HomeMy WebLinkAboutProposal for Statistical Data Evaluation
Augusta Richmond GA
DOCUMENT NAME: Vrcros-^\ +0.(, S~ -f\'~b en \ ~-Q,"\. E Vc.\. Cu..CL-(;Olo,
DOCUMENT TYPE: \\1\ '(.,), () ('o..\'\L~ 1.:...l\"I'\
YEAR: [) 2-
BOX NUMBER: \ l
FILE NUMBER: I (g I-{ 12
NUMBER OF PAGES: 1
J~-#lb7'?:V
Public Works and Engineering Department
Teresa C. Smith, P.E., Director
Environmental En!!. Section
Dr. Hameed Malik, P.E.
Environmental Engineer
Room 701, 530 Greene Street
Augusta, Georgia 30911
(706) 821-1706 FAX (706) 821-1708
MEMORANDUM
TO: Betty Murphy
Office of the Clerk of Commission
FROM: Hameed Malik, Environmental Engineer /1(11/;1
SUBJECT: Document
DATE: November 26, 2002
Enclosed please find a copy of signed proposal from Stephen E. Joseph & SAGES, Inc. for your
permanent file. I am forwarding this document per Ms. Belinda Brown request dated November 22,
2002.
If you have any questions, please call me.
Enclosure
IHUM
-;
'.
.~
Hameed U Malik, Ph.D., P.E. May 21,2000
EnvironmentaJ Engineer
Department of Pubic Works & Engineering
530 Greene Street, Room 701
Augusta, GA 30911
Attention: Dr. Hameed U Malik
Subject:
Proposal for Statistical Data Evaluation of Groundwater Quality and
Preparation of a Monitoring Program for Groundwater at the Deans Bridge
Road Landfill in
AU2:usta-Richmond County, Geon!ia
Dear Dr. MaJik:
Stephen E. Joseph & SAGES, Inc. present this proposaJ to provide environmentaJ services
and consultation for statistical data evaluation and preparation of groundwater monitoring
program at the above listed site. This letter presents the proposed course of action to develop this
work.
PROJECT CONSIDERA TIONS
Our understanding is that the Deans Bridge Road Landfill has groundwater data from
previous sampling events in Dumpstat@, which will be made available for use in the statistical
data evaJuation for this site. Augusta-Richmond County will supply a current site map and any
site background information that is available. The site map should show the monitoring well
locations. It is our understanding that additional groundwater samplings have been completed by
others in 1999 and 2000. The groundwater potentiometric map should show the groundwater
flow direction and the groundwater gradient for the water be'aring zones. It is our understanding
that there are 28 groundwater monitoring wells in Landfill Sections II-A and D-B as well as 25
groundwater monitoring wells in Landfill Section II-C.
It is 'also our understanding Augusta-Richmond County would like to pursue the possibility of
improving their groundwater monitoring program by selecting better indicator parameters and
reducing the number of constituents and monitoring wells. It is our understanding that the
County is using the "Dumpstat@" computer program for groundwater monitoring and as a
database and groundwater analysis program. Augusta-Richmond County also desires to evaluate
the impacts oflandfill gas on groundwater quality. In reviewing some of the available
groundwater data, it appears that the site is impacted by the migration oflandfill gas. We have
worked on groundwater monitoring programs for landfills in Georgia, Hawaii, California, Oregon,
and .A.nzona and at these landfills we have found that control of landfill gas can greatly reduce or
migrate VOC impacts to groundwater. Our geologists are licensed in the States of Georgia,
Oregon, California, and Hawaii.
As a member of the Hawaii Landfill Task Force, ourselves along with representatives from Waste
. Management, Inc., USA Waste, [nc., and other landfill operators have worked closely with the
Depanment of Health, State of Hawaii in developing a Landfill Guidance Document that outlines
the procedures and rype of landfill monitoring parameters to be used in groundwater monitoring.
Members from this group are on or have worked closely with the ASTM committee that
developed ASTM method PS 64-96. This group is also currently working on the portion of the
guidance document for the assessment and corrective action. Pans of this guidance are being
used by other states in their groundwater monitoring programs and has been presented to the GA-
EPD already. The procedures and parameters outlined in this document are highly recommended
for incorporation into your groundwater monitoring program as they provide an accurate and cost
effective method of meeting EPA Subtitle D and GA-EPD requirements. TheGA-EPD has also
reviewed the "Dumpstat@" program and is favorably impressed with the program.
We will assist the County in attempting to have the State of Georgia accept the idea of reducing
and changing the number and type of constituents in the groundwater quality program by
providing supporting evidence for this position. Our success will depend on the amount and
quality of the data available, number and locations of monitoring wells, and the regional and site
-geology.
We propose to prepare an evaluation of the impacts to groundwater qualiry from landfill gas
YOCs. We will show trends in the impacts to groundwater by VOCs and help Augusta-
Richmond Counry in designing and locating gas extraction wells to further reduce the impacts of
landfill gas to bTfoundwater qualiry.
SCOPE OF WORK
SEJ will provide the following services:
Task I This task is to provide consultation and help to the County to evaluate the impacts of
landfill gas to groundwater quality and changes in trends of landfill gas impacts to
groundwater quality. We will help the County in the design and location of additional
landfill gas extraction wells to further reduce landfill gas impacts.
Task 2 Prepare a Groundwater Quality Evaluation of the existing data for the Deans Bridge Road
Landfill in that Augusta-Richmond County, Georgia using a standard monitoring plan.
As part of this evaluation we will assess whether the site needs to be in assessment
monitoring or if other options are more appropriate. This evaluation will include the
following components based on available information:
,.,
"
. Characterization of monitoring well concentrations including the means and standard
deviations;
. A comparison of the groundwater monitoring results with water quality maximum
contamination levels (MCL);
. A comparison of groundwater monitoring results to the existing tolerance intervals;
. A statistical comparison of intrawell samplings along with a statistical evaluation and
development of tolerance intervals at the 95 % confidence level.
. Recommendations will be made based on the evaluation of the groundwater data.
. Two meetings with the Georgia EPD will be included to present the evaluation and
recommendations.
Task 3 A groundwater monitoring program will be developed including the following
components:
. Site description and geologic setting;
. Hydrogeologic Setting;
. Groundwater flow direction and velocity;
. Documentation of the monitoring well network and the visual inspection program;
· Sampling procedures;
· Laboratory procedures;
· Summary of background analytical monitoring data;
. Evaluation of monitoring data and a suggested detection monitoring program and
. Conclusions and recommendations.
Development of an adequate groundwater monitoring program is critical for early detection of
possible releases from the landfill and to reduce long-term monitoring costs. Monitoring for just
priority pollutant metals and volatile organic compounds, such as has been done in past at Deans
Bridge Landfill, will not allow for early detection of leakage from a landfill facility. Other
compounds are historically better at detecting release from landfilIs. In addition, these other
compounds are more definitive in comparing different waters that may be beneath the landfill and
how they are interacting. These other compounds can also reduce the long-term laboratory cost of
monitoring.
Task 4 An optional task is to provide consultation and help to the County to setup its own
monitoring plan. It appears that the County has personnel with sufficient expenise and
experience to do their own groundwater sampling and the initial statistical evaluation of
the results. This would funher reduce the costs to the County for the ongoing
groundwater monitoring program. The only outside consultation needed would be the
development of the groundwater quality monitoring program and independent review of
the statistical evaluation and conclusions for each of the groundwater quality repons,
.,
FEE AND SCHEDULE
;:
Our services would be provided on a time and expense basis at $80 per hour. For your
budgeting purposes, the lump sum costs will be $4,.500 for Task 1. Costs for Task 2, evaluation
of the groundwater data and meetings with the EPD, will be $7,860. The lump sum costs for
Task 3, developing a groundwater monitoring program, are approximately $6,000. Costs for
Task 4, additional consultation, review of reports and meetings, as necessary, will be provided on
a time and expense basis. The lump sum, costs for Task 4 will be $3,000. It is'estimated that
work will take place over the next six months.
"
~
A
~
CONDITIONS
Your authorization of our services can be made by signing in the appropriate space
provided below. To expedite our work, please sign the facsimile copy and fax it to us, and follow
up with a signed original copy by mail. This proposal is valid for 60 days. Should authorization
be delayed, We request that we be allowed to review our proposed schedule and fee estimate.
- 000 -
It has been a pleasure preparing this proposal for you. Please contact us if you have any
questions.
Respectfully submined,
STEPHEN E. JOSEPH
Stephen E. Joseph. R.G., C.H.G.
Senior Hydrogeologist
SAGES
,
'~
1,
CALIFORNIA ALL-PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT
I,
State of California
County of
LOS Angeles
I'
I'
On AI/611'si-r ;J,jI"!-iJ ,before me,
Data
personally appeared 3ic;P/leA/
j'
Jj.~=~1
i' Notay P&.eIc - CGIL I~ f
j l.as Angeles Cam1y -
- . -... ~~~~I~~f
Place Notary Seal Above
} 55
Gustavo R. SalgadO, Nota.ry Public
Name ana nile 01 Officer le.g.. 'Jane Doe. Notary PuOIiC-)
E.i)JY J~i?/jJ
Name\ S I 01 Signer! S I
fj>ersonally known to me
:X- proved to me on the basis of satisfactory
evidence
to be the person(~ whose name(\) is/Me
subscribed to the within instrument and
acknowledged to me that he/s~ executed
the same in his/hel /tl ..::il authorized
capacity(~. and that by his/hcdtlldr
signature~) on the instrument the person(\). or
the entity upon behalf of which the person~
acted, executed the instrument.
OPTIONAL
Though the information below is not required by law, it may prove valuable to persons relying on the document
and could prevent fraudulent removal and reattachment of this form to another document.
Description of Attached 'pocUJ1J~l)t , .
Title or Type of Document: fiIJf/t!Y1i-- fO~ ji1Jt75i7t!At- pAT/J I::i/AUt~77~,e/
Document Date: S .)./"- tfZJ Number of Pages: .::;-
Signer(s) Other Than Named Above:
;.
Capaci 'es) Claimed by Signer
Signer's Nam .
o Individual
o Corporate Officer - Tit
o Partner - c:: Limited u Gener
o Attorney in Fact
o Trustee
o Guardian or Conservator
o Other:
i'
[.
Signer Is Representing:
,.
RIGHT THUMBPRINT
OF SIGNER
TOp of ttlumb here I
Il:l 1997 Nal101lel No18ryAasoClation' 9350 De SOlO Ava.. P.O. Box 2402. ChataWOlth. CA 91313-2402
Proa. No. 5907
. Cau ToIi-F_ 1~7~27
I
~
.)
, ~