AtAifXXM. PIRNIE

AtAifXXM.PIRNIESeptember 13, 1991

MALCOLM PIRNIE, INC.ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERS, SCIENTISTS & PLANNERS

U.S.Army Corps of EngineersU.S.Army Engineer District, Omaha215 N. 17th StreetOmaha, Nebraska 68102-4978

Attention: Mr. John Japp np'fV^ALMillcreek Project Manager k Vf, ;;

Re: Millcreek Superfund SiteContract No. DACW45-89-C-0190, Cap and Flood Retention Basin DesignResponse to 90 Percent Review Comments

Gentlemen:

Enclosed please find ten (10) copies of our responses to USAGE 90 Percent Reviewcomments for internal distribution in the Omaha Office. These responses represent ourintentions in modifying the Millcreek Cap and FRB Contract Drawings, Specifications andsupporting documents for the 100 percent submittal currently planned for later this month.

Please note that we have not yet prepared responses to two sets of comments receivedwithin the last three days. These comments came from J. Harbert and D. Jaros. We willforward responses to these comments as soon as possible.

Please call if you have any questions regarding our responses. We will be contacting youto discuss the 100 percent design submission as it relates to PADER's on-going review ofthe FRB.

Very truly yours,

MALCOLM PIRNIE, INC.

Kent R. McManus, P.E.Associate

Enclosuresc: M. Odgen, w/encl

J. Thornton, COE, w/enclW. Battle, COE, w/enclG. Lang, COE, w/enclA. Roller, EPA, w/enclP. Werthman, MPIS. Miller, MPIE. Melnyk, MPI

0285-33-2

S. 3515 ABBOTT ROAD P.O. BOX 1938 BUFFALO, NY 14219 716-828-1300 FAX 716-828-0431

DRAFT90% REVIEW COMMENTS

MILLCREEK SUPERFUND SITECAP AND FLOOD RETENTION BASIN DESIGN , "-"•

ERIE COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA tH

The following responses address comments regarding the 90% project submittals for above-referenced site and project. These responses were prepared for review and inclusion in theDesign Analysis Report.

A. The following responses address comments prepared by Gary J. Lang,CENAB-COF-HA Baltimore District:

Comment Al: Sht C-l, Note 7.Add statement to note explaining the inventory of bulky debris was provided forinformation purposes only and that it is the Contractor's responsibility toidentify all debris and remove same Contractor must be made aware that listis partial to avoid a claim. Same rationale applies to debris locationsidentified on Site Plan via symbol #.

Response: Revised as requested.

Comment A2: Sht C-lSouthern section of access road at Tie-in to 17th Street, including culvert, wasdeleted from treatment plant contract Cap contract must include this work toprovide permanent access to site.


Comment A3: Sht C-2.Add statement to Note 7 as described in Item #1 above.


Comment A4: Sht C-2Add symbols and/or notes explaining designations on Clearing Plan; e.g.- Extent of Clearing''.


0285-33-2 A-l

DRA*Comment AS: Sht C-3

Add statement to Note 7 as described in Item #A1 above.


Comment A6: General Shts. C-4 through C-14Add statement to Note 7 as described in Item #A1 above.


Comment A7: Sht C-3Provide symbol for chain-link fence in legend, indicating that it is new fence,and not existing.


Comment AS: GeneralAddress disposition of existing chain-link fence in Contract Documents.

Response: Specification Section 02444 was revised accordingly.

Comment A9: Sht C-3Marshall's Run channel at northern end of site, Sta. 17+00 to 18+90, deletesa large section of the parking area for the private business located there. Verifythere are no legal/real estate problems associated w/this deletion of parkingarea. "~

Response: As discussed during the 90% design review meeting, this issue is to bepursued by the USCOE Baltimore District Office.

Comment Alto Sht C-3Verify that the Owner of the property at the southern end of the site (ConRail?)has signed an agreement to permit sporadic flooding of its property due to theeffects of the FRB.

Response: As discussed during the 90% design review meeting, this issue is to bepursued by the USCOE Baltimore District Office.

028S-33-2 A-2

DRA iS

Comment All: GeneralIdentify elevations on contour lines of Marshall's Run channel on all sheetswith contour lines.

Response: Final grading plans have been revised accordingly.

Comment A12: Sht C-17, Section 3/C-16/C-17Provide trash screen detail and label same on drawing of this section.

Response: A detail of the trash screen has been provided as requested.

Comment A13: Sht C-17, Section 4/C-16/C-17Identify thickness of footing for step footing.

Response: The referenced section has been revised accordingly.

Comment A14: Sht C-2L Att Sections.Specify thickness of gravel bedding/cushion/drainage layers, gabion mattress,and riprap.

Response: The referenced sections have been revised accordingly.

Comment A15: Sht C-17. Section 5/C-17/C-17.Specify extent and thickness of riprap on west side of side discharge weir. Seealso Sht C-21, "typical FRB Levee Embankment''.

Response: The referenced section has been revised accordingly.

Comment Al 6: Sht C-22. Collection Sump Modification DetailIndicate existing knife gate valve in Sump No. 3, assuming knife gate valve isinstalled by IT Corp. Work is scheduled to begin last week of Aug. 91. Verifyw/'Corps field personnel prior to 100% Design.

Response: As of September 13, IT Corp. had not yet installed the knife gate valve dueto problems opening the existing plug valve. The 100% Design will reflectexisting conditions at the time of submission.

0285-33-2 A-3

DRAr 1Comment A17: Sht C-22. Subdrain Flushing Riser Extension Detail

Eliminate topsail underneath new concrete collar. Extend collar so that it issupported by compacted backfill material

Response: The referenced section has been revised as requested.

Comment A18: Sht C-23. "Notes'Delete "For typical roadway section see detail on Sheet C-4*. There is noroadway section on Sheet C-4. Roadway section is on C-23.

Response: The referenced notes have been revised as requested.

Comment A19: Sht C-23.Clarify whether existing roadway installed by treatment plant contractor is toremain or be demolished. Coordinate drawings to indicate same.

Response: This issue was discussed during the 90% design review meeting. It wasagreed that the access road construction will be eliminated from the WTPContract. The entire road will be constructed under the cap constructioncontract.

Comment A20: GeneralInclude soil boring logs in Contract Documents.

Response: Boring logs have been incorporated into the Contract Documents.

Comment A21: GeneralVerify accuracy of existing conditions using as-built drawings prepared byIT Corp. If needed, contact Corps field office for a copy of as-built drawingsto be used on a temporary basis.

Response: Available as-built information has been incorporated in the 100% submittal.

0285-33-2 A-4

41003I

DRAi'iComment A22: Specifications.

Include Section 02110, 'Miscellaneous Bulky Debris Disposal".

Response: The referenced section was contained in Section 2073 within the text. Thesection numbering was revised accordingly.

Comment A23: Sec. 01100, Pom. 4.2.11Correct Technical Reviewer address as follows:Delete: "Greater International Airport'1;Add: "Pittsburgh International Airport''.


Comment A24: Sec. 01200, Para. 9Correct phone number for project office to read: 412-269-8134.


Comment A25: Sec. 02212, Para. 52Delete the last sentence in this paragraph " * ask Corps if all this isnecessary for drum dispositioning".


Comment A26: Sec. 02212, Pom. 7 ____Verify acquisition of waste generator number from EPA for use on manifests.

IResponse: During the 90% design review meeting. Anthony Roller of the USEPA

indicated that the USEPA will be responsible for acquisition of the wastegenerator number. A waste generator number will be assigned after thecontract for the cap and FRB construction has been awarded.

0285-33-2

DRAFTB. The following responses address comments prepared by Jim Troese CENAB-COF-

HA, Baltimore District:

Comment Bl: Sht C-4Water treatment plant outfall is not shown. Detail outfall and ensure no gradeconflict exists.

Response: Referenced sheet revised as requested.

Comment BZ- Sht C-9Provide and show 3 to 5 intermediate swale invert elevations that extend alongthe east side of the site (Reference Plate C-20).

Response: Due to the small scale (1" = ISO') and large amount of detail already onthis plan sheet, we have provided labelling of swale invert elevations on thesubsequent 1" = SO' scale plan sheets. A note to the effect has been addedto Sheet C-9.

Comment B3: Sht C-10Verify that existing water treatment plant outfall elevations will not conflict withwater treatment plant bypass culvert

Response: The elevations have been verified and a conflict does not exist.

Comment B4: Sht C-12Provide stations and details for concrete wall side discharge weir termination.

Response: The referenced sheet has been revised to include stationing for the sidedischarge weir. At the termination point, the weir will blend into theembankment. A note to this effect has been added to the drawing.

Comment BS: Sht C-20Show existing water treatment plant outfall on Marshall's Run profile.

Response: Sheet C-20 has been revised as requested.

0285-33-2 B-6

Comment B6: Sec. 01100In the event that contract is performed by PRP, insure that specifications arerevised to reflect legal arrangements between PRP & EPA and COE & EPA.

Response: This issue was discussed during the 90% design review meeting. It wasagreed that this issue would be better handled on a case-specific basis andthe PRP performance provisions would be addressed under generalconditions rather than in a technical section.

'

Comment B7: GeneralVerify constructability of installing chain-link fencing in a swamp area atsouthern end of the site.

Response: This issue was discussed during the 90% design review meeting. The fenceas currently located is situated outside the limits of the wetland area.

0285-33-2 B-7

k8003118

iC. The following responses address comments prepared by Jeff McClenathan,

Hydraulics Section

Comment Cl: Design Analysis Report, Section 2.1.5.3.2

Comment Cl.l: The design data in Table 3 shows maximum capacities of 173 cfs for thespillway. Recommend review of these calculations as they do not appearconservative. The low-level conduit should consider tailwater and the spillwaywill probably Junction as a broad-crested weir at low heads. Trash rack lossesshould also be included in the low level capacity rating.

Response: It is agreed that the spillway will function as a broad-crested weir. Designformulas have been included in the 100% submittal for clarity.

Comment C1.2 The trash rack specifies six-inch spacing on the bars. Recommend investiga-tion of the effect of partial debris blockage on the design storm.

Response: A sensitivity analysis has been performed assuming partial blockage of thetrash rack. A discussion of the results and an additional column has beenadded to Table 3 in the Design Analysis Report.

Comment C1.3 Marshall's Run is stated as having as having 0.5 feet of freeboard above thedesign discharge. Recommend computing the discharge for the top of levee orwithout freeboard condition for comparison.

Response: The ultimate capacity of Marshall's Run was evaluated. A discussion of theresults and an additional column has been added to Table 4 in the DesignAnalysis Report.

Comment C2: Design Analysis Report, Section 2.1.8.2Information concerning the North Ditch design should be included. Recom-mend the addition of table specifying pertinent design data similar to that forthe Marshall's Run. The channel design freeboard and capacity withoutfreeboard should also be included. The existing 42-inch diameter RCP underthe WTP road appears adequate to pass the 10- and 50-year events beforeovertopping the access road but it may not be adequate to prevent flooding ofthe WTP.

Response: The Design Analysis Report was expanded to include a discussion of the"North Ditch" including the design concept, established design capacity andpotential flooding of the WTP due to headwater generation upstream of theculverts.

0285-33-2 OS

DRArComment C3: Design Analysis Report, Appendix G

Comment C3.1 A flood impoundment map in Appendix G shows the 10-year and 50-yearflooded areas. The maps should be checked because a 718 contour line onthe western cap is not shown as inundated by the 50-year pool.

Response: The map has been corrected as requested.

Comment C3.2 Recommend the addition of plates showing the existing 100-year flood outlineas well as with project 100-year flood outline. The North Ditch should also beincluded on these plates.

Responses: This issue was discussed at the 90% design review meeting and it wasagreed that determination of the 100-year flood outline could involveconsiderable effort simulating rainfall and flood routing along existingwaterways, and is not within the scope of this project.

Comment C4: Design Analysis Report, Appendix HThe recommended contraction and expansion coefficients for HEC-2 bridgelosses are 0.3 and 0.5. More comments on the title cards and in the modelwould simplify review and better specify the model's purpose.

Response: The HEC-2 cards have been clarified with the addition of comment cards.

Comment C5: Drawings

Comment C5.1 The concrete apron downstream of the FRB is onfy 15 feet in length. With thedesign tailwater, the spillway nappe could impinge on the channel beddownstream. Recommend investigating the need for energy dissipation oradditional erosion protection for the low level outlet and spillway exit flows.

Response: Technical manuals were consulted for recommendations for horizontalaprons. Connection detail between apron and gabions to show erosionprotection design have been included.

Comment C5.2 Energy dissipation downstream of the North Ditch and realignment of the pipeexit into Marshall's Run should be investigated. The pipe currently enters ata 90 degree angle to Marshall's Run flow.

Response: As per Bill Doan, 90-degree alignment is desirable to reduce costs. Asdiscussed at the 90% review meeting, alignment of culvert pipes will remain

0285-33-2 C-9

DRAFTperpendicular to channel flow, and the concrete apron has been configuredto reduce turbulence and scouring in the channel.

Comment C5.3 On Drawing C-20 the long-dashed line upstream of the FRB control structureshould be labeled. The line currently slopes from 714 to 715 and should becorrected if it denotes the side discharge weir crest

• - • - " M FResponse: The line represents the side discharge weir crest and has been corrected as

requested.

Comment C5.4 The side discharge weir crest is 760 feet in length and is proposed with aconcrete wall for under-seepage. Recommend investigating shortening the weirand replacing the concrete wall with sheet pile to save construction costs. A260-foot long weir crest with 2 feet of head can pass a flow equivalent to the760-foot weir crest with 1 foot of head.

Response: As discussed at the 90% review meeting, the side discharge weir isprimarily an erosion prevention structure to maintain viability of thewetlands, and as such should remain along the entire length of the bermwhere the water will crest during filling and draining of the FRB. Anexamination of construction costs for the berm indicated concrete wouldcost approximately $56,000, while sheet piling would cost approximately$32,000 (assuming 7' depth of sheet pile). However, Corps personnelpresent at the 90% review meeting pointed out the difficulty in accessingthe wetlands area with pile driving equipment; the potential for vibrationdamage to adjacent building structures and the necessity of an additionalsoil bearing capacity analysis. The analysis results could result in deeperpiling, which would increase costs. It was agreed to keep the currentdesign.

Comment Co: GeneralThe storm and pool durations are short but the effect on the cap soil stabilityshould be addressed.

Response: The build-up of water in the FRB could have an impact on the stability ofthe cap and could result in some loss or slippage of soil especially afternumerous and/or extended storm events. The granular nature of the slag(viz well drained) and the proposed grade will serve to minimize potentialstability problems. Since the cap consists entirely of topsoil, the loss oftopsoil would be a long-term post-closure maintenance issue. Additionaltopsoil and reseeding may be required to maintain desired grades if soilloss occurs. The discussion has been incorporated into the Design AnalysisReport.

0285-33-2 C-10

TD. The following responses address comments prepared by Bob Gunkelman,

CEMRO-ED-DJ

Comment Dl: Design Analysis ReportSection 1, Para. 2.3.11 states that specifications will be provided for temporarydiversion of Marshall's Run. I could not find any such specifications. Pleaseprovide.

Response: The Design Analysis Report has been modified to reference provisions inthe Specifications for review of drainage facilities by the ContractingOfficer constructed by Contractor. Specific construction techniques fortemporary diversion of stream flows will not be required, in order to allowContractor flexibility in constructing the new channel It is anticipated, forexample, that an efficient construction technique may be to partiallyconstruct the new channel, then allow stream flows into the channel whilefinishing the berms. Another alternative may be fully constructing theberms while pumping the bypassed flows.

Comment D2: Drawings - Sheets C-l through C-14Suggest General Notes and Table be enlarged so they are more legible when1/2-sized.


Comment D3: Drawings - Sheet C-lShould clearly indicate existing chain-link fencing that is to be removed andsalvaged. Describe existing fence to be salvaged and reused.

Response: Sheet C-2 (Clearing Plan) was revised to indicate fencing that will beremoved and salvaged (to the extent possible). A note to the effect hasbeen added to Sheet C-2.

Comment D4: Drawings - Sheets C-3 through C-14Design Analysis states that cap grading to be 3% minimum slope and 25%maximum slope. Drawing and/or Specifications should note or specify thisrequirements.

Response: Plan Sheets C-3 through C-14 and specification section 02210 - Gradinghave been revised as requested.

0285-33-2 C-ll

DRAFTComment D5: Drawings - Sheets C-3 through C-14

Marshall's Run: Horizontal control needs to be provided for the new channelso the Contractor can accurately layout the ditch. The 50-Scale Sheets shouldshow the new channel centerline with stationing, horizontal coordinates at allchanges in direction, deflection angles, etc.

Response: Plan sheets C-3 through C-14 have been revised to include the requestedinformation.

Comment D6: Drawings - Sheets C-3 through C-14Perimeter Fence: Provide horizontal coordinates at aU fence comers and ends.Fence not clear on ISO-Scale Sheet Show on 50-Scale Sheets.

Response: Horizontal coordinates for fence corners and ends have been provided.Fencing locations have been clarified on all site plan sheets.

Comment D7: Drawings - Sheets C-3 through C-14Gravel Maintenance Road - Need to provide the following:- Dimensions, width of road- Radiuses- Complete horizontal control (coordinate, curve information, stationing,

etc.)

Response: This issue was discussed during the 90% design review meeting. It wasagreed that the maintenance road alignment is not critical and horizontalcontrol information will not be indicated. Less stringent road alignmentcriteria will allow the contractor some flexibility in roadway layout whichwill serve to lower the roadway construction cost.

Comment D& Drawing? - Sheets C-3 and C-7In lower left comer of Drawings, the new contours are wrong. For example,a new 715-contour ties into an existing 720-contour. Need to correct allaffected sheets.

Response: The contours have been rechecked and labelled for the 100% submittal tominimize potential interpretation problems and facilitate construction.

Comment D9: Drawings - Sheets C-10 and C-llNew bituminous WTP Access Road: Provide stationing and horizontalcoordinates at road end points.

0285-33-2 D-12

Response: The requested information has been provided on Sheets E10 and C-ll.

Comment D10: Drawings - Sheet C-10WTP Access Road Sta. 0+65, show new gate in existing fence (if required).

Response: The requested gate information has been provided on Sheet C-10.

Comment Dll: Drawings - Sheet C-llShow existing road that the new WTP access Road Ties into. Also indicatewhat the existing road surfacing is and if pavement removal is required.

Response: The existing roadway (17th St.) to the new WTP access road is a gravelcovered roadway. The plan sheets have been revised to indicate thisroadway.

Comment D12: Drawings - C-3 through C-14Storm Drain System: Need to complete storm drain design. Need to indicateall storm drain structures (inlets, headwaUs, flared-end sections, etc.). Need toprovide profiles of all storm drain lines showing invert elevations, pipe slopes,connections to drainage structures, inlet elevations, etc. Provide details anddimensions of all required storm structures. (8-1/2 x 11 copies of somestandard Corps of Engineers - Omaha District detail sheets are attached. Full-size sheets are available upon request).

Response: This issue was discussed at the 90% design review meeting. It was agreedthat the following approach would be taken:

• provide complete reference to all drainage structures (i.e., culvertpipes, inlets, headwalls, end-sections, etc);

• provide a schedule showing pipe sized, inlet and exit elevations, pipeslopes; and

• provide specific details and dimensions of headwalls, end-sections, dropinlets and connections.

It was agreed during the meeting that headwalls or end sections will not beprovided for certain culvert pipes, including access roadway culverts andseveral culverts that do not enter or terminate in the Marshall's Runchannel. Additionally, it was agreed that profile information for all stormdrains was not necessary and that inverts and slopes should be adequate.

0285-33-2 D-13

DRAFTComment D13: Drawings - Sheet C-21

Typical Channel and Levee Details:

a) Typical sections should show depth of riprap and gravel bedding.

b) Typical section should show depth of gabion mattress materials andbedding layers.

c) Indicate depth of gravel layer on top of levee. Unclear what specificationswill cover this gravel surfacing.

Response: The referenced details have been revised as requested.

Comment D14: Drawings - C-10Staging Area: Design Analysis states that Staging Area will be constructed ofgeotextile under graded level This has not been shown on the drawings.Provide required notes, details and Specifications.

Response: Plans and specifications have been revised as requested.

Comment D15: Design Analysis and Drawings - Sheet C-10Design Analysis, Section 1, Para. 2.1.8.3.1 states that a temporary chain-linksecurity fence will be required around the staging areas. It also addressessalvaging and reusing existing fencing. None of this is indicated on thedrawings. Please provide required notes, layout, etc.

Response: A permanent staging area is indicated on Sheet C-ll. Plan Sheets C-2 hasbeen revised to indicate existing fencing that is to be removed and possiblysalvaged.

Comment D16: Design Analysis and Drawings - Sheet C-21Levee Subdrain:

a) Need to provide typical section showing overall dimensions of the subdrainfilter material I geotextile.

b) Need to show subdrain layout on plans with invert elevations, start andstop points, cleanouts (?), etc.

c) How will discharge pipes be supported where they daylight through thechannel? A typical detail should be provided showing how to support thepipe (concrete headwall?) and how the HDPE liner boot will be construct-ed.

0285-33-2 D-14

48003125

r rirld) Drawings indicate "Perf. PVC Drain Pipe", Toe-Drain", and "Gravel".

Specifications provided for "Subdrain Pipe" and "Granular Subdrain FilterMaterial" Correct terminology on drawings to correspond with Specifica-tions.

e) Gabion section shows 2" pipe, levee section shows 4" pipe. Correctconflict. No gravity drain should be less than 4" in diameter.

f) Verify that a Pinch Valve is manufactured for such small diameter pipes.

g) Drawings indicate PVC pipe but Specifications allow for different types ofplastic pipe materials. Do not indicate type of pipe material on drawings.Delete "PVC" on the drawings.

Response: a) A typical section has been provided as requested.

b) A subdrain layout has been provided as requested.

c) A flared headwall has been provided for pipe support.

d) Revised as requested.

e) All 2" gravity drains are now shown as 4" minimum.

f) Manufacturers of pinch valves have been contacted and indicate thatthey make pinch valves for pipes as small as Vfe" I.D.

g) Revised as requested.

Comment D17: Construction Specification Sec. 01100, Pom. 10B.1-4Specifications Section 02250 - Synthetic Channel Liner. Para. 10.4.1 refers topipe penetration sealing system shown on the drawings. No details provided.Details needed for subdrain, storm drain and cu&ertpipe penetrations. Also,details should show how to support concrete storm drain pipe. Suggestconcrete headwalls be provided with pipe extended through headwall for eachpinch valve attachment.

Response: Plan sheets have been revised to include penetration details, pipe support,end walls and pinch valve/flap gate attachment.

Comment D1& Drawings - Sheet C-2Existing light poles and other unidentified items outside the property line willrequire removal and possible replacement due to channel and levee construc-tion. These items need to be addressed on the plans.

0285-33-2 D-15

Response: Sheet C-2 was revised to indicate removal of specific features outside theproperty limits. Final grade plan sheets were revised to indicate replace-ment of these features.

Comment D19: Drawings - Sheets C-3 through C-14Sheet C-10 shows a 6" RCP culvert. RCP does not come any smaller than12". All culverts should be no smaller than 18" dia. for cleaning andmaintenance purposes and to prevent clogging.

Response: Acknowledged. Sheets C-3 through C-14 have been revised as requested.

Comment D20: Drawings - Sheet C-23Access Road Profile:

a) Show station and elevation of new road grade at changes in grade (VPIs).b) Show existing road and parking area that the new access road ties into.

How does new road tie into existing parking area?

Response: a) The profile has been revised as requested.

b) Tie-ins of the WTP access road into the existing road (at 17th St.) andinto the parking area have been provided. The new road will taperinto the existing parking area.

Comment D21: Drawings - Sheet C-23Typical Perimeter Maintenance Roadway Detail:

a) Purpose of edge detail is unclear. Should l"x 8"strip actually be a l"x 12"continuous strip? What is strip made of? This should be covered in theSpecifications.

b) Change "Sub-base" to "Subgrade").

Response: a) The edging has been removed for clarity and to simplify road construc-tion.

b) Revised as requested.

Comment D22: Drawings - Sheet C-23Typical Access Road Detail: Change "Binder Course" to "Intermediate Course"to be consistent with Specifications.


0285-33-2 D-16

T

38003127

Comment D23: Drawings - Sheet C-23Culvert Detail- This detail is not consistent with Access Road Section. Also,should show Flared End Sections at ends of culverts. Concrete headwalls maybe desired at some locations.

Response: Discrepancies in the culvert detail have been corrected. As agreed duringthe 90% design review meeting, end sections or headwalls will not beprovided for culvert pipes serving swales that pass under the perimeterroad.

Comment D24: Specifications - Index

a) Change Section 02100 to 02073.b) Add Section 02410 to Index.c) Provide missing Specification Section 02243 and coordinate with

Section 02230.

Response: Revised as requested, with the exception that the reference toSection 02243 has been removed from the index and specifications package.

Comment D25: Specifications and Design Analysis - Page 02100-3Design Analysis - Section 1, Para. 2.3.4. provides compaction requirements forburied debris. These requirements need to be added to the Specifications.

Response: Compaction requirements for debris have been added to Sec-tion 02210 - Grading.

Comment D26: Specification - Page 02210-4Para. 10. - correct editing to include subdrain references.


Comment D27: Specifications and Design Analysis - Section 02210Design Analysis - Section 1, Para. 2.1.7 provides for compaction ofon-sitefillI could not find this requirement in the Specifications. Please provide.

Response: Section 02210 has been revised to include compaction requirements foron-site derived fill. Due to the nature of on-site fill, proposed compactionand testing requirements are limited to specifying the use of certain

0285-33-2 D-17

compaction equipment and the number of passes. Compaction testing isnot included.

Comment D28: Specification - Page 02215-3Para. 6 is not completely edited.


Comment D29: Specifications - Page 02221-5

Comment D29a a) Para. 4.1.3 - Delete inapplicable specifications.


Comment D29b b) Para. 4.1.6 - Coordinate compaction requirements with other Specifica-tions to prevent conflicts.


Comment D30: Specifications - Page 02230-2

Para. 5.3 -10" thickness of maintenance road conflicts with plans.

Response: The road thickness specification has been revised to indicate 12" thickness.

Comment D31: Specifications - Page 02241-5Para. 8.3 Gradation: Delete gradation No. 1 since maximum size of aggregateis 1-1/2 inches.


Comment D32: Specifications - Section 02275

Comment D32a Coordinate this Specification with Specification Section 02230. Section 02230specifies a filter cloth but perhaps should reference Section 02275 - Geotextilefor Paved Areas.

0285-33-2 D-18

4R003I29

Response: Revised as requested.i

Comment D32b Para. 5.1 should specify woven gr. non-woven or both.

Response: Woven geotextiles have been specified for road construction.

Comment D33: Specifications - Section 02430

Storm Drainage System:

Comment D33a Para. 1. - Delete unappucable publications.


Comment D33b Para. 5.2 and 5.3 - Why are these Specifications included? No arch orelliptical pipe shown on drawing. Delete all references to arch or ellipticalpipe.


Comment D33c Para. 9 Joints: Para. 9 requires watertight joints; therefore, Para. 9.1.1through 9.1.6 should be deleted. Read the Specification instructions.

Response: Revised as requested

Comment D33d Edit Para. 9.1.7.2 per the Specification instructions.


Comment D33e Para. 11.1 through 11-3 should be deleted or Para. 11 changed.

Response: Para. 11.1 through 11.3 have been deleted.

Comment D33f Para. 13.1 and 13.2 - delete unappucable pipe materials.

0285-33-2 D-19

DRAFTResponse: Revised as requested.

Comment D34: Specifications - Section 02444Chain Link Fence:

Comment D34a Correct Para. 4.2


Comment D34b Edit Para. 4.6


Comment D34c Strongly recommend that Omaha District full-size fence and gate detaildrawings be added to the plans and the Specification attachments be deleted.Use new fence designation of FE6-TR-96 per fence legend on detail drawing.Copies of detail drawings are attached and full-sized sheets are available uponrequest

Response: The construction plan submittal was revised to include referenced fencedetails.

Comment D35: Specifications - Section 02490Why is this Specification provided? No new trees, shrubs, etc. are shown onthe plans. Delete Specification or show new plantings on the plans.

Response: Landscaping plans have been included on Sheets C-1S.

Comment D36: Specifications - 02551-4

Para. 5 - Do not delete "intermediate course."


Comment D37: Specifications - Page 02551-5Para. 9.2.2.1,12.1.1, 12.1.1.5 - delete att references to slag.

0285-33-2 D-20

ft&003!31

TResponse: Revised as requested.

Comment DBS: Specifications - Section 02558Para. 7 - Do not delete intermediate course and delete base course. (Tackcoat is applied to intermediate course).

Response: Revised as requested. . \\

Comment D39: Specifications - Section 02559Delete all bracketed references to subgrade. (Prune coat is applied to basecourse onfy.)


0285-33-2 D-21

iE. The following responses address comments prepared by Bill Doan, CEMRO-ED-HE.

Comment El: Design Analysis ReportWhat are the State of Pennsylvania's dam safety requirements for being ableto safely pass the spillway design flood? Does the spillway have enoughcapacity to pass the 100-year event without overtopping? With construction ofthe embankment across the floodplain, the off-tine FRB has now become anon-line FRB. Therefore, the FRB should be evaluated to ensure that all damsafety requirements are met. Refer to Scope of Work 23 dated June 3, 1990,page 11. The dam should meet the COE's dam safety requirements as statedin ER 1110-8-2(FR) - Inflow Design Floods for Dams and Reservoirs.

Response: As determined by COE subsequent to this comment, COE's dam safetyrequirements will be waived. Instead, PADER dam safety requirementswill be followed. PADER has indicated that no permit will be required forthe Millcreek FRB. An internal review of the project is now underway toconfirm PADER regulations have been considered. PADER estimates allcomments will be received by October 15.

Comment E2: Design Analysis ReportIt has been the COE's experience that drainage structures less that 24" clogrelatively easily and turn into long-term maintenance problems. Consequently,24" culverts are the smallest structures we use; would suggest 12" culverts beincreased to 24".

Response: During the 90% design review meeting, it was agreed that the minimumculvert size will be 18" because the culvert runs are generally short and thedrainage ditch slopes are minimal (i.e., 2%) and therefore, sedimentbuildup and long-term maintenance problems should be minimal. SeeResponse to Comment D19 for minimum culvert pipe sizing.

CommentE3: Drawing -SheetC-llQuestion why several drainage culverts through berms are skewed downstreamin relation to the berms. Aligning the culverts perpendicularly through theberms would save on the cost of the structures.

Response: Design plans have been revised such that culverts are aligned perpendicu-lar to the channel with flared end walls skewed in the downstreamdirection.

0285-33-2 E-22

CommentE4: Drawing -SheetC-21For each drainage structure through the berm, a separate profile detail shouldbe in the plans, showing the inlet and outlet invert and crown elevations,slopes, etc.

Response: This issue was discussed during the 90% design review meeting and it wasagreed that inlet and outlet inverts were adequate for short culvert pipes.

Comment E5: Drawing - Sheet C-21For typical channel section d/s of FRB, are easements required when the bermextends on to neighboring properties?

Response: Easements will be required for channel reconstruction. As discussed duringthe 90% design review meeting, the Baltimore District Office of the COE is toaddress easement issues.

Comment E6: Drawing - Sheet C-21Require additional information on pinch valves for drainage culverts.

Response: Literature on pinch valves is provided as an Attachment to the DesignAnalysis Report. As determined at the 90% review meeting, pinch valveswill only be used on the small diameter subdrain lines around the FRBcontrol structure. All other pinch valves will be replaced with conventionalflap gates.

0285-33-2 E-23

F. The following responses address comments prepared by Barry, CEMRO-ED-GF:

Comment Fl: Design Analysis - Para. 2.1.10Landfill gas. Discussion should be given for what methane gas will do to thetopsoil cover and to the vegetative cover.

Response: As discussed in the Design Analysis Report, substantial quantities ofmethane (if any) are not anticipated due to the nature and age of thewaste fill. If uncontrolled, methane gas can inhibit vegetative growth. Theexisting abundant and vigorous plant growth on the site supports theconclusion that methane should not pose a problem for the Millcreek Site.If in the unlikely event that construction activities (e.g., burial of wooddebris) results in the generation of substantial quantities of methane gaswhich inhibit vegetative growth, gas vents could be installed in problemareas to facilitate gas venting and maintain vegetative growth. Thisdiscussion has been incorporated into the Design Analysis Report and SiteMaintenance Plan.

Comment F2: Design Analysis - Para. 2.1.12Topsoil Para, b - typo tan'.


Comment F3: Design Analysis - Appendix ATopsoil Specification - The Contractor should be required to provide testresults of a certification that the topsoil is not contaminated.

Response: This issue was discussed during the 90% design review meeting. It wasagreed that establishing a testing program to screen topsoil (and/or fill) forhazardous contaminants would be costly and difficult to administer. Theagreed upon approach to address this issue is to require the contractor toconduct a site assessment equivalent to Phase I Environmental Real EstateAssessment of all off-site borrow areas or source by an independentorganization experienced in conducting site assessment. The siteassessments will include legal title searches, review of regulatory agencyhazardous waste site registries, communication with local and stateenvironmental officials and site inspections regarding current or previousactivities (Le., commercial or industrial uses where hazardous materialsmay have been used or dumped). The site assessment reports will besubmitted to the Contracting Officer for review. Sites that are listed onhazardous waste site registries, where widespread contamination issuspected through site inspections, sites with questionable histories ordocumented information with local and state officials on questionableactivities or incidences will be cause for rejection by the Contracting

0285-33-2 F-24

TOfficer. Borrow soils will only be obtained from approved sites. Detailedrequirements for the site assessments have been incorporated into thetopsoil and fill specifications.

Comment F4: Design Analysis - GeneralProvide rationale in the DA for type of geotextile specified. What criteria wasused for woven versus non-woven geotextile and what criteria was used inspecifying the grab, puncture strength, burst strength, trapezoidal tear strength,and apparent opening size (AOS).

Response: Woven geotextiles are typically used for separation reinforcement andfiltering such as in roadway construction. Nonwoven geotextiles aretypically used for separation and filtering such as in cap drainage layers,subdrains, etc. Material strength characteristics were based on theintended use of the geotextile, typical geotextile application and the generalstrength characteristics of available geotextiles on the market. Thisdiscussion has been incorporated into the Design Analysis Report.

Comment F5: Design Analysis - GeneralHas the methane generation and decomposition of the chipped and buriedlogs, stumps, branches and roots been considered in the settlement andvegetative growth on the soil cover? This should be addressed in the DesignAnalysis.

Response: As discussed in the Design Analysis Report, substantial quantities ofmethane (if any) are not anticipated due to the nature and age of thewaste fill If uncontrolled, methane gas can inhibit vegetative growth. Theexisting abundant and vigorous plant growth on the site supports theconclusion that methane should not pose a problem for the Millcreek Site.If in the unlikely event that construction activities (e.g., burial of wooddebris) results in the generation of substantial quantities of methane gaswhich inhibit vegetative growth, gas vents could be installed in problemareas to facilitate gas venting and maintain vegetative growth. Thisdiscussion has been incorporated into the Design Analysis Report and SiteMaintenance Plan.

Comment F6: Specifications Section 02201, Pom. 6.6Borrow. Same as comment F-3. Assurances should be provided that borrowis not contaminated

Response: See response to Comment F-3.

0285-33-2 F-25

*t§0313$

Comment F7: Specification Section 02210, Para. 2.4Grading. There is an inconsistency in the spec about topsoil Paragraph 2.4states that "acceptable topsoil not used. See Section: Topsoil', but para-graphs 5 and 14 in this section refer to topsail

Response: Paragraph 2.4 was not used because an expanded discussion on topsoil ispresented in Section: Topsoil Cap. Therefore, paragraphs 5 and 14 applyto the Section: Topsoil Cap.

Comment F8: Specification Section 02210, Para. 5Conservation oftopsoiL It may not be wise to conserve topsoil due to the riskof contamination.

Response: The existing site does not contain suitable topsoil for reuse. The intent ofthe wording in this paragraph is to emphasize that the Contractor will notbe allowed to place topsoil until the subgrade is approved. This shouldminimize any subsequent reworking of an area after topsoil has beenplaced.

Comment F9: Specification Section 02275, Para. 5.2Geotextile seams. Do the seams need to be sewed? It may be moreeconomical to overlap the seams.

Response: The section was revised to indicate that overlapping of seams is acceptable.

Comment F10: Drawing G-lSpell out Flood Retention Basin instead of FRB.


Comment Fll: Drawing C-lSupply coordinates for the benchmarks in the vertical control table, or on thedrawings. Show the bench marks and the horizontal control monuments onthe Site Plan as well as on the subgrade and final grade plans.


Comment F12: Drawing C-l

0285-33-2 F-26

488-03137

tiOn the east side of the site there is shown two existing drum storage areas.One is shown with a dark heavy line while the other is shown with a light line.Be consistent!


Comment F13: Drawing C-lHas this sheet been half-sized to see if it will be legible? It looks like some ofthe spot elevations and lettering may be hard to read half-sized.

Response: Some lettering, particularly notes, will be appropriately re-sized forhalf-size legibility. Some items, i.e., spot elevations, may be illegible whenhalf-sized. Full-sized sheets can be referenced for specific detailedinformation.

Comment F14: Drawing C-lThe number of abandoned appliances, heavy equipment, vehicles, drums, andconstruction debris should be better defined and quantified. How does thebulky debris numbered on the drawing as # relate to the bulky debris shownin the bulky debris schedule? The two should be combined or coordinated toreflect all bulky debris on the site.

Response: This issue was discussed in detail at the 90% Design Review Meeting. Itwas agreed that the quantification of debris is being provided only to assistthe Contractor in preparing the bid. Notes in the plans and specificationsrequire the Contractor to verify debris quantities for bidding purposes andindicate that the Contractor will not be allowed to submit claims for anyadditional debris that may not be listed. The debris schedule and tablehave been coordinated to eliminate any confusion.

Comment F15: Drawing C-lWhat is the large square on the southeast comer of the site? Identify on thedrawings.

Response: The square represents a building situated on the adjacent trucking firmproperty. The plan sheet has been revised as requested.

Comment F16: Drawing C-lIdentify and quantify the "debris pile from extraction trench contractor".

0285-33-2 F-27

DRAFTResponse: The debris pile is identified on the plan sheet. The pile contains tree logs

and brush from the extraction trench and water treatment plant projects.The Cap Construction Contractor will be responsible for chipping andon-site burial of this debris and will, also be responsible for quantifying therelative amount of debris for bidding purposes. The Contractor will notbe allowed any extras for any additional chipping and burial.

Comment F17: Drawing C-lWhy are certain things like MWs, debris numbers, and coordinates in boldletters while a lot of other site features are light? On this sheet, everythingshould be the same line weight


Comment F1& Drawing C-lProvide coordinates for the monitoring wells and soil borings.


Comment F19: Drawing C-lHorizontal control points CP-01, CP-0, CP-Q and CPR should be shown onthis sheet as well as on the subgrade and final grade plans.

Response: The control points are shown on C-l as well as well as the subgrade andfinal grade plans.

Comment F20: Drawing C-2Provide a note or include in the legend what the blue dotted area means.


Comment F21: Drawing C-3The boundaries on the key do not seem to be accurately reflected on thedrawing. What is the dashed line on the drawing? The legend should reflectthe dashed line.

Response: The boundaries on the key are for reference only and generally conformto the boundaries on the scaled pkns. The dashed line represents thematch lines and notation has been provided accordingly.

0285-33-2 F-28

TComment F22: Drawing C-3

The contours of Marshall's Run will really blotch up as this sheet is half-sized.

Response: Acknowledged; however, reduced 50-foot scale plan sheets will not exhibitthis problem.

Comment F23: Drawing C-llN710, 654.68; El, 349163.07 do not point to anything. Please rectify.

Response: The coordinates represent the southeast property boundary coordinates.The plan sheet has been revised accordingly.

Comment F24: Drawing C-10This drawing has one coordinate located on the grid system while others don'teven have one. Provide at least two coordinates on each final grading andsubgrade plan sheets on the grid coordinate lines, and preferably more.

Response: Acknowledged. Revised as noted.

Comment F25: Drawing C-llInvert elevations should be given for the 12* RCP.


Comment F26c Drawing C-23The box culvert shown on the profile does not have a complete reference. Itreads "See Sheet C-__"


Comment F27: Drawings - GeneralShow soil boring log details, elevations, and coordinates on the drawings orin the specifications. If the contractor is required to excavate, he will need toknow what type of soil he will need to excavate and what the water tablecould be anticipated to be.

0285-33-2 F-29

4-R003IM)

Response: Boring logs are provided as part of the specifications.

Comment F2& Design Analysis - GeneralSection 02250, Synthetic Channel Liner specifies 80 mil HDPE FML. Includethe design calculations and rationale for using 80 mil FML and for usingHDPE in lieu of PVC, VLDPE or other synthetic materials in the DesignAnalysis.

Response: The synthetic channel liner will be installed to reduce the potential forinfiltration of surface water from Marshall's Run into the extractiontrenches. Consideration of materials was based on experience andmaterial qualities. HDPE was selected over other synthetic materials forseveral reasons including durability, compatibility with known wastes andconstructability. HDPE, compared with PVC or VLDPE is more durable,less susceptible to ultraviolet degradation, more compatible with a greatervariety of chemicals and contaminants and has comparable installationrequirements.

Selection of an 80-mil thickness was based on previous expense on similarprojects, not on design calculations. Contractors generally prefer to workwith 80 or 100-mil liner due to reduced puncture potential and the cost ofpurchase/installation is only slightly higher than for reduced thicknesses.This discussion has been incorporated into the Design Analysis Report.

T

0285-33-2 F-30

G. The following responses address comments prepared by Deb Morrissey, CEMRO-ED-EF.

Comment Gl: Cost Estimate, Item 1, Sheet 3A qualified hazardous waste contractor should not have only one experiencedperson out often people and two of these inexperience are supervisors. Evenaccounting for normal turnover, this many inexperienced personnel should notoccur in a qualified hazardous waste contractor. This section needs to berevised and experienced personnel need to be hired.

Response: This comment conflicts with Mr. Sedlak's (CEMRO-ED-CC) commentsand requirements. Mr. Sedlak indicated that qualified contractors typicallyinclude some amount of training for contracts involving hazardous wastesmaterials. Training is typically required for local subcontractors andturnover. The cost estimates have been revised to include a reducedamount of training.

Comment G2: Cost Estimate, Item 1, Sheet 4Coordinate the number of personnel taking the 40-hr course as it conflictswith the number that is stated on Sheet 3.

Response: See response to Comment #G1.

Comment G3: Cost Estimate, Item 1, Sheet 7Re-evaluate the number of hours that the superintendent has for thesubmittals; 286 seems very high.

Response: The number of hours was reevaluated and has been reduced to 186.

Comment G4: Cost Estimate, Item 1, Sheet 10The list of material and rates is outrageous. If there is a need for a computeron the job site, then it will be more economical to rent a portable. If acomputer is needed for the submittals, the Contractor should already havethese resources and buying a computer for the contractor is not necessary.

An alternative will be to cost out the computer time and subcontract it out orrent a computer. Revise accordingly.

Response: All material and equipment in the 90% submittal was requested by GaryLang (CENAB-COF-NA) for COE use as part of the 35% design review.All rates and costs are supported by Vendor quotes. For a 24-monthConstruction period, it appears that it would be more cost effective topurchase the equipment rather than rent.

0285-33-2 G-31

48803 H2

Comment G5: Cost Estimate, Item 1 Sheet 21State model and type of "Inhalable Paniculate Model". State the rental rateof this instrument and what time factor it is based on.

Response: The model type is the BP10, which is also the part number. The highvolume air sampling (HVA) equipment is referred to as "InhalableParticulate Model." A rental rate for the HVA was not provided in the90% cost estimate because the vendor does not rent this equipment. Thecost to purchase the HVA system was included. The Vendor, GeneralMetal Works, was re-contacted and it has been confirmed that they do notrent HVAs.

Comment G6: Cost Estimate, Item 1, Sheet 21Correct the filters and recorder charts calculations. The work week is 6 days Iweek, thus the most days spent working would be 27 instead of 31/month.Revise the number of boxes accordingly.

Response: Malcolm Pirnie assumed monitors were to measure worker safetyconditions as well as quantity of air particulates that were leaving the sitein order to monitor public health impacts. Therefore, 31 days/month wereassumed for a period of 16 months.

Comment G7: Cost Estimate, Item 2, Sheet 4Clarify this statement under Site Clearing: 13 employees to be trained andtake physicals''. This conflicts with the 7 inexperienced employees to betrained and take physicals in Item 1, Sheet 3. Revise tuition and physicalsamounts.

Response: The tree and brush clearing and bulky debris removal crews are differentemployees than site support employees defined in Item 1. Tuition andphysical costs have been revised accordingly.

Comment G& Cost Estimate, Item 2, Sheet 5Delete the half-mask respirator from Level d+ (modified). Work involvingany type of respirator is Level C. Revise accordingly.

Response: Cost estimates have been revised as necessary in accordance with personalprotective equipment requirements presented in the final version of theHealth and Safety Plan. References to Level d+ have been deleted asrequested.

Comment G9: Cost Estimate, Item 4, Sheet 1

0285-33-2 G-32

ARd03i<i3

DRAFTThe health and safety training and physicals cost for the backhoe operator, thelaborer, and the truck driver are not necessary considering they were alreadytrained back in Items 1 and 2, Sheets 3 and 4, respectively. Delete these costs.

Response: Backhoe operators, laborers and truck drivers are different employees thandefined in Item 1; therefore these costs have been retained.

Comment G10: Cost Estimate, Item 5, Sheet 1State reference for cost of drum disposal

Response: Current drum disposal costs based on a verbal quote and have beenincluded in the 100% submittaL

Comment Gil: Cost Estimate, Item 7Explain Level D+ for road construction.

Response: Excavation, grading, and other construction activities will suspendpotentially contaminated soil particles, therefore, a risk is incurred andmust be controlled. A half-faced respirator with HEPA filters will berequired if dust levels are at or exceed 5 mg/m3. Reference to Level d+has been removed.

Comment G12: Cost Estimate, Item 13, Sheet 3State number of days that the instruments for the drum and soil testing willbe used. Correlate this number of days with the 30 days listed on Sheet 4 forthe health and safety clothing.

Explain buying the instrumentation. State whether this is more economicallyfeasible than renting the instruments based on the number of days in use.Renting would be more feasible if onfy going to be used for 30 days. The580 PID has stated that it can be rented.

Clarify "HAZKTT. State if this testing is to be preliminary before sendingsamples on to a lab.

Response: Based on our assumptions, the vapor monitoring instruments will be usedfor at least 30 days for monitoring during drum excavation. Additionally,vapor monitoring equipment will be necessary for periodic site monitoringby the Health and Safety Officer during all grading and intrusive opera-tions which will involve a significant duration of the project. With theperiod of use exceeding 30 days, as in this instance, purchasing the unit ismore cost effective.

HAZKIT will be required to ensure compatibility of all waste materials tobe staged and is, therefore, preliminary to lab testing.

0285-33-2 G-33

90% Construction Specifications:

Comment G13: SpecificationsSee Cheryl Davis' comment #24 from 35% design. State exactly whichworkers will have the reduced training.

Response: Individuals to receive reduced training will be specified by the Contractorresponsible for their employment. Each Contractor is obligated andrequired to adhere to the training requirements delineated in24 CFR 1910.120(e) which includes reduced training and equivalencytraining provisions.

Comment G14: SpecificationsSee Cheryl Davis' comment #29, This comment has not been addressed.Incorporate the comment

Response: Cheryl Davis' comment is addressed in Para. 7.2 of Section 01460 whichspecifies air monitoring in the Exclusion and Containment ReductionZones.

90% Site-Specific Quality Management Plan (SSQMP):

Comment G15: SSQMPSee Cheryl Davis' comment #7. This comment still has not been fullycorrected.

Response: Sampling of soil, drummed wastes encountered and air may be requiredduring construction of the cap and FRB to facilitate waste characterizationand air monitoring. Sampling and analysis of surface and ground watersis not anticipated.

90% Health and Safety Design Analysis (HSDA):

Comment G16: HSDA, Section 1.1, page 1-1Replace "...U.S Army Corps of Engineers...1' with "U.S. Army Corps ofEngineers (USAGE)'.


0285-33-2 G-34

DRAFTComment G17: HSDA, Section 2.1, pages 2-1 through 2-7

State the concentrations these chemicals were found at MUlCreek Superfundand the reasons why they should be chemicals of concern: Benzene,Isophorone, Methylene Chloride, Tetrachloroethene, l-2,Dichloroethene, andBenzo(a)pyrene.

Response: Concentrations and exposure limit values for the above-referencedchemicals are presented in Tables 2.1A and 2. IB of the HSDA. Thereason that these chemicals are of a concern are stated in the appraisalspresented in Paragraph 2.1.

Comment G18: HSDA, Section 2.2, page 2-9Correlate this statement: "Chemical health and ...presented in Tables 2. LAand 2. IB". with the 15 chemicals not detected but are in the Tables 2. LA and2.1B.

Response: Chemicals not detected on-site but noted in Table 2.1A and 2. IB of theHSDA have been deleted for clarity.

Comment G19: HSDA, Section 2.3, pages 2-11, 2-12Correct this statement: "It may be necessary... shows airborne contaminants."

State these action levels that define up/downgrades of PPE. Create a tablethat includes the action levels, PID readings and the levels of PPE. This tablewould eliminate these almost 3 pages of text

Response: A summary table that compliments the text has been added to the HSDA.

Comment G20: HSDA, Section 2.3, page 2-12Explain upgrade to Level C if"... or ground water is encountered."

Response: The reference to ground water was not applicable and has been deleted forclarity.

Comment G21: HSDA, Section 2.3, page 2-13Delete the last three sentences of Dewatering paragraph.


0285-33-2 G-3S

Comment G22: HSDA, Section 2.4, page 2-14State exactly what are the "action levels" that the certified Industrial Hygienistwill establish.

Response: The Contractors Industrial Hygienist will dictate "action levels". Actionlevels should be based on EPA protocols and OSHA Standards.

Comment G23: HSDA, Section 2.4.3, page 2-17Add "greater than 22%"after "... less than 19.5%...'


Comment G24: HSDA, Section 2.4.3, page 2-17Any respirator being used defines Level C PPE. The half mask can be used,but it cannot be stated to be in Level D+ PPE.

Response: References to half-face respirators for dust protection have been incorpo-rated into Level C personal protective equipment requirements.

Comment G25: HSDA, Pages 2-18 and 7-2See comment G-23 above.


55% Design Comments:

Comment G26: Comment #7b made by R.B. Sedlak and the response to his comment states:"No health and safety training or medical exams will be required for the truckdrivers...". This conflicts with the 90% Cost Estimate information in Items 1and 2. Delete these costs for the truck drivers in the Cost Estimate.

Response: The reference to material supply truck drivers does not apply to BidItems 1 and 2. For truck bid items where bulk materials are to be suppliedin dump trucks, it was assumed that the drivers would not require trainingbecause they will not be required to leave their trucks and they will onlybe entering areas where clean fill has been applied. Training and physicalsindicated in Item 1 only apply to site-support people. No training orphysicals costs were allotted to miscellaneous construction efforts includedin Item 1.

0285-33-2 G-36

JHW03U7

DRAFTIt is anticipated that Item 2 tasks will be subcontracted. Therefore theseemployees will require health and safety training and physicals. Seeresponse to Comment Gl.

0285-33-2 G-37

48003J4S

DRAFTH. The following responses address Cost Estimate comments prepared by R. B. Sedlak,

CEMRO-ED-CC

Comment HI: The submitted estimate dated Jufy 1990s rejected. Check with COE ProjectManager for date of resubmittaL

Response: COE Project Manager was contacted and the resubmittal date correspondswith the 100% submittal

Comment H2: Adding profit does not change a Contract cost to a Project cost. See Sheet 2for items that need to be included for project cost estimates.

Response: Cost Growth, Contingency, SIOH, Engineering and Design, and QualityAssurance cost factors have been added.

Comment H3: No quantity takeoff sheets were included with the submitted estimate. Thisis required by the scope of services contract.

Response: Quantity takeoff sheets, where appropriate, have been included.

Comment H4: Costs were taken from USACOE Estimating Guide for Millcreek. This guideis not a pricing manual. All cost should be current and localized for the Eriearea.

Response: The cost estimate was revised to reflect current and localized costs.

Comment H5: Costs were taken from the Millcreek final WTP cost estimate. This estimateis at least 15 months old All costs should be current and localized for theErie area.

Response: The cost estimate was revised to reflect current and localized costs.

Comment Ho: The resubmitted estimate will be based on the 90% design documentsubmitted for review. Plans and specs need to be reviewed for all cost itemsthat were not included in the submitted estimate.

Response: The resubmittal estimate is based on the 100% design drawings, as per theCOE Project Manager.

Comment H7: All quotes need to be current and localized for the Erie area. The quotes fromthe 35% submittal were not updated, quotes that were incomplete are stillincomplete. Review and revise as required.

0285-33-2 H-38

DRAFTResponse: All quotes for the 100% submittal are current and localized for the Erie,

PA area.

Comment H& All future estimates will be submitted on one side onfy.

Response: Pursuant to verbal communications with R. Sedlak, three (3) sets ofone-sided copies will be supplied for the cost groups use.

Comment H9: On each recap sheet for the bid items is shown Home Office expense & profit.Show how the Home Office expense was determined. Profit should becomputed by the COE guidelines.

Response: Derivations of Home Office expense and profit have been included withthe 100% cost estimate, and were completed in accordance with COEguidelines.

Comment H10: Estimate assumes Prime Contractor to do all of the work. It appears somework items will be done by subcontractors. Review and revise as required.

Response: The Prime Contractor's capabilities are not known. Although assumingthat certain tasks will be undertaken by a subcontractor is speculative,several task items in the 100% submittal have been prepared with theassumption that a subcontractor will perform the work.

Comment Hll: Item No. 1

Comment Hll.a Pg. 1. What is correction factor that is shown on this page?

Response: This was a stray note that does not pertain to the cost estimate. It hasbeen deleted.

Comment Hll.b Pg. 1. Field labor is incomplete. No cost shown for Quality ControlManager, IH Tech, Project QC Manager, etc. Review specs.

Response: Requested revisions have been included.

Comment Hll.c Pg. 1. Ten hours/day • 6 days/wk is 10 hrx 6 D x 52 wkx 16 mo/12 mo= 4,160 hrs, not 3,840 hrs as used in the estimate. Revise.

Response: Revised as requested based on conversations with R. Sedlak.

Comment Hll.d Pg. 1. Does survey crew need to be on-site for the total 16 months? Reviewand revise as required.

0285-33-2 H-39

TResponse: It is anticipated that the survey crew will not be required on-site at all

times. A reduced labor schedule has been presented for the survey crew.

Comment Hll.e Pg. 1. Security is 24 hr/day x 365 d/yr = 8,760 hr/yr. Estimate showssecurity based on 16 months. Check to see if security will be required for thefull 24 month construction time.

Response: Based on conversations with R. Sedlak, it is assumed that security will beprovided for the 24-month project duration. Twenty-four hour per daysecurity will be provided during the inactive season (four months/yr) and14 hrs/day during the active construction season (eight months/yr).

Comment Hll.f Pg. 2. Change total hours and use current equipment rate.

Response: The equipment rates and usage were changed as agreed to duringconversations with R. Sedlak.

Comment Hll.g Pg. 3. Health & Safety Training and Medical1. Project is longer than one year. It appears that an annual physical will

be required. Review and revise as required.

Response: It is assumed that pre- and post-project physicals will be required foremployees working 16-24 months. In addition, an annual physical wasassumed for individuals working on the project in excess of 12 months.

Comment Hll.h Pg. 4. Provide current price quote for training and physicals.


Comment HI Li Pg. 5. Recompute hours for protective clothing; appears high.1. No cost shown for disposal of PPE.2. No cost shown for PPE for Contractor field people.3. No cost for emergency equipment ____

Response: The hours allotted for COE visitor inspecting was reduced by 50% for the100% submittal as agreed during conversation with R. Sedlak.

1. It was assumed that used personal protective equipment would bedisposed of on-site.

2. Costs have been included as requested.3. Revised costs for emergency equipment have been included as

requested.

Comment Hll.j Pg. 5. Show price breakdown for PPE.1. It appears some work items will be done in Level "C" and Level "B".

No cost shown. Review specs.

0285-33-2 H-40

Response: This comment applies to the COE visitor PPE cost section. Breakdowncosts for PPE have been provided as requested.1. Visitors should not be allowed in areas where Level B and C PPE are

required. Level D was assumed for protective equipment and it isnot likely conditions will require levels C or B.

Comment Hll.k Pg. 6. Submittal list incomplete. Review specs for submittal requirements.

Response: The submittal list was reviewed for completeness. The list of Miscella-neous Reports and Plans has been expanded to include Dust Control andSpill Control Plans. An Erosion Control Plan has been prepared for theContractor's use.

Comment HI 1.1 Pg. 8. Contractor trailer may be required to be costed out at 24 months if itis not mob. & demob'd during winter time. Review.1. No cost for Gov't trailer.

Response: The 100% submittal includes an estimate to rent a contractor trailer for24 months and includes an extra trailer for government employees.

Comment HlLrn Pg. 13. Decon Pad - PPE may be Mod D+. Review specs.

Response: Health and safety costs have been modified in accordance with the finalversion of the Health and Safety Design Analysis.

Comment HILn Pg. 13. No cost shown for staging area or temporary drum staging area.


Comment HIl.o Pg. 19. Include cost for safety sign.

Response: An estimate for a project sign was included on Sheet 19 of the90% estimate submittal (Item 1). Safety sign costs were added for the100% submittaL

Comment Hll.p Pg. 21. Provide equipment quote.

Response: An HVA equipment quote has been provided in the last section of thecost estimate along with other quotes. See Record of Verbal Quote, June18,1991 with General Metal Works (Dennis McMillan), Phone (513) 941-2229.

Comment Hll.q Pg. 22. No cost shown for dust control, spill and discharge control, erosioncontrol, dewatering, construction water, CPM or collection sump mod.

Response: Revised as requested. See response to Comment H.ll.k.

0285-33-2 H-41

'RAF IComment H12: Item No. 2

Comment Hlia DA indicates 57 acres to be cleared. Provide quantity takeoff sheets tosupport 60 acres.

Response: The cost estimate was revised to reflect the area cleared as indicated onthe clearing plan (Sheet C-2).

Comment H12.b Bulk Debris Removal • No cost shown for decon.1. No cost shown for off-site disposal

Response: All decontamination costs were included in the 90% submittal in Item 1,Sheet 15, Decontamination & Collection. No costs were indicated foroff-site disposal. It is assumed that the bulky debris will be salvage forrecoverable scrap.

Comment H12.C Cost for Level D+ PPE appears low. Review specs for Level D+ PPErequirements.

Response: References to and requirements for Level D+ have been removed inaccordance with D. Morrisey's requests (see Comment G8).

Comment H13: Item No. 3

Comment H13.a Provide quantity takeoff sheets for 152,000 cy of total fill1. DA indicates on-site cut of 72,000 cy and off-site clean fill of 150,000 cy.

Which is correct? Review and revise as required.

Response: The latest version of the cut and fill estimate has been included in therevised cost estimate. Quantities indicated in the design analysis reportwill correspond to the latest cut and fill estimate. The 150,000 cy quantityreflects the total amount of fill required (clean fill and on-site combined).

Comment H13.b Fill and Compaction. Need to include water truck. Where will constructionwater be obtained? Include cost in estimate.

Response: Costs for a water truck have been included for the 100% cost estimate.See Item 1, Sheet 9 for water supply.


Comment H14.a Estimate shows PPE at Level D+. Specs indicate drum removal at Level B.Which is correct? Review and revise as required.

0285-33-2 H-42

4:8803 i $3

Response: Level C is the assumed level of protection required. To date, all drumsencountered contained nonreactive slag. The specs and cost estimatehave been revised accordingly.

Comment H14.b No cost shown for staging area.


Comment HIS: Item No. 5

Comment H15.a Where will drums be disposed? Provide price quote.

Response: Current drum disposal costs have been provided along with a disposalfacility name as requested.


Comment H16.a Estimate shows cap to be 60 acres; DA indicates 57 acres. Which is correct?Provide quantity takeoff sheets.

Response: The 100% submittal was revised in accordance with the area depicted onthe 100% construction plans.

Comment H16.b Include water truck and construction if required.

Response: Water truck and construction water has been included in the 100% costestimate.

Comment H16.C Review specs for correct level of protection.

Response: Appropriate documents were reviewed for consistency and minimumlevels of personal protective equipment. Discrepancies and post-90%submittal changes were corrected where necessary.


Comment H17.a Review road detail on drawings. Quantities in estimate do not reflect currentdesign.

Response: Road details have been reviewed and quantities have been re-evaluatedas requested.

Comment H17.b Review road culvert detail on drawings. Quantities in estimate do not reflectcurrent design.

0285-33-2 H-43

44083*54

TResponse: Culvert details have been reviewed and quantities have been re-evaluated

as requested.

Comment H1& Item No. 8

Comment Hl&a Provide quantity takeoff sheets for side discharge weir, bypass, culvert, outletstructure and drainage improvements.

Response: The requested quantity takeoff sheets have been included.

Comment Hl&b All items in Comment H18.a need to be priced out by labor, material andequipment.

Response: All cost estimates in Item 8 have been priced out by labor, materials, andequipment.


Comment H19.a Estimates indicates 60 acres of cap to be seeded. Include all areas disturbedby construction for additional seeding.

Response: An estimate of the areas disturbed by construction and requiring seedinghas been added.

Comment H19.b Spec. Section 02490 - Trees, Shrubs, Ground Covers and Vines. No costshown in estimate for this spec requirements.

Response: A cost for trees and shrubs has been included as part of the 100% sub-mittal.

Comment H20: Item No. 10No Comments.


Comment H21.a Re-do. Obtain price quote. Appears this will be sub work.

Response: Current price quotes have been obtained for the 100% submittal.


Comment H22.a Will monitoring wells be sampled and tested?

Response: No.

0285-33-2 H-44

DRAJComment H23: Item No. 13 and Item No. 14

Comment H23.a No cost shown for staging area.

Response: Costs have been included for staging areas for the 100% submittal.

Comment H23.b Sample taking. Will Level "B" be required?

Response: See Response H14.a.

Comment H23.c Quotes were obtained for testing. Quote Sheet is almost two years old. Usecurrent cost quote.

Response: A recent fee schedule from an analytical laboratory has been provided forthe 100% submittal.

0285-33-2 H-4S

48003156

I. The following responses address comments prepared by O. M. Patney, CEMRO-ED-DF:

Comment II: No design calculations? Please provide design calculations for all thestructures for necessary review of the job. Without calculations the review isincomplete.

Response: Design calculations have been provided for review as part of the100% submittal.

Comment 12: Drawing C-16, Foundation and FRB Control Structure PlansAdd missing dimensions on the top; Le., north side of the structure.


Comment 13: Drawing C-17, Section 1Show location of Const Joints CJ-4.


Comment 14: Drawing C-17, Section 3Section 3, "Trash Screen See Detail __." Complete detail as required.


Comment 15: Drawing C-17, Section 3Need dimensions of concrete enclosure around the crushed stone fill


Comment /&• Drawing C-17, Section 4Indicate on drawing width of the concrete slab and the 12" crushed stone fillbelow.


Comment 17: Drawing C-17, Sections 1,2,3,4 and 5Show below all the concrete slabs and behind the walls the appropriatesymbols of ground or fill, as required.


0285-33-2 I-«

Mi803iS7

Comment 18: Drawing C-18Use only one symbol; either "L" or "A" for concrete box length.


Comment 19: Drawing C-18Use correct spelling of "mortar Pad" on Section 4 and railing assemblydetail A.


Comment 110: Drawing C-18Show placement of mortar pad at 45° slant below the base plate.


Comment 111: Drawing C-18, Section 1Show all missing elevations of box culvert including the base slab and roofslab.


Comment 112: Drawing C-18, Section 1Clarify if there are any expansion joints on 2J%£long WTP bypass culvert andshow the Joints location.

Response: An expansion joint is required mid-length. A note was added on SheetC-18 indicating the location of the expansion joint.

Comment 113: Drawing C-19, Typical Step Footing DetailShow the dimension that how much length of the intersecting bar extendsbeyond the other bar.


Comment 114: Drawing C-16, FRB Control Structure Plan

0285-33-2 M7

flH003ISS

DRAFDrawing shows Tfwatt EL 720.00; again it shows EL 720.00. Clarify whatthis is for.

Response: The additional elevation point was added to reference the height of thebackfill material within the confines of the structure's walls.

Comment 115: Drawing C-18, Section 4Change from "53x.5.7" Post to "S3x5.7 Post".


Comment 116: Drawing C-19, Note C-5Add at the end of this Note that "no more than one-half of the bars are lapspliced within a lap length".


Comment 117: Specification Section 02201, IndexDelete from Index the titles of the paragraphs which have been deleted fromthe description of the specification.


Comment 118: Specification Section 02201, Para. 2.6Para. 10 should not be deleted since para. 26 is part of this spec.

Response: Para. 2.6, "Capillary Water Barrier Materials," is also not required and hasbeen deleted.

Comment 119: Specification Section 02201, Para. 9.4Delete "building slabs from soils table in this paragraph.


Comment 120: Specification Section 03300, IndexDelete titles of the paragraphs which are not required in these specifications.


Comment 121: Specification Section 03300, Para. 6.10.1Conflicts with drawing. Drawings allow onfyASTMA615. Therefore, clarify.

0285-33-2 I-«

48-003159

DRAFResponse: Revised as requested.

Comment 122: Specification Section 03300, Para. 1.5Delete A185-85 and the description from this table.


Comment 123: Specification Section 03410, Pom. 9, Line 3Correction. Change from 5,00 psi to 5,000 psi


Comment 124: Specification Section 05500, Para, 9Drawings show onfy aluminum railing. Please clarify where are the steelrailings?

Response: Steel railings will not be used. This section has been revised accordingly.

Comment 125: GeneralPlease re-edit drawings and specifications as there are many things missing.

Response: Drawings and specifications were re-edited as requested.

0285-33-2 I-W

IB003160

DRA •s—*-n

J. The following responses address comments prepared by Jay Brady, CEMRO-ED-DK:

Comment Jl: Specification Section 02221The plans and specs do not show any type of new utility installation orexisting utility relocation. Either utility installation/relocation needs to beclearly shown on the drawings or this spec needs to be deleted. Also, if newwater lines or sanitary sewers are installed, then details and specifications foreach new system must be included in the package. Spec needs to be editedif used in job.

Response: New utilities were recently installed under the water treatment plantconstruction project and the Cap/FRB Plans have been revised to reflectthis information. The remainder of the site is not known to containutilities and no new utilities are required. A temporary water supply linewill be required for the decon pad and has been indicated on the 100%construction plans.

Comment J2: Specification Section 01420This spec talks about a yard hydrant at the decon pad used to supply water.Is this yard hydrant new or existing. If it is new, show new waterline ondwgs, and include a waterline spec.

Response: A waterline to the decon pad has been included on the construction plans.A waterline specification is contained in Section - Waterlines.

Comment J3: Specification Section 01420This spec mentions that the decon water will be discharged to City of Eriesewer. Is the water discharge to City of Erie sewer, the ground water treat.plant, or to depressions on-site. Please clarify.

Response: Decon water will not be discharged to the City of Erie sewer system.Decon water will be discharged into on-site depressions. The Contractorwill be required to maintain an open depression for disposal of potentiallycontaminated water generated during decon and dewatering activitiesthrough and up to completion of intrusive activities.

0285-33-2 J-SO

DRAFTK. The following responses address comments prepared by Borovicka, USEPA:

Comment Kl: Dwg. C-l, Monitoring WeUsShow table of wells with coordinates to aid in future locating of wells.


Comment K2: Dwg. C-2What is to be done with shaded area - if it is necessary to show limits ofclearing - dimensions and coordinates of comers should be shown, add'lclearing would be at gov't exp.

Would it be better to leave limits or clearing up to contractor, as to what isnecessary for construction?

Response: The clearing limits indicated are for the Contractor's reference. TheContractor may be required to clear additional areas for constructionaccess and equipment clearance. Similar wording has been added toDwg. C-2 as a note for clarification.

Comment K3: Dwg. C-3, LegendGeotechnical symbol shown for swamp.


Comment K4: Dwg. C-3As in Comment 2 - coordinates should be shown for

Response: Unable to verify content of comment with author.

Comment K5: Dwg. C-3, LegendLegend: Show security fence.


Comment Kfc Dwgs. C-4, 5,6,7,8Security fence onty shown on C-6, and onfypartiatty shown. Should it onlybe shown on Final grade Plan?

Response: The construction plans have been revised such that new perimeter securityfencing is shown on the final grade plan.

0285-33-2 K-51

ft

Comment K7: Dwg. C-lSome of the "proposed" structures are now "existing".

Response: Line weights and notation have been revised accordingly.

Comment K& Dwg. C-lAre there any special requirements for dewatering and closing "pond" areas.

Response: Dewatering of "pond" area to facilitate closure will not be required. Pondareas will be backfilled with select fill up to water level. Filling require-ments for wet areas is specified in Section on Grading.

Comment K9: Dwg. C-lDoes existing "permanent fence" remain or get removed.

Response: Various fencing situated within the site will be removed. The fencingaround the water treatment plant will remain.

Comment K10: Dwg. C-2, LegendSht. G-2 shows heavy line for new fence, etc. security fence shown aroundperimeter is not detailed as thick line.


Comment Kll: Specification Section 01100-22/21Delete "US Air Force".


Comment KIT: Specification Section 01200-1/2Construction right-of-way. 3 paragraphs shown for right-of-ways chooseapplicable one.


Comment K13: Specification Section 01420-1/3Is "City of Erie" sanitary sewer applicable?

Response: Erie sanitary sewers will not be used. This section has been revisedaccordingly.

0285-33-2 K-52

DRAFTL. The following responses address comments prepared by W. Battle,

CENAB-CO-H

Comment LI: Specification Section 01100-2, Para. 2.1Verify that liquidated damages is $500.00 per day.

Response: The above-referenced amount was used for the previous Millcreek GroundWater Extraction and Treatment System Contracts.

Comment L2: Specification Section 01100-3, Para. 2.5Restate or reward the intent of the paragraph. Shouldn't the ContractingOfficer have final approval on allowing Contractor to work? Clarify.

Response: Wording in this paragraph has been clarified to state that the ContractingOfficer will provide final approval on work during non-work periods.

Comment L3: Specification Section 02073-1, GeneralSection discusses removal of all bulky debris, but Section 01420-2, para. 8.2discusses decon for bulky debris identified for removal Is some bulky debristo remain on site? Coordinate. Section omitted from index.

Response: All bulky debris listed is to be removed from the site. Miscellaneousdebris such as staged drums containing inert slag, logs, stumps and junk isto be buried on-site.

Comment LA: Specification Section 02100-3, Para. 7.1Is lumber at site salable? Verify.

Response: Although the Contractor will have the option of off-site sale of lumber, thefelled trees are likely to be of minimal value and the Contractor willprobably have difficulty selling felled trees. In addition, the Contractor willhave to decontaminate all logs that have contacted site soils prior toremoval from the site. The cost for decontamination would probablyexceed the value of the timber.

Comment L5: Specification Section 02201-3, Para. 4.1 and 6.1Edit references to buildings, wells, and footings as appropriate.


0285-33-2 K-53

Comment L6V Specification Section 02201-4, Para. 6.3 and 6.4Edit or delete.

Response: Paragraph 6.3 is necessary for the flood retention basin footings. Para-graph 6.4 is necessary if shoring will be required during construction.Therefore, these paragraphs have been edited as necessary.

Comment L7: Specification Section 02212-5, Pom. 7.0Paragraph confusing as written. Please clarify.

Response: This paragraph has been revised in accordance with the 90% design reviewmeeting discussion. References to contaminated materials have beenremoved for clarity.

Comment L& Specification Section 02275-2, Pom. 5.0Specify whether geotextile is woven or non-woven.

Response: Woven geotextiles will be used for paved areas.

Comment L9: Specification Section 02100-2, Para. 4.0Verify that tree trimming and additional protection is required. If not thendelete.

Response: Tree trimming and protection is not required and has been deleted.

Comment L10: Specification Section 02100-3, Pom. 7.2Change commanding officer to contracting officer.


Comment HI: Specification Section 01470-1, Pom. 3.1In second sentence change altering to alerting.


0285-33-2 L-54

DRAFTM. The following response address comments prepared by Jerry Trease,

CEMRO-ED-EG Chemistry.

The following comments/responses apply to the Design Analysis Re-port (DAR)

Comment Ml: DAR TOC and Para. 2.3.12For consistency with specification section 01350, delete the word "Data" fromthe title on page U and page 38, respectively. Also delete "Data" from the 5thline of paragraph 2.3.12,


Comment M2: DAR, Para. 2.1.5.2.2Clarify whether Appendix. G as referenced at the bottom of page 11 and twiceon page 12 should be Appendix I.


Comment M3: DAR, Para. 2.1.5.3.1Line 3. Change "left bank" to read "west bank".


Comment M4: DAR, Para. 2.1.5.3.1Second paragraph. Suggested rewording for the 4th and 5th sentences: "...pass storm flows up to the culvert's design capacity. When storm flow inMarshall's Run exceeds the capacity of the control structure culvert, the waterlevels in Marshall's Run will start rising and..."


Comment MS: DAR, Pant 2.1.5.3.1Last sentence. The statement that This operating concept,..., is referred toas off-line" appears to be in conflict with the response to Gary J. Long'scomment #7 on the 35% Design Analysis (top of page C-16, Appendix C).

Response: The Design Analysis Report has been modified to agree with theexplanation of the operating concept presented in our response to GaryLang's 35% review comment.

0285-33-2 M-55

41003166

Comment M6: DAR, Para. 2.1.5.3.1Last paragraph, first sentence. I suggest adding the following phrase after theword "outlet" at the end of the sentence: "which is to be constructed acrossMarshall's Run."


Comment Ml: DAR, Table 2Clarify by footnote that the top two items in Table 2 are for the FRB "inlet",not the outlet


Comment M8: DAR, Para. 2.1.5.3.1Middle paragraph, second sentence. If the side-discharge weir forms theeastern boundary, it follows that the "low-level outlet" described in thesubsequent paragraph is outside and, therefore, not part of the FRB. Clarifyas appropriate.

Response: As described in Section 2.1.5.3.3, the "east bank of Marshall's Run will bebuilt up to prevent the discharge of backwater" from the FRB on toneighboring properties. During flood events in excess of the capacity ofthe low-level outlet, stored storm water may exceed the level of the side-discharge weir and back up into Marshall's Run. During these periods,which include the design storm (viz., 10-year), the low level outlet lieswithin the area impounded by the control structure and functions inconcert with the FRB to attenuate peak flood flows. The Design AnalysisReport has been revised to reflect this discussion.

Comment M9: DAR, Pant. 2.1.5.3.3 and Took 5Clarify the second paragraph (p. 18) and the second item in Table 5concerning the length of the HDPE liner and overlain mesh gabions. Basedon the Geotechnical Investigation (Appendix E, page 2) a low-permeabilitylining may extend from the control structure to the Water Treatment plantbypass culvert Sheets C-10 and C-ll of the Contract Plans show aHDPE/Gabion mattress extending the same distance as suggested in theGeotechnical Investigation. If this assign feature has been decided conclusive-ly, then the Channel description of item 1 and the Cross-Section of items 1and 2 need to be revised on Table 5. Also the wording of the secondparagraph would require clarification.

Response: The above-noted paragraph and Table 5 were revised accordingly.

0285-33-2 M-56

Comment Af 10: DAR, Table 5The Cross Section for the WTP culvert should be 45-46 for consistency withthe Cross Sections for HEC-2 Analysis shown on the Figure 1 of Appendix 1.


Comment Mil: DAR, Para. 2.1.8.1, pg. 22Top line. Clarify whether the word "not" should be "now".

Response: "Not" is correct. The remaining treed area will not be cleared and capped.

Comment M12: DAR, Para. 2.1.8.1, pg. 23First paragraph. Describe in the design analysis text what is meant by"impounded area".

Response: The impounded area refers to the area that is situated within the FRB andFRB embankments.

Comment M13: DAR, Para. 2.1.8.3.3First sentence. Clarify whether the permanent staging area will still beadjacent to the FRB even though the FRB has been relocated southward.

Response: The permanent staging area will be in close proximity to the FRB.

Comment M14: DAR, Para. 2.2.1Next to the last line. I believe this sentence would be more accurate if thewords "the FRB" were deleted.


Comment MIS: DAR, Para. 2.3.5.1Explain the rationale for conducting drum excavation from downwind towardsupwind. Wouldn 't this cause the equipment operator to be working in a cloudof dust and volatile organic vapors (if present)?

Response: Excavation of drums will start downwind and progress toward the upwinddirection. The operators are to work from the upwind side. Therefore,operators and workers will not be exposed to any vapors encounteredduring excavation and from excavated areas. The Design Analysis Reporthas been revised to reflect this discussion.

0285-33-2 \M7

Comment M16: DAR, Para. 2.3.5.4It isn 't obvious why wastes would be excavated subsequent to placement of thetopsoil layer. I would envision the cut and fill operations using on-sitematerial to precede placement of the topsoil layer. For this reason, I suggestthe first sentence under On-Site Disposal be deleted. Then, reword the lastsentence under On-Site Disposal as follows: "The location for On-SiteDisposal of wastes which do not exhibit the RCRA Characteristics ofHazardous Waste (Le. Ignitability, Corrosivity, Reactivity, and ToxicityCharacteristic - TCLP) as described in 40CFR 261.24, July 1,1990, shall beproposed by..."

Response: In the event that the Contractor is required to regrade a portion of thelandfill due to settlement or erosion, there is a possibility that contaminat-ed materials may be generated or encountered. A provision for thissituation must be included. References to RCRA characteristics have beenadded as requested. The Design Analysis Report has been revised toreflect this discussion.

Comment M17: DAR ReferencesCorrect the date on item #6.


Comment M1& DAR, Appendix BPage 3 of the Wetlands Delineation Narrative indicates that "All wetlands onsite are shown on Map A." The map at the end of the photolog should havethe following labels added: MAP A; WETLAND AREA B; and WETLANDAREAG.

Response: References to the wetland mapping and map have been revised forconsistency. Wetland areas B and G have been noted accordingly.

The following comments/responses apply to the Site Specific Quality Management Plan(SSQMP):

Comment M19: SSQMP GeneralThe Submittal name "Chemical Quality Control Plan" and Correspondingacronym "COCP" has been changed by the Oct. 1990 issue of the COEengineering regulation ER1110-1-263. I suggest that a global search be doneon all the design documents especially the SSQMP and the many specificationsections which reference either the submittal name or the acronym or bothand substitute the following, respectively:

CDAPChemical Data Acquisition Plan

0285-33-2 M-58

ItM3!69

DRAFTNOTE: The word contractor often precedes the submittal name, and shouldbe retained if it is currently part of the submittal name as currently written intthe design documents and spec, sections.

Response: The SSQMP and related documents have been revised as requested.

Comment M20: SSQMP 1.2.3Last reference on page 1-3. Delete the word 'Draft' and replace "September1988" with 'October 1990." Also insert "AppendixF, ER 1110-1-263,"immediately after the comma which follows the word "Waste."


Comment M21: SSQMP 1.2.3Delete the reference: "Proposed Interim Guidance on Field QC/QA Rates,Draft September 1988."


Comment M22: SSQMP 3.1Line 7. Capitalize the "I* on laboratory and change the word "Plan" to"Manual" Finally, change the acronym from QQMP" to "LQMM."


Comment M23: SSQMP 3.2

Comment M23a: Insert the following two sentences at the start of paragraph 3.1: "The ResidentEngineer (RE) of the local COE Construction district f division should beaware that the laboratory evaluation process can be time consuming and thatthe RE plays an active roll in the initiation procedure. Appendix A at theend of the section, Chemical quality Management, in the specificationsoutlines the initiation procedures as well as the three implementation stepsof the COE Commercial Laboratory Validation process."


Comment M23b: Line 1. Insert word "implementation" after "The". Also change"CEMRD-ED-GC" to CEMRD-EP-EC."


0285-33-2 M-59

DRAFICommentM23c: Line 2. Change "lab QMP* to "LQMM."


Comment M23d: Line 3. Insert the following sentences to replace the second sentence:"Ordinarily each step in the implementation procedures is completedbefore the subsequent step is initiated If the Capabilities of thelaboratory appear adequate to meet project requirements based on reviewof the LQMM by CEMRD-EP-EC and the QA Laboratory, matrixspecific and anafyte specific performance audit (PA) samples will beprovided through CEMRD-EP-EC for analysis by the laboratory. Uponsuccessful completion of the PA samples, a representative ofCEMRD-EP-EC and for the QA Laboratory (acting as an agent forCEMRD-EP-EC) will inspect the Contractor's laboratory and Organiza-tion."


Comment M23e: Lines 6 and 9. Delete the two following sentences:"In addition,... normally required.""The inspection... QA Laboratory."


Comment M23f: Line 12. Change "Appendix A'to "Appendix C".


Comment M24: SSQMP, Para. 4.0, SSQMP, Pom. 4-1 _-Same as Comment M20 with respect to the last reference in paragraph 4.0.


Comment M25: SSQMP, Para. 4.1.1Line 7. Change "Contract' to 'Contracting.'


Comment M26: SSQMP, Para. 4.1.2Line 9. Same as Comment #25.


0285-33-2 M-60

Comment M27: SSQMP, Para. 4.1.1Line 3. Verify the last three digits of the referenced EPA document, thencorrect as appropriate either this paragraph, or paragraph 2.3.5.3, page 34 ofthe Design Analysis Report

Response: The EPA document number was verified and the Design Analysis Reporthas been revised as requested.

Comment M2& SSQMP, Pom. 4.1.2Line 5. Verify the last three digits of the referenced EPA document, thencorrect as appropriate either this paragraph, or paragraph 2.3.5.3, page 34 ofthe Design Analysis Report

Response: See response to Comment M27.

Comment M29: SSQMP, Table QM-5Clarify the Holding Tone for TCLPfor consistency with the following Tablewhich was taken from 40 CRF 261, Appendix II7-1-90 Edition. This Tableis also consistent with the TCLP revisions, Federal Register, 26994, VoL 55,No. 126, June 29, 1990.

SAMFLB MAXIMUM HOLDING TIMES (DAYS)

VoteihiSranotataMAKWVMMafcBtaqxMaaqr

FIOHB Pteid CottittiMToe TCLP

BmrthM

1414251»

From: TCLTBanaiotTB Pnputtiw

Senate

NA7NANA

HA - Not appttaMi

From: FrepwiwEuractm

To: Datmiatta*AnityM

14402tin

ToulBip«cdTim*

216156MO

Response: Table QM-5 has been revised as requested.

Comment M30: SSQMP, Table QM-5As indicated by the "**", next to the Column "Preservative", the informationin the table is for preservation of aqueous samples. Therefore, underPreservation of TCLP, the description should be as follows:

"Cool to 4° for all parameters for VOA also: 4 drops cone. HCl orNaHS(4topH <2"


0285-33-2

*«00 31 72 I

DRAFTComment Af31: SSQMP, Table QM-5

Clarify the second sentence of the footnote "**"by inserting "(except f)" afterthe word "preservative".


Comment M32: SSQMP, Table QM-5The following TCLP references is suggested to replace the references shownat he bottom of the Table: "TCLP as described in 40 CFR, Part 261,Appendix II, 7-1-90 Edition. See also Federal Register, VoL 55, 11862,3-29-90, and revision there to VoL 55, 26987, 6-29-90."


Comment M33: SSQMP, Para. 4.3.1Last bullet Replace the word "side" with "right"


Comment M34: SSQMP, Pom. 4.33Last paragraph, second sentence. Add the following phrase at the end of thesecond sentence: "on the Cooler Receipt Form, which is available for theQA Laboratory."


Comment M35: SSQMP, Para. 5.2.1.2It is anticipated that New England Division (NED) Laboratory will be theQA Laboratory for mis Construction project Please correct the acronymsand the shipping address of the last paragraph after contacting Brian Condikeof the NED Laboratory (505) 928-4238 for the shipping address.

Response: The appropriate address was obtained and the paragraph has been revisedas requested.

Comment M36: SSQMP, Para, a.1.2Replace the title and contents paragraph 9.1.2 including sub-paragraphs 9.1.2.1 through 9.1.212 with the following title and description:

9.1.2 Chemical Quality Assurance Report The CQAR is written by theUSACE Quality Assurance Laboratory and sent to the Contracting Officer

0285-33-2 M-«2

DRAFTwithin 30 days of receipt of the contractor's data and completion of thequality assurance data. This report should address the following concerns:

a. Overall performance of the laboratory - commercial or USAGE (seeComment #M37) - that analyzed the site primary samples,

b. Detailed evaluation of the contractor's data • laboratory blanks,replicate analyses, agreement between duplicates/splits, acceptability ofspike and surrogate recoveries,

c. Comparison of the quality assurance analytical results with those ofthe project laboratory,

d. Any other problems or issues encountered such as packing andshipment errors, chain of custody failures, etc.

e. Lessons learned.

Tables should be prepared which compare the results for duplicates, splitsand blanks sent to both laboratories. The quality assurance data withinternal quality control results should be appended.

Guidance provided herein is based on Appendix E ofUSAGE ER 1110-1-263, ChemicalData Quality Management for HazardousWaste Remedial Activities, October 1990.


Comment M37: General"USAGE" is the current acronym for "COE." If the Corps project managerand your organization agree to make a global change to all the Contractdocuments for this Cap Design, then use "USAGE" where indicated forComment #36. If it is not practical at this late state in the MillcreekSuperfund Site Remediation to effect such a global acronym change, thensubstitute "COE" where indicated in Comment #36.

Response: The Corps acronym was revised to USACE in each of the documents, asrequested.

Comment M3& SSQMP, Pom. 9.2.2Lines 2 and 3. Insert the word "report" after the acronym "DQC".


0285-33-2 M-63

880031

DRAFTComment M39: SSQMP, Para. 9.2.3

Third line from end. Delete the "a" in the word "abe".


Comment M40: Site Maintenance Plan, Appendix A, Para. 1.2.2, page 02245-1Clarify what "Part 3.4" refers to.

Response: This statement was revised to refer to paragraph 6.4 in this specificationsection.

The following comments/responses apply to the Specifications (Spec.)

Comment M41: Spec. IndexClarify the status of the spec number as given in the index with the specnumber within the specifications for the following numbers:

01530 (Compare 01720)02110 (Compare 02073)*02243 (missing in specs)02410 (shown deleted in index, but present in specs)

* First word of Title is different.

Response: Clarified and revised as necessary.

Comment M42: Spec. Index 01110-1, Item 6"67" should be "6".


Comment M43: Spec. Section OHIO, Pom. 1.1

Comment M43a: Line 8Insert the word "for" in front of the word "site" and insert a semicolon afterthe word "personnel."


Comment M43b: Line 12Insert a comma after "analyses".


0285-33-2 M-64

&80031 75

DRAFTComment M44: Spec. Section OHIO, Para. 5.2

Since item 4.2 included the payment for excavation, excavation should bedeleted from Item 5.2.


Comment M45: Spec. Section OHIO, Para. 5.3

Comment M45a: Line 3Move the word "of" in front of the word "drums".


Comment M45b: Line 4Delete the word "actually".


Comment M46: Spec. Section OHIO, Para. 14.1Lines 2 and 3. Clarify the words "drums and soils".


Comment M47: Spec. Section 01150, Pom. 3The last sentence in paragraph 3 indicates that "The special project procedureplans are referenced and discussed within the following paragraphs." Clarifywhy the "Drum and Contaminated Materials Handling Plan" is notreferenced and discussed. —-

Response: Reference to "Drum and Contaminated Materials Handling Plan" wasadded as requested.

Comment M4& Spec. Section 01150, Para. 3.4Please indicate where, "Specifications pertaining to management of contami-nated on-site water are provided in Section: CHEMICAL QUALITYMANAGEMENT."

Response: Requirements stated in this paragraph were not necessary and wereremoved.

0285-33-2 M-6S

DRAFTComment M49: Spec. Section 01150, Para. 3.7.2

Comment M49a: Line 3Replace the comma with a period and capitalize the "T" on "the".


Comment M49b: Line 4Insert "are" after the word "procedures''.


Comment M50: Spec. Section 01150, Pom. 3.8.1, Line 3Replace the words "metals" with the word "methods".


Comment MSI: Spec. Section 01350, Para. 1Same as Comment #19, for all paragraphs of all specifications.

Response: Revised as requested. See response to Comment M19.

Comment M52: Spec. Section 01350, Pom. 2.1Delete the word "Draft" and replace "September 1988" with the following:"Appendix F of ER1110-1-263, October 1990."


Comment M53: Spec. Section 01350, Para. 2,8Replace the Name and date of the publication with the following: "ChemicalData Quality Management For Hazardous Waste Remedial Activities,"ER1110-1-263, October 1990.


Comment M54: Spec. Section 01350, Para. 2.3Update the reference in accordance with Comment #32.


0285-33-2 NW6

DRAFTComment M55: Spec. Section 01350, Para. 3.2

Coordinate the submittal time frame for this submittal with the requirementgiven in paragraph 3.3, Section 01020, page 1, for this submittal to besubmitted five working days prior to the Pre-Work Conference which is to bewithin 30 calendar days after the NTP. Note: The 28 calendar days allowedin paragraph 1, Section 01150-1, should also be coordinated.

Response: Submittal times have been revised, as required, to indicate a submittaltime frame of 30 days.

Comment M56: Spec. Section 01350, Pant. 3.3.1Insert "Chemical Data Quality Objectives" as a new element between existingelements 4 and 5.


Comment M57: Spec. Section 01350, Pan 3.3.1Rename existing element 10 and 11 as follows:10. Data Analysis, Validation, and Reporting11. Contractor Reporting Requirements


Comment M5& Spec. Section 01350, Pom. 3.4.1Insert the following sentence after the first sentence: The laboratoryperforming the air analyses by NIOSH methods must be an AmericanIndustrial Hygiene Association (AIHA) accredited and/or a successfulNational Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) proficiencytest program participant for the appropriate analyses.


Comment M59: Spec. Section 01350, Pom. 3.4.1Add the following sentence at the end of paragraph: "Appendix 01350-A,"Commercial Laboratory Validation for a Construction Project," outlines theinitiation and implementation procedures of the COE commercial laboratoryvalidation process."


Comment M60: Spec. Section 01350, IndexIdentify APPENDIXA and title as given in Comment 59* as an ATTACH-MENT at bottom of index.

0285-33-2 M-67

DRAFTResponse: Revised as requested.

Comment M61: Spec. Section 01350, Pom. 3.4.2Replace with the following: "The Contractor shall be aware that thelaboratory evaluation process can be time consuming. If the Contractorselects a laboratory which does not have a current (within one year) COEvalidation for all anafytes and matrices for which the Contractor plans tohave analyzed by that laboratory, then mat laboratory must be validated priorto approval of the Contractor's CDAP. The Contractor shall submit thenames of all testing laboratories to the Contracting Officer for approval assoon as possible after contract award to ensure that the laboratory evaluationprocedure does not cause a delay in the project schedule."


Comment M62: Spec. Section 01350, Para. 3.4Insert the following sentences as two separate subparagraphs between existingsubparagraphs 3.4.2 and 3.4.3:

"The Contractor shall coordinate with the Resident Engineer of the localCOE Construction Division/District to initiate the commercial laboratoryvalidation process as described in the initiation procedure of Appen-dix 01350-A."

"Samples may not be subcontracted to another laboratory withoutknowledge and approval of the Contracting Officer and unless the secondlaboratory is validated for the parameters concerned."


Comment M63: Spec, Section 01350, Pom. 3.4.4, Lines 2 and 3Delete the dash after COE and replace "EDCC" with "EP-EC."


Comment M64: Spec. Section 01350, Pom. 3.4Insert the following sentence as a separate subparagraph between existingsubparagraphs 3.4.4 and 3.4.5: "After analysis of the anafyte and matrixspecific performance audit (PA) samples has been successfully completed, arepresentative of CEMRD-EP-EC and for the COE QA Laboratory (actingas an agent for CEMRD-EP-EC) reserves the right to conduct an approxi-mate 6-hour on-site laboratory inspection."


0285-33-2 M-«S

/!Jtii3 f 79

DRArrComment M65: Spec. Section 01350, Appendix

The four pages 26, 27, 28, and 29 should be added as Appendix 01350-A atthe end of Section 01350. The term "COE" may be used in place of"USAGE" if Comment #37 is determined to be impractical


Comment M66: Spec. Section 01350, Para. 3Add the following paragraph as a separate subparagraph between existingsubparagraphs 3.5 and 3.6.

Chemical Data Quality Objectives. This section of the CDAP shallinclude a description of the general scope of work and relevant back-ground information as it relates to the acquisition of chemical analyticaldata. State the objectives of the project: what questions must beanswered and what decisions must be made; one specific objective maybe completion of the USAGE Hazardous Ranking System. Describe thelevel and extent of chemical data required to answer questions andsupport decisions during the project: the approach for sample collection,sample analysis, and QA/QC which will result n the required chemicaldata. The extent of analytical effort and data validation procedures tobe required must be specified. Guidance for this requirement can befound in "Data Quality Objectives for Remedial Response Activities",EPA 540/G-87/003.


Comment M67: Spec. Section 01350, Pom. 3.6.1 and DAR

Comment M67a: Soil and Chemical Waste should be added to the list of sample matrices.


Comment M67b: Clarify whether the air and chemical waste sampling protocols will be fullydescribed in the SHERP and Drum and Contaminated Materials HandlingPlan, respectively, in addition to or in place of the CQCP Sampling protocol,

Response: Sampling protocols for air are described in the Drum and ContaminatedMaterials Handling Plan only and chemical wastes in the Drum Plan andCQCP.

Comment M67c: Clarify whether sediment from the decon pad, dewatering sediment, etc. needto be sampled and analyzed. If not, how will they be disposed. If so, whatparameters and frequency of analysis?

0285-33-2 M-69

Response: Decon and dewatering sediment will be placed as fill under the topsoilcap.

Comment M67d: Should a separate specification section be considered for specificationsaddressing control of the dewatering water and decontamination water, Le.,because of the proposed relocation of Marshall's Run (which wasn'tconceived of when the WTP specifications were developed), significantlyhigher levels of contamination than originally anticipated could reach theWTP. What controls (analytical tests and frequency) are needed to allow theCO to direct the Contractor to curtail or stop the dewatering/excavationactivities.

Response: Dewatering and decon water will be disposed of in depressions on thesite. The WTP will not be used for disposal of dewatering and deconwater. Therefore, the referenced specifications will not be required.

Comment M67e: Paragraph 3.3, Section 02221 indicates that prior CO approval is needed forsurface water and dewatering water to be disposed via the existing drainagefacilities. What "tools" will the CO need/use to make this determination?

Response: Paragraph 3.3 was revised to indicate that disposal of dewatering watersinto existing drainage facilities will not be allowed. Dewatering water willbe disposed of into on-site depressions.

Comment M67f: To address the concerns described in parts c, d, and e of this question, Isuggest paragraph 2.3.10, page 37 of the Design Analysis Report be expandedto consider the following areas:• Design limitations of the WTP with respect to contaminant influent and

effluent criteria.• Total Suspended Solids _-• WTP Treatment Capacity• Possible use of test data from already specified analyses in the WTP

specifications

Response: As indicated in the Response to Comment M67d, the WTP will not beused for disposal of dewatering or decon water.

Comment M6& Spec Section 01350, Para. 3.6.2.2, Line 2Reword as follows: form(s) at the time of sample collection. Chain-of-custody form(s) shall accompany the samples when shipping the samples to"


0285-33-2 M-70

O 3181

Comment M69: Spec. Section 01350, Para. 3.6.7.3Illustrate or explain what is meant by the term "three-part."

Response: A "three-part" chain-of-custody form refers to a three-copy multiple form.Typically, a carbon copy is retained by the sampler, the second carbon isretained by the lab, and the original is returned by the lab for archivingpurposes.

CommentM70: Spec. Section 01350, Para. 3.6.7.4The Chain-of-Custody form illustrated in the COE Sample Handling Protocolalso includes sample preservation as an item to be completed.

Response: The paragraph was revised to include this requirement.

Comment M71: Spec. Section 01350, Pom. 3.6.8

Comment M71a: Lines 6 through 10.Supply a new 3-digitparagraph number (3.6.11) and heading (Cooler ReceiptForm) in front of the sentence starting with the word "When". Move this newparagraph between existing paragraphs 3.6.10 and 3.6.11, renumberingexisting paragraphs 3.6.11, 3.6.12, and 3.6.13. Then change "CustodyRecord" at the end of the second sentence to "Cooler Receipt Form."


Comment M71b: Add the following sentences to the end of the new subparagraph justdescribed: "The Contractor shall describe the details for checking theincoming samples using the COE "Cooler Receipt Form" to document thequality of the field sampling, sample handling, packing and shipping, andsample custody documentation. A sample Cooler Receipt Form is attachedat the end of this section.


Comment MTlc: Identify the "Cooler Receipt Form" as an attachment in the index on top ofpage 01350-1.


Comment M72: Line 5Change acronym "USCOE" to either "COE" or "USAGE" depending onComment #37 incorporation.

0285-33-2 M-71

/18003 j 82

Response: The Corps acronym has been revised to indicate USAGE.

Comment M73: Spec. Section 01350, Para. 3.7.3.1, Last LineInsert the word "aqueous" in front of the word "field".


Comment M74: Spec. Section 01350, Para. 3.7.3.2

Comment M74a: Replace the first sentence with the following sentences:Two sets (QA and QC) of splits or duplicates, as appropriate for the samplematrix and analytical parameters, shall be collected at a rate of ten percentof the samples collected which require analysis for off-site disposal purposesand for samples collected for air analysis by EPA Methods. Air samples forQA/QC shall be collected from a downwind air monitoring station."


Comment M74b: Divide paragraph 3.7.3.2 into three 4-digit subparagraphs for the threeseparate topics in that paragraph (Le., 3.7.3.2, 3.7.3.3, etc.)


Comment M74c: A table showing sample matrix, sample frequency, schedule of analyses, andnumber of QA/QC samples should be developed after the uncertainties ofComment #67 are resolved. Without parameter lists, samples frequencies,and sample matrices as minimums, a cost estimate for analytical testingseems nebulous.

Response: See Responses to Comments M67a through M67f.

Comment M75: Spec. Section 01350, Para. 3.7.3.1 and 3.7.3.2Consider making paragraph 3.7.3.1 and the first topic under para-graph 3.7.3.2 subparagraphs 3.7.3.1.1 and 3.7.3.1.2 under the followingheading:3.7.3.1 - Field QA/QC Samples


Comment M76: Spec. Section 01350, Para. 3.8.1.2

0285-33-2 M-72

T

DRAFTme vuuuuuun uutiuuun prvceuums, tmpusmemanun proceawes anaapproximate timetable. The Contractor shall ensure his laboratory(s) arevalidated by COE before beginning sample analysis.


Comment M77: Spec. Section 01350, Para. 3.8.1.3 and 3.8.1.4Replace paragraphs 3.8.1.3 and 3.8.1.4 with the new paragraph given ontyped pages 38 and 39 of my comments.

Response: Pages 38 and 39 have not been supplied.

0285-33-2 M-73