HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgreement for Professional Service No. 127
Augusta Richmond GA
DOCUMENT NAME: A J r<aMw-r tR. (Pee ~E- 9,; 10'" A L ~ ElL\.! C-E:$ (\) b. I d '7
DOCUMENT TYPE: ;1<; RJf;~.-If\ t:?ftJ--\
YEAR: I qq 9
BOX NUMBER: '7
FILE NUMBER:
IL(/~~
NUMBER OF PAGES:
(Jct
:.
EIM~A
,-: I ,/: ,2-
, " I ' ,
='- .' -- --
Environmental Management Associates, LLC
2240 Brickton Station
Buford, Georgia 305"18
Telephone 770-271-7098
Fax 770-271,5550
Reference No. 127
AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
THIS AGREEMENT is made this 12th day of April 1999, between Environmental
Management Associates, LLC (hereinafter "EMA") and Augusta-Richmond County
(hereinafter "CLIENP). In consideration of the mutual promises set forth herein, EMA
and CLIENT agree as follows:
1. EMA will perform the work assigned to it by CLIENT's Contract Representative.
The scope of work is set forth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and made a part of
this Agreement.
2. EMA shall bill CLIENT for services rendered on lump sum basis in accordance
with the not- to exceed cost set forth in Exhibit "A" to this Agreement. The total
cost set forth in Exhibit "A" is all inclusive, including overhead and profit, and
apply to all hours expended with no premium charged for overtime hours.
3. EMA shall be reimbursed for all expenses and disbursements incurred in
connection with its services hereunder, including but not limited to reasonable
travel and living expenses; long distance telephone charges; teletype, telegraph
and telecopy charges; printing and reproduction costs; photographic expenses;
advertising for bids; special delivery and express charges; costs of providing and
maintaining site offices, supplies and equipment; and all necessary and incidental
costs associated with subcontracts where appropriate. All such charges shall be
billed by EMA and paid by CLIENT at cost. ~
Payment of all EMA invoices shall be due upon receipt by CLIENT. St.to...."ls I ,,)
'not ~aid within 30 dars shall be 8ub'ect to an additional Cha.rg8 of gn8 and on8 half OflV
PQrc€lut (1 1/2%) p8r R,wuth. In the event that CLIENT disputes a statement, its
Contract Representative shall notify EMA in writing within 30 days of receipt of
the Statement by CLIENT and CLIENT shall pay any undisputed portion of the
1
invoice. If the partie~ are unable to resolve-the dispute within ~ys Qf filing the
b (A.-f- to. lH- 1M/- I-t- ~& r A/7 tJ A
notice of dispute, the parties may el~o settle the dispute by ation. Interest
~
shall not accrue on any dispuWd amount.
4. EMA carries the insurance coverage set forth in Exhibit "B".
5. (a) CLIENT shall, if requested by EMA, review any designs, drawings, plans,
specifications, reports, bids, proposals and other information provided by
EMA. CLIENT agrees to make any decisions which EMA identifies that it
must make within a reasonable time so as not to delay the work of EMA.
(b) At the request of EMA, CLIENT shall provide EMA with the following
information and documents, except insofar as EMA is expressly required to
furnish the same under the terms hereof:
i) pertinent information which may affect the work to be done, to the
extent that such information is in CLIENT's possession; and
ii) information, plans and specifications regarding any existing or proposed
buildings or works which are involved in the work, to the extent such
information is in CLIENT's possession; and insofar as such information
is not available, CLIENT agrees to pay EMA for the cost of obtaining the
same.
(c) EMA shall be responsible for the preparation and review of all plans,
specifications, drawings and designs. EMA will be responsible for the
accuracy of all information used in the preparation of such plans,
specifications, drawings and designs, except to the extent that such
information was provided by CLIENT or the project site owner and EMA
relied on such information. EMA shall be liable for any loss or damage
arising from any inaccuracy in such information, except to the extent that
such information was provided by CLIENT or the project site owner and
EMA relied on such information.
2
'i.
(d)
EMA shall have the primary responsibility of determining if known or
potential health or safety hazards exist on or near the project site upon which
services are to be performed by EMA or its subcontractors, with particular
reference to hazardous substances or conditions. To the extent that such
information is in its possession, CLIENT shall disclose it to EMA prior to the
commencement of work. If hazardous conditions or substances are
discovered by EMA during the performance of its services which it could not
have reasonably discovered prior to the commencement of work, or which
CLIENT had in its possession and failed to disclose, and if the existence of
such substances or conditions materially changes the nature or conduct of
EMA's work or responsibilities at the project site, CLIENT and EMA shall
seek to agree on an equitable adjustment to EMA's Scope of Work to reflect
such changes. If the parties are un~ble to/.1~~e on such adjustments, this
Agreement may be terminated b~ fu~~2'ordance with the termination
provisions of this Agreement.
~
CLIENT shall provide EMA with all data and information in its possession
relating to the project and the environmental, geological and geotechnical
conditions of the site and all surrounding area. Copies of all drawings for
determining the location of all subsurface structures including but not limited
to pipes, tanks, sewer and utilities (power, phone, cable, gas, water, etc.) will
be provided to EMA by the CLIENT where possible.
6. EMA shall not disclose any confidential information relating to CLIENT without
the prior written consent of CLIENT, except as may be required by law or as may
be required by emergency situations,
7. The parties acknowledge and agree that EMA shall be an independent contractor
and shall have responsibility for and control over the means of providing services,
including the direction, inspection and management of all contractors engaged by
CLIENT to execute remedial work described in any Addendum to this Agreement.
8. In the event that CLIENT does not own or control the project site, CLIENT
warrants to EMA that it will obtain permission from the project site owner for a
right-of-entry as needed by EM A, its employees, agents and subcontractors for
providing the services called for in this Agreement. EMA agrees that its
3
employees, agents and subcontractors will comply with all health and safety
requirements of the project site owner which may be imposed upon EMA as a
condition of its right-of-entry.
9. EMA shall preserve all samples obtained from the project site as it deems
necessary for the project, but not longer than forty-five (45) days after the issuance
of any document that includes data obtained from such samples. EMA shall
arrange for the disposal of samples on behalf of the CLIENT, which may consist of
returning the samples to the project site and CLIENT agrees to pay EMA for the
cost of disposing of such samples. Samples shall remain the property of the
CLIENT.
10. (a) EMA warrants that its services shall be performed, within the limits
prescribed by CLIENT, in the manner consistent with the level of care and
skill ordinarily exercised by environmental firms under similar
circumstances. No other warranties or representations of any kind, either
expressed or implied, are included or intended in this Agreement or in any
proposal, contract, report, opinion or other document in connection with this
project.
(b) Indemnity
i) EMA:
Subject to the limitations of subparagraph 10(b)(iii) below, EMA agrees
to indemnify and hold harmless CLIENT (including its officers,
directors, employees and agents) from and against any and all losses,
damages, liabilities and expenses (including reasonable legal fees and
reasonable costs of investigation) resulting from or arising out of
(a) failure of EMA to comply in material respects with federal, state and
local laws and regulations applicable to services undertaken by EMA
hereunder; (b) breach by EMA of warranties hereunder; or (c) any
injury or death of any person (including employees and agents of
CLIENT and EMA), or damage or loss or destruction of any property
(including property of CLIENT and EMA and their respective
employees and agents) resulting from or arising out of negligence or
willful misconduct on the part of EMA in performing services
4
hereunder, except to the extent any losses, damages, liabilities or
expenses result from, are attributable to, or arise out of (i) any
negligence or willful misconduct of CLIENT; (ii) any delay attributable
to CLIENT's conduct; or (iii) any breach by CLIENT of any warranties or
other provisions hereunder.
(Wz-'
iii) Limitations of Liability:
For any damage caused by negligence, including errors, omissions or
other acts; or for any damages based in contract; or for any other cause
of action; EMA's liability( including that of its employees, agents(
directors, officers and subcontractors, shall not exceed $1,000,000, except
as to damage resulting from the gross negligence or willful misconduct
of EMA.
, mc uding that of its
ors, will be limited to
CLIENT's gross
employees, agents
or willful mis
(c) EMA and CLIENT recognize and agree that EMA has neither created nor
contributed to the existence of any hazardous, radioactive, toxic, irritant,
5
'"
~
pollutant or otherwise dangerous substance or condition at the project site.
Accordingly, in the event of any claim against EMA arising out of such
pre-existing conditions or alleged conditions, CLIENT agrees to defend,
rndmnniiy and hold EMA harmless from and against such claim(s), unless
such claims arise out of the gross negligence or willful misconduct of EMA,
including that of its employees, agents, directors, officers or subcontractors.
11. (a)
CLIENT reserves the right to terminate the project at any time. Upon
termination, CLIENT shall reimburse EMA for all actual expenses and charges
outstanding at the time of termination. In addition, CLIENT shall pay EMA
cancellation charges applying to materials and/ or equipment on order and/ or
on rental at the time of termination which cannot be canceled, and reasonable
demobilization costs.
(b) EMA shall have the right to terminate its obligations pursuant to this
Agreement under the following circumstances:
i) in the event of a breach of any obligation of CLIENT, except payment of
disputed amounts as provided in paragraph 3 of this Agreement; or
ii) if EMA is unable, for any reason beyond its control, to perform its
obligations pursuant to this Agreement in a safe, lawful or professional
manner.
In the event that either circumstance described in subparagraphs 11(b)(i) or
l1(b)(ii) above occurs, EMA shall notify CLIENT of pertinent conditions and
recommend appropriate action. If within 30 days of such notice the
circumstances described in subparagraphs l1(b)(i) or l1(b)(ii) above have not
been remedied or cured, EMA may terminate its Agreement hereunder. In
the event of termination, EMA shall be entitled to reimbursement of all actual
expenses and charges as of the date of termination and reasonable
demobilization charges.
12. CLIENT shall have the right to audit the moneys expended or obligations incurred
by EMA, including all books, records and all other documents related to services
performed under this Agreement. Such information shall be available and open to
6
review, inspection and audit by CLIENT's personnel and by CLIENTs designated
certified public accountant, at the place or places where such record, books and
other documents are kept at all reasonable times until the completion of this
project or for a minimum of 36 months from the date of EMA's invoice covering
such costs. EMA shall provide in all of its contracts, agreements or retainers with
subcontractors that CLIENT shall have the right to audit all source documentation
of subcontractor's compensation.
13. CLIENT reserves the right to appoint a Contract Representative to administer this
1d Agreement. Until CL,IENT otherwise notifies EMA,
J./d-: J rvta,f I 1<- shall be CLIENTs Contract
~ R~presentative under this Agreement.
14. This Agreement, including all attached Exhibits and documents referenced in
those Exhibits, constitutes the complete and final Agreement between EMA and
CLIENT. It supersedes all prior or contemporaneous communications,
representations, undertakings or understandings of the parties, whether oral or
written, relating to the scope of work or services and subject matter of this
Agreement, except to the extent that such prior communications have explicitly
been incorporated into the Agreement or one of the attached Exhibits.
Modifications of this Agreement shall not be binding unless made in writing and
signed by an authorized representative of each party.
15. This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State in which the project site
is located. All I' d' d h . , b CI' d EMA ,. f
c arms, lsputes an ot er matters In questIon etween lent an ansmg out 0 or
relating to the Agreement, or the breach thereof, shall be decided in the Superior Court of Richmond County,
Georgia, EMA, by executing this Agreement, specifically consents to venue in Richmond County and waives
any right to contest the venue in the Superior Court of Richmond County, Georgia.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, EMA and CLIENT have caused this Agreement to be
executed by their duly authorized representatives as follows:
7
~
Environmental Management Associates, LLC
Per:
II 6~ ~
Title:
~;^ <'.' Fe.. \,
Augusta-Richmond County
~ Per: U
~ Title: IJI! ;r~
~s+: bdjj~
8
EXHIBIT "A"
SCOPE OF WORK/ESTIMATED COST
E'-/MrA
,,' )/1
" I f
_:.I __ / _ _
Environmental Management Associates, LLC
2240 Brickton Station
Buford, Georgia 30518
Telephone 770,271.-7098
Fax 770-271,5550
December 5,1998
Reference No. 100
Mr. Hameed Malik, P.E.
Augusta-Richmond County
530 Greene Street, Room 701
Augusta, Georgia 30911
Dear Mr. Malik:
Re: Request for Proposal
Central Shop Facility
1568 Broad Street
Augusta, Georgia 30904
EPD Facility J.D. No. 9121077
Environmental Management Associates, LLC (EMA) is pleased to submit the following
proposal in response to your verbal request for proposal (RFP) to conduct additional
assessment activities and revise the current Corrective Action Plan (CAP) -Part A for the above
referenced facility (Facility). Our proposal has been broken down into the following sections to
address the major tasks discussed:
i) Evaluation of Existing Data;
ii) Scope of Work; and
iii) Estimated Cost.
EVALUATION OF EXISTING DATA
EMA reviewed the following documents which were provided by Augusta-Richmond County:
i) Initial Abatement Report - March 25,1993
City of Augusta - Central Shop
1568 Broad Street
Augusta, Georgia 30904
Prepared by Terra-Nova Environmental, Inc.
ii) Site Characterization Report - May 10, 1993
City of Augusta - Central Shop
1568 Broad Street
Augusta, Georgia 30904
Prepared by Terra-Nova Environmental, Inc.
December 5, 1998
Reference No. 100
-2-
iii) Initial Site Characterization - May 19, 1993
City of Augusta - Central Shop
1568 Broad Street
Augusta, Georgia 30904
Prepared by Terra-Nova Environmental, Inc.
iv) Progress Report - September 29, 1993
City of Augusta - Central Shop
1568 Broad Street
Augusta, Georgia 30904
Prepared by Terra-Nova Environmental, Ine.
v) Letter to Tom Wiedmeier (City of Augusta) - April 19, 1996
Subject: Comments on Initial Abatement and
Site Characterization and Progress Reports
City of Augusta - Central Shop
1568 Broad Street
Augusta, Georgia 30904
Prepared by: Georgia Environmental Protection Division
vi) Corrective Action Plan - Part A/Pilot Study - October 29, 1996
Underground Storage Tank (UST) Release
Public Works - Maintenance Shop
Augusta - Richmond County, Georgia
Prepared by S&ME Environmental
vii) PHOSter™ /Nutrient Injection System Report
Public Works - Maintenance Facility
Augusta - Richmond County, Georgia
Prepared by Freeman & Vaughn Engineering, Inc.
viii) Closure Report - October 30, 1998
Central Shop
Augusta-Richmond County, Georgia
Prepared by Clayton Environmental Consultants
EMA reviewed the above listed documents to develop an understanding of the level of detail to
which the environmental conditions at the Facility have been characterized and whether the
efforts to date will meet the requirements established by the State of Georgia. In addition, EMA
reviewed the database to determine if delineation has been conducted to keep Augusta-
Richmond County from having to complete a CAP-Part B. If adequate delineation of the
..
December 5, 1998
Reference No. 100
-3-
contaminants have been performed and if the data indicates no off-site migration has occurred,
Augusta-Richmond County may be able to request "no further action required" (NF AR) or
"monitoring only" status in the CAP-Part A for one or all of the reported releases. Based on our
review of the data and preliminary inspection of the facility, EMA has identified the following
issues that need to be addressed:
i) the extent of groundwater contamination associated with the Tank Pit Area as well as
potential off-site migration was not defined during the previous investigations and was
not addressed in the Corrective Action Plan - Part A (CAP-Part A) written for the
Facility (it should be noted that this work could be completed as part of an additional
investigation, CAP-Part A Site Investigation Plan (SIP), and reported in a CAP-Part B
but additional costs would be incurred by Augusta-Richmond County if it is
determined that no significant contamination exists);
ii) off-site potential contaminant migration via storm and sanitary sewers was not assessed
during the previous investigations and may be a source for future contamination;
ill) potential groundwater contamination attributable to releases from the waste oil UST
was not assessed during the previous investigation. The results of the confirmatory soil
sampling conducted by MCI and Augusta-Richmond County indicate possible
groundwater contamination associated with the waste oil UST release; and
iv) the CAP-Part A must be revised to include the waste oil UST investigation and
accurately delineate the current site conditions. (It should be noted that the remediation
conducted by Augusta-Richmond County's previous consultant was only a pilot study
performed on a small area near the pump island. No other impacted areas were
addressed. )
Based on the information available for this Facility, it is EMA's opinion that the existing
environmental conditions beneath this Facility were not completely or adequately defined and
could vary from previous reports. Without full characterization, Augusta-Richmond County
will not likely be able to request a NFAR or monitoring only status in the CAP-Part A for this
Facility (if the data indicates no significant contamination exists) and will most likely have to
prepare a CAP-Part B. In addition, the CAP-Part A should be revised to include the
information resulting from the removal of all six USTs. Consequently, the CAP-Part A
prepared by Augusta-Richmond County's previous consultant is deficient in its
characterization of site conditions.
The entire scope of work required to provide sufficient information to appropriately revise the
CAP-Part A prepared by S&ME, Inc. dated October 29, 1996 for Augusta-Richmond County is
unknown at this time but can be determined by a step-by-step investigation. EMA's step-by-
step approach is intended to minimize the overall extent of the investigation and the associated
December 5, 1998
Reference No. 100
-4-
costs. As more information is obtained about the current conditions at the Facility, it may be
possible to reduce the scope of subsequent steps or possibly eliminate them altogether.
SCOPE OF WORK
Based on the data reviewed by EMA to date, we propose that the work be completed in the
following three tasks:
Task I: Geoprobe Soil and Groundwater Investigation;
Task II: Monitoring Well Installation; and
Task III: Revise CAP-Part A.
i) Task I:
Geoprobe Soil and Groundwater Investigation
The primary objective of Task I is to investigate the extent of soil contamination attributable
to contaminant migration along the sanitary sewer and/ or storm sewer systems in the
vicinity of the Tank Pit Area, delineate the horizontal extent of the groundwater
contamination associated with the Tank Pit Area, and to determine if the release associated
with the waste oil UST has impacted the groundwater. The utility structures, depending on
their elevations relative to groundwater elevations, and surrounding fill material could
provide a preferential pathway for contaminants to migrate off site. EMA will request and
review all available diagrams of the Facility to locate the sanitary and storm sewers and
determine the appropriate sampling locations for the sewer investigation. The locations of
manholes and catch basins will be confirmed on-site to determine the accuracy of the
Facility drawings.
The soil investigation will involve the advancement and sampling of a minimum of two to a
maximum of six Geoprobes at selected locations. Geoprobes will be advanced to determine
if contamination has migrated along either sewer system and to determine the horizontal
and vertical extent of any detected soil contamination. It should be noted that the Geoprobe
locations will be determined based on information obtained from the drawings of the
Facility and actual field conditions that are observed during the soil investigation.
The Geoprobes will be advanced to a depth of approximately four feet below the base of
each sewer system. Soil samples will be collected immediately below the base and four feet
below the base of the sewer system trench. The headspace of all soil samples will be field
screened with a photo-ionization detector (PID) for the presence of organic vapors. Select
soil samples will be submitted for laboratory analysis of benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene,
and xylenes (BTEX), polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (P AH), total petroleum
hydrocarbons (TPH)-diesel range organics (DRO), and TPH-gasoline range organics (GRO)
~
.'
December 5, 1998
Reference No. 100
-5-
by SW-8461 Methods 5035, 8270, 8015 (modified), and 8015 (modified), respectively.
Depending on the results of the samples submitted from directly below the base of the
sewer trench, the sample collected from the next four-foot interval may also be submitted
for analysis of the same parameters to vertically delineate the detected contamination.
The horizontal extent of the groundwater contamination associated with the Tank Pit Area
will be delineated by using the Geoprobe to collect groundwater samples at side gradient
and downgradient locations along the property line and, if needed, into the right-of-way of
Broad Street. Approximately five Geoprobe locations will be used to delineate the extent of
the groundwater contamination associated with the Tank Pit Area. The groundwater
samples will be screened on Site with a gas chromatograph and will be selectively
submitted to the project laboratory for analysis of BTEX and P AH for confirmatory
purposes. In addition, a Geoprobe will be advanced within the former waste oil UST pit
and a groundwater sample will be collected to determine if the associated release has
impacted the underlying groundwater.
ii) Task II: Monitoring Well Installation(s)
Based on the groundwater delineation results determined from Task I, a minimum of two
additional down gradient groundwater monitoring wells will be installed to confirm
groundwater flow direction and to monitor the migration of the associated contaminants
within the groundwater. It should be noted that the groundwater flow direction
determined by the previous investigations is suspect due to the locations of the two existing
piezometers relative to the one existing monitoring well. The two proposed monitoring
well locations based on the direction of groundwater flow reported by the previous
consultant are presented on Figure 1.
Based on the groundwater screening data associated with the waste oil UST determined
from Task I, the installation of three groundwater monitoring wells may be required in the
area of the excavation of the former waste oil UST. The monitoring wells will be used to
determine the groundwater flow direction and monitor the migration of the contaminants
within the groundwater associated with the waste oil UST release.
The procedures used for installation and sampling of the monitoring wells will be in
accordance with the State of Georgia "Manual for Groundwater Monitoring." Once
installed and properly developed, the monitoring wells will be sampled and submitted for
laboratory analysis of BTEX and PAH. This estimate includes a range of costs for the
installation and sampling of two to five groundwater monitoring wells.
1 "Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Wastes, Physical/Chemical Methods," Third Edition, November
1986, with its revisions and updates.
.:.
"
December 5, 1998
Reference No. 100
-6-
ill) Task III: Revise CAP-Part A
The CAP-Part A previously prepared by S&ME for the Facility will be revised based on the
results of the UST removal activities and the results of Tasks I and II. It is EMA's
recommendation that the additional information gathered from the site investigation
activities outlined in Tasks I and II be included in the revised CAP-Part A which would
more properly characterize current site conditions and determine if a NF AR or monitoring
status is applicable for one or all of the reported releases. In addition, the inclusion of the
supplemental information in a revised CAP-Part A would eliminate the need for a second
CAP-Part A for the second confirmed release associated with the waste oil UST.
Revising the current CAP-Part A will not prevent Augusta - Richmond County from having
to conduct additional investigation activities and/ or the preparation of a CAP-Part B which
will be dependent on the results of the field investigation. These activities may be required
if the site investigation activities outlined in Tasks I and II do not fully delineate the soil and
groundwater contamination present at the Facility or if the results indicate the need for
remediation. This estimate does not include the costs associated with any additional
investigation activities or remediation that may be warranted for this Facility.
ESTIMATED COST
Based on the scope of work described under Tasks I through IIIr EMA's estimated cost to
complete the work ranges from $17,650 to $19,600. As stated previously, EMA will submit a
proposal containing an estimated cost to conduct additional investigation activities and prepare
a CAP-Part B if required. Table 1 presents a breakdown of our estimated costs for Tasks I
through III.
EMA appreciates the opportunity to submit this proposal to Augusta-Richmond County.
Should you have any questions related to our proposal, please contact the undersigned at (770)
271-2898. We look forward to working with you on this project.
!,
December 5, 1998
Reference No. 100
-7-
Yours truly,
Environmental Management Associates, LLC
;J~ !I:1iL
Brent CortelIoni, CHMM
BC/bc/4
Ene!.
"
"
TABLE 1
ESTIMATED COST
CENTRAL SHOP
AUGUSTA, GEORGIA
Total
Estimated
Task EMA Disbursements Subcontractor Cost
Task I
Geoprobe Investigation $ 800 $ 100 $ 3,700 $ 4,600
Analytical Testing
(6 soil/4 groundwater samples) $ 150 $ 100 $ 2/000 $ 2/250
Task II
Monitoring Well Installations
2-5 (10-20 ft. 2" diameter) PVC wells $ 1,000 $ 100 $ 2/700 - 4/200 $ 3,800 - 5/300
Well Development and Sampling $ 500 $ 100 N A (1) $ 600
Analytical Testing $ 250 $ 100 $ 750 - 1,200 $ 1,100.1,550
(5 - 8 water samples)
Task III
Revise CAP-Part A $ 4,000 $ 600 NA $ 4/600
Project Management $ 700 NA NA $ 700
TOTAL $ 7,400 $ 1,100 $ 9,150 - 11/100 $17,650 -19,600
Notes:
(1) NA - Not applicable,
eRA lOOmalik-M.T1
:;','
.~
EXHIBIT "B"
INSURANCE
CIS Insurance & Financia1 Svcs
5775-B G1enridge Dr. suite 130
Atlanta GA 30328
ReOR,?_ .... u~:E~ITH:Br~:~m6'{)6 ~ltS,I3.113FE~ ';INSLJRt\NGE6~~;.. ....:D~~7~~~
PRODUCER" . .,.. ....,........ . .. ...... THIS CERTIFICATE IS ISSUED AS A MATTER OF INFORMATION
ONLY AND CONFERS NO RIGHTS UPON THE CERTIFICATE
HOLDER, THIS CERTIFICATE DOES NOT AMEND, EXTEND OR
ALTER THE COVERAGE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES BELOW.
COMPANIES AFFORDING COVERAGE
.
A~
Sean McDonald
Phone No. 404-255-6388 Fax No.
INSURED
COMPANY
A
Commerce Mutual Insurance Co.
COMPANY
B
Zenith Insurance Company
Environmenta1 Mgt. Associates
P.O. Box 942474
Atlanta GA 31141-2474
COMPANY
C
COMPANY
o
THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE POLICIES OF INSURANCE LISTED BELOW HAVE BEEN ISSUED TO THE INSURED NAMED ABOVE FOR THE POLICY PERIOD
INDICATED, NOTWITHSTANDING PN'f REQUIREMENT. TERM OR CONDITION OF PN'f CONTRACT OR OTHER DOCUMENT WITH RESPECT TO WHICH THIS
CERTIFICATE MAY BE ISSUED OR MAY PERTAIN, THE INSURANCE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES DESCRIBED HEREIN IS SUBJECT TO ALL THE TERMS,
EXCLUSIONS AND CONDITIONS OF SUCH POLICIES. LIMITS SHOWN MAY HAVE BEEN REDUCED BY PAID CLAIMS.
CO
LTR
TYPE OF INSURANCE
POLICY NUMBER
POLICY EFFECTIVE POLICY EXPIRATION
DATE (MMlDDIYY) DATE (MMlDDIYY)
LIMITS
GENERAL LIABILITY
I--
A X COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY ACP200941-0
till :=J CLAIMS MADE D OCCUR
A OWNER'S & COmRACTOR'S PROT
l-
X Professional ACP200941-0
07/21/98
GENERAL AGGREGATE $ 1,000,000
07/21/99 PRODUCTS-COMP/OPAGG S 1,000,000
PERSONAL & ADV INJURY $ 1,000,000
EACH OCCURRENCE $ 1,000,000
07/21/99 FIRE DAMAGE (Anyone fire) $ 50,000
MED EXP (Anyone person) S 5 , 000
07/21/98
AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY
-
COMBINED SINGLE LIMIT
ANY AUTO
-
ALL OWNED AUTOS
BODILY INJURY
(Per person)
-
-
HIRED AUTOS
-
SCHEDULED AUTOS
NON-OWNED AUTOS
BODILY INJURY
(Per accident)
f---
PROPERTY DAMAGE S
ANY AUTO
AUTO ONLY - EA ACCIDENT $
OTHER THAN AUTO ONLY:
EACH ACCIDENT $
AGGREGATE $
EACH OCCURRENCE $
.,'....,.
GARAGE LIABILITY
-
-
EXCESS LIABILITY
II UMBRELLA FORM
H OTHER THAN UMBRELLA FORM
WORKERS COMPENSATION AND
EMPLOYERS LIABILITY
AGGREGATE
$
S
B THE PROPRIETOR!
PARTNER~ECunVE
OFFICERS ARE:
OTHER
R'NCL
EXCL
WC-00730
11/23/98
11/23/99
I fo~~l1~Ws I
EL EACH ACCIDENT
EL DISEASE. POLICY LIMIT
10TH.
I ER
.,.""......,
EL DISEASE. EA EMPLOYEE
$ 100000
$ 500000
$ 100000
DESCRIPTION OF OPERATIONSIlOCATIONSNEHIClESlSPECIAL ITEMS
This includes location at: 2240 Brickton Station, Buford, GA 30518i 2236
Carlyle DriveA Mariettta, GA 30062/ 3781 Presidential Pk~, Suite 11,
Atlanta, G~~ ~233 Asbury Square, A~lanta, GA 30346,1679 Terrell Ridge Dr.
Marietta, bA 30067
CE~Tlfl<::AT~ ~'.:"...,
".,.'."
....,.;,; ;,;..""".";.,, :', :"" ':'/,~f'-.N.gE~~TION' . ;..,' ",,:,:.:.:,.,:"': .... """';";';";"'::::, ;'.". '..',..';....;,.
A SHOULD ANY OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED POLICIES BE CANCELLED BEFORE THE
EXPIRATION DATE THEREOF, THE ISSUING COMPANY WILL ENDEAVOR TO MAil
~ DAYS WRITTEN NOTICE TO THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER NAMED TO THE LEFT,
BUT FAILURE TO MAIL SUCH NO~ SHALL IMPOSE NO OBLIGATION OR LIABILITY /\
OF ANY KIND ,UPON TH~MPA~jITS AGENTS OR REPRESENTA~ /,
::;~;C:'~:A~V~~ . 1(It~U...,\.~;J..
/.,.' ...../:: ..:.., <:;. .::;ACORDCORPO.RA:rI()t.-J~9~8:
,.'..,.;',.
.;/}:
....,.;.....;'; .:",:;:,:;;;\,..;.;.:.::-.;
E'MA
i, .' I
~.i,~', ./ 2~ ~ Environmental Management Associates
2240 Brkklon Station
Buford, Georgia 30518
Telephone 770-271-7098
Fax 770-271-5550
December 5, 1998
Reference No. 100
Mr. Hameed Malik, P.E.
Augusta-Richmond County
530 Greene Street, Room 701
Augusta, Georgia 30911
Dear Mr. Malik:
Re: Request for Proposal
Cenb'al Shop Facility
1568 Broad Street
Augusta, Georgia 30904
EPD Facility LD. No, 9121077
Environmental Management Associates, LLC (EMA) is pleased to submit the following
proposal in response to your verbal request for proposal (RFP) to conduct additional
assessment activities and revise the current Corrective Action Plan (CAP) -Part A for the above
referenced facility (Facility). Our proposal has been broken down into the following sections to
address the major tasks discussed:
i) Evaluation of Existing Data;
ii) Scope of Work; and
iii) Estimated Cost.
EV ALUATION OF EXISTING DATA
EMA reviewed the following documents which were provided by Augusta-Richmond County:
i) Initial Abatement Report - March 25, 1993
City of Augusta - Central Shop
1568 Broad Street
Augusta, Georgia 30904
Prepared by Terra-Nova Environmental, Inc.
ii) Site Characterization Report - May 10, 1993
City of Augusta - Central Shop
1568 Broad Street
Augusta, Georgia 30904
Prepared by Terra-Nova Environmental, Inc,
~~ rf.:J1
Cr.J-;,.'.J" ~t--'op
/166/ f( 1'1 r1/ (J' . r
December 5, 1998
Reference No. 100
-2-
iii) Initial Site Characterization - May 19, 1993
City of Augusta - Central Shop
1568 Broad Street
Augusta, Georgia 30904
Prepared by Terra-Nova Environmental, Inc.
iv) Progress Report - September 29,1993
City of Augusta - Central Shop
1568 Broad Street
Augusta, Georgia 30904
Prepared by Terra-Nova Environmental, Inc.
v) Letter to Tom Wiedmeier (City of Augusta) - Apri119, 1996
Subject: Comments on Initial Abatement and
Site Characterization and Progress Reports
City of Augusta - Central Shop
1568 Broad Street
Augusta, Georgia 30904
Prepared by: Georgia Environmental Protection Division
vi) Corrective Action Plan - Part A/Pilot Study - October 29, 1996
Underground Storage Tank (UST) Release
Public Works - Maintenance Shop
Augusta - Richmond County, Georgia
Prepared by S&ME Environmental
vii) PHOSter™/Nutrient Injection System Report
Public Works - Maintenance Facility
Augusta - Richmond County, Georgia
Prepared by Freeman & Vaughn Engineering, Inc.
viii) Closure Report - October 30,1998
Central Shop
Augusta-Richmond County, Georgia
Prepared by Clayton Environmental Consultants
EMA reviewed the above listed documents to develop an understanding of the level of detail to
which the environmental conditions at the Facility have been characterized and whether the
efforts to date will meet the requirements established by the State of Georgia. In addition, EMA
reviewed the database to determine if delineation has been conducted to keep Augusta-
Richmond County from having to complete a CAP-Part B. If adequate delineation of the
December 5, 1998
Reference No. 100
-3-
contaminants have been performed and if the data indicates no off-site migration has occurred,
Augusta-Richmond County may be able to request IIno further action requiredll (NF AR) or
"monitoring only" status in the CAP-Part A for one or all of the reported releases. Based on our
review of the data and preliminary inspection of the facility, EMA has identified the following
issues that need to be addressed:
i) the extent of groundwater contamination associated with the Tank Pit Area as well as
potential off-site migration was not defined during the previous investigations and was
not addressed in the Corrective Action Plan - Part A (CAP-Part A) written for the
Facility (it should be noted that this work could be completed as part of an additional
investigation, CAP-Part A Site Investigation Plan (SIP), and reported in a CAP-Part B
but additional costs would be incurred by Augusta-Richmond County if it is
determined that no significant contamination exists);
ii) off-site potential contaminant migration via storm and sanitary sewers was not assessed
during the previous investigations and may be a source for future contamination;
ill) potential groundwater contamination attributable to releases from the waste oil UST
was not assessed during the previous investigation. The results of the confirmatory soil
sampling conducted by MCI and Augusta-Richmond County indicate possible
groundwater contamination associated with the waste oil UST release; and
iv) the CAP-Part A must be revised to include the waste oil UST investigation and
accurately delineate the current site conditions. (It should be noted that the remediation
conducted by Augusta-Richmond County's previous consultant was only a pilot study
performed on a small area near the pump island. No other impacted areas were
addressed.)
Based on the information available for this Facility, it is EMA's opinion that the existing
environmental conditions beneath this Facility were not completely or adequately defined and
could vary from previous reports. Without full characterization, Augusta-Richmond County
will not likely be able to request a NFAR or monitoring only status in the CAP-Part A for this
Facility (if the data indicates no significant contamination exists) and will most likely have to
prepare a CAP-Part B. In addition, the CAP-Part A should be revised to include the
information resulting from the removal of all six USTs. Consequently, the CAP-Part A
prepared by Augusta-Richmond County's previous consultant is deficient in its
characterization of site conditions.
The entire scope qf work required to provide sufficient information to appropriately revise the
CAP-Part A prepared by S&ME, Inc. dated October 29,1996 for Augusta-Richmond County is
unknown at this time but can be determined by a step-by-step investigation. EMA's step-by-
step approach is intended to minimize the overall extent of the investigation and the associated
December 5, 1998
Reference No. 100
-4-
costs. As more information is obtained about the current conditions at the Facility, it may be
possible to reduce the scope of subsequent steps or possibly eliminate them altogether.
SCOPE OF WORK
Based on the data reviewed by EMA to date, we propose that the work be completed in the
following three tasks:
Task I: Geoprobe Soil and Groundwater Investigation;
Task II: Monitoring Well Installation; and
Task III: Revise CAP-Part A.
i) Task I:
Geoprobe Soil and Groundwater Investigation
The primary objective of Task I is to investigate the extent of soil contamination attributable
to contaminant migration along the sanitary sewer and/ or storm sewer systems in the
vicinity of the Tank Pit Area, delineate the horizontal extent of the groundwater
contamination associated with the Tank Pit Area, and to determine if the release associated
with the waste oil UST has impacted the groundwater. The utility structures, depending on
their elevations relative to groundwater elevations, and surrounding fill material could
provide a preferential pathway for contaminants to migrate off site. EMA will request and
review all available diagrams of the Facility to locate the sanitary and storm sewers and
determine the appropriate sampling locations for the sewer investigation. The locations of
manholes and catch basins will be confirmed on-site to determine the accuracy of the
Facility drawings.
The soil investigation will involve the advancement and sampling of a minimum of two to a
maximum of six Geoprobes at selected locations. Geoprobes will be advanced to determine
if contamination has migrated along either sewer system and to determine the horizontal
and vertical extent of any detected soil contamination. It should be noted that the Geoprobe
locations will be determined based on information obtained from the drawings of the
Facility and actual field conditions that are observed during the soil investigation.
The Geoprobes will be advanced to a depth of approximately four feet below the base of
each sewer system. Soil samples will be collected immediately below the base and four feet
below the base of the sewer system trench. The headspace of all soil samples will be field
screened with a photo-ionization detector (PID) for the presence of organic vapors. Select
soil samples will be submitted for laboratory analysis of benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene,
and xylenes (BTEX), polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (P AH), total petroleum
hydrocarbons (TPH)-diesel range organics (ORa), and TPH-gasoline range organics (GRO)
December 5, 1998
Reference No. 100
-5-
by SW-8461 Methods 5035, 8270, 8015 (modified), and 8015 (modified), respectively.
Depending on the results of the samples submitted from directly below the base of the
sewer trench, the sample collected from the next four-foot interval may also be submitted
for analysis of the same parameters to vertically delineate the detected contamination.
The horizontal extent of the groundwater contamination associated with the Tank Pit Area
will be delineated by using the Geoprobe to collect groundwater samples at side gradient
and downgradient locations along the property line and, if needed, into the right-of-way of
Broad Street. Approximately five Geoprobe locations will be used to delineate the extent of
the groundwater contamination associated with the Tank Pit Area. The groundwater
samples will be screened on Site with a gas chromatograph and will be selectively
submitted to the project laboratory for analysis of BTEX and P AH for confirmatory
purposes. In addition, a Geoprobe will be advanced within the former waste oil UST pit
and a groundwater sample will be collected to determine if the associated release has
impacted the underlying groundwater,
ii) Task II: Monitoring Well Installation(s)
Based on the groundwater delineation results determined from Task I, a minimum of two
additional downgradient groundwater monitoring wells will be installed to confirm
groundwater flow direction and to monitor the migration of the associated contaminants
within the groundwater. It should be noted that the groundwater flow direction
determined by the previous investigations is suspect due to the locations of the two existing
piezometers relative to the one existing monitoring well. The two proposed monitoring
well locations based on the direction of groundwater flow reported by the previous
consultant are presented on Figure 1.
Based on the groundwater screening data associated with the waste oil UST determined
from Task I, the installation of three groundwater monitoring wells may be required in the
area of the excavation of the former waste oil UST. The monitoring wells will be used to
determine the groundwater flow direction and monitor the migration of the contaminants
within the groundwater associated with the waste oil UST release.
The procedures used for installation and sampling of the monitoring wells will be in
accordance with the State of Georgia "Manual for Groundwater Monitoring." Once
installed and properly developed, the monitoring wells will be sampled and submitted for
laboratory analysis of BTEX and P AH. This estimate includes a range of costs for the
installation and sampling of two to five groundwater monitoring wells.
1 "Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Wastes, Physical/Chemical Methods," Third Edition, November
1986, with its revisions and updates,
December 5, 1998
Reference No. 100
-6-
ill) Task III: Revise CAP-Part A
The CAP-Part A previously prepared by S&ME for the Facility will be revised based on the
results of the UST removal activities and the results of Tasks I and II. It is EMA's
recommendation that the additional information gathered from the site investigation
activities outlined in Tasks I and II be included in the revised CAP-Part A which would
more properly characterize current site conditions and determine if a NF AR or monitoring
status is applicable for one or all of the reported releases. In addition, the inclusion of the
supplemental information in a revised CAP-Part A would eliminate the need for a second
CAP-Part A for the second confirmed release associated with the waste oil UST.
Revising the current CAP-Part A will not prevent Augusta - Richmond County from having
to conduct additional investigation activities and/ or the preparation of a CAP-Part B which
will be dependent on the results of the field investigation, These activities may be required
if the site investigation activities outlined in Tasks I and II do not fully delineate the soil and
groundwater contamination present at the Facility or if the results indicate the need for
remediation. This estimate does not include the costs associated with any additional
investigation activities or remediation that may be warranted for this Facility.
ESTIMATED COST
Based on the scope of work described under Tasks I through III, EM A' s estimated cost to
complete the work ranges from $17,650 to $19,600. As stated previously, EMA will submit a
proposal containing an estimated cost to conduct additional investigation activities and prepare
a CAP-Part B if required. Table 1 presents a breakdown of our estimated costs for Tasks I
through III.
EMA appreciates the opportunity to submit this proposal to Augusta-Richmond County.
Should you have any questions related to our proposal, please contact the undersigned at (770)
271-2898. We look forward to working with you on this project.
December 5, 1998
Reference No. 100
-7-
Yours truly,
Environmental Management Associates, LLC
p~~
Brent Cortelloni, CHMM
BC/bc/4
Encl.
TABLE 1
ESTIMATED COST
CENTRAL SHOP
AUGUSTA, GEORGIA
Total
Estimated
Task EMA Disbursements Subcontractor Cost
Task I
Geoprobe Investigation $ 800 $ 100 $ 3,700 $ 4,600
Analytical Testing
(6 soilj4 groundwater samples) $ 150 $ 100 $ 2,000 $ 2,250
Task II
Monitoring Well Installations
2-5 (10-20 ft. 2/1 diameter) PVC wells $ 1,000 $ 100 $ 2,700 - 4,200 $ 3,800 - 5,300
Well Development and Sampling $ 500 $ 100 NA (1) $ 600
Analytical Testing $ 250 $ 100 $ 750 - 1,200 $ 1,100 - 1,550
(5 - 8 water samples)
Task III
Revise CAP-Part A $ 4,000 $ 600 NA $ 4,600
Project Management $ 700 NA NA $ 700
TOTAL $ 7,400 $ 1,100 $ 9,150 - 11,100 $17,650 -19,600
Notes:
(1) NA - Not applicable.
CRA l00m.lik-M-l1