request for proposals oil emediation via n itu … · a final report on the istd project. 3.2.5...

PREPARED FOR:

THE CITY OF MARTINSVILLE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT

P.O. DRAWER 1112 MARTINSVILLE, VIRGINIA 24114

CITY OF MARTINSVILLE SANITARY LANDFILL

REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS SOIL REMEDIATION VIA IN SITU THERMAL DESORPTION

AUGUST 2017

PREPARED BY:

2211 WEST MEADOWVIEW RD. SUITE 101

GREENSBORO, NC 27407 PHONE: 336.323.0092 FAX: 336.3123.0093

WWW.JOYCEENGINEERING.COM JOYCE PROJECT NO. 241.1801.12

Martinsville Sanitary Landfill Joyce Engineering RFP for ISTD Project August 2017 Page 1 of 23

City of Martinsville, Virginia Martinsville Sanitary Landfill

REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS Soil Remediation via In Situ Thermal Desorption

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 SUMMARY AND BACKGROUND ................................................................................ 3 2.0 PROPOSAL GUIDELINES .............................................................................................. 4

2.1 General Guidelines ........................................................................................................... 4 2.2 Contacts and Submittal..................................................................................................... 4

3.0 PROJECT GOALS AND SCOPE .................................................................................... 5 3.1 Project Goals .................................................................................................................... 5 3.2 Project Scope .................................................................................................................... 5

3.2.1 DESIGN PHASE: ..................................................................................................... 5

3.2.2 CONSTRUCTION PHASE: ..................................................................................... 5

3.2.3 OPERATION PHASE: ............................................................................................. 6

3.2.4 END PHASE:............................................................................................................ 6

3.2.5 FINAL REPORT: ..................................................................................................... 6

3.2.6 ESTIMATED TOTALS: .......................................................................................... 7

3.2.7 ESTIMATED TIME FRAMES: ............................................................................... 7

3.2.8 ITEMS/ACTIVITES NOT TO BE INCLUDED IN PROPOSAL COSTS: ............ 7

4.0 RFP AND PROJECT TIMELINES ................................................................................. 8 4.1 RFP Timeline ................................................................................................................... 8 4.2 Project Timeline: .............................................................................................................. 9

5.0 TECHNICAL INFORMATION AND SPECIFICATIONS .......................................... 9 5.1 Support Documents .......................................................................................................... 9 5.2 Solvent Pit Dimensions and Characteristics ..................................................................... 9 5.3 Other Pertinent Site Information .................................................................................... 11 5.4 Well Installations and Disposal of Drill Cuttings and Drilling Fluids ........................... 12 5.5 Handling, Treatment, and Disposal of Condensate ........................................................ 12 5.6 Vapor Treatment and Air Effluent ................................................................................. 14

6.0 BUDGET AND TASK BREAKDOWN ......................................................................... 15 7.0 BIDDER QUALIFICATIONS ........................................................................................ 16

7.1 Technical Capability (staff, equipment, availability) ..................................................... 16 7.2 Similar Projects and References ..................................................................................... 17


TABLE OF CONTENTES (Continued) 8.0 PROPOSAL EVALUATION AND AWARDING OF CONTRACT ......................... 17

8.1 Evaluation Criteria ......................................................................................................... 17 8.2 Preparation ..................................................................................................................... 18 8.3 Guarantees of Performance ............................................................................................ 18 8.4 Qualifications of Offerors .............................................................................................. 18 8.5 Approval of ISTD Project .............................................................................................. 18 8.6 Notice of Award ............................................................................................................. 19

9.0 GENERAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS .................................................................... 19 9.1 General ........................................................................................................................... 19 9.2 Terms .............................................................................................................................. 19 9.3 Assignment of Contract .................................................................................................. 19 9.4 Collusion ........................................................................................................................ 19 9.5 Ethics in Public Contracting ........................................................................................... 20 9.6 Anti-Discrimination ....................................................................................................... 20 9.7 Minority and Women-Owned Businesses ...................................................................... 20 9.8 Drug-Free Workplace ..................................................................................................... 21 9.9 Anti-Discrimination - Faith Based Organizations .......................................................... 21 9.10 Inspection of Procurement Records .............................................................................. 21 9.11 Costs of Proposal Preparation ........................................................................................ 21 9.12 Ownership of Material ................................................................................................... 21 9.13 Trade Secrets or Proprietary Information ....................................................................... 22 9.14 Cancellation of Contract ................................................................................................. 22 9.15 Insurance ........................................................................................................................ 22 9.16 Obligation of Proposer ................................................................................................... 23 9.17 Piggy-Back Clause ......................................................................................................... 23 9.18 Hold-Harmless Clause.................................................................................................... 23

SUPPORT DOCUMENTS

Drawing 1: Site Plan Drawing 2: Solvent Pit Area and Soil Sample Locations Table 1: Detected VOCs in Solvent Pit Soil and VOC Mass Calculations Table 2: Soil TCPL Results Table 3: Soil Geotechnical Testing Results Table 4: PSV Air Sample Analytical Results Boring Logs for Attempted Monitoring Wells

BID FORM

CERTIFICATE OF NO COLLUSION


1.0 SUMMARYANDBACKGROUND

The Martinsville Sanitary Landfill is owned and maintained by the City of Martinsville, and is a closed, unlined, municipal solid waste facility located off of Clearview Drive in Henry County, Virginia, approximately one mile northeast of the Martinsville city limits. The landfill actively received waste between 1971 and 2006, and closure was completed in 2007. An active solid waste transfer station continues to operate at the facility. The landfill also has an active landfill gas extraction system and gas-to-electricity generation station. Prior to 1980, there were two solvent pits located upgradient of the landfill which were designated for disposal of liquid chemical wastes, primarily paints, varnishes, and solvents produced by the local furniture industry. The site layout, the approximate edge of waste, the locations of the solvent pits, and other pertinent site features are presented in Drawing 1. As part of a groundwater Corrective Action Plan (CAP) for the facility, passive soil vents (PSVs) were installed in the solvent pits in June 2006. The PSV system consists of fourteen PSVs, seven in each of the two solvent pits. The layout of the solvent pits, locations of the PSVs, and related information are shown on Drawing 2. As part of closure construction for the landfill, 4.5-foot-thick impermeable soil caps were installed over the two solvent pits in order to keep rainwater from further leaching contaminants from the soil into the groundwater. The installation of the cover was completed in December 2007. The approximate extent of the soil caps are shown on Drawing 2. The Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) requested further investigation and additional remediation of the solvent pits in June 2015. Additional soil sampling was conducted and we attempted to install monitoring wells in each of the two solvent pits. An Interim Measures Work Plan proposing in situ thermal desorption (ISTD) as the recommended remedial technology for the solvent pits was submitted to the DEQ in September 2016 and was approved in October 2016. ISTD involves heating the subsurface to temperatures around the boiling point of the contaminants, thus fully releasing the volatile compounds in the soil to be drawn off as steam and vapor through a collection system. The purpose of this Request for Proposals (RFP) is to solicit bids for turn-key implementation of the ISTD remedy for the two solvent pits. Implementation will include design, construction, operation, confirmatory testing, and removal of the ISTD system. This is a performance-based RFP, and the specific soil heating technology is open. Bidders are free to propose thermal conduction heating (TCH), electrical resistance heating (ERH), or other technologies that have been proven to be effective in similar applications.


2.0 PROPOSALGUIDELINES

2.1 GeneralGuidelines

This RFP represents the requirements for an open and competitive process. There will be a mandatory per-bid site meeting at the Martinsville Landfill at 1:00 pm

EST on Monday, September 11, 2017. Proposals will be accepted until 4:00 pm EST on Thursday, October 12, 2017. Any

proposals received after this date and time will not be considered. No faxed, emailed, or electronic submissions of proposals will be accepted. Proposals must be signed by an official agent or representative of the company

submitting the proposal. If the organization submitting a proposal must outsource or contract any work to meet the

requirements contained herein, this must be clearly stated in the proposal. Costs included in proposals must be all-inclusive to include any outsourced or contracted

work. Proposals which call for outsourcing or contracting work must include the names,

descriptions, and contact information for the organizations being contracted. All costs must be itemized to include an explanation of all fees and costs. Please complete the attached bid form and include with your proposal. Contract terms and conditions will be negotiated with the City of Martinsville upon

selection of the winning bidder for this RFP; however, failure to resolve disagreements over contract terms and conditions may be grounds for rejecting a bid.

All contractual terms and conditions will be subject to review by The City of Martinsville legal department and will include scope, budget, schedule, and other necessary items pertaining to the project.

The winning bidder will be required to provide a performance and payment bond for the full amount of their proposed cost.

2.2 ContactsandSubmittal

This RFP was prepared by Joyce Engineering (JOYCE) for the City of Martinsville. JOYCE will serve as the technical consultant for this project. Questions about the technical specifications, requirements, or supporting data for this RFP should be directed to:

Van Burbach, Ph.D., P.G. Joyce Engineering Email: [email protected]

Questions about general terms or conditions, solicitation documents, or administration of this RFP should be directed to:

Karen Mays, Purchasing Agent City of Martinsville Email: [email protected].


Any revisions to the solicitation will be made only by addendum issued by JOYCE or the City of Martinsville. All proposals in response to this RFP must be received by the City of Martinsville no later than 4:00 pm EST on Thursday, October 12, 2017. Proposals must be complete and delivered to the City in a sealed envelope. Three (3) hard copies of the complete proposal package, plus an electronic copy (a .pdf on a CD) shall be submitted to:

City of Martinsville, Attn: Karen Mays Central Warehouse, 990 Fishel Street, Martinsville, VA 24112-3248 (FedEx or UPS) P.O. Box 1112, Martinsville, VA 24114-1112 (USPS)

3.0 PROJECTGOALSANDSCOPE

3.1 ProjectGoals

This a performance-based RFP for complete turn-key implementation of ISTD to remediate soils impacted by volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in two solvent pits located at the closed Martinsville Sanitary Landfill. The goal is reduction of total VOC concentrations by a minimum of 90% within the specified volume of impacted soil in the vicinity of the two solvent pits.

3.2 ProjectScope

3.2.1 DESIGNPHASE:

The proposal must include complete design of the proposed ISTD system. Draft drawings, layouts, details, and work plans, shall be submitted to JOYCE and the City for approval prior to finalization. The draft submittal should also include final estimates of power and fuel usage, expected condensate volumes, expected air effluent concentrations & flow rates, etc. During the design phase, the winning ISTD contractor will be expected to communicate with JOYCE and the City concerning coordination of the project, permitting requirements, scheduling, and logistics. The final design documents shall be stamped and sealed by Virginia licensed Professional Engineer (PE).

3.2.2 CONSTRUCTIONPHASE:

The proposal must include, at a minimum, the following items as part of the construction phase of the project:

Mobilization; Drilling for ISTD system installation, including heating wells (or electrodes), SVE wells,

and borings for monitoring equipment; Handling of drill cuttings and fluids as hazardous waste; Installation of groundwork, including surface preparation, concrete pads (if needed);

trenching, piping, and electrical conduits;


Installation of control and monitoring equipment; Electrical and/or gas connections and fees; Air emissions treatment and control equipment; A frac tank and associated equipment for handling condensate; and Any other construction-related costs.

3.2.3 OPERATIONPHASE:

The Operation Phase includes the initial startup, the active heating period, and the cool-down period. The proposal must include, at minimum, the following items as part of the operation and maintenance of the ISTD system during the entire period of the operation phase of the project:

Personnel costs, including labor, lodging, and per diem; Condensate handling; Monitoring and maintenance of air effluent treatment systems; Any sampling needed in the course of operations, including soil sampling, air effluent

sampling, and condensate sampling, including laboratory analytical costs; Carbon usage costs, including transport, replacement, and/or regeneration; and Any other operations costs.

3.2.4 ENDPHASE:

The end phase of the ISTD project must include, at minimum, the following: Final sampling of soil to confirm successful remediation, including drilling/Geoprobe

costs and soil analytical costs); Equipment disassembly and removal; Site cleanup; Demobilization; and A final report on the ISTD project.

3.2.5 FINALREPORT:

The final report for the ISTD project shall be signed, stamped, and sealed by a VA licensed PE and it shall include documentation of the following:

The project schedule goals and actual completion times for each phase or project milestone;

Technical problems encountered and how they were resolved; The amount of condensate disposed of at the POTW; The total air emissions for individual and total VOCs; Total power and fuel used; All analytical results, including but not limited to air emissions tests, condensate

sampling, and soil sampling; Total mass of VOC’s removed; and Calculation of percentage of VOCs removed.


3.2.6 ESTIMATEDTOTALS:

The proposal should include calculated estimates of the following parameters, with potential range of error for the estimates:

Power usage (total kW-Hours, Avg. kW); Natural gas usage (total MMBTU, Avg. MMBTU/day); Condensate generation (total gallons, min. & max. GPD); Discharge air/vapor (total CF, min. & max. CFM); VOC concentrations in air effluent before and after air treatment (Avg., min., & max.

mg/CF); and Estimated VOCs expected to be removed (total tons and % of pre-ISTD mass).

3.2.7 ESTIMATEDTIMEFRAMES:

The proposal should include estimates of the length of time each phase of the project should take:

Design Phase; Construction Phase; Operation Phase; Active Heating Time; and End Phase.

3.2.8 ITEMS/ACTIVITESNOTTOBEINCLUDEDINPROPOSALCOSTS:

Electrical Power: The City will pay the electrical power bill during construction and operation of the ISTD system; however, the ISTD contractor will be responsible for any hook-up costs or fees. Use of the power generated on-site by the 1-megawatt landfill gas-to-energy station should be considered as a possible option. Natural Gas: The City will pay the natural gas bill during construction and operation of the ISTD system; however, the ISTD contractor will be responsible for any hook-up costs or fees. Abandonment of existing PSVs: JOYCE will be responsible for abandoning the existing PSVs prior to the ISTD contractor mobilizing to the site to begin construction. The PSVs will be cut off below grade and tremie-grouted with a cement-bentonite grout. Disposal of Hazardous Waste: JOYCE will be responsible for arranging transport and disposal of containerized drill cuttings and fluids that must be treated as hazardous waste. JOYCE will also be responsible for assisting the City in obtaining a Hazardous Waste Generator ID. The ISTD contractor and their subcontracted driller will be responsible for handling, containerizing, and staging the hazardous waste on site (See Section 5.4). The containers shall be staged in an area designated by the City and/or JOYCE in a manner that facilitates easy pick-up for later transport.


Air Permitting: JOYCE will be responsible for obtaining an air permit if needed; however, the performance standard for this RFP is for the ISTD contractor to provide adequate treatment to avoid the need for an air permit. The ISTD contractor will be responsible for providing estimates of VOC emissions for proposed air treatment options and for monitoring to see that emissions standards are met (see Section 5.6).

4.0 RFPANDPROJECTTIMELINES

4.1 RFPTimeline

Pre-Bid Site Meeting: There will be a mandatory per-bid site meeting at the Martinsville Landfill at 1:00 pm EST on Monday, September 11, 2017. If you are unable to make this meeting, please let us know no later than 5:00 pm EST on Monday, September 4, 2017, and we will try to make other arrangements, if possible. Deadline for questions before the site meeting: Please submit any questions or regarding this RFP which can be dealt with prior to the site meeting to JOYCE in writing (emails are acceptable) no later than 5:00 pm EST on Wednesday, September 6, 2017. Responses to all questions received by this date will be compiled and supplied to interested parties at or prior to the site meeting. Deadline for questions before the RFP due date: Please submit any questions or regarding this RFP which come up during or after the site meeting to JOYCE in writing (emails are acceptable) no later than 5:00 pm EST on Monday, October 2, 2017. Responses to all questions received by this date will be compiled and supplied to interested parties by Friday, October 6, 2017. Deadline for proposal submission: All proposals in response to this RFP must be received by the City of Martinsville no later than 4:00 pm EST on Thursday, October 12, 2017. Proposals must be complete and delivered to the City in a sealed envelope (3 hard copies and one .pdf on a CD). NO ELECTRONIC SUBMITTALS (fax or email) WILL BE ACCEPTED. Evaluation of proposals and selection of contractor: Proposals will be evaluated by the City and JOYCE between October 13 and November 10, 2017. If additional information or discussions are needed with any bidders during this period, the bidder(s) will be notified. The City anticipates making the selection decision for the winning bidder no later than Friday, November 10, 2017. Upon notification, contract negotiations with the winning bidder will begin immediately. Contract negotiations are anticipated to be completed by December 8, 2017. Notifications to bidders who were not selected will be completed by Friday, November 17, 2017.


4.2 ProjectTimeline:

The current tentative schedule is as follows: The ISTD construction phase is anticipated to begin in March-April 2018 and we

estimate it will take approximately 10-12 weeks. The operations phase is anticipated to begin in June-July 2018 and is expected to last 4-6

months, perhaps extending into winter 2018-2019. The end phase is expected to take 4-6 weeks, so final completion of the ISTD project is

anticipated for the first quarter of 2019. A final report on the ISTD project, signed and sealed by a licensed VA PE, shall be

received from the ISTD contractor within 60 days after project completion. The above schedule is tentative and subject to change based on details of the winning proposal, contract negotiations, and approval of the Martinsville City Council. Potential ISTD contractors should include in their proposal estimated timeframes for each phase, including time needed to mobilize after final contracts have been executed and the City issues a notice to proceed.

5.0 TECHNICALINFORMATIONANDSPECIFICATIONS

5.1 SupportDocuments

The following documents are attached to provide technical and analytical information on the solvent pits:

Drawing 1: Site plan of the Martinsville Landfill; Drawing 2: Detailed plan of the solvent pit area showing the two solvent pits, locations

of soil borings, existing PSVs, and other pertinent site features. Table 1: Summary of 2016 soil analytical results for VOCs in the solvent pits with

calculations of total VOC mass in each solvent pit. Table 2: Summary of 2016 soil TCPL results from the solvent pits. Table 3: Geotechnical testing results for solvent pit soils. Table 4: Summary of VOCs in air samples from the PSVs in the solvent pits. Boring logs from two attempted monitoring wells in the solvent pits.

5.2 SolventPitDimensionsandCharacteristics

Based on the limited soil borings and other data available for the two solvent pits, the surface areas of Pit 1 and Pit 2 are roughly elliptical and circular, respectively, as shown on Drawing 2. The pits have the following dimensions:


UNITS Solvent Pit #1 Solvent Pit #2

Shape Elliptical Cylinder Circular Cylinder

Radius / Axes ft 70x90 70

Surface Area ft2 4,948 3,848

Depth to Bedrock ft 57 29

Depth to Groundwater ft > 80 > 80

Thickness of Cap Section ft 4.5 4.5

Thickness of Treatment Zone ft 52.5 24.5

Volume of Treatment Zone ft3 259,770 94,287

Volume of Treatment Zone yd3 9,621 3,492

Average Total VOC Concentrations

mg/kg 6,027 3,245

Impermeable caps were installed over the two solvent pits in 2007. The cap sections were 4.5 feet thick and consisted of the following layers, listed from top to bottom:

A 6-inch erosion control and vegetative support layer; A 6-inch soil protective layer; An 18-inch, low-permeability (< 1x10-5 cm/sec) soil (clay) layer; and A 24-inch intermediate soil cover layer.

Soil contamination extends to bedrock in both pits, but is not homogeneously distributed. The average VOC concentrations shown above are based on the soil samples collected from the solvent pits in April 2016. For a more detailed summary of the soil analytical results, see tables 1 and 2. The treatment zones are estimated as the cylindrical volumes between the bottom of the cap and the bedrock. In January 2017, we attempted to install monitoring wells in the two solvent pits. Based on water level data from existing monitoring wells at the facility, we expected groundwater at 50-60 feet beneath the pits. In Pit #1, we hit auger refusal at 57 feet and drilled into competent rock down to 80 feet. In Pit #2, we hit auger refusal at 25 feet and we advanced to 84 feet. No evidence of water-bearing fractures was observed in either boring and both holes were dry. The soil in the solvent pits is primarily saprolite derived from weathering of the underlying gneissic bedrock. The soil generally consists of reddish-tan to brown micaceous silty sand to silty clay. Two Shelby-tube samples of soil, one from each solvent pit, were obtained during drilling for the two attempted wells. The samples were tested for geotechnical parameters, including sieve analyses, Atterberg limits, porosity, and permeability. The results are summarized in Table 3.


As part of a groundwater Corrective Action Plan (CAP) for the facility, passive soil vents (PSVs) were installed in the solvent pits in June 2006. The PSV system consists of fourteen PSVs, seven in each of the two solvent pits, ranging in depth from 9.0-29.5 feet below the ground surface (prior to cap placement). The PSVs are constructed of 6-inch PVC. They will be abandoned in place prior to the construction phase of the ISTD project by cutting them off below grade and tremie-grouting them to the surface. Table 4 summarizes VOC concentrations from air samples taken from the PSVs.

5.3 OtherPertinentSiteInformation

There is an active solid waste transfer station and an active landfill gas-to-electricity generating station located at the Martinsville Landfill. The locations of these facilities are shown on Drawing 1. Water for drilling can be obtained from a fire hydrant at the Martinsville Water Treatment Plant, or at the Clearview Business Park, both of which are located on Clearview Drive, approximately 1.6 miles from the landfill. Three-phase power and natural gas are available at the gas-to-electricity station. The gas-to-electricity station includes a 1 megawatt generator. The power from this generator may be available to run some electrical components of the proposed ISTD systems. Please consider this option in your plans. The landfill gas-to-electricity station is located near the solvent pits, and access to the station is via the gravel road that runs between the two solvent pits. This road must be kept open and useable as much as possible throughout the entire ISTD project. Temporary closure of the road during construction (for example, to install pipelines or conduits beneath the road) will be permitted, but must be coordinated with the City to minimize interference with operation of the station. The City often needs to supplement the landfill gas with natural gas to operate the generator at peak efficiency, so a natural gas pipeline extends to this area along the south side of the road between the two pits, very near the north edge of Pit #1 (see Drawing 2). The City will arrange to have this gas line moved before implementation of the ISTD project. The specifications and current throughput of the current gas pipeline are:

Size: 2” (PVC); Length: 2044 feet; Pressure: 50 psi (+ or -); Flow Rate capability is 17.687 MCF at a 15 psi pressure drop (50 psi at

the station and 35 psi at the meter). Average hourly usage – 1.84 MCF; Peak hourly usage – 11 MCF.

(MCF = 1000 cubic feet) Based on this information, it appears that the service line as it exists is capable of an additional load of up to about 7 MCF per hour; however, this calculation takes into consideration only the


“peak” load of the existing generator. We request that ISTD proposals include recommendations for relocation, and if needed, resizing of the natural gas pipeline; particularly, please advise us on how far from the active heating units the pipeline needs to be.

5.4 WellInstallationsandDisposalofDrillCuttingsandDrillingFluids

We understand that during the construction phase of the ISTD project, numerous wells including heating wells (or transducers), SVE wells, and observation wells, will need to be installed in the solvent pits. The planning, supervision, and costs for installing these wells, including subcontracted driller costs, shall be the responsibility of the ISTD contractor and must be included in the proposed costs. The drill cuttings and any drilling fluids produced during well installations in the solvent pits will be considered F-list hazardous waste and must be collected and containerized in accordance with all applicable federal, state, and local laws and regulations, including but not limited to RCRA, OSHA, and CERCLA regulations. Handling, containerizing, and staging of containers of hazardous waste on site will be the responsibility of the ISTD contractor and their subcontracted driller. The containers shall be staged in an area designated by the City and/or JOYCE in a manner that facilitates easy pick-up for later transport. The proposed methods and costs for handling the hazardous waste on site should be included in the proposal. The ISTD proposal shall also include an estimate of the amount of solid and liquid hazardous waste that is expected to be generated. JOYCE will assist the City in obtaining a RCRA Hazardous Waste Generator ID, and JOYCE will arrange for transport and disposal of the containerized hazardous waste after drilling is completed. Note that the uppermost 4.5 feet of the solvent pits is uncontaminated soil cap material. Drill cuttings or soil excavated from trenching that is confined to the uppermost 4.5 feet, or which is from outside of the perimeters of the solvent pits, will not be considered hazardous waste. The contractor shall make every effort to segregate these uncontaminated soils from the contaminated soils. The uncontaminated soils can be spread on site and do not need to be containerized. The high concentrations of VOCs in the solvent pits could create hazardous vapors during drilling and installation of wells. Monitoring of ambient air conditions, provision of adequate ventilation, and provision of appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE), if needed, will be the responsibility of the ISTD contractor and their subcontracted driller.

5.5 Handling,Treatment,andDisposalofCondensate

It is understood that ISTD will involve extraction of steam and hot vapors from the solvent pits via Soil Vapor Extraction (SVE) wells. The extracted vapors and steam will be treated to remove as much of the VOCs as possible (see Section 5.6), and in the process, will create significant volumes of condensate. We are anticipating as much as 7000-7500 GPD of


condensate during the first week or so, tapering off to about 2000-3000 GPD for the rest of the 4-6 month treatment period. Bidders should include estimates of how much condensate the proposed ISTD system will produce, estimates of expected VOC concentrations in the condensate, and pre-treatment methods proposed for the condensate. Pre-treatment will include separation of non-aqueous-phase liquids (NAPL) from the condensate, if needed, and transport to and disposal of the NAPL at an approved facility. Additional treatment, such as activated carbon filtering, shall be included if necessary to meet POTW requirements. The condensate can be discharged to the local POTW; however, there is no direct access to the POTW system at the site. The nearest access is at the Clearview Business Park, which is approximately 1.5 miles from the site. The ISTD contractor will be responsible for providing a frac tank on site to hold the condensate, and for transporting the condensate to the Clearview Business Park access point for discharge as needed. The ISTD contractor will be responsible for sampling and analysis of the condensate per requirements of the POTW. The City of Martinsville POTW has provided the following list of parameters and preliminary limits for the initial sampling of condensate for disposal at the POTW.

PARAMETER Preliminary

Limit Carbon Tetrachloride 4.4 µg/l

1,4 (or p)-Dichlorobenzene (p-DCB 5 µg/l 1,3 (or m)-Dichlorobenzene (m-DCB) 320 µg/l 1,2 (or o)-Dichlorobenzene (o-DCB) 600 µg/l

1,1 Dichloroethane (DCA) 70 µg/l 1,2 Dichloroethane (DCA) 5 µg/l

1,1 Dichloroethylene (DCE) 3.2 µg/l cis 1,2Dichloroethylene (DCE) 70 µg/l

Dichloromethane (methylene chloride) 4.6 µg/l Tetrachloroethylene (PCE) 5 µg/l

1,1,1 Trichloroethane (TCA) 200 µg/l 1,1,2 Trichloroethane (TCA) 5 µg/l

Trichloroethylene (TCE) 5 µg/l Naphthalene 620 µg/l

BTEX (benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, & xylenes) 5 mg/l pH 5-11 S.U.

COD 1000 mg/l TSS 1000 mg/l

Barium 50.4 µg/l Cobalt 4 µg/l

Chromium 1.71 mg/l Nickel 2.38 mg/l Copper 3.38 mg/l

Vanadium 5 µg/l


The initial condensate sampling event should be conducted as soon as possible after condensate begins to be generated, and may require a rush on the analyses to obtain results before the condensate is transported to the POTW, if possible. Depending on the results of the initial sampling event, there may or may not need to be additional sampling events. Also, the limits might be adjusted by the POTW based of the results of the initial sampling event.

5.6 VaporTreatmentandAirEffluent

ISTD will involve extraction of steam and hot vapors from the solvent pits via Soil Vapor Extraction (SVE) wells. The extracted vapors and steam will be treated to remove as much of the VOCs as feasible. A thermal oxidizer or similar technology should be included in the design and proposed cost for the ISTD system. An air permit will be required if total emissions exceed 25 tons/year of VOCs, or 10 tons/year of any individual hazardous air pollutant (HAP). Since the duration of the ISTD project should be significantly less than a year, the total mass of VOC and individual HAPs emissions shall be kept below 25 tons and 10 tons, respectively. The treatment system shall be capable of keeping discharged total VOCs and HAPs below these thresholds. Table 1 presents VOC concentrations in soil samples from the two solvent pits collected in April 2016. Several of the VOCs are considered HAPs. Table 1 also shows calculations of the total mass of VOCs in the solvent pits, both for individual VOCs and for total VOCs. The calculated mass of each VOC is based on the average concentration of that VOC in each pit from the April 2016 soil samples, the volume of the treatment zone in each pit as calculated in Section 5.2, and an assumed soil density of 1800 kg/m3. The mass of each VOC is determined for each solvent pit, and then the two values are summed to get the total. The highlighted cells indicate the HAPs with a total mass greater than 10 tons in the solvent pits (toluene and xylenes). The total mass of all VOCs is approximately 149 tons. The ISTD contractor will be responsible for determining the appropriate treatment system based on these data to achieve the performance standard of keeping air emissions below the threshold for air permitting. The ISTD contractor shall also be responsible for monitoring the air effluent to insure that the system is meeting the standard. Following is a table summarizing the detected VOCs in the solvent pit soils, which VOCs are HAPs, and the calculated total mass of each VOC/HAP, as well as the mass of total VOCs in the soil in the two solvent pits.


Estimated Mass of Detected VOCs in both Solvent Pits CONSTITUENT CAS Number HAP Mass (tons)

Acetone 9.2

Benzene 71432 Yes 0.1

2‐Butanone (MEK) 78933 Yes 5.2

n‐Butylbenzene 0.2

sec‐Butylbenzene 0.1

tert‐Butylbenzene 0.0

Chloroethane 75003 Yes 0.0

1,1‐Dichloroethane 75343 Yes 0.6

1,2‐Dichloroethane 107211 Yes 0.0

1,1‐Dichloroethene 75003 Yes 0.0

cis‐1,2‐Dichloroethene 0.0

Ethylbenzene 3.8

2‐Hexanone 0.6

Isopropylbenzene 98828 Yes 0.1

p‐Isopropyltoluene 0.1

Methylene Chloride 75092 Yes 0.3

4‐Methyl‐2pentanone (MIBK) 108101 Yes 6.5

Naphthalene 91203 Yes 0.9

n‐Propylbenzene 0.3

Styrene 100425 Yes 0.2

Tetrachloroethene 127184 Yes 0.5

Toluene 108883 Yes 51.8

1,2,4‐Trichlorobenzene 120821 Yes 0.0

1,1,1‐Tricholoroethane 71556 Yes 5.9

Trichloroethene 79016 Yes 0.8

1,2,4‐Trimethylbenzene 1.8

1,3,5‐Trimethylbenzene 0.5

Xylene (total) 95476 Yes 15.5

Total VOCs (tons) 105

Total HAPs (tons) 73

6.0 BUDGETANDTASKBREAKDOWN

Each qualifying proposal shall present a total turn-key cost for the proposed ISTD system and operation, including the design, construction, operation, and end phases of the project. The proposal shall also include a breakdown of costs for various items and tasks under each phase. At a minimum, the cost breakdown should include: CONSTRUCTION PHASE:

Mobilization; Drilling Subcontract for heating wells (or electrodes), SVE wells, and borings for

monitoring equipment; Planning, supervision, and management of drilling;


Handling of drill cuttings and fluids as hazardous waste; Site preparation, clearing, grading, concrete pads, etc.; Installation of trenching, piping, and electrical conduits; Control and monitoring equipment; Electrical and/or gas connections and fees; Air emissions treatment and control equipment; and Frac tank and associated equipment for condensate.

OPERATION PHASE:

Personnel costs, including labor, lodging, and per diem; Condensate handling; Monitoring and maintenance of air effluent treatment systems, including carbon usage; Air effluent sampling, including laboratory analytical costs; Condensate sampling, including laboratory analytical costs; Soil sampling, including drilling and laboratory analytical costs; and Estimates of electrical power and fuel costs (these costs will be paid directly by the City,

and should not be included in total proposal costs, but please include estimated for evaluation).

END PHASE:

Final sampling of soil to confirm successful remediation, including drilling/Geoprobe costs and soil analytical costs;

Equipment disassembly and removal; Site cleanup; Demobilization; and Final report on the ISTD project.

7.0 BIDDERQUALIFICATIONS

7.1 TechnicalCapability(staff,equipment,availability)

Bidders must provide a statement of qualifications with their proposal, which shall include: A summary of the firms experience with ISTD projects; A list of key personnel and their qualifications and experience; A list of equipment owned or readily available to the bidder which may be needed for this

project; A statement of availability and ability to mobilize within the project’s expected

timeframe taking into account the firms current and anticipated commitments to other projects;

Professional and business licenses and certifications demonstrating that the bidder is qualified to perform the required work in the Commonwealth of Virginia and in the local government’s jurisdiction; and


A list of subcontractors, the scope of their responsibilities, and a statement of their qualifications.

7.2 SimilarProjectsandReferences

The bidder must provide a summary and description of at least 2 similar ISTD projects which the bidder has successfully completed. For each project, include the dates the project was started and completed, the original budget, the final cost after any change orders, a description of the remedial goals, and whether those goals were achieved. The bidder shall supply names and contact information for at least three references for whom the bidder has competed major projects in the last five years. Ideally, the references will include people associated with the example projects described above.

8.0 PROPOSALEVALUATIONANDAWARDINGOFCONTRACT

8.1 EvaluationCriteria

JOYCE will evaluate all proposals based on the following criteria and will make recommendations to the City. The City will make the final selection. To ensure consideration for this Request for Proposal, your proposal should be complete and include all of the information described in this RFP. The proposals will be evaluated on the following criteria (not necessarily in order of importance):

Value and Cost: This project will be awarded to the lowest-cost responsible bidder. Bidders will be evaluated on the cost of their solution(s) based on the work to be performed in accordance with the scope of this project.

Overall Proposal Suitability: Proposed solution(s) must meet the scope and needs included herein and be presented in a clear and organized manner;

Organizational Experience and Technical Expertise: Bidders will be evaluated on their experience as an organization and on the experience and expertise of their key personnel as they pertain to the scope of this project;

Subcontractors and Suppliers: The City may consider the qualifications and experience of subcontractors, suppliers, and other individuals or entities proposed for portions of the work;

Previous Projects and References: Bidders will be evaluated on the success of previous ISTD projects and on the recommendations of their references;

Other Criteria: The City may consider other criteria, including but not limited to, scheduling issues, availability of the contractor or subcontractors, and willingness of the contractor with work with the City and JOYCE to facilitate efficient and effective execution of the project.

The City of Martinsville reserves the right to reject any and all proposals and to waive any informality or technical defects if, in its judgment, the best interests of the City of Martinsville


will be served as specified in the Code of Virginia Public Procurement Act Section 2.2-4319. The City also reserves the right to negotiate contract terms with the successful bidder.

8.2 Preparation

Proposals should address the requirements presented in this RFP in a manner that facilitates easy review in comparison to the RFP. Please complete the attached bid form and include with your proposal. An authorized representative with the authority to bind the Proposer shall sign the proposal. All information requested shall be submitted. Failure to submit all information requested may result in the purchasing agent or selection committee requiring prompt submission of missing information and/or giving a lowered evaluation of the proposal. Proposals which are substantially incomplete or lack key information may be rejected. Each copy of the proposal shall be bound or contained in a single volume where practical.

8.3 GuaranteesofPerformance

This is a performance-based RFP. Proposals should include a statement of specific performance guarantees offered by the bidder. If the bidder wishes to include optional additional guarantees for an additional cost, please list it as a separate line item and do not include in total bid cost.

8.4 QualificationsofOfferors

The City of Martinsville may make such reasonable investigations as deemed proper and necessary to determine the ability of the proposer to perform the work and the proposer shall furnish to the City of Martinsville all such information and data for this purpose as may be requested. The City of Martinsville reserves the right to inspect the proposer’s physical facilities prior to award to satisfy questions regarding the proposer’s capabilities. The City of Martinsville further reserves the right to reject any proposal if the evidence submitted by, or investigations of, such proposer fails to satisfy the City of Martinsville that such proposer is properly qualified to carry out the obligations of the contract and to complete the work/furnish the item(s) contemplated therein.

8.5 ApprovalofISTDProject

All construction drawings, plans, construction specifications, equipment specifications, site plans, construction schedules, startup and operational procedures, and permit applications must be reviewed by and approved by the City of Martinsville prior to implementation or application. Operations of the landfill and compliance with Federal, State, and local laws, codes, and regulations affecting the operation of the landfill shall take precedence over all aspects of the ISTD project.


8.6 NoticeofAward

The City of Martinsville will provide public notice announcing its decision to award by posting the Notice of Intent to Award on the City of Martinsville Bulletin Board, and by mailing the notice to all Proposers submitting a proposal.

9.0 GENERALTERMSANDCONDITIONS

9.1 General

The selected ISTD contractor will enter into contract with The City of Martinsville directly. Upon selection, the details for the final contract will be negotiated; however, if the bidder has any significant objections to or desires to change the terms and conditions presented in the attached example, those issues must be noted in the proposal submission. Failure to come to agreement on contact terms and conditions will by grounds for rejecting a proposal and selecting another contractor. Following are some of the pertinent terms and conditions. The winning bidder will be required to provide a performance and payment bond for the full amount of their proposed cost.

9.2 Terms

In the event there is a conflict between the general terms and conditions and any special terms and conditions which may be included in this solicitation for use in a particular procurement, the special terms and conditions shall apply.

9.3 AssignmentofContract

A contract shall not be assignable by the proposer in whole or in part without the prior written consent of the City of Martinsville.

9.4 Collusion

By submitting a proposal in response to this Request for Proposal, the Proposer represents that in the preparation and submission of this proposal, said Proposer did not, either directly or indirectly, enter into any combination or arrangement with any person, Proposer or corporation or enter into any agreement, participate in any collusion, or otherwise take any action in the restraint of free competitive bidding in violation of the Sherman Act (15 U.S.C. Section 1) or Section 59.1-9.1 through 59.1-9.17 or Sections 59.1-68.6 through 59.1-68.8 of the Code of Virginia. The attached CERTIFICATE OF NO COLLUSION should be filled out, signed, notarized, and included with the proposal.


9.5 EthicsinPublicContracting

By submitting a proposal, all Proposers certify that their proposals are made without collusion or fraud and that they have not offered or received any kickbacks or inducements from any other Proposer, supplier, manufacturer or subcontractor in connection with their proposal.

9.6 Anti‐Discrimination

By submitting a proposal, all Proposers certify to the City of Martinsville that they will conform to the provisions of Presidential Order #11246, the Federal Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, as well as the Virginia Fair Employment Act of 1975, as amended, where applicable, and Section 2.2-4311 of the Virginia Public Procurement Act and that during the performance of this contract, the Proposer agrees as follows:

a. The Proposer will not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, religion, color, sex, national origin, age, disability, or any other basis prohibited by the state law relating to discrimination in employment, except when there is bona fide occupational qualification reasonably necessary to the normal operation of the Proposer. The Proposer agrees to post in conspicuous places, available to employees and applicants for employment, notices setting forth the provisions of this nondiscrimination clause.

b. Notices, advertisements and solicitations placed by or on behalf of the Proposer will state that such contractor is an equal opportunity employer.

c. Notices, advertisements and solicitations placed in accordance with federal law, rule or regulation shall be deemed sufficient for the purpose of meeting the requirements of this section.

d. The Proposer will include the provisions of the fore mentioned paragraphs in every subcontract or purchase order of over $10,000, so that the provisions will be binding upon each subcontractor or vendor.

9.7 MinorityandWomen‐OwnedBusinesses

In accordance with Presidential Executive Orders #12138 & #11625, the City of Martinsville actively solicits both minority and women-owned businesses to respond to all Invitations for Bid and Requests for Proposal, and if not already on the City’s mailing list, you may request application for inclusion on the list. Should you be interested, please contact the City of Martinsville at 276-403-5354 and request application. Disadvantaged business enterprises (DBE), as defined in 49 CFR 23, shall have equal opportunity to compete for and perform subcontracts which the contractor enters into pursuant to this contract. The contractor will use his best efforts to solicit bids from and to utilize DBE subcontractors or subcontractors with meaningful minority group and female representation among their employees.


9.8 Drug‐FreeWorkplace

During the performance of this contract, the Proposer agrees to (i) provide a drug-free workplace for the Proposer’s employees; (ii) post in conspicuous places, available to employees and applicants for employment, a statement notifying employees that the unlawful manufacture, sale, distribution, dispensation, possession, or use of a controlled substance or marijuana is prohibited in the contractor’s workplace and specifying the actions that will be taken against employees for violation of such prohibition; (iii) state in all solicitations or advertisements for employees placed by or on behalf of the contractor that the contractor maintains a drug-free workplace; and (iv) include the provisions of the foregoing clauses in every subcontract or purchase order of over $10,000, so that the provisions will be binding upon each subcontractor or vendor. For the purposes of this section, “drug-free workplace” means a site for the performance of work done in connection with a specific contract awarded to a contractor in accordance with this chapter, the employees of whom are prohibited from engaging in the unlawful manufacture, sale, distribution, dispensation, possession or use of any controlled substance or marijuana during the performance of the contract.

9.9 Anti‐Discrimination‐FaithBasedOrganizations

It is the policy of the City of Martinsville not to ( i ) discriminate against a faith-based organization on the basis of the organization’s religious character or (ii) impose conditions that (a) restrict the religious character of the faith-based organization, except for sectarian worship, instruction, or proselytizing; however, this prohibition shall not apply to expenditures pursuant to contracts, if any, for the service of chaplains, or (b) impair, diminish, or discourage the exercise of religious freedom by the recipients of such goods, services, or disbursement.

9.10 InspectionofProcurementRecords

Proposals submitted shall be subject to public inspection only in accordance with Virginia Code § 2.2-4342.

9.11 CostsofProposalPreparation

Any costs incurred by the Proposer in preparing or submitting proposals are the Proposer’s responsibility. The City of Martinsville will not reimburse any Proposer for any costs incurred as a result of a response to this Request for Proposal.

9.12 OwnershipofMaterial

Ownership of all data, material and documentation originated and prepared for the City of Martinsville pursuant to the RFP shall belong exclusively to the City of Martinsville and be subject to public inspection in accordance with the Virginia Freedom of Information Act.


9.13 TradeSecretsorProprietaryInformation

Trade secrets or proprietary information submitted by a Proposer in response to this Request for Proposal shall not be subject to public disclosure under the Virginia Freedom of Information Act; however, the Proposer must invoke the protection of this section prior to or upon submission of data or materials, and must identify the data or other materials to be protected and state the reasons why protection is necessary (Section 2.2-4342F of the Code of Virginia).

9.14 CancellationofContract

The City of Martinsville reserves the rights to cancel and terminate any resulting contract, in part or in whole, without penalty, upon 60 days written notice to the contractor.

9.15 Insurance

Without limiting Contractor's indemnification, it is agreed that Contractor shall purchase at its own expense and maintain in force at all times during the performance of services under this agreement the following policies of insurance. Where specific limits are shown, it is understood that they shall be the minimum acceptable limits. If the Contractor's policy contains higher limits, the Authority shall be entitled to coverage to the extent of such higher limits. Certificates of Insurance must be furnished to the Contracting Officer prior to beginning work and must provide for a 30-day prior notice of cancellation, nonrenewal or material change of conditions. Failure to furnish satisfactory evidence of insurance or lapse of the policy is a material breach of this contract and shall be grounds for termination of the Contractor's services. All insurance policies shall comply with, and be issued by insurers licensed to transact the business of insurance in Virginia. Proof of insurance is required for the following:

a. Workers' Compensation Insurance: The Contractor shall provide and maintain, for all employees engaged in work under this contract, coverage as required by Virginia Code, and; where applicable, any other statutory obligations including but not limited to Federal U.S.L. & H. and Jones Act requirements. The policy must waive subrogation against the Authority.

b. Professional Liability Insurance: in an amount of not less than $1,000,000 each claim for errors and omissions with at least Best’s Guide Rating-A-VIII or better.

c. Commercial General Liability Insurance: covering all business premises and operations used by the Contractor in the performance of services under this agreement with minimum coverage limits of $1,000,000 combined single limit per occurrence.

d. Commercial Automobile Liability Insurance: covering all vehicles used by the Contractor in the performance of services under this agreement with minimum coverage limits of $500,000 combined single limit per occurrence.

Failure to supply satisfactory proof of insurance within the time required will cause the City to declare the bidder nonresponsive and to reject the proposal.


9.16 ObligationofProposer

By submitting a proposal, the Proposer covenants and agrees that he has satisfied himself, from his own investigation of the conditions to be met, that he fully understands his obligation and that he will not make any claim for, or have right to cancellation or relief from the contract because of any misunderstanding or lack of information.

9.17 Piggy‐BackClause

According to the State of Virginia Public Procurement Act, any other state, local or government agency may use this proposal as a basis for procuring such services.

9.18 Hold‐HarmlessClause

The Contractor shall, during the term of the contract, indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the City, its' officials, employees, agents, and representatives thereof from all suits, actions, or claims of any kind, including attorney's fees, brought on account of any personal injuries, damages, or violations of rights, sustained by any person or property in consequence of any neglect in safeguarding contract work or on account of any act or omission by the contractor or his employees, or from any claims or amounts arising from violation of any law, bylaw, ordinance, regulation or decree. The vendor agrees that this clause shall include claims involving infringement of patent or copyright. The City agrees that the Contractor does not agree to indemnify the City of Martinsville, its agents, officials or employees for any injury, death, loss, damage, suit, liability, judgment, cost or expense resulting from the sole negligence of the City of Martinsville, its agents, officials or employees.

SUPPORT DOCUMENTS

1000

H

-5

-2

8

2

0

820

8

4

0

8

4

0

8

5

0

8

6

0

8

5

0

8

8

0

880

870

8

7

0

900

9

0

0

9

2

0

9

2

0

9

4

0

9

4

0

9

3

0

9

5

0

9

5

0

9

7

0

H

A

R

R

I

S

S

T

R

E

E

T

LEGEND

PROPERTY LINE

EXISTING ROAD

EXISTING 10' TOPOGRAPHIC CONTOUR


APPROXIMATE LIMITS OF WASTE

COMPLIANCE MONITORING WELL LOCATION AND IDENTIFICATION

CENTERLINE OF STREAM

GAS PROBE LOCATION AND IDENTIFICATION

PERFORMANCE OR SENTINEL MONITORING WELL LOCATION AND

IDENTIFICATION

APPROXIMATE SURFACE MONITORING POINT LOCATION AND

IDENTIFICATION

P

E

T

I

T

E

D

R

I

V

E

SMP-3

MW-13

GP

GP-1

MW-10S

1

0

5

0

9

3

0

9

4

0

9

5

0

9

6

0

9

7

0

9

8

0

9

9

0

1

0

0

0

1

0

1

0

8

7

0

8

8

0

1

0

2

0

1

0

4

0

1

0

5

0

1060

9

4

0

9

6

0

9

7

0990

980

1000

9

1

0

8

7

0

910

9

2

0

9

3

0

9

4

0

9

5

0

960

9

6

0

9

5

0

9

6

0

9

2

0

9

1

0

9

0

0

8

9

0

9

6

0

9

5

0

9

4

0

930

9

4

0

9

4

0

9

5

0

9

6

0

9

7

0

9

8

0

9

9

0

1

0

0

0

1

0

1

01

0

2

0

9

4

0

9

1

0

9

7

0

9

6

0

950

9

4

0

9

3

0

9

3

0

9

4

0

9

5

0

9

6

0

9

7

0

9

2

0

9

7

0

9

8

0

1

0

4

0

1

0

3

0

1

0

2

0

1

0

1

0

1

0

0

0

9

9

0

9

8

0

9

7

0

960

950

940

930

9

2

0

9

1

0

9

3

0

9

2

0

9

1

0

1

0

2

0

980

970

960

9

5

0

9

4

0

9

3

0

920

910

9

1

0

9

2

0

9

3

0

9

4

0

9

6

09

5

0

9

7

0

9

8

0

9

9

0

1

0

0

0

1

0

1

0

1

0

2

0

1

0

4

0

1

0

5

0

1

0

3

0

9

3

0

9

2

0

9

1

0

9

8

0

9

9

0

9

4

0

9

5

0

9

6

0

9

7

0

9

8

0

9

9

0

1

0

0

0

1

0

1

0

1020

1

0

2

0

1

0

0

0

1

0

1

0

9

5

0

9

6

0

9

7

0

9

8

0

9

9

0

1

0

2

0

9

4

0

1020

1010

1000

990

980

970

960

950

8

9

0

9

6

0

8

7

0

8

8

0

8

9

0

9

0

0

9

1

0

9

2

0

9

3

0

1

0

0

0

9

9

0

9

8

0

8

7

0

8

8

0

8

9

0

9

0

0

9

1

0

9

2

0

9

3

0

9

4

0

9

5

0

8

4

0

8

5

0

8

6

0

8

7

0

8

8

0

890

900

910

9

2

0

9

3

0

9

4

0

9

5

0

9

6

0

9

7

0

9

8

0

960

9

7

0

9

6

0

9

5

0

9

4

0

8

7

0

9

7

0

9

6

0

9

5

0

9

5

0

9

4

0

8

8

0

9

0

0

9

1

0

9

2

0

9

3

0

9

4

0

9

5

0

9

9

0

9

8

0

9

7

0

1

0

0

0

9

9

0

9

7

0

9

5

0

1

0

1

0

9

4

0

9

5

0

9

6

0

9

7

0

9

8

0

9

9

0

1

0

0

0

920

910

9

0

0

9

1

0

9

2

0

9

3

0

9

4

0

9

5

0

960

970

1

0

0

0

9

9

0

9

8

0

9

7

09

6

0

9

5

0

9

4

0

940

9

3

0

980

970

960

950

940

9

8

0

930

9

4

0

9

5

0

9

6

0

9

7

0

9

8

0

9

9

0

1

0

0

0

950

960

970

9

4

09

5

09

6

09

7

0

9

8

0

9

9

0

9

2

0

930

9

5

0

960

970

980

9

9

0

9

7

0

9

8

09

9

0

1

0

0

0

1

0

1

0

1

0

2

0

9

8

0

9

5

0960

9

7

0

9

8

0

9

9

0

9

8

0

1

0

3

0

1

0

0

0

9

4

0

9

5

0

9

6

0

9

7

0

9

3

0

9

5

0

97

0

98

0

9

9

0

1

0

0

0

950

SMP-8

RUIN

RUIN

E

X

I

S

T

I

N

G

7

2

"

R

C

P

A

R

D

E

N

C

I

R

C

L

E

C

L

E

A

R

V

I

E

W

D

R

I

V

E

SMP-1

APPROXIMATE

LIMITS OF WASTE

GP

GP-1

SMP-7

SMP-6

CLEARVIEW DR

A

R

D

E

N

C

IR

A

R

D

E

N

C

I

R9

1

0

9

0

0

880

8

9

0

8

6

0

E

X

I

S

T

I

N

G

2

4

"

R

C

P

MW-13

9

3

0

940

H

-5

-1

920

GP

GP-2

MW-6

9

2

0

MW-11

1.

2.

3.

TOPOGRAPHIC CONTOUR INTERVAL = 2 FEET.

MAPPING OF AREA NOTED BY SPATIAL DATA, INC. OF HIGH POINT, NORTH

CAROLINA. DATE OF AERIAL FLYOVER: APRIL 11, 2006.

GROUNDWATER CONTOUR LINES SHOW THE WATER TABLE SHAPE AND

ELEVATION. THESE CONTOURS ARE INFERRED LINES FOLLOWING THE

GROUNDWATER SURFACE AT A CONSTANT ELEVATION ABOVE SEA LEVEL. THE

GROUNDWATER FLOW DIRECTION IS GENERALLY PERPENDICULAR TO THE

GROUNDWATER SURFACE CONTOURS, SIMILAR TO THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN

SURFACE WATER FLOW AND TOPOGRAPHIC CONTOURS.

MW-3

NOTES:

MW-4

MW-12

900

MW-2DMW-4

MW-1

MW-14S

MW-2S

MW-14D

MW-7S

MW-7D

MW-5

SMP-2

PROPERTY LINE

PROPERTY LINE

MAPPING EAST OF THIS LINE

OCCURED JANUARY 26, 2001.

E

X

I

S

T

I

N

G

7

2

"

R

C

P

SOLVENT PIT

SOLVENT

PIT

ROCK

DEBRIS

MW-10D

MW-5D

MW-15

MW-13D

MW-8

MW-9

WELLS NOT SAMPLED

MW-8

MAINTENANCE SHOP

TRANSFER

STATION

GAS TO ELECTRICITY

STATION (APPROX.)

PROJECT NO.

AP

PR

OV

ED

CH

EC

KE

D

DR

AW

N

DE

SIG

NE

D

DA

TE

DA

TE

RE

VIS

IO

NS

A

ND

R

EC

OR

D O

F IS

SU

EB

YN

OA

PP

CK

SCALE

A

ll rights reserved.

Ó Joyce E

ngineering, Inc.

L:\M

artinsville\dw

g\2017 IS

TD

P

RO

JE

CT

\1 S

IT

E P

LA

N.dw

g Layout=

DW

G 3

22

11

W

. M

EA

DO

WV

IE

W R

OA

D

GR

EE

NS

BO

RO

, N

C 2

74

07

PH

ON

E: (3

36

) 3

23

-0

09

2

241.1801.12.05

MA

RT

IN

SV

ILLE

S

AN

IT

AR

Y LA

ND

FILL

MA

RT

IN

SV

ILLE

, V

IR

GIN

IA

2017

1

AS NOTED

SIT

E P

LA

N

VB

RH

GV

B

GV

B

07

/2

6/1

7

0

(FEET)

GRAPHIC SCALE

400200100

DRAWING

AutoCAD SHX Text

M

AutoCAD SHX Text

M

AutoCAD SHX Text

M

AutoCAD SHX Text

M

AutoCAD SHX Text

M

AutoCAD SHX Text

M

AutoCAD SHX Text

M

AutoCAD SHX Text

M


EXISTING 2' TOPOGRAPHIC CONTOURS

EXISTING ROAD

COMPLIANCE MONITORING WELL LOCATION AND IDENTIFICATION

PSV LOCATION AND TOTAL DEPTH

SOIL BORINGS LOCATIONS AND IDENTIFICATION (2005)

SOIL BORINGS LOCATIONS AND IDENTIFICATIONS (2016)

UTILITY POLES

SOLVENT PIT AREA

B1

B2

B3

B4

B5

B6

B7

B8

SOLVENT PIT 1

SOLVENT PIT 2

APPROXIMATE GAS

LINE LOCATION

PROJECT NO.

AP

PR

OV

ED

CH

EC

KE

D

DR

AW

N

DE

SIG

NE

D

DA

TE

SCALE

A

ll rig

hts re

se

rve

d.

Ó Jo

yce

E

ng

in

ee

rin

g, In

c.

DRAWING NO.

0

(FEET)

GRAPHIC SCALE

603015

241.1801.12.05

CIT

Y O

F M

AR

TIN

SV

ILLE

S

AN

IT

AR

Y LA

ND

FILL

CIT

Y O

F M

AR

TIN

SV

ILLE

, V

IR

GIN

IA

20

16

2

1"=30'

SO

IL S

AM

PLIN

G LO

CA

TIO

NS

RH

VB

HK

04

/2

0/1

6

NC

C

OR

P L

IC

: C

-0

78

2

97

31

-F

S

OU

TH

ER

N P

IN

E B

LV

D

CH

AR

LO

TT

E, N

C 2

82

73

PH

ON

E: (7

04

) 8

17

-2

03

7

HK

SO

LV

EN

T P

IT

S A

ND

AutoCAD SHX Text

%%ULEGEND

AutoCAD SHX Text

1000

AutoCAD SHX Text

MW-12

AutoCAD SHX Text

15'

AutoCAD SHX Text

CEMETERY

AutoCAD SHX Text

MW-12

AutoCAD SHX Text

SV-13 26'

AutoCAD SHX Text

SV-12 25'

AutoCAD SHX Text

SV-11 30'

AutoCAD SHX Text

SV-10 20'

AutoCAD SHX Text

SV-9 15'

AutoCAD SHX Text

SV-8 15'

AutoCAD SHX Text

SV-14 21'

AutoCAD SHX Text

SV-6 9'

AutoCAD SHX Text

SV-1 15'

AutoCAD SHX Text

SV-2 25'

AutoCAD SHX Text

SV-3 15'

AutoCAD SHX Text

SV-7 25'

AutoCAD SHX Text

SV-4 15'

AutoCAD SHX Text

SV-5 9'

AutoCAD SHX Text

SB-7A 20'

AutoCAD SHX Text

SB-6A 12'

AutoCAD SHX Text

SB-2A 32'

AutoCAD SHX Text

SB-4A 20'

AutoCAD SHX Text

SB-1A 20'

AutoCAD SHX Text

SB-3A 20'

AutoCAD SHX Text

SB-5A 5'

AutoCAD SHX Text

SB-7 20'

AutoCAD SHX Text

SB-8 12'

AutoCAD SHX Text

SB-3 20'

AutoCAD SHX Text

SB-4 16'

AutoCAD SHX Text

SB-6 12'

AutoCAD SHX Text

SB-2 16'

AutoCAD SHX Text

SB-8A 12'

AutoCAD SHX Text

SB-5/ 8'

AutoCAD SHX Text

SB-1/ 32'

AutoCAD SHX Text

DATE

AutoCAD SHX Text

REVISIONS AND RECORD OF ISSUE

AutoCAD SHX Text

BY

AutoCAD SHX Text

NO

AutoCAD SHX Text

APP

AutoCAD SHX Text

CK

TABLE 1: Detected VOCs in Solvent Pit Soil and VOC Mass Calculations.

Soil Mass = 13,240,572 kg Soil Mass = 4,805,837 kg

ANALYTICAL RESULTS AVERAGE VOC MASS VOC MASS AVERAGE VOC MASS VOC MASS VOC MASS

8260/5035A VOC RSL (Risk) RSL (MCL) CONCENTRATION in SOIL in SOIL S‐7 CONCENTRATION in SOIL in SOIL in SOIL CONSTITUENTS

CONSTITUENTS mg/kg (ppm) mg/kg (ppm) mg/kg (ppm) kg tons mg/kg (ppm) kg tons tons

Acetone 0.29 ‐‐‐ 718 J 373 1.17 J 718 1,340 630 8,342 9.20 13.7 J 0.79 J 4.52 J 17.7 6.99 J 8.74 42 0.05 9.2 Acetone

Benzene 0.00023 0.0026 11.5 0.23 ND 0.17 J 3.64 4.51 4.01 53 0.06 1.62 0.24 1.20 0.85 0.25 ND 0.83 4 0.00 0.06 Benzene

2‐Butanone (MEK) 0.12 ‐‐‐ 571 J 101 J 0.11 ND 396 720 358 4,735 5.22 7.43 J 0.04 ND 0.08 ND 9.16 J 3.79 J 4.1 20 0.02 5.24 2‐Butanone (MEK)

n‐Butylbenzene 0.32 ‐‐‐ 16.9 1.19 J 2.31 8.60 5.53 6.91 91 0.10 6.34 12.0 11.8 J 18.4 11.3 12.0 58 0.06 0.16 n‐Butylbenzene

sec‐Butylbenzene 0.59 ‐‐‐ 7.33 0.52 J 0.94 4.24 2.77 3.16 42 0.05 2.24 2.39 3.21 4.81 2.85 3.10 15 0.02 0.06 sec‐Butylbenzene

tert‐Butylbenzene 0.16 ‐‐‐ 0.30 ND 0.29 ND 0.07 ND 0.52 ND 0.52 ND 0.34 5 0.00 0.26 ND 0.20 0.28 0.33 J 0.32 0.28 1 0.00 0.01 tert‐Butylbenzene

Chloroethane 0.59 ‐‐‐ 0.36 ND 0.35 ND 0.88 0.62 ND 0.62 ND 0.57 7 0.01 0.32 ND 0.03 ND 0.07 ND 0.12 ND 0.38 ND 0.18 1 0.00 0.01 Chloroethane

1,1‐Dichloroethane 0.00078 ‐‐‐ 165 2.59 0.49 10.5 7.84 37.3 494 0.54 11.2 0.69 3.56 3.09 2.12 4.13 20 0.02 0.57 1,1‐Dichloroethane

1,2‐Dichloroethane 0.000048 0.0014 6.07 0.32 ND 0.08 ND 3.18 3.60 2.65 35 0.04 0.29 ND 0.03 ND 0.06 ND 0.11 ND 0.35 ND 0.17 1 0.00 0.04 1,2‐Dichloroethane

1,1‐Dichloroethene 0.01 0.0025 3.19 0.26 ND 0.07 ND 1.19 J 1.23 J 1.19 16 0.02 0.24 ND 0.02 ND 0.14 J 0.09 ND 0.28 ND 0.15 1 0.00 0.02 1,1‐Dichloroethene

cis‐1,2‐Dichloroethene 0.0011 0.021 0.57 J 0.20 ND 0.63 0.36 ND 0.36 ND 0.43 6 0.01 22.4 0.28 1.65 2.99 2.70 6.00 29 0.03 0.04 cis‐1,2‐Dichloroethene

Ethylbenzene 0.0017 0.79 382 15.6 45.6 277 216 187 2,479 2.73 126 152 237 387 121 205 983 1.08 3.82 Ethylbenzene

2‐Hexanone 0.00088 ‐‐‐ 78.8 4.19 J 0.15 ND 47.3 64.5 39.0 516 0.57 1.47 J 0.05 ND 0.11 ND 0.20 ND 0.62 ND 0.49 2 0.00 0.57 2‐Hexanone

Isopropylbenzene (Cumene) 0.074 ‐‐‐ 12.6 0.75 J 1.64 8.98 5.85 5.96 79 0.09 4.54 5.00 7.90 10.6 5.85 6.78 33 0.04 0.12 Isopropylbenzene

p‐Isopropyltoluene (p‐Cymene) ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ 11.9 0.94 J 4.18 7.98 5.98 6.20 82 0.09 4.71 4.01 4.64 8.47 8.02 5.97 29 0.03 0.12 p‐Isopropyltoluene

Methylene Chloride (Dichloromethane ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ 53.9 1.61 J 0.23 J 9.50 J 22.6 17.6 233 0.26 4.39 J 0.18 J 1.13 0.79 J 0.47 ND 1.39 7 0.01 0.26 Methylene Chloride

4‐Methyl‐2pentanone (MIBK) 0.14 ‐‐‐ 697 J 46.5 0.14 ND 714 638 419 5,549 6.12 95.1 0.05 ND 90.6 J 135 52.4 74.6 359 0.40 6.51 4‐Methyl‐2pentanone (MIBK)

Naphthalene ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ 113 7.45 16.2 33.8 21.6 38.4 509 0.56 75.9 51.2 55.6 122 58.0 72.5 349 0.38 0.94 Naphthalene

n‐Propylbenzene 0.12 ‐‐‐ 26.6 1.73 3.62 20.4 14.7 13.4 178 0.20 9.21 16.1 19.4 42.1 13.6 20.1 97 0.11 0.30 n‐Propylbenzene

Styrene 0.13 0.11 2.46 0.26 ND 0.07 ND 25.1 24.7 10.5 139 0.15 14.8 0.02 ND 0.05 ND 0.09 ND 0.28 ND 3.05 15 0.02 0.17 Styrene

Tetrachloroethene 0.0018 0.0023 61.0 2.57 0.74 31.5 34.6 26.1 345 0.38 12.8 6.48 J 37.1 17.80 16.4 18.1 87 0.10 0.48 Tetrachloroethene

Toluene 0.076 0.69 6,960 181 397 3,700 3,520 2,952 39,081 43.08 1,860 847 2,530 1,930 1,100 1,653 7,946 8.76 51.8 Toluene

1,2,4‐Trichlorobenzene 0.0012 0.2 5.02 0.23 ND 3.30 1.82 J 1.85 J 2.44 32 0.04 0.21 ND 0.02 ND 0.04 ND 0.08 ND 0.25 ND 0.12 1 0.00 0.04 1,2,4‐Trichlorobenzene

1,1,1‐Tricholoroethane 0.28 0.07 906 13.80 0.62 416 586 384 5,091 5.61 57.4 19.9 72.2 84.80 23.5 51.6 248 0.27 5.88 1,1,1‐Tricholoroethane

Trichloroethene 0.0001 0.0018 62.4 1.47 0.08 ND 26.9 31.8 24.5 325 0.36 95.4 36.2 109 141 57.0 87.7 422 0.46 0.82 Trichloroethene

1,2,4‐Trimethylbenzene 0.0081 ‐‐‐ 193 10.3 22.6 170 71.2 93.4 1,237 1.36 67.8 66.9 78.2 178 61.8 90.5 435 0.48 1.84 1,2,4‐Trimethylbenzene

1,3,5‐Trimethylbenzene 0.0087 ‐‐‐ 49.8 3.63 7.14 39.9 26.4 25.4 336 0.37 17.8 23.7 27.1 59.9 21.5 30.0 144 0.16 0.53 1,3,5‐Trimethylbenzene

Xylene (total) 0.019 9.9 1,560 66.0 146 1,070 851 739 9,779 10.78 606 657 981 1,570 616 886 4,258 4.69 15.5 Xylene (total)

12,675 836 655 7,746 8,222 6,027 79,799 87.96 3,118 1,902 4,277 4,745 2,185 3,245 15,597 17.19 105.2 Total VOC's (Sum of the above)

Average Total VOCs for Pit #1: 6,027 mg/kg Average Total VOCs for Pit #2: 3,245 mg/kg

mg/kg = milligrams per kilogram = parts per million = ppm. J = Estimated concentration above the method detection limit but below the quantitation limit. ND = Not detected above the method detection limit.RSL = EPA's Regional Screening Level (TR=1E‐6, HQ=0.1) June 2017 (Risk = Risk‐based; MCL = MCL‐based). ‐‐‐ = no RSL listed. Brown shaded cells were ND, the value is set to 1/2 the method detection limit.

Total VOC's (Sum of the above):

(Pit 2 = 3848 ft2 x 24.5 ft; & soil density = 1800 kg/m3.)

Solvent Pit #2

SOIL SAMPLES ‐ Collected April 14, 2016(Pit 1 = 4948 ft2 x 52.5 ft; soil density = 1800 kg/m3.)

Solvent Pit #1

SOIL SAMPLES ‐ Collected April 14, 2016

S‐6

B8 10‐15'

S‐2

mg/kg (ppm)

B5 25‐30'

mg/kg (ppm)

B6 25‐30'

mg/kg (ppm)

B7 20‐25'

Pit 1 + Pit 2MARTINSVILLE LANDFILL SOLVENT PITS

mg/kg (ppm) mg/kg (ppm) mg/kg (ppm) mg/kg (ppm) mg/kg (ppm)

S‐1

B2 15‐20' B2 30‐35'

S‐3

B1 10‐15'

S‐4

B3 15‐20'

S‐5

B4 15‐20'

mg/kg (ppm)

B8 15‐20'

S‐10S‐9S‐8

mg/kg (ppm)

Martinsville Sanitary Landfill Joyce Engineering

TABLE 2: Soil TCLP Results

MARTINSVILLE SOLVENT PITS ‐ SOIL SAMPLES Collected April 14, 2016

ANALYTICAL RESULTS CAS No. Reg. Level MDL S‐1 S‐28081 GCS Pesticides, TCLP mg/L (ppm) µg/L (ppb) µg/L (ppb) µg/L (ppb)

Endrin aldehyde 7421‐93‐4 0.20 0.80 0.31

Heptachlor epoxide 1024‐57‐3 0.20 1.10 0.10

ANALYTICAL RESULTS Reg. Level MDL S‐1 S‐26010 MET ICP, TCLP mg/L (ppm) mg/L (ppm) mg/L (ppm) mg/L (ppm)

Antimony 7440‐36‐0 0.0130 0.021 J ND

Arsenic 7440‐38‐2 5.00 0.0140 0.017 J ND

Barium 7440‐39‐3 100 0.0005 1.10 0.58

Beryllium 7440‐41‐7 0.0005 0.00097 J ND

Cadmium 7440‐43‐9 1.00 0.0025 0.014 0.063

Chromium 18540‐29‐9 5.00 0.0020 0.089 0.015 J

Cobalt 7440‐48‐4 0.0030 0.054 0.12

Copper 7440‐50‐8 0.0015 0.14 0.64

Lead 7439‐92‐1 5.00 0.0200 0.039 0.16

Nickel 7440‐02‐0 0.0100 0.033 0.029

Zink 7440‐66‐6 0.0020 0.16 J 4.90

ANALYTICAL RESULTS CAS No. Reg. Level MDL S‐1 S‐28260 MSV, TCLP mg/L (ppm) µg/L (ppb) µg/L (ppb) µg/L (ppb)

Acetone 67‐64‐1 10,000 17,800 J 750

Benzene 71‐43‐2 0.50 24.00 119 ND

2‐Butanone (MEK) 78‐93‐3 200 2,800 9,510 J 226

1,1‐Dichloroethane 75‐34‐3 48.00 1,250 115

1,2‐Dichloroethane 107‐06‐2 26.00 105 ND

cis‐1,2‐Dichloroethene 156‐59‐2 88.00 ND 212

Ethylbenzene 100‐41‐4 22.00 2,120 1,840

2‐Hexanone 591‐78‐6 164 1440.00 ND

Isobutanol (Isobutyl alcohol) 78‐83‐1 1,380 7490.00 ND

Methylene Chloride 75‐09‐2 38.00 531.00 263

4‐Methyl‐2‐pentanone (MIBK) 108‐10‐1 5,200 14100.00 2,080

Naphthalene 91‐20‐3 58.00 361.00 1,050

Styrene 100‐42‐5 28.00 ND 290

Tetrachloroethene 127‐18‐4 0.70 38.00 329 168

Toluene 108‐88‐3 1,800 102,000 31,200

1,1,1‐Trichloroethane 71‐55‐6 1,600 8,200 715

1,1,2‐Trichloroethane 79‐00‐5 64.00 71.30 J ND

Trichloroethene 79‐01‐6 0.50 20.00 616 1,260

Xylene (total) 1330‐20‐7 54.00 8,760 10,000

TCLP = Toxicity characteristic leaching procedure. mg/L = milligrams per liter = parts per million.MDL = Metrhod Detection Limit. µg/L = micrograms per liter = parts per billion.Reg. Level. = Regulatory Level from 40 CFR‐261.24, Table 1. ND = Not detected above the MDL.S‐1 = Sample from Solvent Pit #1, Boring 2, 15‐20 feet deep. J = Estiamted result below the quantitation limit.S‐2 = Sample from Solvent Pit #2, Boring 8, 10‐15 feet deep. Highlighted results exceed regulatory level.

Martinsville Landfill Joyce Engineering

TABLE 3: Soil Geotechnical Testing Results

> #4 #4 - #200 < #200

Pit 1 14-16 01/26/17 Shelby 2.69 21.0 Orange Silty Sand SM 4.37 65.43 30.21

Pit 2 14-16 01/25/17 Shelby 2.66 27.4 Dk. Green Silty Sand SM 0.11 80.21 19.68

LIQUID LIMIT

PLASTIC LIMIT

PLASTICITY INDEX

GRAVEL SAND SILT CLAY

Pit 1 NP NP NP 0.49 1.80E-04 Sandy Loam 8.75 65.47 22.81 2.97

Pit 2 NP NP NP 0.47 3.60E-04 Loamy Sand 4.58 79.64 13.27 2.51

NP = Non-Plastic material, Atterberg Limits not available. Soils analysis performed by Geotechnics.

SAMPLE TYPE

SPECIFIC GRAVITY

NATURAL MOISTURE CONTENT

(%)

POROSITYPERMEABILITY

(cm/sec)SAMPLE

ID

USCS CLASSIFICATION

USCS SYMBOL

USCS GRADATION RESULTS (% passing)

USDA CLASSIFICATION

USDA SUMMARY (Actual Percentage)

ATTERBERG LIMITS

SAMPLE ID

SAMPLE DEPTH

(feet)

SAMPLE DATE

City of Martinsville, VA Martinsville Sanitary Landfill

Joyce EngineeringFebruary 2017

TABLE 4: PSV Air Sample Analytical Results

Constituent Date PSV-6 Q PSV-7 Q PSV-11 Q PSV-12 Q PSV-14 Q MCAP-1 Q

EPA Method TO-15 Results in parts per billion by volume (ppbv).1,1,1-Trichloroethane 23-Feb-2007 --- --- 5,751 J --- --- --- --- 2,451 --- ---

3-Mar-2010 296 --- --- --- --- --- --- 142 --- ---15-Oct-2012 --- --- 1,470 70.3 --- --- --- --- --- ---18-Feb-2014 --- --- 470,000 --- --- --- --- --- --- 10,00025-Jan-2017 53,200 --- --- --- --- 9,390 --- --- --- ---

1,1,2-Trichloroethane 18-Feb-2014 --- --- ND --- --- --- --- --- --- 3.825-Jan-2017 ND --- --- --- --- ND --- --- --- ---

1,1,2-Trichlorotrifluoroethane 25-Jan-2017 48.7 J --- --- --- --- 32.6 J --- --- --- ---

1,1-Dichloroethane 23-Feb-2007 --- --- 1,711 --- --- --- --- 804 --- ---3-Mar-2010 24.2 --- --- --- --- --- --- 45.9 --- ---15-Oct-2012 --- --- 45.5 6.5 --- --- --- --- --- ---18-Feb-2014 --- --- 30,000 --- --- --- --- --- --- 85025-Jan-2017 4,450 --- --- --- --- 1,080 --- --- --- ---

1,1-Dichloroethylene 23-Feb-2007 --- --- 358 --- --- --- --- 22.7 J --- ---3-Mar-2010 ND --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ND --- --- ---15-Oct-2012 --- --- 17.5 ND --- --- --- --- --- --- ---18-Feb-2014 --- --- 14,000 --- --- --- --- --- --- 8925-Jan-2017 320 --- --- --- --- 96 --- --- --- ---

1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene 23-Feb-2007 --- --- 90.9 --- --- --- --- 19.3 J --- ---3-Mar-2010 8.50 J --- --- --- --- --- --- 25.6 J --- ---15-Oct-2012 --- --- 12.2 8.0 --- --- --- --- --- ---18-Feb-2014 --- --- 2,100 --- --- --- --- --- --- 16025-Jan-2017 3,080 --- --- --- --- ND --- --- --- ---

1,2-Dichloroethane 23-Feb-2007 --- --- 76.4 --- --- --- --- ND --- --- ---3-Mar-2010 ND --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ND --- --- ---15-Oct-2012 --- --- ND --- 3.9 --- --- --- --- --- ---18-Feb-2014 --- --- 2,200 --- --- --- --- --- --- 5.525-Jan-2017 ND --- --- --- --- ND --- --- --- ---

1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene 23-Feb-2007 --- --- 32.1 J --- --- --- --- ND --- --- ---3-Mar-2010 ND --- --- --- --- --- --- 7.90 J --- ---15-Oct-2012 --- --- 4.06 3.4 J --- --- --- --- --- ---18-Feb-2014 --- --- 870 --- --- --- --- --- --- 6725-Jan-2017 1,110 --- --- --- --- ND --- --- --- ---

2-Butanone (MEK) 23-Feb-2007 --- --- 19,049 --- --- --- --- 381 --- ---3-Mar-2010 76.7 --- --- --- --- --- --- ND --- --- ---15-Oct-2012 --- --- 2,800 11.7 --- --- --- --- --- ---18-Feb-2014 --- --- 270,000 --- --- --- --- --- --- 39 J25-Jan-2017 ND --- --- --- --- ND --- --- --- ---

2-Hexanone 23-Feb-2007 --- --- 153 --- --- --- --- 13.40 J --- ---3-Mar-2010 14.4 --- --- --- --- --- --- ND --- --- ---15-Oct-2012 --- --- ND ND --- --- --- --- --- ---18-Feb-2014 --- --- ND --- --- --- --- --- --- ND25-Jan-2017 ND --- --- --- --- ND --- --- --- ---

2-Methylhexane 23-Feb-2007 --- --- --- --- 84.8 TIC --- --- 84.8 TIC --- ---3-Mar-2010 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---15-Oct-2012 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---18-Feb-2014 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ND

2-propanol (isopropyl alcohol) 23-Feb-2007 --- --- 23,735 --- --- --- --- 190 --- ---3-Mar-2010 ND --- --- --- --- --- --- ND ND --- ---15-Oct-2012 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---18-Feb-2014 --- --- 87,000 H --- --- --- --- --- --- 10 J

4-Ethyltoluene 23-Feb-2007 --- --- 88.6 --- --- --- --- 21.7 J --- ---3-Mar-2010 ND --- --- --- --- --- --- 6.88 J --- ---15-Oct-2012 --- --- 4.74 5.7 --- --- --- --- --- ---18-Feb-2014 --- --- 680 --- --- --- --- --- --- 5325-Jan-2017 404 --- --- --- --- ND --- --- --- ---

4-Methyl-3-Penten-2-one 23-Feb-2007 --- --- 213 TIC --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---3-Mar-2010 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---15-Oct-2012 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---18-Feb-2014 --- --- ND --- --- --- --- --- --- ND

Acetic acid methyl ester 23-Feb-2007 --- --- 1,119 TIC --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---3-Mar-2010 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---15-Oct-2012 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---18-Feb-2014 --- --- ND --- --- --- --- --- --- ND

Acetone 23-Feb-2007 --- --- 68,780 --- --- --- --- 937 --- ---3-Mar-2010 132 --- --- --- --- --- --- 5.30 --- --- ---15-Oct-2012 --- --- 22,700 28.8 --- --- --- --- --- ---18-Feb-2014 --- --- 810,000 H --- --- --- --- --- --- 550 L25-Jan-2017 329 J --- --- --- --- 368 J --- --- --- ---

Benzene 23-Feb-2007 --- --- 177 --- --- --- --- 65.1 --- ---3-Mar-2010 ND --- --- --- --- --- --- ND --- --- ---15-Oct-2012 --- --- 13.3 ND --- --- --- --- --- ---18-Feb-2014 --- --- 4,600 --- --- --- --- --- --- 13025-Jan-2017 267 --- --- --- --- 112 --- --- --- ---

Martinsville Landfill, Permit #492017 PSV CASE Page 1 of 3 Joyce Engineering


Carbon tetrachloride 23-Feb-2007 --- --- 423 --- --- --- --- ND --- --- ---3-Mar-2010 ND --- --- --- --- --- --- ND --- --- ---15-Oct-2012 --- --- ND ND --- --- --- --- --- ---18-Feb-2014 --- --- ND --- --- --- --- --- --- ND25-Jan-2017 ND --- --- --- --- ND --- --- --- ---

Chloroethane 23-Feb-2007 --- --- 36.0 J --- --- --- --- ND --- --- ---3-Mar-2010 11.70 --- --- --- --- --- --- ND --- --- ---15-Oct-2012 --- --- 10.7 ND --- --- --- --- --- ---18-Feb-2014 --- --- 5,800 --- --- --- --- --- --- 1525-Jan-2017 1,950 --- --- --- --- ND --- --- --- ---

Chloroform 23-Feb-2007 --- --- 36.0 J --- --- --- --- ND --- --- ---3-Mar-2010 11.70 --- --- --- --- --- --- ND --- --- ---15-Oct-2012 --- --- 0.343 J ND --- --- --- --- --- ---18-Feb-2014 --- --- 150 --- --- --- --- --- --- 8.125-Jan-2017 ND --- --- --- --- ND --- --- --- ---

Chloromethane 23-Feb-2007 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---3-Mar-2010 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---15-Oct-2012 --- --- 0.762 ND --- --- --- --- --- ---18-Feb-2014 --- --- 120 --- --- --- --- --- --- ND25-Jan-2017 ND --- --- --- --- ND --- --- --- ---

cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene 23-Feb-2007 --- --- ND --- --- --- --- 97.4 --- ---3-Mar-2010 ND --- --- --- --- --- --- 20.2 --- ---15-Oct-2012 --- --- 2.41 6.1 --- --- --- --- --- ---18-Feb-2014 --- --- 1,000 --- --- --- --- --- --- 34025-Jan-2017 618 --- --- --- --- 519 --- --- --- ---

Cyclohexane 23-Feb-2007 --- --- ND --- --- --- --- ND --- --- ---3-Mar-2010 7.60 --- --- --- --- --- --- ND --- --- ---15-Oct-2012 --- --- 52.9 ND --- --- --- --- --- ---18-Feb-2014 --- --- 12,000 --- --- --- --- --- --- 9425-Jan-2017 669 --- --- --- --- 226 --- --- --- ---

Dichlorodiflouromethane 23-Feb-2007 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---3-Mar-2010 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---15-Oct-2012 --- --- 0.637 ND --- --- --- --- --- ---18-Feb-2014 --- --- ND --- --- --- --- --- --- ND25-Jan-2017 ND --- --- --- --- ND --- --- --- ---

Ethanol (Ethyl alcohol) 23-Feb-2007 --- --- 2,072 TIC --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---3-Mar-2010 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---15-Oct-2012 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---18-Feb-2014 --- --- 150,000 H --- --- --- --- --- --- ND

Ethyl acetate 23-Feb-2007 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---3-Mar-2010 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---15-Oct-2012 --- --- 65.8 ND --- --- --- --- --- ---18-Feb-2014 --- --- 16,000 --- --- --- --- --- --- ND25-Jan-2017 ND --- --- --- --- ND --- --- --- ---

Ethylbenzene 23-Feb-2007 --- --- 1,237 --- --- --- --- 264 --- ---3-Mar-2010 19.3 --- --- --- --- --- --- 58.9 --- ---15-Oct-2012 --- --- 57.8 11.3 --- --- --- --- --- ---18-Feb-2014 --- --- 26,000 --- --- --- --- --- --- 130025-Jan-2017 2,650 --- --- --- --- 313 --- --- --- ---

Freon 113 (C2Cl3F3) 23-Feb-2007 --- --- 54.8 J --- --- --- --- ND --- --- ---

3-Mar-2010 ND --- --- --- --- --- --- ND --- --- ---15-Oct-2012 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---18-Feb-2014 --- --- 1,900 --- --- --- --- --- --- 44

Methyl isobutyl ketone (MIBK) 23-Feb-2007 --- --- 6,641 J --- --- --- --- 226 --- ---3-Mar-2010 109 --- --- --- --- --- --- ND --- --- ---15-Oct-2012 --- --- 305 8.1 --- --- --- --- --- ---18-Feb-2014 --- --- 70,000 --- --- --- --- --- --- 56025-Jan-2017 113 J --- --- --- --- ND --- --- --- ---

Methylene Chloride 23-Feb-2007 --- --- 5,064 J --- --- --- --- 1,204 --- ---3-Mar-2010 51.3 -- -- --- --- --- --- 63.7 --- ---15-Oct-2012 --- --- 236 24.2 --- --- --- --- --- ---18-Feb-2014 --- --- 57,000 --- --- --- --- --- --- 71025-Jan-2017 3,090 --- --- --- --- 2,630 --- --- --- ---

N,N-dimethyl acetamide 3-Mar-2010 44.9 TIC --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---15-Oct-2012 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---18-Feb-2014 --- --- ND --- --- --- --- --- --- ND

n-Heptane (Heptane) 23-Feb-2007 --- --- 1,176 --- --- --- --- 298 --- ---3-Mar-2010 8.59 --- --- --- --- --- --- 16.90 --- ---15-Oct-2012 --- --- 53.1 3.8 J --- --- --- --- --- ---18-Feb-2014 --- --- 20,000 --- --- --- --- --- --- 73025-Jan-2017 1,620 --- --- --- --- 454 --- --- --- ---

n-Hexane (Hexane) 23-Feb-2007 --- --- 496 --- --- --- --- 131 --- ---3-Mar-2010 ND --- --- --- --- --- --- ND --- --- ---15-Oct-2012 --- --- ND 6.9 --- --- --- --- --- ---18-Feb-2014 --- --- ND --- --- --- --- --- --- 26025-Jan-2017 315 --- --- --- --- 371 --- --- --- ---



Naphthalene 23-Feb-2007 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---3-Mar-2010 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---15-Oct-2012 --- --- 2.48 8.7 --- --- --- --- --- ---18-Feb-2014 --- --- 120 --- --- --- --- --- --- ND25-Jan-2017 ND --- --- --- --- ND --- --- --- ---

Octamethylcyclotetrasiloxane 3-Mar-2010 --- --- --- --- 106.0 TIC --- --- 106.0 TIC --- ---15-Oct-2012 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---18-Feb-2014 --- --- ND --- --- --- --- --- --- ND

Propene 18-Feb-2014 --- --- 320 --- --- --- --- --- --- ND25-Jan-2017 ND --- --- --- --- ND --- --- --- ---

Styrene 23-Feb-2007 --- --- 13.7 --- --- --- --- ND --- --- ---3-Mar-2010 4.76 J --- --- --- --- --- --- 4.16 J --- ---15-Oct-2012 --- --- ND ND --- --- --- --- --- ---18-Feb-2014 --- --- 580 --- --- --- --- --- --- 1525-Jan-2017 497 --- --- --- --- ND --- --- --- ---

Tetrachloroethylene 23-Feb-2007 --- --- 78.1 --- --- --- --- 291 --- ---3-Mar-2010 16.0 --- --- --- --- --- --- 80.1 --- ---15-Oct-2012 --- --- 9.02 ND --- --- --- --- --- ---18-Feb-2014 --- --- 2,700 --- --- --- --- --- --- 19025-Jan-2017 3,210 --- --- --- --- 498 --- --- --- ---

Tetrahydrofuran 18-Feb-2014 --- --- 180 --- --- --- --- --- --- ND25-Jan-2017 ND --- --- --- --- ND --- --- --- ---

Toluene 23-Feb-2007 --- --- 27,901 --- --- --- --- 10,668 --- ---3-Mar-2010 606 E --- --- --- --- --- --- 1,270 --- ---15-Oct-2012 --- --- 4,280 501.0 --- --- --- --- --- ---18-Feb-2014 --- --- 990,000 --- --- --- --- --- --- 100,00025-Jan-2017 127,000 --- --- --- --- 15,600 --- --- --- ---

Trichloroethylene 23-Feb-2007 --- --- 383 --- --- --- --- 2,324 --- ---3-Mar-2010 14.6 --- --- --- --- --- --- 313 --- ---15-Oct-2012 --- --- 30.9 48.9 --- --- --- --- --- ---18-Feb-2014 --- --- 14,000 --- --- --- --- --- --- 4,50025-Jan-2017 2,160 --- --- --- --- 6,500 --- --- --- ---

Xylene (o) 23-Feb-2007 --- --- 584 --- --- --- --- 206 --- ---3-Mar-2010 21.9 --- --- --- --- --- --- 123 --- ---15-Oct-2012 --- --- 47.3 18.3 --- --- --- --- --- ---18-Feb-2014 --- --- 17,000 --- --- --- --- --- --- 1,60025-Jan-2017 5,100 --- --- --- --- 847 --- --- --- ---

Xylenes (m-p) 23-Feb-2007 --- --- 3,458 --- --- --- --- 884 --- ---3-Mar-2010 77.0 --- --- --- --- --- --- 433 --- ---15-Oct-2012 --- --- 118 80.7 --- --- --- --- --- ---18-Feb-2014 --- --- 74,000 --- --- --- --- --- --- 5,90025-Jan-2017 15,200 --- --- --- --- 2,630 --- --- --- ---

Vinyl Chloride 18-Feb-2014 --- --- 200 --- --- --- --- --- --- 5.925-Jan-2017 ND --- --- --- --- ND --- --- --- ---

Sum of Detected VOC's 23-Feb-2007 --- --- 170,988 --- --- --- --- 21,689 --- ---by Method TO-15 3-Mar-2010 1,556 --- --- --- --- --- --- 2,723 --- ---

15-Oct-2012 --- --- 32,340 856.4 --- --- --- --- --- ---18-Feb-2014 --- --- 3,150,520 --- --- --- --- --- --- 128,22925-Jan-2017 227,352 --- --- --- --- 41,634 --- --- --- ---

Fixed Gases (Method 25-C) Results in parts per billion by volume (ppbv).Methane 23-Feb-2007 --- --- 68.0 --- --- --- --- 30 --- ---

3-Mar-2010 ND ND --- --- --- --- --- --- ND ND --- ---15-Oct-2012 --- --- ND ND --- --- --- --- --- ---18-Feb-2014 --- --- 93 --- --- --- --- --- --- ND25-Jan-2017 ND --- --- --- --- ND --- --- --- ---

Carbon Dioxide 23-Feb-2007 --- --- 2631 --- --- --- --- 1,164 --- ---3-Mar-2010 ND --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ND --- --- ---15-Oct-2012 --- --- 13,000 J 9,200 --- --- --- --- --- ---18-Feb-2014 --- --- 13,000 --- --- --- --- --- --- 1,90025-Jan-2017 ND --- --- --- --- 4,500,000 J --- --- --- ---

FID (Field Measurement) Results in parts per million (ppm).Total Combustible Organic Vapors 23-Feb-2007 --- 1,638 --- --- 162 --- ---

3-Mar-2010 5.50 1.60 0.50 2.3 2.50 --- ---15-Oct-2012 22.4 206 2.30 -1.2 -2.90 --- ---18-Feb-2014 5.8 5,300 313 270 226 269.60 A25-Jan-2017 630 45.44 95 171 7.86 --- ---

Notes:ppbv = parts per billion volume (µl/l) E = Exceeded the calibration range, result for analyte is estimatedppm = parts per million (mg/l) L= Sample likely biased lowQ = Lab Qualifier H= Sample Likely biased highND = Not Detected A= Average of FID readingJ = Estimated result below quantitation limit --- = not measured or not avaialbleTIC = Tentatively Identified Compound (estimated)

Fixed Gases - CH4 & CO2 Results: In Feb. 2007 from Method 25C; in Mar. 2010 from Method 3C and converted to ppm from percent

FID = Flame Ionization DetectorMCAP-1 = Composite of PSV-11, PSV-12 and PSV-14

Method TO-15 results were originally reported in micrograms per cubic meter 0181(ug/m3) as the unit of measure (The lab provided unit conversion to parts per billion volume (ppbv) assuming 20° C and 1 atmosphere pressure)


BID FORM

Item No. Description Units Quantity Unit Price Total PriceCONTRUCTION PHASE

1 Mobilization Lump Sum2 Drilling for ISTD system installation Lump Sum

3Handling of drill cuttings and fluids ashazardous waste & staging on site

Lump Sum

4 Installation of groundwork Lump Sum5 Control and monitoring equipment Lump Sum6 Electrical and/or gas connections and fees Lump Sum

7Air emissions treatment and controlequipment

Lump Sum

8A frac tank and associated equipment forhandling condensate

Lump Sum

9101112

OPERATION PHASE13 Personnel costs Days

13.1 Labor Man-hours13.2 Per diem Days

14 Condensate handling, transport, and disposal Gallons

15Monitoring and maintenance of air effluenttreatment systems

Days

16 Sampling Costs (include laboratory costs)16.1 Soil sampling Sample16.2 Condensate sampling Sample16.3 Air effluent sampling Sample

17Carbon usage costs, including transport,replacement, and/or regeneration

Event

18Electric power usage (estimate quantity, do not include in total)

19Natural gas usage (estimate quantity, do not include in total)

20212223

END PHASE

24Final sampling of soil to confirm successfulremediation (include drilling/Geoprobe costsand soil analytical costs)

Sample

25 Equipment disassembly and removal Lump Sum26 Site cleanup Lump Sum27 Demobilization Lump Sum28 Final report on the ISTD project Lump Sum2930

Total Bid:

Company: Date:Address:

Email: Phone:

Printed Name:

Signature:

BID FORMIN SITU THERMAL DESORPTION PROJECT

MARTINSVILLE SANITARY LANDFILL

Martinsville LandfillISTD Project Bid Form

Joyce EngineeringAugust 2017


The undersigned, acting on behalf of ________________________________, does herby certify in connection with the procurement and proposal to which this Certificate of No Collusion is attached that:

This proposal is not the result of, or affected by, any act of collusion with another person engaged in the same line of business or commerce; nor is this proposal the result of, or affected by, any act of fraud punishable under Article 1.1 of Chapter 12 of Title 18.1 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended (18.2-498.1 et seq.). The undersigned declares that the person or persons signing this proposal is/are fully authorized to sign the proposal on behalf of the firm listed and to fully bind the firm listed to all conditions and provisions thereof. Respectfully submitted, this ________ day of ________________, 2017. Name of Firm of Corporation Submitting Bid: By: ______________________________________________ Title: _____________________________________________ (Owner, Partner, or Corporation President or Vice-President Only)

Address: ___________________________________________

_____________________________________________

_____________________________________________

Telephone Number: ______________________________________

Fax Number: _____________________________________

E-Mail Address: _____________________________________

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA CITY OF MARTINSVILLE, to-wit The foregoing Bid and Certificate of No Collusion bearing the signature of

__________________________________ and dated __________ ______________was

subscribed and sworn to me, the undersigned Notary Public, on ___________________. ___________________________________ Notary Public My commission expires: _________________________

Notary Registration ID/Number: ____________________