Loading...
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