TechnologySupport Center Web Site at

httpwwwbrownfieldstscorg

Cover

Notice

Acknowedgements

Contents

10 Introduction

20 Advantages and Uses of Innovative Technologies

30 Incorporating Innovative Approaches Into Your RFP

40 Evaluating Contractors Proposals

Appendix - Sources of Innovative Technology Information

Additional information

Brownfields Technology Primer Requesting and Evaluating Proposals That

Encourage Innovative Technologies forInvestigation and Cleanup

US Environmental Protection AgencyOffice of Solid Waste and Emergency Response

Technology Innovation OfficeWashington DC 20460


NOTICE



ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS



i

CONTENTS

Section Page

10 INTRODUCTION 1

















ii

TABLES









APPENDIX



1

10 INTRODUCTION

11 Purpose






2















3


13 Approach











4









5


Plan FieldWork


Work



Determine End Goals

Select the Tools

Dynamic Work Plans


Plan FieldWork


Work






Dynamic Work Plans









6









24 Examples






7









8














9


















10

AssessingContractor


(EPA 542-R-00-001)














11



Past use

Geology

Climate

Structures

Water bodies



Past use

Geology

Climate

Structures

Water bodies





















12












INFORMATION

DocumentsReports



SiteHistoryand Past

Uses



(COC)




of the Site



Options









7 7 httpusdagov


13





















14


(EPA 542-B-99-009)




















15


(Page 1 of 3)

Resource


RemedialEvaluation





Site TypesAddressed


CostInformation




Technologies


7 7 7 7 7 7


7 7 7 7 7


7 7 7 7 7


7 7 7 7 7

CLU-INhttpclu-inorg

7


7 7


7


7


7


( of 3)


Resource


RemedialEvaluation





Site TypesAddressed


CostInformation




Technologies

16



7 7


7


7 7 7 7


7 7


7


7 7 7 7 7


7


(Page 3 of 3)


Resource


RemedialEvaluation





Site TypesAddressed


CostInformation




Technologies

17


7


7


7


7


7 7


7


7 7 7 7 7


7 7 7



18






























19

TABLE 3-4a1



Technology

CONSIDERATIONS





Time2Status of

Technology


or per Analysis







formations)



Average


formations)



Expensive


from noises)





Expensive




Average




Least expensive




20



(Page 1 of 2)

TECHNOLOGY

CONSIDERATIONS



In Situor Ex Situ



Soil andGroundwater


reading


field technology



decontamination



rough terrain




SoilGroundwater and


for gas)



field technology









SoilGroundwater and


for gas)



field technology










SoilGroundwater and


for gas)



field technology











(Page 2 of 2)


TECHNOLOGY

CONSIDERATIONS



In Situor Ex Situ


21


SoilGroundwater and


for gas)


day


field technology









experience








22



TECHNOLOGY

CONSIDERATIONS



In situ Ex situ



SoilGroundwater and


for gas)




fieldexperience


appropriate QAQC


and uranium







fieldtechnology



appropriate QAQC




In situ andEx situ





per day



fieldexperience







23



TECHNOLOGY

CONSIDERATIONS

In situ Ex situ


Treatment


and Structures1

Impact to Nearby



Frequencyof Use

Status ofTechnology

TargetedContaminant

(OrganicsMetals)







control unit)



Contaminantspecific


organics


is required)







Contaminantspecific


organics


emission)



contamination area



penetrations)


deep)




NaturalAttenuation






ChemicalOxidation




injection unit

Yes (Potential







system)



hazardous products)




TECHNOLOGY

CONSIDERATIONS

In situ Ex situ


Treatment


and Structures1

Impact to Nearby



Frequencyof Use

Status ofTechnology

TargetedContaminant

(OrganicsMetals)




24



contamination area




$150 - $250 cy - deep







emissions)



soil on aprepared

liner and exsitu

treatment)


be required)







Short $40 - $300ton




be required)



treatment unit


acre (only 1

estimate)


be required)




treatment unit


dual pumpingsystem







TECHNOLOGY

CONSIDERATIONS

In situ Ex situ


Treatment


and Structures1

Impact to Nearby



Frequencyof Use

Status ofTechnology

TargetedContaminant

(OrganicsMetals)




25




treatment unit

Yes(Potential









emissions)

Short $43cy forVOCs





area







C)




emissions)




treatment unit




hazardous products)








26
















27










28


















29





















30


















31















32










33















34











35











36




PRODUCTS




Contractdamages











Appendix




















































PUBLICATIONS











































































PROGRAMS













(NSCEP)PO Box 42419

Cincinnati OH 45242-24191 (800) 490-9198

FAX (513) 489-8695

EPAEPA 542-R-01-005

February 2001




Cover

Notice

Acknowedgements

Contents

10 Introduction







NOTICE



ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS



i

CONTENTS

Section Page

10 INTRODUCTION 1

















ii

TABLES









APPENDIX



1

10 INTRODUCTION

11 Purpose






2















3


13 Approach











4









5


Plan FieldWork


Work



Determine End Goals

Select the Tools

Dynamic Work Plans


Plan FieldWork


Work






Dynamic Work Plans









6









24 Examples






7









8














9


















10

AssessingContractor


(EPA 542-R-00-001)














11



Past use

Geology

Climate

Structures

Water bodies



Past use

Geology

Climate

Structures

Water bodies





















12












INFORMATION

DocumentsReports



SiteHistoryand Past

Uses



(COC)




of the Site



Options









7 7 httpusdagov


13





















14


(EPA 542-B-99-009)




















15


(Page 1 of 3)

Resource


RemedialEvaluation





Site TypesAddressed


CostInformation




Technologies


7 7 7 7 7 7


7 7 7 7 7


7 7 7 7 7


7 7 7 7 7

CLU-INhttpclu-inorg

7


7 7


7


7


7


(Page 2 of 3)


Resource


RemedialEvaluation





Site TypesAddressed


CostInformation




Technologies

16



7 7


7


7 7 7 7


7 7


7


7 7 7 7 7


7


( of 3)


Resource


RemedialEvaluation





Site TypesAddressed


CostInformation




Technologies

17


7


7


7


7


7 7


7


7 7 7 7 7


7 7 7



18






























19

TABLE 3-4a1



Technology

CONSIDERATIONS





Time2Status of

Technology


or per Analysis







formations)



Average


formations)



Expensive


from noises)





Expensive




Average




Least expensive




20



(Page 1 of 2)

TECHNOLOGY

CONSIDERATIONS



In Situor Ex Situ



Soil andGroundwater


reading


field technology



decontamination



rough terrain




SoilGroundwater and


for gas)



field technology









SoilGroundwater and


for gas)



field technology










SoilGroundwater and


for gas)



field technology











(Page 2 of 2)


TECHNOLOGY

CONSIDERATIONS



In Situor Ex Situ


21


SoilGroundwater and


for gas)


day


field technology









experience








22



TECHNOLOGY

CONSIDERATIONS



In situ Ex situ



SoilGroundwater and


for gas)




fieldexperience


appropriate QAQC


and uranium







fieldtechnology



appropriate QAQC




In situ andEx situ





per day



fieldexperience







23



TECHNOLOGY

CONSIDERATIONS

In situ Ex situ


Treatment


and Structures1

Impact to Nearby



Frequencyof Use

Status ofTechnology

TargetedContaminant

(OrganicsMetals)







control unit)



Contaminantspecific


organics


is required)







Contaminantspecific


organics


emission)



contamination area



penetrations)


deep)




NaturalAttenuation






ChemicalOxidation




injection unit

Yes (Potential







system)



hazardous products)




TECHNOLOGY

CONSIDERATIONS

In situ Ex situ


Treatment


and Structures1

Impact to Nearby



Frequencyof Use

Status ofTechnology

TargetedContaminant

(OrganicsMetals)




24



contamination area




$150 - $250 cy - deep







emissions)



soil on aprepared

liner and exsitu

treatment)


be required)







Short $40 - $300ton




be required)



treatment unit


acre (only 1

estimate)


be required)




treatment unit


dual pumpingsystem







TECHNOLOGY

CONSIDERATIONS

In situ Ex situ


Treatment


and Structures1

Impact to Nearby



Frequencyof Use

Status ofTechnology

TargetedContaminant

(OrganicsMetals)




25




treatment unit

Yes(Potential









emissions)

Short $43cy forVOCs





area







C)




emissions)




treatment unit




hazardous products)








26
















27










28


















29





















30


















31















32










33















34











35











36




PRODUCTS




Contractdamages











Appendix




















































PUBLICATIONS











































































PROGRAMS













(NSCEP)PO Box 42419

Cincinnati OH 45242-24191 (800) 490-9198

FAX (513) 489-8695

EPAEPA 542-R-01-005

February 2001




Cover

Notice

Acknowedgements

Contents

10 Introduction







ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS



i

CONTENTS

Section Page

10 INTRODUCTION 1

















ii

TABLES









APPENDIX



1

10 INTRODUCTION

11 Purpose






2















3


13 Approach











4









5


Plan FieldWork


Work



Determine End Goals

Select the Tools

Dynamic Work Plans


Plan FieldWork


Work






Dynamic Work Plans









6









24 Examples






7









8














9


















10

AssessingContractor


(EPA 542-R-00-001)














11



Past use

Geology

Climate

Structures

Water bodies



Past use

Geology

Climate

Structures

Water bodies





















12












INFORMATION

DocumentsReports



SiteHistoryand Past

Uses



(COC)




of the Site



Options









7 7 httpusdagov


13





















14


(EPA 542-B-99-009)




















15


(Page 1 of 3)

Resource


RemedialEvaluation





Site TypesAddressed


CostInformation




Technologies


7 7 7 7 7 7


7 7 7 7 7


7 7 7 7 7


7 7 7 7 7

CLU-INhttpclu-inorg

7


7 7


7


7


7


(Page 2 of 3)


Resource


RemedialEvaluation





Site TypesAddressed


CostInformation




Technologies

16



7 7


7


7 7 7 7


7 7


7


7 7 7 7 7


7


(Page 3 of 3)


Resource


RemedialEvaluation





Site TypesAddressed


CostInformation




Technologies

17


7


7


7


7


7 7


7


7 7 7 7 7


7 7 7



18






























19

TABLE 3-4a1



Technology

CONSIDERATIONS





Time2Status of

Technology


or per Analysis







formations)



Average


formations)



Expensive


from noises)





Expensive




Average




Least expensive




20



(Page 1 of 2)

TECHNOLOGY

CONSIDERATIONS



In Situor Ex Situ



Soil andGroundwater


reading


field technology



decontamination



rough terrain




SoilGroundwater and


for gas)



field technology









SoilGroundwater and


for gas)



field technology










SoilGroundwater and


for gas)



field technology











(Page 2 of 2)


TECHNOLOGY

CONSIDERATIONS



In Situor Ex Situ


21


SoilGroundwater and


for gas)


day


field technology









experience








22



TECHNOLOGY

CONSIDERATIONS



In situ Ex situ



SoilGroundwater and


for gas)




fieldexperience


appropriate QAQC


and uranium







fieldtechnology



appropriate QAQC




In situ andEx situ





per day



fieldexperience







23



TECHNOLOGY

CONSIDERATIONS

In situ Ex situ


Treatment


and Structures1

Impact to Nearby



Frequencyof Use

Status ofTechnology

TargetedContaminant

(OrganicsMetals)







control unit)



Contaminantspecific


organics


is required)







Contaminantspecific


organics


emission)



contamination area



penetrations)


deep)




NaturalAttenuation






ChemicalOxidation




injection unit

Yes (Potential







system)



hazardous products)




TECHNOLOGY

CONSIDERATIONS

In situ Ex situ


Treatment


and Structures1

Impact to Nearby



Frequencyof Use

Status ofTechnology

TargetedContaminant

(OrganicsMetals)




24



contamination area




$150 - $250 cy - deep







emissions)



soil on aprepared

liner and exsitu

treatment)


be required)







Short $40 - $300ton




be required)



treatment unit


acre (only 1

estimate)


be required)




treatment unit


dual pumpingsystem







TECHNOLOGY

CONSIDERATIONS

In situ Ex situ


Treatment


and Structures1

Impact to Nearby



Frequencyof Use

Status ofTechnology

TargetedContaminant

(OrganicsMetals)




25




treatment unit

Yes(Potential









emissions)

Short $43cy forVOCs





area







C)




emissions)




treatment unit




hazardous products)








26
















27










28


















29





















30


















31















32










33















34











35











36




PRODUCTS




Contractdamages











Appendix




















































PUBLICATIONS











































































PROGRAMS













(NSCEP)PO Box 42419

Cincinnati OH 45242-24191 (800) 490-9198

FAX (513) 489-8695

EPAEPA 542-R-01-005

February 2001




Cover

Notice

Acknowedgements

Contents

10 Introduction







i

CONTENTS

Section Page

10 INTRODUCTION 1

















ii

TABLES









APPENDIX



1

10 INTRODUCTION

11 Purpose






2















3


13 Approach











4









5


Plan FieldWork


Work



Determine End Goals

Select the Tools

Dynamic Work Plans


Plan FieldWork


Work






Dynamic Work Plans









6









24 Examples






7









8














9


















10

AssessingContractor


(EPA 542-R-00-001)














11



Past use

Geology

Climate

Structures

Water bodies



Past use

Geology

Climate

Structures

Water bodies





















12












INFORMATION

DocumentsReports



SiteHistoryand Past

Uses



(COC)




of the Site



Options









7 7 httpusdagov


13





















14


(EPA 542-B-99-009)




















15


(Page 1 of 3)

Resource


RemedialEvaluation





Site TypesAddressed


CostInformation




Technologies


7 7 7 7 7 7


7 7 7 7 7


7 7 7 7 7


7 7 7 7 7

CLU-INhttpclu-inorg

7


7 7


7


7


7


(Page 2 of 3)


Resource


RemedialEvaluation





Site TypesAddressed


CostInformation




Technologies

16



7 7


7


7 7 7 7


7 7


7


7 7 7 7 7


7


(Page 3 of 3)


Resource


RemedialEvaluation





Site TypesAddressed


CostInformation




Technologies

17


7


7


7


7


7 7


7


7 7 7 7 7


7 7 7



18






























19

TABLE 3-4a1



Technology

CONSIDERATIONS





Time2Status of

Technology


or per Analysis







formations)



Average


formations)



Expensive


from noises)





Expensive




Average




Least expensive




20



(Page 1 of 2)

TECHNOLOGY

CONSIDERATIONS



In Situor Ex Situ



Soil andGroundwater


reading


field technology



decontamination



rough terrain




SoilGroundwater and


for gas)



field technology









SoilGroundwater and


for gas)



field technology










SoilGroundwater and


for gas)



field technology











(Page 2 of 2)


TECHNOLOGY

CONSIDERATIONS



In Situor Ex Situ


21


SoilGroundwater and


for gas)


day


field technology









experience








22



TECHNOLOGY

CONSIDERATIONS



In situ Ex situ



SoilGroundwater and


for gas)




fieldexperience


appropriate QAQC


and uranium







fieldtechnology



appropriate QAQC




In situ andEx situ





per day



fieldexperience







23



TECHNOLOGY

CONSIDERATIONS

In situ Ex situ


Treatment


and Structures1

Impact to Nearby



Frequencyof Use

Status ofTechnology

TargetedContaminant

(OrganicsMetals)







control unit)



Contaminantspecific


organics


is required)







Contaminantspecific


organics


emission)



contamination area



penetrations)


deep)




NaturalAttenuation






ChemicalOxidation




injection unit

Yes (Potential







system)



hazardous products)




TECHNOLOGY

CONSIDERATIONS

In situ Ex situ


Treatment


and Structures1

Impact to Nearby



Frequencyof Use

Status ofTechnology

TargetedContaminant

(OrganicsMetals)




24



contamination area




$150 - $250 cy - deep







emissions)



soil on aprepared

liner and exsitu

treatment)


be required)







Short $40 - $300ton




be required)



treatment unit


acre (only 1

estimate)


be required)




treatment unit


dual pumpingsystem







TECHNOLOGY

CONSIDERATIONS

In situ Ex situ


Treatment


and Structures1

Impact to Nearby



Frequencyof Use

Status ofTechnology

TargetedContaminant

(OrganicsMetals)




25




treatment unit

Yes(Potential









emissions)

Short $43cy forVOCs





area







C)




emissions)




treatment unit




hazardous products)








26
















27










28


















29





















30


















31















32










33















34











35











36




PRODUCTS




Contractdamages











Appendix




















































PUBLICATIONS











































































PROGRAMS













(NSCEP)PO Box 42419

Cincinnati OH 45242-24191 (800) 490-9198

FAX (513) 489-8695

EPAEPA 542-R-01-005

February 2001




Cover

Notice

Acknowedgements

Contents

10 Introduction







ii

TABLES









APPENDIX



1

10 INTRODUCTION

11 Purpose






2















3


13 Approach











4









5


Plan FieldWork


Work



Determine End Goals

Select the Tools

Dynamic Work Plans


Plan FieldWork


Work






Dynamic Work Plans









6









24 Examples






7









8














9


















10

AssessingContractor


(EPA 542-R-00-001)














11



Past use

Geology

Climate

Structures

Water bodies



Past use

Geology

Climate

Structures

Water bodies





















12












INFORMATION

DocumentsReports



SiteHistoryand Past

Uses



(COC)




of the Site



Options









7 7 httpusdagov


13





















14


(EPA 542-B-99-009)




















15


(Page 1 of 3)

Resource


RemedialEvaluation





Site TypesAddressed


CostInformation




Technologies


7 7 7 7 7 7


7 7 7 7 7


7 7 7 7 7


7 7 7 7 7

CLU-INhttpclu-inorg

7


7 7


7


7


7


(Page 2 of 3)


Resource


RemedialEvaluation





Site TypesAddressed


CostInformation




Technologies

16



7 7


7


7 7 7 7


7 7


7


7 7 7 7 7


7


(Page 3 of 3)


Resource


RemedialEvaluation





Site TypesAddressed


CostInformation




Technologies

17


7


7


7


7


7 7


7


7 7 7 7 7


7 7 7



18






























19

TABLE 3-4a1



Technology

CONSIDERATIONS





Time2Status of

Technology


or per Analysis







formations)



Average


formations)



Expensive


from noises)





Expensive




Average




Least expensive




20



(Page 1 of 2)

TECHNOLOGY

CONSIDERATIONS



In Situor Ex Situ



Soil andGroundwater


reading


field technology



decontamination



rough terrain




SoilGroundwater and


for gas)



field technology









SoilGroundwater and


for gas)



field technology










SoilGroundwater and


for gas)



field technology











(Page 2 of 2)


TECHNOLOGY

CONSIDERATIONS



In Situor Ex Situ


21


SoilGroundwater and


for gas)


day


field technology









experience








22



TECHNOLOGY

CONSIDERATIONS



In situ Ex situ



SoilGroundwater and


for gas)




fieldexperience


appropriate QAQC


and uranium







fieldtechnology



appropriate QAQC




In situ andEx situ





per day



fieldexperience







23



TECHNOLOGY

CONSIDERATIONS

In situ Ex situ


Treatment


and Structures1

Impact to Nearby



Frequencyof Use

Status ofTechnology

TargetedContaminant

(OrganicsMetals)







control unit)



Contaminantspecific


organics


is required)







Contaminantspecific


organics


emission)



contamination area



penetrations)


deep)




NaturalAttenuation






ChemicalOxidation




injection unit

Yes (Potential







system)



hazardous products)




TECHNOLOGY

CONSIDERATIONS

In situ Ex situ


Treatment


and Structures1

Impact to Nearby



Frequencyof Use

Status ofTechnology

TargetedContaminant

(OrganicsMetals)




24



contamination area




$150 - $250 cy - deep







emissions)



soil on aprepared

liner and exsitu

treatment)


be required)







Short $40 - $300ton




be required)



treatment unit


acre (only 1

estimate)


be required)




treatment unit


dual pumpingsystem







TECHNOLOGY

CONSIDERATIONS

In situ Ex situ


Treatment


and Structures1

Impact to Nearby



Frequencyof Use

Status ofTechnology

TargetedContaminant

(OrganicsMetals)




25




treatment unit

Yes(Potential









emissions)

Short $43cy forVOCs





area







C)




emissions)




treatment unit




hazardous products)








26
















27










28


















29





















30


















31















32










33















34











35











36




PRODUCTS




Contractdamages











Appendix




















































PUBLICATIONS











































































PROGRAMS













(NSCEP)PO Box 42419

Cincinnati OH 45242-24191 (800) 490-9198

FAX (513) 489-8695

EPAEPA 542-R-01-005

February 2001




Cover

Notice

Acknowedgements

Contents

10 Introduction







1

10 INTRODUCTION

11 Purpose






2















3


13 Approach











4









5


Plan FieldWork


Work



Determine End Goals

Select the Tools

Dynamic Work Plans


Plan FieldWork


Work






Dynamic Work Plans









6









24 Examples






7









8














9


















10

AssessingContractor


(EPA 542-R-00-001)














11



Past use

Geology

Climate

Structures

Water bodies



Past use

Geology

Climate

Structures

Water bodies





















12












INFORMATION

DocumentsReports



SiteHistoryand Past

Uses



(COC)




of the Site



Options









7 7 httpusdagov


13





















14


(EPA 542-B-99-009)




















15


(Page 1 of 3)

Resource


RemedialEvaluation





Site TypesAddressed


CostInformation




Technologies


7 7 7 7 7 7


7 7 7 7 7


7 7 7 7 7


7 7 7 7 7

CLU-INhttpclu-inorg

7


7 7


7


7


7


(Page 2 of 3)


Resource


RemedialEvaluation





Site TypesAddressed


CostInformation




Technologies

16



7 7


7


7 7 7 7


7 7


7


7 7 7 7 7


7


(Page 3 of 3)


Resource


RemedialEvaluation





Site TypesAddressed


CostInformation




Technologies

17


7


7


7


7


7 7


7


7 7 7 7 7


7 7 7



18






























19

TABLE 3-4a1



Technology

CONSIDERATIONS





Time2Status of

Technology


or per Analysis







formations)



Average


formations)



Expensive


from noises)





Expensive




Average




Least expensive




20



(Page 1 of 2)

TECHNOLOGY

CONSIDERATIONS



In Situor Ex Situ



Soil andGroundwater


reading


field technology



decontamination



rough terrain




SoilGroundwater and


for gas)



field technology









SoilGroundwater and


for gas)



field technology










SoilGroundwater and


for gas)



field technology











(Page 2 of 2)


TECHNOLOGY

CONSIDERATIONS



In Situor Ex Situ


21


SoilGroundwater and


for gas)


day


field technology









experience








22



TECHNOLOGY

CONSIDERATIONS



In situ Ex situ



SoilGroundwater and


for gas)




fieldexperience


appropriate QAQC


and uranium







fieldtechnology



appropriate QAQC




In situ andEx situ





per day



fieldexperience







23



TECHNOLOGY

CONSIDERATIONS

In situ Ex situ


Treatment


and Structures1

Impact to Nearby



Frequencyof Use

Status ofTechnology

TargetedContaminant

(OrganicsMetals)







control unit)



Contaminantspecific


organics


is required)







Contaminantspecific


organics


emission)



contamination area



penetrations)


deep)




NaturalAttenuation






ChemicalOxidation




injection unit

Yes (Potential







system)



hazardous products)




TECHNOLOGY

CONSIDERATIONS

In situ Ex situ


Treatment


and Structures1

Impact to Nearby



Frequencyof Use

Status ofTechnology

TargetedContaminant

(OrganicsMetals)




24



contamination area




$150 - $250 cy - deep







emissions)



soil on aprepared

liner and exsitu

treatment)


be required)







Short $40 - $300ton




be required)



treatment unit


acre (only 1

estimate)


be required)




treatment unit


dual pumpingsystem







TECHNOLOGY

CONSIDERATIONS

In situ Ex situ


Treatment


and Structures1

Impact to Nearby



Frequencyof Use

Status ofTechnology

TargetedContaminant

(OrganicsMetals)




25




treatment unit

Yes(Potential









emissions)

Short $43cy forVOCs





area







C)




emissions)




treatment unit




hazardous products)








26
















27










28


















29





















30


















31















32










33















34











35











36




PRODUCTS




Contractdamages











Appendix




















































PUBLICATIONS











































































PROGRAMS













(NSCEP)PO Box 42419

Cincinnati OH 45242-24191 (800) 490-9198

FAX (513) 489-8695

EPAEPA 542-R-01-005

February 2001




Cover

Notice

Acknowedgements

Contents

10 Introduction







2















3


13 Approach











4









5


Plan FieldWork


Work



Determine End Goals

Select the Tools

Dynamic Work Plans


Plan FieldWork


Work






Dynamic Work Plans









6









24 Examples






7









8














9


















10

AssessingContractor


(EPA 542-R-00-001)














11



Past use

Geology

Climate

Structures

Water bodies



Past use

Geology

Climate

Structures

Water bodies





















12












INFORMATION

DocumentsReports



SiteHistoryand Past

Uses



(COC)




of the Site



Options









7 7 httpusdagov


13





















14


(EPA 542-B-99-009)




















15


(Page 1 of 3)

Resource


RemedialEvaluation





Site TypesAddressed


CostInformation




Technologies


7 7 7 7 7 7


7 7 7 7 7


7 7 7 7 7


7 7 7 7 7

CLU-INhttpclu-inorg

7


7 7


7


7


7


(Page 2 of 3)


Resource


RemedialEvaluation





Site TypesAddressed


CostInformation




Technologies

16



7 7


7


7 7 7 7


7 7


7


7 7 7 7 7


7


(Page 3 of 3)


Resource


RemedialEvaluation





Site TypesAddressed


CostInformation




Technologies

17


7


7


7


7


7 7


7


7 7 7 7 7


7 7 7



18






























19

TABLE 3-4a1



Technology

CONSIDERATIONS





Time2Status of

Technology


or per Analysis







formations)



Average


formations)



Expensive


from noises)





Expensive




Average




Least expensive




20



(Page 1 of 2)

TECHNOLOGY

CONSIDERATIONS



In Situor Ex Situ



Soil andGroundwater


reading


field technology



decontamination



rough terrain




SoilGroundwater and


for gas)



field technology









SoilGroundwater and


for gas)



field technology










SoilGroundwater and


for gas)



field technology











(Page 2 of 2)


TECHNOLOGY

CONSIDERATIONS



In Situor Ex Situ


21


SoilGroundwater and


for gas)


day


field technology









experience








22



TECHNOLOGY

CONSIDERATIONS



In situ Ex situ



SoilGroundwater and


for gas)




fieldexperience


appropriate QAQC


and uranium







fieldtechnology



appropriate QAQC




In situ andEx situ





per day



fieldexperience







23



TECHNOLOGY

CONSIDERATIONS

In situ Ex situ


Treatment


and Structures1

Impact to Nearby



Frequencyof Use

Status ofTechnology

TargetedContaminant

(OrganicsMetals)







control unit)



Contaminantspecific


organics


is required)







Contaminantspecific


organics


emission)



contamination area



penetrations)


deep)




NaturalAttenuation






ChemicalOxidation




injection unit

Yes (Potential







system)



hazardous products)




TECHNOLOGY

CONSIDERATIONS

In situ Ex situ


Treatment


and Structures1

Impact to Nearby



Frequencyof Use

Status ofTechnology

TargetedContaminant

(OrganicsMetals)




24



contamination area




$150 - $250 cy - deep







emissions)



soil on aprepared

liner and exsitu

treatment)


be required)







Short $40 - $300ton




be required)



treatment unit


acre (only 1

estimate)


be required)




treatment unit


dual pumpingsystem







TECHNOLOGY

CONSIDERATIONS

In situ Ex situ


Treatment


and Structures1

Impact to Nearby



Frequencyof Use

Status ofTechnology

TargetedContaminant

(OrganicsMetals)




25




treatment unit

Yes(Potential









emissions)

Short $43cy forVOCs





area







C)




emissions)




treatment unit




hazardous products)








26
















27










28


















29





















30


















31















32










33















34











35











36




PRODUCTS




Contractdamages











Appendix




















































PUBLICATIONS











































































PROGRAMS













(NSCEP)PO Box 42419

Cincinnati OH 45242-24191 (800) 490-9198

FAX (513) 489-8695

EPAEPA 542-R-01-005

February 2001




Cover

Notice

Acknowedgements

Contents

10 Introduction







3


13 Approach











4









5


Plan FieldWork


Work



Determine End Goals

Select the Tools

Dynamic Work Plans


Plan FieldWork


Work






Dynamic Work Plans









6









24 Examples






7









8














9


















10

AssessingContractor


(EPA 542-R-00-001)














11



Past use

Geology

Climate

Structures

Water bodies



Past use

Geology

Climate

Structures

Water bodies





















12












INFORMATION

DocumentsReports



SiteHistoryand Past

Uses



(COC)




of the Site



Options









7 7 httpusdagov


13





















14


(EPA 542-B-99-009)




















15


(Page 1 of 3)

Resource


RemedialEvaluation





Site TypesAddressed


CostInformation




Technologies


7 7 7 7 7 7


7 7 7 7 7


7 7 7 7 7


7 7 7 7 7

CLU-INhttpclu-inorg

7


7 7


7


7


7


(Page 2 of 3)


Resource


RemedialEvaluation





Site TypesAddressed


CostInformation




Technologies

16



7 7


7


7 7 7 7


7 7


7


7 7 7 7 7


7


(Page 3 of 3)


Resource


RemedialEvaluation





Site TypesAddressed


CostInformation




Technologies

17


7


7


7


7


7 7


7


7 7 7 7 7


7 7 7



18






























19

TABLE 3-4a1



Technology

CONSIDERATIONS





Time2Status of

Technology


or per Analysis







formations)



Average


formations)



Expensive


from noises)





Expensive




Average




Least expensive




20



(Page 1 of 2)

TECHNOLOGY

CONSIDERATIONS



In Situor Ex Situ



Soil andGroundwater


reading


field technology



decontamination



rough terrain




SoilGroundwater and


for gas)



field technology









SoilGroundwater and


for gas)



field technology










SoilGroundwater and


for gas)



field technology











(Page 2 of 2)


TECHNOLOGY

CONSIDERATIONS



In Situor Ex Situ


21


SoilGroundwater and


for gas)


day


field technology









experience








22



TECHNOLOGY

CONSIDERATIONS



In situ Ex situ



SoilGroundwater and


for gas)




fieldexperience


appropriate QAQC


and uranium







fieldtechnology



appropriate QAQC




In situ andEx situ





per day



fieldexperience







23



TECHNOLOGY

CONSIDERATIONS

In situ Ex situ


Treatment


and Structures1

Impact to Nearby



Frequencyof Use

Status ofTechnology

TargetedContaminant

(OrganicsMetals)







control unit)



Contaminantspecific


organics


is required)







Contaminantspecific


organics


emission)



contamination area



penetrations)


deep)




NaturalAttenuation






ChemicalOxidation




injection unit

Yes (Potential







system)



hazardous products)




TECHNOLOGY

CONSIDERATIONS

In situ Ex situ


Treatment


and Structures1

Impact to Nearby



Frequencyof Use

Status ofTechnology

TargetedContaminant

(OrganicsMetals)




24



contamination area




$150 - $250 cy - deep







emissions)



soil on aprepared

liner and exsitu

treatment)


be required)







Short $40 - $300ton




be required)



treatment unit


acre (only 1

estimate)


be required)




treatment unit


dual pumpingsystem







TECHNOLOGY

CONSIDERATIONS

In situ Ex situ


Treatment


and Structures1

Impact to Nearby



Frequencyof Use

Status ofTechnology

TargetedContaminant

(OrganicsMetals)




25




treatment unit

Yes(Potential









emissions)

Short $43cy forVOCs





area







C)




emissions)




treatment unit




hazardous products)








26
















27










28


















29





















30


















31















32










33















34











35











36




PRODUCTS




Contractdamages











Appendix




















































PUBLICATIONS











































































PROGRAMS













(NSCEP)PO Box 42419

Cincinnati OH 45242-24191 (800) 490-9198

FAX (513) 489-8695

EPAEPA 542-R-01-005

February 2001




Cover

Notice

Acknowedgements

Contents

10 Introduction







4









5


Plan FieldWork


Work



Determine End Goals

Select the Tools

Dynamic Work Plans


Plan FieldWork


Work






Dynamic Work Plans









6









24 Examples






7









8














9


















10

AssessingContractor


(EPA 542-R-00-001)














11



Past use

Geology

Climate

Structures

Water bodies



Past use

Geology

Climate

Structures

Water bodies





















12












INFORMATION

DocumentsReports



SiteHistoryand Past

Uses



(COC)




of the Site



Options









7 7 httpusdagov


13





















14


(EPA 542-B-99-009)




















15


(Page 1 of 3)

Resource


RemedialEvaluation





Site TypesAddressed


CostInformation




Technologies


7 7 7 7 7 7


7 7 7 7 7


7 7 7 7 7


7 7 7 7 7

CLU-INhttpclu-inorg

7


7 7


7


7


7


(Page 2 of 3)


Resource


RemedialEvaluation





Site TypesAddressed


CostInformation




Technologies

16



7 7


7


7 7 7 7


7 7


7


7 7 7 7 7


7


(Page 3 of 3)


Resource


RemedialEvaluation





Site TypesAddressed


CostInformation




Technologies

17


7


7


7


7


7 7


7


7 7 7 7 7


7 7 7



18






























19

TABLE 3-4a1



Technology

CONSIDERATIONS





Time2Status of

Technology


or per Analysis







formations)



Average


formations)



Expensive


from noises)





Expensive




Average




Least expensive




20



(Page 1 of 2)

TECHNOLOGY

CONSIDERATIONS



In Situor Ex Situ



Soil andGroundwater


reading


field technology



decontamination



rough terrain




SoilGroundwater and


for gas)



field technology









SoilGroundwater and


for gas)



field technology










SoilGroundwater and


for gas)



field technology











(Page 2 of 2)


TECHNOLOGY

CONSIDERATIONS



In Situor Ex Situ


21


SoilGroundwater and


for gas)


day


field technology









experience








22



TECHNOLOGY

CONSIDERATIONS



In situ Ex situ



SoilGroundwater and


for gas)




fieldexperience


appropriate QAQC


and uranium







fieldtechnology



appropriate QAQC




In situ andEx situ





per day



fieldexperience







23



TECHNOLOGY

CONSIDERATIONS

In situ Ex situ


Treatment


and Structures1

Impact to Nearby



Frequencyof Use

Status ofTechnology

TargetedContaminant

(OrganicsMetals)







control unit)



Contaminantspecific


organics


is required)







Contaminantspecific


organics


emission)



contamination area



penetrations)


deep)




NaturalAttenuation






ChemicalOxidation




injection unit

Yes (Potential







system)



hazardous products)




TECHNOLOGY

CONSIDERATIONS

In situ Ex situ


Treatment


and Structures1

Impact to Nearby



Frequencyof Use

Status ofTechnology

TargetedContaminant

(OrganicsMetals)




24



contamination area




$150 - $250 cy - deep







emissions)



soil on aprepared

liner and exsitu

treatment)


be required)







Short $40 - $300ton




be required)



treatment unit


acre (only 1

estimate)


be required)




treatment unit


dual pumpingsystem







TECHNOLOGY

CONSIDERATIONS

In situ Ex situ


Treatment


and Structures1

Impact to Nearby



Frequencyof Use

Status ofTechnology

TargetedContaminant

(OrganicsMetals)




25




treatment unit

Yes(Potential









emissions)

Short $43cy forVOCs





area







C)




emissions)




treatment unit




hazardous products)








26
















27










28


















29





















30


















31















32










33















34











35











36




PRODUCTS




Contractdamages











Appendix




















































PUBLICATIONS











































































PROGRAMS













(NSCEP)PO Box 42419

Cincinnati OH 45242-24191 (800) 490-9198

FAX (513) 489-8695

EPAEPA 542-R-01-005

February 2001




Cover

Notice

Acknowedgements

Contents

10 Introduction







5


Plan FieldWork


Work



Determine End Goals

Select the Tools

Dynamic Work Plans


Plan FieldWork


Work






Dynamic Work Plans









6









24 Examples






7









8














9


















10

AssessingContractor


(EPA 542-R-00-001)














11



Past use

Geology

Climate

Structures

Water bodies



Past use

Geology

Climate

Structures

Water bodies





















12












INFORMATION

DocumentsReports



SiteHistoryand Past

Uses



(COC)




of the Site



Options









7 7 httpusdagov


13





















14


(EPA 542-B-99-009)




















15


(Page 1 of 3)

Resource


RemedialEvaluation





Site TypesAddressed


CostInformation




Technologies


7 7 7 7 7 7


7 7 7 7 7


7 7 7 7 7


7 7 7 7 7

CLU-INhttpclu-inorg

7


7 7


7


7


7


(Page 2 of 3)


Resource


RemedialEvaluation





Site TypesAddressed


CostInformation




Technologies

16



7 7


7


7 7 7 7


7 7


7


7 7 7 7 7


7


(Page 3 of 3)


Resource


RemedialEvaluation





Site TypesAddressed


CostInformation




Technologies

17


7


7


7


7


7 7


7


7 7 7 7 7


7 7 7



18






























19

TABLE 3-4a1



Technology

CONSIDERATIONS





Time2Status of

Technology


or per Analysis







formations)



Average


formations)



Expensive


from noises)





Expensive




Average




Least expensive




20



(Page 1 of 2)

TECHNOLOGY

CONSIDERATIONS



In Situor Ex Situ



Soil andGroundwater


reading


field technology



decontamination



rough terrain




SoilGroundwater and


for gas)



field technology









SoilGroundwater and


for gas)



field technology










SoilGroundwater and


for gas)



field technology











(Page 2 of 2)


TECHNOLOGY

CONSIDERATIONS



In Situor Ex Situ


21


SoilGroundwater and


for gas)


day


field technology









experience








22



TECHNOLOGY

CONSIDERATIONS



In situ Ex situ



SoilGroundwater and


for gas)




fieldexperience


appropriate QAQC


and uranium







fieldtechnology



appropriate QAQC




In situ andEx situ





per day



fieldexperience







23



TECHNOLOGY

CONSIDERATIONS

In situ Ex situ


Treatment


and Structures1

Impact to Nearby



Frequencyof Use

Status ofTechnology

TargetedContaminant

(OrganicsMetals)







control unit)



Contaminantspecific


organics


is required)







Contaminantspecific


organics


emission)



contamination area



penetrations)


deep)




NaturalAttenuation






ChemicalOxidation




injection unit

Yes (Potential







system)



hazardous products)




TECHNOLOGY

CONSIDERATIONS

In situ Ex situ


Treatment


and Structures1

Impact to Nearby



Frequencyof Use

Status ofTechnology

TargetedContaminant

(OrganicsMetals)




24



contamination area




$150 - $250 cy - deep







emissions)



soil on aprepared

liner and exsitu

treatment)


be required)







Short $40 - $300ton




be required)



treatment unit


acre (only 1

estimate)


be required)




treatment unit


dual pumpingsystem







TECHNOLOGY

CONSIDERATIONS

In situ Ex situ


Treatment


and Structures1

Impact to Nearby



Frequencyof Use

Status ofTechnology

TargetedContaminant

(OrganicsMetals)




25




treatment unit

Yes(Potential









emissions)

Short $43cy forVOCs





area







C)




emissions)




treatment unit




hazardous products)








26
















27










28


















29





















30


















31















32










33















34











35











36




PRODUCTS




Contractdamages











Appendix




















































PUBLICATIONS











































































PROGRAMS













(NSCEP)PO Box 42419

Cincinnati OH 45242-24191 (800) 490-9198

FAX (513) 489-8695

EPAEPA 542-R-01-005

February 2001




Cover

Notice

Acknowedgements

Contents

10 Introduction







6









24 Examples






7









8














9


















10

AssessingContractor


(EPA 542-R-00-001)














11



Past use

Geology

Climate

Structures

Water bodies



Past use

Geology

Climate

Structures

Water bodies





















12












INFORMATION

DocumentsReports



SiteHistoryand Past

Uses



(COC)




of the Site



Options









7 7 httpusdagov


13





















14


(EPA 542-B-99-009)




















15


(Page 1 of 3)

Resource


RemedialEvaluation





Site TypesAddressed


CostInformation




Technologies


7 7 7 7 7 7


7 7 7 7 7


7 7 7 7 7


7 7 7 7 7

CLU-INhttpclu-inorg

7


7 7


7


7


7


(Page 2 of 3)


Resource


RemedialEvaluation





Site TypesAddressed


CostInformation




Technologies

16



7 7


7


7 7 7 7


7 7


7


7 7 7 7 7


7


(Page 3 of 3)


Resource


RemedialEvaluation





Site TypesAddressed


CostInformation




Technologies

17


7


7


7


7


7 7


7


7 7 7 7 7


7 7 7



18






























19

TABLE 3-4a1



Technology

CONSIDERATIONS





Time2Status of

Technology


or per Analysis







formations)



Average


formations)



Expensive


from noises)





Expensive




Average




Least expensive




20



(Page 1 of 2)

TECHNOLOGY

CONSIDERATIONS



In Situor Ex Situ



Soil andGroundwater


reading


field technology



decontamination



rough terrain




SoilGroundwater and


for gas)



field technology









SoilGroundwater and


for gas)



field technology










SoilGroundwater and


for gas)



field technology











(Page 2 of 2)


TECHNOLOGY

CONSIDERATIONS



In Situor Ex Situ


21


SoilGroundwater and


for gas)


day


field technology









experience








22



TECHNOLOGY

CONSIDERATIONS



In situ Ex situ



SoilGroundwater and


for gas)




fieldexperience


appropriate QAQC


and uranium







fieldtechnology



appropriate QAQC




In situ andEx situ





per day



fieldexperience







23



TECHNOLOGY

CONSIDERATIONS

In situ Ex situ


Treatment


and Structures1

Impact to Nearby



Frequencyof Use

Status ofTechnology

TargetedContaminant

(OrganicsMetals)







control unit)



Contaminantspecific


organics


is required)







Contaminantspecific


organics


emission)



contamination area



penetrations)


deep)




NaturalAttenuation






ChemicalOxidation




injection unit

Yes (Potential







system)



hazardous products)




TECHNOLOGY

CONSIDERATIONS

In situ Ex situ


Treatment


and Structures1

Impact to Nearby



Frequencyof Use

Status ofTechnology

TargetedContaminant

(OrganicsMetals)




24



contamination area




$150 - $250 cy - deep







emissions)



soil on aprepared

liner and exsitu

treatment)


be required)







Short $40 - $300ton




be required)



treatment unit


acre (only 1

estimate)


be required)




treatment unit


dual pumpingsystem







TECHNOLOGY

CONSIDERATIONS

In situ Ex situ


Treatment


and Structures1

Impact to Nearby



Frequencyof Use

Status ofTechnology

TargetedContaminant

(OrganicsMetals)




25




treatment unit

Yes(Potential









emissions)

Short $43cy forVOCs





area







C)




emissions)




treatment unit




hazardous products)








26
















27










28


















29





















30


















31















32










33















34











35











36




PRODUCTS




Contractdamages











Appendix




















































PUBLICATIONS











































































PROGRAMS













(NSCEP)PO Box 42419

Cincinnati OH 45242-24191 (800) 490-9198

FAX (513) 489-8695

EPAEPA 542-R-01-005

February 2001




Cover

Notice

Acknowedgements

Contents

10 Introduction







7









8














9


















10

AssessingContractor


(EPA 542-R-00-001)














11



Past use

Geology

Climate

Structures

Water bodies



Past use

Geology

Climate

Structures

Water bodies





















12












INFORMATION

DocumentsReports



SiteHistoryand Past

Uses



(COC)




of the Site



Options









7 7 httpusdagov


13





















14


(EPA 542-B-99-009)




















15


(Page 1 of 3)

Resource


RemedialEvaluation





Site TypesAddressed


CostInformation




Technologies


7 7 7 7 7 7


7 7 7 7 7


7 7 7 7 7


7 7 7 7 7

CLU-INhttpclu-inorg

7


7 7


7


7


7


(Page 2 of 3)


Resource


RemedialEvaluation





Site TypesAddressed


CostInformation




Technologies

16



7 7


7


7 7 7 7


7 7


7


7 7 7 7 7


7


(Page 3 of 3)


Resource


RemedialEvaluation





Site TypesAddressed


CostInformation




Technologies

17


7


7


7


7


7 7


7


7 7 7 7 7


7 7 7



18






























19

TABLE 3-4a1



Technology

CONSIDERATIONS





Time2Status of

Technology


or per Analysis







formations)



Average


formations)



Expensive


from noises)





Expensive




Average




Least expensive




20



(Page 1 of 2)

TECHNOLOGY

CONSIDERATIONS



In Situor Ex Situ



Soil andGroundwater


reading


field technology



decontamination



rough terrain




SoilGroundwater and


for gas)



field technology









SoilGroundwater and


for gas)



field technology










SoilGroundwater and


for gas)



field technology











(Page 2 of 2)


TECHNOLOGY

CONSIDERATIONS



In Situor Ex Situ


21


SoilGroundwater and


for gas)


day


field technology









experience








22



TECHNOLOGY

CONSIDERATIONS



In situ Ex situ



SoilGroundwater and


for gas)




fieldexperience


appropriate QAQC


and uranium







fieldtechnology



appropriate QAQC




In situ andEx situ





per day



fieldexperience







23



TECHNOLOGY

CONSIDERATIONS

In situ Ex situ


Treatment


and Structures1

Impact to Nearby



Frequencyof Use

Status ofTechnology

TargetedContaminant

(OrganicsMetals)







control unit)



Contaminantspecific


organics


is required)







Contaminantspecific


organics


emission)



contamination area



penetrations)


deep)




NaturalAttenuation






ChemicalOxidation




injection unit

Yes (Potential







system)



hazardous products)




TECHNOLOGY

CONSIDERATIONS

In situ Ex situ


Treatment


and Structures1

Impact to Nearby



Frequencyof Use

Status ofTechnology

TargetedContaminant

(OrganicsMetals)




24



contamination area




$150 - $250 cy - deep







emissions)



soil on aprepared

liner and exsitu

treatment)


be required)







Short $40 - $300ton




be required)



treatment unit


acre (only 1

estimate)


be required)




treatment unit


dual pumpingsystem







TECHNOLOGY

CONSIDERATIONS

In situ Ex situ


Treatment


and Structures1

Impact to Nearby



Frequencyof Use

Status ofTechnology

TargetedContaminant

(OrganicsMetals)




25




treatment unit

Yes(Potential









emissions)

Short $43cy forVOCs





area







C)




emissions)




treatment unit




hazardous products)








26
















27










28


















29





















30


















31















32










33















34











35











36




PRODUCTS




Contractdamages











Appendix




















































PUBLICATIONS











































































PROGRAMS













(NSCEP)PO Box 42419

Cincinnati OH 45242-24191 (800) 490-9198

FAX (513) 489-8695

EPAEPA 542-R-01-005

February 2001




Cover

Notice

Acknowedgements

Contents

10 Introduction




