remedial planning activities at selected uncontrolled ... · two (2) copies to jack taylor,...
TRANSCRIPT
Remedial Planning Activitiesat Selected UncontrolledHazardous Waste Sites-Zone II
Environmental Protection AgencyHazardous Site Control DivisionContract No. 68-01-7251
WORK ^LAN REVISION REQUEST NO. 3EA AND FS REPORT R£VIS:OHS
IWC SITEFORT SMITH, ARKANSAS
101-6637.0/W68520DQCQmber 2 1 , 1987
B*ack ft V»otchICFPRCEcology and Envfronment
005117
Engineers_ _ _ _ _ _ Planners
J^^K!'^ Economists• Hj aHUf
ABWRB Scientists
December 22, 1987
W68521 .WP
Mr. M . S . RameshU . S . Environmental Protection Agency1445 Ross Avenue, 10th FloorDallas, Texas 75202-2733Dear Mr. Ramesh;
Subject: Request for Approval ~ Work Plan Revision(Industrial Waste)Contract No. 68-01-7251
Forwarded for your review and approval is the followingwork plan approval request:
W . A . # 1 0 1 - 6 6 3 7 . 0 for remedial planning activities atthe Industrial Waste Site, Fort Smith, Arkansas. Thisapproval requests a budget of $350.689 and 5397 LOEhours.
Also enclosed are the work plan, supporting Optional Form6 0 , and a letter from the site manager, Dick Moos..Upon your approval, please forward the documents to VinceGonzales, Contracting Officer, for final authorization withtwo ( 2 ) copies to Jack Taylor, R£M/PO, and a copy to myattention in Reston.
N. Wayne oilmanContract KcministratorProject RKM IV - Zone II
ambEnclosurescos 2. Hermanson/DFW S. Su/WDC
^S^SS^K^SSH A. Sivick/WDCS. Ogg/WDC D. Stannard/WDCP. Michael/WDC V. Kohonoski/WDC
CH3M w'U Mics-Attanfic Office PO Soxd^QO. ffosfon. Virginia 220W 7C347f i*t4i
005118
CONTRACT PRICING PROPOSAL COVER SHEETI. SOLlCITATlON/CONTRA(.
HO.68-01-7251
OKM APPROVEDowy NO.3090-0116
3. NAME AND A.^DR&SS OF OFFE.ROR (IneIwSt ZIP CodfJ
CH2M HILL Southeast, Inc.P. 0. Box 4400Reston, VA 22090
». TYPE OF CONTRACT (Chtekl
B FFP n^^ nCP1F QCPAFFp1 | ) OTHER (Specify f
1A. NAME AND TfTl.t OF OFFEROS'S POINTOF CONTACT
3ick MocsSite Manaqer
4. TYPE OF CONTRACT ACTION fCftd-fc;
6 PROPOSED COST M-B-CJA. COST
$ 329,161
A NEW CONTRACT
8 CHANGE OROER
C PRICE REVISION/R E D E T E R M I N A T I O N
B. PROFIT/FEE
$ 21,528
<
0. LETTER CONTRACT
E. UNPRICED ORDr"F. OTHER {Specify lWork PlanRevis ion
36 TELEPHONE NO
303-771-0900
C. TOTAL
$ 3 5 0 , 6 8 97. PLACE(S1 AND PERIOO(S; OF PERFORMANCE
8 Liti •nd re*e'e"ce the idenitltcttion. qm"riv •"d iot»l pnce p»oo<»ed ^w —ch conliaci line nero. A line item con breakdown hJpponing fhiiQUt'ed unlesi, OtherwiK so«ci(t«d ftv the Cwttacttrai O^'cw /Condnue on fu«w. «nd (/iei on plad IMP*', if mc^uary Un •ame heading* ;
A LINE ITE>"' N0 8 IQENTIFlCATtON
REM IV REMEDIAL PLANNING ACTIVITIES«
Industrial Waste ( f i lO l -6637.0)Request for Approval of Work Plan Revisi
C QUANTITY
3n
0' TOTAL PRICE
5 3 5 0 , 6 8 9( 5 3 9 7 LOE;
*
E R E P .——e\c00CC
9 PROVIDE NAME. ADDRESS, AND TELEPHONE NUMBER FOR THE FOLLOWING UfawlabLtlCONTRACT ADMINISTRATION OFFICE
U.S. ERA OIG, Region XMr. Richard MooreSeattle, WA206/442-1273
10~<M'i, LL^'VOU"« £. Q U 1 RE THE US E 0 F A N '* C, 0 V C R MM E NT^ R 0 PER T^~IN THE PERFORMANCE OF THIS WO«K*«/ "Vf«." id<nUfyf
—— -*— equipment listed inJ.d^LJ^ Pt-ime contract _______12. HAVE YOU eEEN AiA'AROt-0 AN'v"cbNTRA'(';Vs OR SUBCONTRACTS
FOR TME SAME 0" SIMILAR ITEMS WitMIN TME PAS'1 3 YEARS'<U "Ytf. " uHnnft itemni, cu*(omc'f«J «fl^ co'*Mh:( numkfr<i})
B. AUOIT OFFICEU.S. EPA OIG, ReqionMr. Richard MooreSeattle, MA206/442-1273
116. TYPE OF F I N A N C ' N S n onf;1 1 A 00 VOU REO^lRtTGOVERNMENT CONTRACT FINANCINGTO PERFORM THIS PROPOSEDCONTPACT* {If "y«."<ompl/«llw 1 1 B I DAOVANCE |——|PKOGPESS
PAYMENTS LL' y^^i^s?'"'] GUARANTE&0 LO-^SB^ DNO
1 3 . I'* THIS PROPOSAL CONSISTENT WITH VQUR ESTABLlS- fS ES"1
MATING ANO ACCOUNTING PRACTICES AND PROCEOuKES AN 5FAft PART 31 CCS7 PRINCIPLES' tif "No." fspla'nf
QV£S QNO
REM/FJ.T 68-01-6692Q YES QNO
K COST ACCOUNT ING STANDARDS BOA^D (CASB) OATA /^ufclic Lotf 91 3 79 a* am<ndgd and fA « P^ R r .10^A: WILL T MI& CONT RATrArri rSr&l7B°7E7' 'To-CA^e" fG' A
' IONS' {If "No. 'txpiiun in ffopwail
-S^5 D"0 Mod. CAS 401 and 402 _____CMA-Trv 0 U ft £ EN N 0T. F t e'6^ H A t Vfi U * hT'QfaMAV-'&riN NON-
o'b ^ oSKS,0 !: .".''." '; ""
J-Lr^E!"0
8^ HA^'^VOU SUBMIT TEO A CASB DISCi-OSURC STAY£^e"* -(CASv DS I or 3 1 ' tif "V<*." tpfcify in p-opoaiil fA/ O/^tCf ro h •-tutnulffd and if fleUrminsd to tw wItiJuotef
!?—"•>QYES ENO
D. IS ANY A-frPeCTOF THIS CBOFOSAL INCONSISTENT WITK '• OuRDtSCLOEED PRACTICES OH APPLICABLE COST ACCOUNTING
•STANOAROS'^f "y«.."<xpl<iJM to propw*/
YES nn NO
JTh^ pro&OM' «» »utY»itHeOin»tipofng (o (hfflFP co"t^»c'- 'TiJd'ticjUion.yn: m (tern 1 and »5<lBcit our t»n *iHim»tM and/or actual cam u o' f'ijJie
N. Wayne SeHrnanContracts Aanunistrator
16 NAM£ O? FIRM
CH2M HILL Southeast, Inc.
. UO^——,la DATE OP 5U9M;SSiO^
/Z/2^/^7NSN
1411 101
1' Q.B. GOTEBSMBrt1 lMU3»TaiG OrTlCT * 1M4 0 * 421-S26 071
S7AMOARD ^ORM 1<^ (10-831Pr«t«:rlB*d EPV GSAIfAR (•*« Cf*»t 53,21S-2ie)
005119
USEPA WORK ASSIGNMENT FORM
1 »<0»t AtBO—ffV WEOWMtO,
vWJer«i*f. , , , . , , , .- oymtfw • on>w»&9r«c.Industrial 1-astes. AR CH2M HILL 101-6637.0
ACTOFY.ES
^ January 4; 1988 -; ytuy^nof v
Acno<C wwew^
AX&JJAltJfi.W•iwtO-
> e^ "cw BC" —»Mmi)
KEOu^ec•WlQVAi.
n^BpocwMfc"OOiJ*B7i»6
i BUDCiE" » 0<***"H|>.TOTAL tWDmc
HECSVIE3-
&WEW ??5,000
WCTO 125.689
w^ 350.689
[»«. aW'J» uCt lam • •«• W.
• w* CO»»^£TTO^ Ok-rec^roy
i p»»flo*A<'.-^
' • ' 1 1 " , •• -1- -ii- -.--..-". -.-."-.« f»aovA>5COWT^C~O<* tJA*t*1Y»a£i
&~EwM<ll[7lJ««'
^SSSSi EwatAS-y^ '""" i™ '"' '" -" ' ^ "'-'—
^] AWKMEiAtJWrrtO
IUTTMM^ JWCOMEtr
•CNHW-UOl.kXB*»ra—
•rwiu
MOIBlfALn 'Vet'
F"»«CQK>*»tADOu*'rrt(tfc
&*TE•UTMII
»wC
CCWW.
iwCTw auoaer
ptcK<G**.L>3e Br
•McuJoa*cw
12/87
WIWTW WWW68-01-725! 7
~wcoWJiW H6B5?0 ucswvwwfWTUnwywv
n »—»»(T<*.AN«H. IWOM*: »VJ.
*»«OVA.n "*•»••*• «^«i
•AMkM—
AUEWMPff-TDWWQBB «VJUJ«»1
^Ct '^^w
w^»0*«lf
»*1«,
*CAOQLM
; 1 ftwowwwcwiwa ^ N•ttl . • . 1 J
eaM*.
A-
J>
•K
IMAi.IOXAL—•«'
^twrKF U11)
UK»'»HTtR6
•**«»wuaa»' •-:-' •
iBoiXMi.w&B cmop w~i
L» ty ccwriyiCTiNo OWCB»
A—WOVE I:tTWKft^BLDOE"
fftcwac^Loe s?-
2142 146,520
"3?55 ' 204,169
5397 3%.fi89
•»cuce»"l»
HE
TCC'WCA.OritfCTion MEi«yi«M>A<
• DIM—) bO— IIJI|»-
• ruiii —wwu^ »—•
• Mm W ——i BO'
(Al gMft»M KUM «• «»•"
grni 1—ni kn^ awLOC <rt»»—o — EB* CO;
&»i<Eao<
•"teo 1 1 / 8 8
fynfh- **OJ*'*' •——"«" n.irM, uifnafy &>•»
^ »t«JHt. •' 1 1 1 .1 1 . 1 n———......n.^.—————..
-
BtttwyrunEU*tfT (E1.1 (1 -"
fTCCHMCAi. 100 0.
?142 146,5?0
S397 350,685
(1J £S7*AJS"K;B^wvffyc.
c-
0
^mwx kS&GMW9r
" e.oMOLr io'kc ic 'no|K)*'niM>*(WT5
• f^gaof —qHMlUBttr
•»»»w »»)-»)»• CC••tonOfUki•WIA*!»J
ccy^fcrrw
^D^
>W°aoys];
Ci f* »n™^ o»«'ti»oe*u\i^rwurE'* Ci«w»»t» *o»' '•01" •nrdtifaem inr Bium- • i^vS,
* t. » •<f»* » tMWt '«
U*5*-E iflOl-
ATTAC1- STATEMENT OF WORK(PER oescwriON iy *cviON;
005120
l.D W.f&SSWC' TSVJIVLJUH
• fapuCL ttar - £>tr n»r cr ••i -""'"' KEeivifl icr. k castsri ir. tre hcex ueiifuzrc• QzcaKXBr NW - Pn» Caf-acsr """'• *fff /—acnHfc fto- - HBOE- c; tt» i* taw «e ssaced v ff» »sa' crs^c^ 'S'a* ruscer is L-.tia.-y
payicBC &• CT a?. Qscacs-Jr; 0££ioe: arc wuuc. ex UJ U&. u* *xr. ;*r.• ^KS ly -''S» acsvicy Gw. u aearc petlDOBac-• Cft Qycac: ax - tAasy o£ wxcr: OJIIUJL.. \roc- WTHF xck u tei-c cctaaad.• lovuacn *&. - "IraaAl*1 te- r»."-»L- «ecn uramnx mc-K^cr. <^ n» w w»» cs ucyaw^ly
nsaevsi (*.;.3.<...! tx vac-, tfixwac arnnmrr.. S-cmc & aloTB^ b.- Cle E& G:. T1 r C t C n C' 0 /1"- M• &KZ - SB» er Wtf- is ixcarac. V; V . t L U r ! • ' P/I• Os'aacas Qycco-. ft«ar - NJBOC' xannri bi' o» caxzacsr » »i fflasxra- esvzoi. r / / n A 1 1 A t i"- • icdti&tacaon K». - •3D a B.y .i«^ 4' tt» £a (asracsirc n**-rr-. rOun UUAU i T
-0 B irnQMa- ani ORIGINAL• tto' tfaeX A«iai«s& - CTeooKi ty E^ nrr. iswa <£ wW^9 7nsx3M faatW." CTt-oac fes- fi*-. iwiaaaTB to t Fntr tc W affrouBl) irfud-. CTenas SK .3:
«-'^-»rc, (rdre i3cp,«c sse-euLe, or aox ±.tim- CJ'sracuy ta»c&. •S-AS acs.a-. raa£,rae s»a- acTad au3i&fliacr, c£ a sy, HEBS^. spasasws ('rfT-.ei FrBierc cne flR^sBoc. ozc . &' ow.;, erd acfau^ac KTBOiLf af inaesiff CBBQ.
• 2rxz»erxal Pirctino - Is aw tnraLEr. Ea Ccrcac; esiiiia iCTL Xs UK^ wer. t;Te (ISTCT: rd-'r "Icvs. AS nK SL±£*suan carpBrgi e: ire fczoued if. PSWUB& Ed±. fltt,, tavE, tos: a pcsfteK; a; ary (tm yw. tret PCOTCCE is ffuy FBr -ally ixasL
» taroJkl MP ARpco*! - &eoad wwi w is sffrw ae penal - .teaaiaana irriirr sy, fcLoac". ?s C^sm ffiatd an Kcneci S~1C- cc y-<C. flrc aCTanu*. 0\
o Krai w /RKfctti " Oaoac wan MP is aRaroKc as Sa-i*. ASK^EBSS UTehne S3<, taroe^ as sJSKr^sda-, siwec S-IC- cr CF-<C. arc SCTasnAe. C'
• fwisatt. tt ?lial W fWECwa - QTEOOBS rfar. ttB £UB» <^ewai w is n»vijBd to EeSess a cmBe -.". (^sy, CXI33K,. or s^Teane- Trcs ac ir. r res t» Bsasies aanasicn c£ a a'aui- IT. STC S>>. CLCTe".^ZBBC3ff«KS fifflmr RC 01 &anKi 9~ld er CF-6C, a-d/cr CEamac sswui£ w^tn enpl aria- 66a rsnaa. and ary r«iEJBC s^ssw ir.i'JiiifiniT*. r^ raqi—re afT .'-rneL. fLrss.'Ts ex p—.nB.nacLas .
• TiBGinral Durecsacn tesocas-ai* COfl - Che3<ri ws- ths ewss^m cf tne MP is pMeri wri fte p -c^ t» W3CK as wisan tne aRroye: S5», ixaoc , are idaau.e. 'Tss acafr<. iims-. is acro«: a^ tre nARssmi leva-. aoa^K Qv Ksacad arrs^rr. 5; « sy, £u33K., an$ Knei TS de£.-e t» Fifle:i x a; fce psrfssaas vc. ir. tne .a&s c£ &e acs^wri W.
» <tx)t fsaawsf. C^aeQai te&5£Bdcn - &e3«- s-z axs=.SEeri t ' 2» Csc^acsr iisn csala a". cftta Wf £ff» C? aa-BSsr w ,** C3»=-Sffic E Sss "co( oroc:. '5iea( BCT rK asacwss.
3.0 BJtZT MOWga* - in all e^aBB, t^ gsa*i ill t* K-igdy ttegnLail ia- 'Sg acsgayJ-Ei.gaj.iHe'-i, cJl grw r-cn-q'sTaa. ^1 ^ tre t.rc'E oLgaeEC csnz=igg rExr_^E.
• QanHnc - Srv STB ncs; nBCTre e?33wci tLeBK CT&soe' S'. c® sassx.» ^fxsac - S'0^ de a-coK eren3e bews p. —MS n acssans w.s'. e» W ac r. bai."i: rcaJsstEC.• '2x»l - So*- VK wmr^^ e^ STS &SIBS. ars ^LpaeL aimaiKS. l-Tes w.c-. _. aessaB s% np«-
CJ^TZ. wo-, ^araaes.• 'CxaL. Ptfriaro tttacr Ei - £xal d iff' occurs VT.LS'* tes aeer. a-s'K^as tx vs W fcs' ?^e £2^ S
t nan csssa^ B==A.cssa».» IrcKaa Eui?K - he n rwEe: G=TW= USIK ±r t - W pcicr tt; ^TE: acErcual. ^B Ea^
^scocaace cc-lar tuaaK y.— oe ssw. -r. s» cc-Ar =.»an c; s» £^a-zt.;L=B Lya.-; bLsot. ^s:srw. w STB ^ccs v^l fce tr» ffl^ 123: es-sss* wr;;a- ^£.
• ^ga^d NP tiXSaK - STE aE?g Mg s?3: 'susar. - ae cg£>es .-g ^gys-aC ^X arc' •aaa: eg^aEari(SK. ^h*s irsc-LSBe ?srsal fcp acs-sxis. ""'—w———''—'""————'""
• li ttiiitm U».t (E.,; - Sie i&=flK a^c^ac ^•l?aE3>WareiWCi2cue£vs» csr^acsr.n» C5*sr» VL.- rc3B_y a UBC •£ vacy. ="Bse: eiasTi=Ja -s.a tfassacE: v^. sos: '^'&.
2'. ft:,,:rba e» Q^ t-Besan s; .-elflaae parsus. tJ^ taassaac vis-. ^» piae c; ^» wsy SIC.-EAGsrpL-sTKi trc it &-..>» STB ti sne-slisv £r s» c^ss,»-s a-ci »»'—y_-n c' =TBB i.ns ^wa^: ic. •£•* tesa-B: iffuiB,:. -a a^x ^c casar srss . v^ CTCUS.-C: apCT . QtAfl.. •STB E,tf ? ^P, ceB« 'ZxL. Tw^rr, FW -WE or s» S.STBS «^xwi W ae -..' ^e EL v*«; ae sr: 3.-tiBSJTe.. ES .
<.0 ^ GHE eSSN CKS - ;£Sf?^±aB ^6 SBM \.p3". VhiK STB •K!= B l -S S£ hB (SES*ff2K; «^ l;ia< £=r •T'etaatt.-c e£ aM&a-x s = -s oKa.
S.O HSh Ora^S - Uae; £=r SF* essaRa i; asii sra. ©fp-ffK.-y. is r»e=Ei.
(.0 fVBCW» " fcones^e fc^BO i=r SSSJRS-S ica-o ; (B±-K: saeas s^ ^B W ff= KSTWL. &=^31 War =L-S-» S^ . ^csewe.. c; TS S i.--.. a rei-rc: -. &,„ aais easasc ^e (K^g' . yi'l a.-'. £„»•-. ^ a?..Pcs siBi PS*-, - a .- asrro.* SKK- ^ST -»s.3 yy.-^as. ra acars. -s '""- -..•. -^s •^2. tr^c -^s.-^.ars •yc ws»t ^ ssTS-ras-: u", -. •ye acacia; a-s; s=Z3«A. U=y. assrs^ =i ^x £cex-s-r» L--.: K-B Ea^ ?»5fcfl-.. ft -sa^ ffB— a ae-; -z ~re ^ a.- =i tvG.sr»
005121
8B •Pa^e 4
.Reston, VA 22090 Indus t r ia l Wastes, AR
1wi|•|9 4.
8.Black & Veatch 192,i
i' ..iiii
C 0
CH2HP.O.
WORK LOCATION PROPOSAL AMOUNT
3.
TOTAL DIRECTOTAL P-
6.7.
Subcontract Pool
9.9A.
10.11.
14.
15.
(PRJ
N T R A C T P R I(RESEARCH
KILL Southeast, Inc. Work AssignmentBox 4400
Denver, CO
DESCRIPTIONOIRECT LABORP4P3P2PIT2Tl0
LABOR OVERHEADEQUIPMENTTRAVEL-SUBCONTRACT
OTHER DIRECT COSTFIXED RATE LABORATORY
TOTAL DIRECT COST AND OVERHEADGENERAL & ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSE
TOTAL ESTIMATED COSTFEE 0?. PROFIT
TOTAL ESTIMATED COST
100)
C&
$ 350,689
HOURS COST
1013 27,230 4 ,345 5,126 1,
155 1,
SERVICES
A
IDEVELOPMENT) 12/22/87
TT
ND
N G
LABORHOURS
FEE
P
1,9451,780
R 0 P 0 S A L
ES/RER/EA/FS
4026
OHB
101-6637.0
CONTRA68-01-
TOTAL
8456706908685S7245547
42
17
15
95035
1927
27652
32921
350
OPTIONAL FO
# 29-
CT ft7251
COST
,662
, 4 9 210
,320
r 9 8 5, 7 9 2
0
,260,901
,161.528
,689
RM 6
-R0184
LH00^000
3OPTIONAL FORM 60
005122
C O N T R A C T(RESEARC
EXHIBIESTIMATED
COST ELEMENT3. DIRECT LABOR
FISCALYEARCost
TODate
1988
1989
Totals 1,945 4 2 , 6 6 2
3. LABOR OVERHEADFringeOverhead
6. EQUIPMENT7. TRAVEL
P K
TOT. COST
PGRADE
P4P3P2PIT2Tl0P4P3P2PIT2Tl0P4P3P2PIT2Tl0
0.000
I CH &
T A
8 17.06
IDEVELOPMENT)
- SUPPORTING SCHEDULE
N G
HOURS319
23
66
749
670222334
604019
11424
6
2
P R
8,018
28.52 1.00020.31 4 . 5 0 917.06 5 / 6 9 814.5314.92
28 .52 1.05020.31
%RATE
0.410
0 P 0
RATE
9.529.57
9.57
ESTIMATEDCOS
13
13
11
S A
ESCALATION
1,091°''
T
0,557
,5570
,790
L
COSTTO DATE
03 ,935
3 ,93510
3,530
OMB
ESTTO'
«
19,1-08
T, COST
1 7 / 4 9 2
17 ,492
15,320
29-R01812/22/8Page
3448
997
65436
872^597181"-'
7190^12801^0»^—»
20
IMATED
0
10
PRJ100 OPTIONAL FORM 60
005123
C O N T R A C T P R I C I N G P R O P O S A L(RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT)
EXHIBIT A - SUPPORTING SCHEDULE(Continued)
% ESTIMATED
8. SUBCONTRACTBlack & VeatchSubcontract Pool
9 . OTHER DIRECT COSTTelephonePostageReprographicsLab ServicesSuppliesRelocationComputerMiscellaneous
11. GENERAL & ADMIN. EXPENSEG & A 1G & A 2
13. FEE OR PROFITBase FeeAward Fee
0MB # 29-R01612/22/GPa9e
%RATE
1 . 2 4 00.000
ESTIMATEDCOST
1 3 8 , 7 3 30
1 3 8 , 7 3 3
825770650
0155
0915
1 , 5 3 5
4 , 8 5 0
4 1 , 0 0 20
4 1 , 0 0 2
5 , 6 1 71 3 , 4 6 5
COSTTO DATE
5 4 , 2 1 835
5 4 , 2 5 3
6731 , 1 2 6
889020
63190
2 , 9 4 2
1 1 , 8 9 90
1 1 , 8 9 9
1 ,979458
ESTIMATESTOT. COST
1 9 2 , 9 6 035
1 9 2 , 9 8 5
1 , 4 9 81 , 8 9 61 , 5 3 9
G157
0r^978
1,725°
7,7920s '0
52,901^0
5 2 , 9 0 1
7 , 5 9 51 3 . 9 2 3
1 9 , 0 8 2 2/437 21,515
005124
C O N T R A C T P R I C I N G P R O P O S A L(RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT)
Black & Veatch1500 Meadow Lake ParkwayKansas City, MO 64114
WORK LOCATIONDenver, CO
DESCRIPTION3. DIRECT LABOR
P4P3P2PIT2Tl0
TOTAL DIRECT LABORTOTAL P-T HOURS
4. LABOR OVERHEAD6 . EQUIPMENT7. TRAVEL8. SUBCONTRACT
Subcontract Pool
9 . OTHER DIRECT COST9 A . FIXED RATE LABORATORY SERVICES10- TOTAL DIRECT COST AND OVERHEAD11. GENERAL & ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSE13. TOTAL ESTIMATED COST-14. FEE OR PROFIT15. TOTAL ESTIMATED COST AND FEE
OM^ < 29-H018412/22/87Pa9e 1
Work Assignment 101-6637.0ES/RER/EA/FSIndustrial Wastes, ARPROPOSAL AMOUNT
$192 ,950
HOURS COST
1067 30 ,282592 1 4 , 0 4 3527 9 ,784
1221 1 6 , 1 1 6148 2 ,263
62 637276 2,640
3,8933 ,617
2,000
SE
CONTRACT #68-01-7251
TOTAL COST
•
7 5 , 7 6 5
76 ,75032
15 ,667
2 , 0 0 05 , 2 8 7
0
1 7 5 , 5 0 10
1 7 5 , 5 0 11 7 , 4 4 9
1 9 2 , 9 5 0
0000^0^00
(PRJ100 OPTIONAL FORM 60
005125
C O N T R A C T P R I C I N G P R O P O S A L(RESEARCH 6 DEVELOPMENT)
EXHIBIT A - SUPPORTING SCHEDULE
0*-iB # 29-R01812/22/8Page
COST ELEMENT3. DIRECT LABOR
FISCALYEARCose
ToDate
1988
1989
Tota
3. LABOR OVEIU1EADFringeOverhead
6. EQUIPMENT7. TRAVEL
PGRADE
P4P3P2PIT2Tl0P4P3P2PIT2Ti0P4P3P2PIT2Tl0
Is 3 ,893
HOURS433
665
663561247
614578458558
9250
22920
84
%RATE
0.0001 . 0 1 3
RATE ESCALATXON1 1 , 0 5 7
6 ,981
30,27 1 .00023 .7619 .0416 .371 7 . 1 81 1 . 1 71 0 . 1 830 .27 1 . 0 5 823.761 9 . 0 4
7 5 / 7 6 5
ESTIMATED COSTCOST TO DATE
0 056,289 2 0 / 4 6 1
5 6 , 2 8 9 2 0 , 4 6 10 32
7,920 7 ,747
ESTIM;TOT. C
1 8 .1 3 .
8.9,1 -
2 / 3 3 1 0-
ESTIMATE::)TOT, COST
7 6 , 7 5 0
76 ,32
1 5 , 6 6 7
,TED:OST
108983
68378
309,566,733,720, 1 3 4, 5 8 1 ^5S9 0
6 1 1 1 0"201 -
81 -C
0
, 7 5 0
(PRJ100) OPTIONAL FORM 60
005126
C O N T R A C T P R I C I N G P R O P O S A L(RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT)
EXHIBIT A - SUPPORTING SCHEDULE(Con t inued)
t ES^MATEDRATE COST
0MB » '^-P.OIS12/22 /8Page
COST ESTIMATEDTO DATE TOT. COST
SUBCONTRACTSubcontract Pool
OTHER DIRECT COSTTelephonePostageReprographicsLab ServicesSuppliesRelocationComputerMiscellaneous
13. FEE OR PROFITBas.5 FeeAwc'.rd Fee
2,000
2,000
5059051UO
000
790375
2,675
3 , 7 1 41 0 / 5 6 9
0
0
4391 , 7 6 7
00
970
3090
2 , 6 1 2
1 , 5 3 21 , 6 3 6
2 ,000
2 ,000
9 4 42 / 6 7 2
100• 097
01 / 0 9 9
375
5 , 2 8 7
5 / 2 4 41 2 / 2 0 5
CT-
00CC
(PRJ100)
14/283 3 , 1 6 8 17/449
OPTIONAL FORM 60
8
005127
EngineersPlanners
December 21, 1987W68521.WP
Mr. M . S. RameshU . S . Environmental Protection
Agency, Region VI1445 Ross Avenue, 10th FloorDallas, Texas 75202-2733Dear M r . Ramesh:Enclosed for your review and approval is Work Plan RevisionRequest No. 3 . This work plan revision includes the esti-mated budget to revise the Endangerment Assessment andFeasibility Study reports so they incorporate the data andinformation from the PRP's report, and modify the FS reportto meet the SARA provisions. This work plan revision alsoincludes budgets for community relations activities asso-ciated with the revised FS and technical support to Region VIfor the responsivensss summary and ROD process.Please call if you have any questions or need more informa-tion regarding the cost estimates. Since the project planscall for substantial effort in December and January, Irequest we expedite this WpRR to obtain approval before ourexisting approved budget is depleted. From our work planestimates, I project our remaining budget will be expendedby January 15.
Richard MoosS M , 1WC Site
DE/IWC4/014/amaEnclosures
CH^M HILL /?ock/ .^uniain O'fico W i (3/6>onw'.orf ^Iwa Qtvcf e:ngiowooa. CoioiaiJ'J flO 1 ' ? 303 77 f QWMa ingot.Jdfw. ^0 aof I250Q. Dqn/o/. CoiwwaQ0222
005128
Mr. M, S. RameshPage 2December 21, 1987W 6 8 5 2 1 , W P
cc: Jack Taylor, RSM-PO/EPA-HQ, Washington, D.C. ( 2 )Vince Gonzdies/ CO/EPA-H3, Washincrton/ D.C.Steve Gilrein, ^.EM-RP/FPA Region V ? / DallasLarry Wright, Superfunc Enforcement Section Chief/
EPA Region VI, DallasBrad Hermanson/ m/CH2M HILL, DFWSob Ogg. APM-OPS/CH2M HILL, WDCWayne Seilman, APM-ADMIN/CH2M HILL, WDCMike Harris, RTL/CH2M HILL, DFWClyde H^tchison, FSPE/Black & Veatch/ Kansas CityVxcki Kohonoski, Sr. Proj. Assist./CH2M HILL, WDCGrog Peterson, QAM/CH2M HILL, CVO
005129
WORK PLAN REVISION REQUEST NO. 3
IWC SITE, FORT SMITH, ARKANSAS
WA NO. 1 0 1 - 6 6 3 7 . 0 , PROJECT NO. W 6 8 5 2 0
I TPQP IO
The original Endangerment Assessment ( E A ) and FeasibilityStudy (F S ) reports for the IWC Site were prepared in early1 9 8 6 , following Phase I and Phase II remedial investiga-tions. The Final Draft FS was submitted to EPA on June 3 ,1 9 8 6 . and released for public comment. Following an earlysummer public comment period, steps to prepare a Record ofDecision were initiated.
With enforcement action pending, most, but not all of thePRPs organized a group represented by a steering committee.This PRP group requested, through EPA, that they be allowedto conduct an independent supplemental investigation so thatthey could have a better understanding of the site. Therequ&st was granted and the PRP steering committee hired anindependent consultant (IT Corporation) to conduct a Hydro-geologic and Waste Quantification Study. As a result ofthis action, fcha ROD preparation was suspended until theadditional data was acquired. PRP planning reports wereprepared in early 1987 , and the field investigation startedMarch-16, 1 9 8 7 .
The September 1986 Work Plan and January 1987 Work PlanRevision Request (WPRR) submitted to EPA established thebudget for enforcement support tasks and oversight of PRPfield investigations at the IWC Site. WPRR No. 2 , in April1987. increased the field oversight budget (because thefield schedule was revised by th^ PRPs), incorporated atechnical report budget to cover the production of a fieldoversight technical memorandum, and increased the PRP
DE/IWC4/013 1
005130
negotiations/document review task so the project staff couldsupport EPA during review/revision of the PRP's field inves-tigations report. The field investigations were conductedduring March, April, and May 1987 and the Final Hydrogeo-logic and Waste Quantification Study (HWQS) Report was com-pleted in October 1987.
EPA Region VI has now directed CK2M HILL to revise the EAand FS reports, prepared before SARA, to meet SARA require-ments,. and incorporate the field information and analyticaldata obtained by the PRPs. This WPRR presents the scope ofwork and budget estimates for revising these reports, andprovides a budget estimate for associated tasks such asproject management, community relations activities, andtechnical support to EPA during the ROD process. The workwill be conducted under three activities and the taskslisted below:
o W68521 Project Management/Technical SupportTask PM Total Project Management
Wp Work Plan RevisionCR Community RelationsPD Project/Program Delivery Analyses
o W68522 Endangerment Assessment (Revision)Task DE Data Evaluation
11 Endangerment Assessment ReportC?c Quality ControlPM Activity Management
o W68523 Feasibility Study (Revision)Task DE Data Evaluation
AE Alternatives EvaluationRF FS ReportQC Quality ControlRS Responsiveness Summary/ROD SupportPM Activity Management
DE/IWC4/013 2
005131
.U-YHL llllPBOJETT MANAGEMENT/TECHNICAL SUPPORT
TASK PM: .TOTAL PROJECT MANAGEMENT
Th^-s task includes those management functions necessary todirect the total IWC Site project. The site managementeffort includes coordinating the three activities describedin this WPRR/ providing the principal communication linkbetween EPA and the project^ planning and implementing theproject tasks/ and maintaining technical and cost control.
The site manager will perform most of the subtasks withinthis task. Functions to be performed as part of the TotalProject Management include:
o Liaison with EPA and ZPMO on all project matters
o Project planning/ coordination of activities/technical guidance/ and quality control
o Preparation of monthly technical/ schedule/ andfinancial reports for EPA and ZPMO
o Coordinate communications between EPA, CH2M HILL,and associate firms
o Develop and maintain project schedules in concertwith the RPM
The types of effort that are included in this Total ProjectManagement budget include preparing monthly reports; coor-dinating EA, FS, and ROD activities; attending meetings andconference calls with EPA and the PRPs; maintaining tech-nical quality and bydget control; and coordinating technical
DE/ IWC4 /013 3
005132
review of project deliverables. Project communications willbe documented using written correspondence, telephone memos,alinutes of meetings/ and work plans.
TASK WP: WORK PLAN REVISION
This task includes the preparation of this W P R R , compilationof projecfc-to-date costs, and liaison with EPA Region VI toobtain approval of this WPRR. This WPRR describes the tasksrequired to revise the EA and FS reports to meet current EPAguideline documents and SARA requirements. It also describesthe community relations and engineering/environmenfcc.1 supportrequested by the Region for completing the public commentrequirements and conducting the ROD process. The WPRR pre-sents the expected scope of work, defines the schedule forthe work scope, and presents the estimated costs.
This task also includes limited e f fo r t to prepare a workplan revision during May 1988. It is anticipated that theROD wi l l be completed by the end of May and EPA will be ableto define the support required in association with predesignand remedial design activities-
This task assumes that EPA defines the expected scope ofwork in enough detail to the project s taf f so that revisionsto the WPRR are unnecessary, and approval through EPA head-quarters is expedited,
TASK CR: COMMUNITY RELATIONS
It is assumed that the revised FS will contain alternativessufficiently d i f fe rent from the 1986 FS alternatives thatanother public comment period will be required. This taskincludes limited technical support at a public meeting inFort Smiy-i in March 1988. The SM and one community relations
D E / I W C 4 / Q 1 3 4
.. - . > li ^U l H l'Jlte.m.l
005133
specialist will attend the meeting to assist EPA. Also, alocal service will be subcontracted to provide an officialtranscript of the meeting.
The community relations specialist will prepare an FS FactSheet for distribution at the public meeting, maintain anattendance list, and record public comments at the meeting.
The CR task includes the travel budget for the SM and CRspecialist, cost for the meeting transcript, and labor forpreparing the Fact Sheet, attending the meeting, and pre-paring a summary of comments.
TASK PD: PROJECT/PROGRAM DELIVERy ANALYSES
Under this task, the project staff will provide engineering/environmental support services to EPA Region VI. The speci-fic subtasks are not defined at this time, but the Regionanticipates several areas where they will require assistancefrom the project staff on technical issues and questions.The SM will direct the appropriate project staff to fulfillEPA Region VI requests as specifically directed by the RPM.
Support services that might be provided under this taskinclude:
o Assist Region VI with review of PRP-developedreports, and meet with EPA and the PRPs to discussresolution of comments. The PRPs have their con-sultant preparing independent FS and EA reports.
o Determine if additional topographic mapping willbe required for remedial design, and prepare tech-nical specifications for that mapping.
o Define data gaps associated with remedial func-tions, and prepare plans to fill those data gaps.
DE/ IWC4/013 5
005134
0
0
Define requirements for bench or pilot testing andprovide support to EPA for developing specifica-tions or work plans for these tests.
Assist EPA in developing and/or resolving issuessuch as property access and local building/construction requirements.
0 Assist EPA with technicalstate or federal agenciesment of Pollution Controland Wildlife Service.
issues presented bysuch as Arkansas Depart-and Ecology or U . S . Fish
Assist EPA with planning and/or implementing dis-posal of P.I-derived waste materials, or oversightof PRP disposal operations.
0
General technical support to EPA Region VI such asreview of technical portions of EPA documents.
0
Since the exact scope of work for this task is unknown atthis time, the cost estimate assumes 340 LOE houra over7 months , and two meetings in Dallas ( for the SM and projectengineer ) .
ACTIVITY W 6 8 5 2 2
^PANGERMENT ASSES SMENT (REVISION)
The EA for the IWC site/ based on Phase I and Phase II reme-dial investigation® in 1984--85, was completed in March 1 9 8 6 .The subsequent field investigations by the PPPs during 19S7have made a significant data base available, and EPARegion VI has requested the March 1986 EA Report be revisedto incorporate this new data base. The PRP's data is moreextensive than the Rl data base in some cases, for example
DE/IWC4/013
005135
offsite soils data. In other cases, such as the offsiteartesian groundwater system, most of the data base is fromthe original RI work. The combination of the two data bases,however, provides a better foundation for risk assessmentthan either data set alone. This activity will include fourtasks: data evaluation, report revision, quality control,and activity management.
TASK DE: DATA EVALUATION
The analytical data from the PRP's HWQS report will be cate-gorized into six data sets; onsite soils, offsite soils,offsifce artesian groundwater, offsifce perched groundwater/onsite perched groundwater, and onsite solid wastes (frombarrels and pits). These data will then be incorporatedinto the public health risk assessment (with the Phase I andPhase II RI d a t a ) , utilizing the five land use scenarios inthe March 1986 EA. The EPA and PRP data will be combined toform a single data base.
For each of the six data sets, sample size, maximum observedconcentration, arithmetic mean, and geometric mean will becalculated for each chemical found in the samples. Datawill be analyzed for the inorganic elements (metals) on thehazardous substances list; and for volatile, base-neutral,and acid-soluble organic compounds.
The Administrative Order signed by EPA and the PRPs requiredthat samples from the PRP field investigations be analyzedand subjected to quality control (QC ) procedures that areequal to, or exceed, analytical methods and QC requirementsof the EPA contract laboratory program. This data evalua-tion task, therefore, assumes that the analytical data sub-mitted to EPA in the HWQS report is validated data and nofurther effort is planned for QC purposes.
DE/ IWC4/013 7
005136
The data compilation/data reduction procedures will be com-municated to EPA and the PRPs, to obtain their concurrencein the data evaluation procedures.
TASK 1 1 : ENPANGERMENT ASSESSMENT REPORT
The March 1986 EA report will be revised to incorporate thenew combined data base (1984-85 RI data plus data providedby the PRPs-'fche HWQS Report), and update the quantitativerisk analyses. New and revised cancer potency values andAIC values have been published since spring 1 9 8 6 , and thesewill be incorporated into the quantitative risk analyses.The five land use scenarios in the 1986 EA will be retained,with only minor modifications.
The Introduction chapter of the EA will be revised to definethe PRP data source and explain why the EA is bein9 revised.Also/ an Executive Summary section will be developed to sum-marize the risks associated with each land use scenario.The revised EA report will also incorporate commentsreceived from ATSDR in June 1986 and a recent EA review byan EPA Region VI toxicologist.
Since there are very few promulgated standards or criteriafor hazardous or toxic chemicals in soil, cleanup goals forthe FS will be dependent to a large extent on the humanhealth risks associated with contaminated onsifce soils. TheEA report will address this issue and present candidateindicator chemicals and proposed cleanup goals.
^SK QC: QUALITY CONTROL
The quality control task is undertaken to assist the sitemanager in achieving the project objectives and in producingquality project deliverables, The task is accomplished byintegrating a review team of senior professionals with
DE/IWC4/013 8
005137
technical experience matching the known or anticipated prob-lems at the site. The review team members will be involvedin project planning from the beginning of the report revisionprocess through completion of the EA and FS reports and theROD. The SM will coordinate specific review requirementswith the review team leader and RM. Senior project staffand the review team will also be available in summer andearly fall for limited technical support to EPA.
Review team members will be involved in several key activi-ties and will:
o Participate in the conceptualization of the EA andFS report revisions.
o Provide technology transfer based on their exper-ience with other project decisions.
Review team members have been selected by the site manager,the regional manager, and the assistant zone projectmanager—technology. The review team members for the 1WCsite i.-.clude a geohydrologist, hazardous waste process engi-neer, water/wasfcewater treatment engineer, and risk assess-ment specialist.
TASK PM: ACTIVITY MANAGEMENT
The e-ndangerment assessment activity manager is responsiblefor technical direction and schedule control of the EAreport revision* Functions to be performed as part ofactivity management include:
o Assisting the SM in selecting staff and coordinat-ing the schedule for tasks within this activity
o Monitoring the involvement and performance ofin-house staff
DE/IWC4/013 9
.„—..,• ..l .alWl nn <tABt f'MBli-. Kid kU^M (JIM. U ASSt
005138
o Monitoring project performance and providing day-tp-day guidance of the activity, including updatesof the schedules and manpower requirements, aswell as participating in and influencing technicalissues
o Meeting with the SM and EPA, if necessary, to dis-cuss and finalize the EA report
c Preparing monthly technical status reports
The activity manager is also responsible for quality assur-ance and control of the EA report process. Quality assur-ance entails a number of specific activities and proceduresand these duties will be shared by the activity manager/ thesite manager, and the senior review team. Quality assurancereviews of work completed by team members will be conductedto provide technical and managerial guidance, aa needed, tomaintain the quality and efficiency of project performance-
SlISlLJi6! !!FEASIBILITY STUDY (REVISION)
The FS for the IWC site, based on Phase 1 and Phase II reme-dial investigations in 1984-85, was completed in June 1 9 8 6 .The subsequent field investigations by the PRPs during 1987have made a significant data base available/ and the reautho-rization of Superfund in fall 1936 substantially changed FSrequirements. Therefore, EPA Region VI has requested theJune 1986 FS Report be revised. This activity will includesix tasks: data evaluation, alternatives evaluation, reportrevision, quality control, responsiveness summary, and activitymanagement,
D E / I W C 4 / 0 1 3 1 0
005139
TASK PE: DATA EVALUATION
Efforts under this task will include the following:
o Review the HWQS report and revise Chapter 2 of theexisting FS to reflect this additional data andsite understanding.
o Review the EA and incorporate appropriate cleanuplevels in the cleanup objectives for the site.
o Evaluate "applicable or relevant and appropriaterequirements" (ARARs) for the site. Both federaland State of Arkansas criteria and standards willbe reviewed. A comprehensive list of ARARs willbe developed and summarized for their generalapplicability or appropriateness to site condi-tions. Chemical^specific ARARs identified in theEA and from federal and state regulations will beincorporated into the cleanup objectives for sitemedia. Location-specific and action-specificARARs will be listed and their applicability toeach proposed alternative considered.
The identification of ARARs will be presented as aseparate chapter of the FS. A draft of this chap-ter will be prepared utilizing the ARAR informa-tion developed by the project staff, EPA, andADPCE, The draft will be submitted to EPA and theState for review and approval. Comments receivedwill be incorporated into this chapter and thealternatives development and evaluation,
o Study the provisions of SARA and the draft "Guid-ance for Conducting Remedial Investigations and
DE/ IWC4/013 1 1
005140
Feasibility Studies Under CERCLA." Identify newprovisions or directives which require modifica-tion of the existing FS and review these. Incor-porate this information into the FS revisionprocess.
TASK AE: ALTERNATIVES,EVALUATION
The feasibility study process of alternative development,initial screening and detailed analysis is not changed underthe provisions of SARA. However/ SARA has changed th°emphasis placed on establishing ARARs and remedial alterna-tives, the categories of required alternatives, and thebasis for screening. Thus, significant revisions arerequired to the existing FS.
Considering the new direction provided by SARA and the addi-tional sice understanding provided by the HWQSr the follow-ing initial work will be performed under the task:
o Review Chapter 3 of the existing FS. Update thelist of technologies to include any recent devel-opments. Rescreen the technologies based on thenew SAP-A requirements and data in the HWQP.
o Develop new alternatives for considerationincluding:
An alternative that completely and perma-nently treats the wastes and eliminates theneed for long-term monitoring.
Alternatives that reduce toxici.ty^ mobility,or volume as their principal element.
DE/IWC-1/013 12
005141
Containment options involving little or notreatment.
A no action alternative.
Alternatives that combine treatment and con-tainment considering "hot spot" removals.
o Screen the alternatives considering effectiveness,implementability, and cost to reduce the number ofalternatives while preserving the range ofoptions.
o Meet with EPA in Dallas to review the developedalternatives and the initial screening. For pur-poses of estimating costs, it was assumed that twopersons would travel from Kansas City to Dallasfor this meeting. Ths SM and Review Team Leaderwill also attend this meeting. Labor and travelcosts for the SM are included in the EndangermentAssessment (EA ) basks since the EA will also bediscussed at this meeting.
Following agreement on the screening, the remaining alterna-tives will be developed in sufficient detail to allow com-parative assessment. Activities will include:
o Prepare a basic component diagram and/or a concep-tual site layout.
o Evaluate the technical reliability of eachalternative.
o Aasass the effectiveness and dependability of e^halternative, and the implementation constraints.
13
005142
o Evaluate fche public health and environmental risksand impacts both short and long-term.
o Prepare an estimate of costs associated with thealternative; including capital costs, operationand maintenance, monitoring, and present worthcost. Perform a coat sensitivity analysis.
o Evaluate institutional, legal, and administrativeconstraints.
In order to conform to the new SARA requirements andproperly evaluate treatment versus land disposal alterna-tives, the following points will also b<s addressed in thers;
o The long-term uncertainties of land disposal.
o The persistence, toxicifcy, mobility, and bio-accumulation of contaminants.
o Potential future remedial action costs if theremedy fails.
o Does the alternative attain federal and stateAP.ARs? If an ARAP is not attained, the area ofdeficiency will be identified.
TASK _R_F: FS REPORT
The FS report will include the following chapters;
1 . Executive Summary: Provides a brief synopsis of thereport.
DE/ IWC4 /013 1 4
005143
2. Introduction: Includes site background, site descrip-tion, and FS objectives.
3. Sndangerment Assessment: Summarizes the EA and identi-fies cleanup levels for the site.
4. Identification of ARARs: Presents the list of A-RARsand discusses their potential applicability to the con-tar.inants of concern, site location, or remedialaction.
c . Screening of Response Actions and Technologies: Iden-tifies technologies for each site media and presentsthe results of the screening.
6. Preliminary Alternatives Development: Presents a rangeof alternatives.
7. Preliminary Alternatives Screening: Screens the r^ngeof alternatives to reduce the number while preserving arange of options.
8. Detailed Alternatives Development: Presents a detaileddescription and evaluation of each remainingalternative.
The first few chapters of the FS will be scheduled for draft-ing ahead of the Executive Summary (Chapter 1 ) and the lastchapters that discuss alternative screening and evaluationof alternatives (Chapters 6, 7, and 8 ) . These early Chap-ters (2 through 6) will be reviewed internally by the projectreview team, revised accordingly, then submitted as DraftChapters to EPA Region VI for review. This will provide anopportunity for EPA to review and comment on chapters dealingwith the endangerment assessment, ARARs, and technologyscreening while the project is completing the evaluation of
DE/ IWC4/013 15
005144
remedial alternatives. It is assumed the EPA will providecomments on Chapters 2 through 5 at about the same time asthe project completes the Draft Chapters 6 , 7 , and 8.
The entire Draft FS will be subjected to internal reviewbefore it is submitted to EPA Region VI. While EPA is review-ing the Draft, the project team will continue working on EPAcomments on Chapters 2 through 5 (if the SM and RPM agreeafter EPA comments are available) and complete any remainingQC data checks. EPA Region VI may have an ADPCE person onthe review staff, but must make it clear that the documentis a draft.
Two meetings are scheduled during February to maintain com-munications with EPA on report content, alternative evaluationresults, ARARs, and report reviews. The first meeting, inDallas, will be a discussion of remedial alternatives coveredin the report and final concurrence on ARARs and cleanupobjectives. It is assumed no significant changes will occurat this time* The second meeting will be a workshop inKansas City to discuss and resolve the comments received onthe draft report. The RPM and SM will attend this workingsession with key FS staff members in Kansas City. The FinalFS will be developed based on discussions and conclusionsmade during this workshop. Comments received from EPA/ theState, and the QC review team will be discussed at the work-shop in Kansas City.
for purposes of the cost estimate, four project staff memberswill attend the Dallas meeting in early February, and the SMand RPM will travel to Kansas City for the late Februarymeeting. Ten ( 1 0 ) copies of the Draft FS and thirty f30)copies of the Final FS will be prepared for distribution.
DE/IWC4/013 16
005145
^_gK QC: QUALITY CONTROL
A review team of senior engineers and specialists will beformed to provide input to the FS process and review all
deliverables, including draft and final reports. Labor andexpenses of the review team to attend the meetings describedin the RF task are included under this task.
T^S^ RS: RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY AND ROD
Region VI will receive comments to the Final Draft EA and FSreports for the IWC site, but the extent of these commentscan't be reliably predicted. Several of the comments/ whichcould come from individuals/ PRPs, public interest groups/
various industries, and governmental entities will probablyfocus on technical issues related to the FS. CH2M HILL andBlack & Veafcch, at EPA's request, will assist Region VI inpreparing the final responsiveness summary (especially respon-ses to technical issues). Activities that might potentiallybe undertaken as part of this assistance task may includedocument and public record review/ report preparation/ dis-
tribution of documents, and attendance at or preparation forbriefings and meetings not anticipated as part of other FSactivities.
The extent of the project s ta f f ' s participation with EPA onthis task cannot be predicted at this time. With this inmind, eighty (80 ) hours of senior t&chnical staff time hasbeen budgeted/ along with forty ( 4 0 ) hours of graphics andsecretarial support.
The record of decision will be written by EPA, which willset forth the chosen remedial action or combination of reme-dial actions to be designed and implemented. A limited bud-get has been established to provide assistance to EPA duringthe development of the ROD» Examples of ROD technical
17
005146
support night include answering questions on the FS, reviewingthe technical content of the ROD docmr.snts/ and assistingEPA staff in preparing briefing materials or visual aids. Atotal of 50 professional labor hours and 1 6 labor hours forgraphics and word processing are included in the cost esti-mate figures.
TASK PM: ACTIVITY MANAGEMENT
Black & Veatch will be the Activity Manager for the Feasi-bility Study revision. Activity management effort willinclude project planning/ scheduling and coordinating tasks,guiding technical activities, monitoring the budget, andproviding input to the SM for preparing the monthly finan-cial, technical, and scheduling status reports- Theseactivities have been budgeted through May 1 9 8 8 .
PROJECT SCHEDULE AND BUDGET
The schedules for the EA and FS report revisions are shownin Figure I/ along with the schedules for the other tasksdescribed in this WPRR. EPA Region VI review of the DraftEA is scheduled for the first half of January and the DraftFS is scheduled for review during early February. The pub-lic comment period on the FS and the subsequent ROD processare scheduled for March through mid-May. Only two of thetasks, Project Management and Project/Program DeliveryAnalyses, are scheduled beyond May 198 8 .
The estimated costs associated with the tasks described inthis WPRR are shown in the following cost summary and detailtables. Cost-to-date and estimated cost-to-complete arealso shown for the Enforcement Support Activity (W68520)which has recently been completed. The first cost estimatetable is tha summary table showing total project costs/ byactivity ( W 6 8 5 2 0 , W68521, W68522, and W6S523) and task.DE/IWC4/013 18
005147
19fl8
W68521—Total Pr&i. AdMitesTola* Proffrct M^mCWOFI Pton fl>ew«9ffi«*Community RetattofTOPro) /Program Oetivery AnalytCt
W6S522—EncSangerment AssessmentOat» EvaluationEA ReportQuallt/ ConfioiAcSiirtEy Mgmt.
W68523-FeasibE!tty StudyEslabdsh GoatsDefine ARARsData Evatu^lionEvatusiff Alternative?FS RffportOualil/ CofttrotActivity Mgml.Public Comment PcrfOdResponsive nest SummaryROD Process
Profect Meetings
ore; 2 3 4 5
——•"—
sawuM
^
cn
JAM( ? 3 4
EPAWll 1 • • 1 1 1 •HBM—
m
rre E MAR1 2 3 4
£PAIE|llflfKaMH»M
£1} (15
» ? 3 4
m [i3
APR { MAYT 2 3 4 5
B
1 2 3 4
.. •«i«.,. ...:»
1————^
MEETINGS1 fS Goals FAneu ' lSion A R A O s
Oiscttss (-A & f-S Approacti w i l t i POPs
2 EA Rt tS t i f r s . AnARs , Aii GcrRenmg
3 Oetsiled Fi/al Al ls . f ina l AnAf t s
4 f iriat fS (tevisions
5 Puhttc. Mcflif}^ F ( ' i fr i l th
ti PHP Nr i (<Hi .» t , i>ns
'' f t f S l " i f i ^ i i / r f > f " i » SnTKnacy. R C ) t >
* These Tasks Conlinu* JUM-OCT
FtGURE 1tWC SITEPROJECT SCHEDULESWf'W NO 3WhB;>t'l Wf
0 0 9 9 3 1
005148