A Federal Approach to Contaminated Sites Contaminated Sites Management Working Group Government Gouvernement

A Federal Approach to Contaminated Sites Contaminated Sites Management Working Group Government Gouvernement
A Federal Approach
to Contaminated Sites
Contaminated Sites Management Working Group
Government Gouvernement
of Canada
du Canada
A Federal Approach
to Contaminated Sites
Contaminated Sites Management Working Group
By:
Dillon Consulting Limited
Ottawa, Ontario
November 1999
A Federal Approach
to Contaminated Sites
A Publication of the CSMWG — Printed November 2000
The Contaminated Sites Management Working Group (CSMWG) established under the auspices of the Federal Committee
on Environmental Management Systems (FCEMS), is an interdepartmental committee established to investigate, propose
and develop a common federal approach to the management of contaminated sites under federal custody.
The CSMWG is currently co-chaired by the Department of National Defence and Environment Canada. Activities of the
working group are cost shared between participating departments.
Participating Departments
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada
Canadian Heritage/Parks Canada
Department of Finance
Environment Canada
Fisheries and Oceans Canada
Foreign Affairs and International Trade
Indian and Northern Affairs Canada
National Defence
Natural Resources Canada
Public Works and Government Services Canada
Solicitor General/Royal Canadian Mounted Police
Transport Canada
Treasury Board Secretariat
ii
Contaminated Sites
Management Working Group
A Federal Approach
to Contaminated Sites
Table of Contents
1
2
Introduction ............................................................................................................5
1.1
Background ......................................................................................................................................5
1.2
Objective and Scope .........................................................................................................................5
1.3
Intended Use ....................................................................................................................................5
1.4
Approach Process ............................................................................................................................6
1.5
Reporting Requirements ..................................................................................................................6
Steps for Addressing a Contaminated Site...................................................................9
2.1
Step 1 — Identify Suspect Sites ....................................................................................9
2.2
Step 2 — Historical Review ........................................................................................10
2.3
Step 3 — Initial Testing Program .................................................................................12
2.4
Step 4 — Classify Contaminated Site Using the CCME
National Classification System .......................................................................16
2.5
Step 5 — Detailed Testing Program ..............................................................................18
2.6
Step 6 — Reclassify the Site Using CCME National Classification System .............................19
2.7
Step 7 — Develop Remediation/Risk Management Strategy ...............................................19
2.7.1
The Guideline Approach (CCME Method 1 and CCME Method 2) ...........................22
2.7.2
The Risk Assessment Approach (CCME Method 3) .............................................22
2.8
Step 8 — Implement Remediation/Risk Management Strategy ...........................................25
2.9
Step 9 — Confirmatory Sampling and Final Reporting ......................................................28
2.10 Step 10 — Long-Term Monitoring (Optional) ...................................................................29
References .............................................................................................................................31
Appendix A: Guidance Tools — Steps for Addressing Contaminated Sites .........................33
Appendix B: Generic Statement of Work for a Historical Review ........................................35
Appendix C: Generic Statement of Work for an Initial Testing Program..............................41
Appendix D: Generic Statement of Work for a Detailed Testing Program............................47
Appendix E: Generic Statement of Work for a Human Health and/or
Ecological Risk Assessment..............................................................................53
Contaminated Sites
Management Working Group
iii
A Federal Approach
to Contaminated Sites
List of Figures
iv
Figure 1
Steps for Addressing a Contaminated Site..........................................................................................7
Figure 2
Risk Component’s Relationship.........................................................................................................15
Figure 3
Example of a Human Health Conceptual Site Model for the Movement of Contaminant(s)
Bound to the Surface Soils to a Person ...........................................................................................15
Figure 4
Example of a Human Health Conceptual Site Model .........................................................................20
Figure 5
Stage in the Development of a Remediation/Risk Management Strategy..........................................21
Contaminated Sites
Management Working Group
A Federal Approach
to Contaminated Sites
Glossary of Terms
A
Adverse Effect. An undesirable or harmful effect to an
organism, indicated by some result such as mortality,
altered food consumption, altered body and organ weights,
altered enzyme concentrations or visible pathological
changes.
Approach. The philosophy and procedures used by a
regulatory agency to establish environmental quality
criteria. The components of the approach can include the
types of information considered, the management goal
underlying the criteria, relative priorities assigned to
various types of information and the ways that information
is combined to set the criteria.
B
Background. An area not influenced by chemicals released
from the site under evaluation.
Background Concentration. The concentration of a
chemical substance occurring in media removed from the
influence of industrial activity at a specific site and in an
area considered to be relatively unaffected by industrial
activity.
Blank. The measured value obtained when a specific
component of the sample is not present.
Conceptual Model. Our idealization of a hydrogeological
system on which we can base a mathematical model.
The conceptual model includes assumptions on the
hydrostratigraphy, material properties, dimensionality, and
governing processes.
Contaminant. Any physical, chemical, biological or
radiological substance in air, soil or water that has an
adverse effect. Any chemical substance whose
concentration exceeds background concentrations or
which is not naturally occurring in the environment.
Contaminated Site. A contaminated site is defined as
a site at which substances occur at concentrations:
(1) above background levels and pose or are likely to pose
an immediate or long-term hazard to human health or
the environment, or (2) exceeding levels specified in
policies and regulations.
Contamination. The introduction into soil, air or water of a
chemical, organic or radioactive material or live organism
that will adversely affect the quality of that medium.
Criteria. Numerical standards that are established for the
concentrations of chemical substances in soil,
groundwater, surface water, and sediments that relate to
the suitability of a site for specific land uses and land use
categories. Criteria are also often referred to as guidelines.
D
C
Clean-up. The removal of a chemical substance or
hazardous material from the environment to prevent,
minimize or mitigate damage to public heath, safety or
welfare, or the environment, that may result from the
presence of the chemical substance or hazardous material.
The clean-up is carried out to specified clean-up criteria.
Concentration. The amount of chemical or substance in a
given environmental medium.
Decommissioning. The closure of an industrial facility
followed by the removal of process equipment, buildings
and structures.
E
Ecological Risk Assessment. The process of defining and
quantifying risks to non-human biota and determining the
acceptability of those risks.
Environmental Site Assessment (ESA). A systematic due
diligence process that includes studies, services and
investigations to plan, manage and direct assessment, and
decommissioning and clean-up actions.
Contaminated Sites
Management Working Group
1
A Federal Approach
to Contaminated Sites
Exposure. The contact between a contaminant and an
individual or population.
Monitoring. Observing the change in geophysical,
hydrogeological or geochemical measurement with time.
Exposure Pathway. The route by which a receptor comes
into contact with a contaminant. Exposure pathways
include ingestion, dermal absorption or inhalation.
Monitoring Well. A well that is used to extract
groundwater for physical, chemical or biological testing,
or to measure water levels.
G
N
Generic Criteria. Numerical values for the concentration
of chemical substances in soil, groundwater, surface
water and sediments considered safe for a broad range of
receptors, site conditions and regions under defined land
uses.
Natural Environment. The air, land and water, or any
combination or part thereof.
Groundwater. All subsurface water that occurs beneath the
water table in rocks and geologic formations that are fully
saturated.
Guideline-Based Approach. The remediation of a site
to generic soil, groundwater, sediment and surface
water criteria developed by federal or provincial or other
regulatory authorities. Under this method, established
environmental quality guidelines are adopted “as is” as
the site-specific remediation objectives.
H
Hazard. The adverse impact on health or property which
results from the presence of or exposure to a substance.
The significance of the adverse effect depends on the
nature and severity of the hazard and the degree to which
the effect is reversible.
Human Health Assessment. The process of defining and
quantifying risks and determining the acceptability of those
risks to humans.
M
Media. The fundamental components of the environment
including water, sediment, soil and biota.
Migration. The movement of chemicals, bacteria and
gases in flowing water or vapour in the subsurface.
Model. A conceptual, mathematical or physical system
intended to represent a real system. The behaviour of a
model is used to understand processes in the physical
system to which it is analogous.
2
O
Objective. A numerical limit or narrative statement that has
been established to protect and maintain a specified use of
soil or water at a particular site by taking into account sitespecific conditions. The numerical limits or narrative
statement that are established to protect and maintain the
specified uses of water, sediment or soil at a particular site.
Objectives may be adopted from generic criteria or
formulated to account for site-specific conditions.
P
Pathway. The route along which a chemical substance or
hazardous material moves in the environment.
Permafrost. Perennially frozen ground in areas where the
temperature remains at or below 0°C for two or more years
in a row.
R
Receptor. The person or organisms, including plants,
subjected to chemical exposure.
Remedial Action Plan. A plan to bring about the
restoration or clean-up of a site.
Remediation. The improvement of a contaminated site to
prevent, minimize or mitigate damage to human health or
the environment. Remediation involves the development
and application of a planned approach that removes,
destroys, contains or otherwise reduces the availability of
contaminants to receptors of concern.
Remediation Criteria. Numerical limits or narrative
statements pertaining to individual variables or substances
in water, sediment or soil which are recommended to
Contaminated Sites
Management Working Group
A Federal Approach
to Contaminated Sites
protect and maintain the specific use of contaminated
sites. When measurements taken at a contaminated site
indicate that the remediation criteria are being exceeded,
the need for remediation is indicated.
Restoration. Improvement of the quality of, remediation,
clean-up, or other management of soil, groundwater or
sediment so that the site will be suitable for the intended
use.
Risk Assessment. The scientific examination of the nature
and magnitude of risk to define the effects on both human
and other receptors of the exposure to contaminant(s).
Risk-Based Approach. An approach based on a detailed
evaluation of hazard and exposure potential at a particular
site. Risk assessment is an important tool to use where,
for example, national criteria do not exist for a
contaminant, where clean-up to guideline-based criteria is
not feasible for the targeted land use, where guidelinebased objectives do not seem appropriate given the sitespecific conditions, where significant or sensitive receptors
of concern have been identified or where there is
significant public concern, as determined by the lead
agency.
Risk Management. The selection and implementation of a
strategy of control of risk, followed by monitoring and
evaluation of the effectiveness of that strategy. Risk
management may include direct remedial actions or other
strategies that reduce the probability, intensity, frequency
or duration of the exposure to contamination. The latter
may include institutional controls such as zoning
designations, land use restrictions, or orders. The decision
to select a particular strategy may involve considering the
information obtained from a risk assessment.
Implementation typically involves a commitment of
resources and communication with affected parties.
Monitoring and evaluation may include environmental
sampling, post-remedial surveillance, protective
epidemiology, and analysis of new health risk information,
as well as ensuring compliance.
S
Saturated Zone. The zone where voids in the soil or rock
are filled with water at greater than atmospheric pressure.
In an unconfined aquifer, the water table forms the upper
boundary of the saturated zone.
Contaminated Sites
Management Working Group
Screening. A rapid analysis to determine if further action
(e.g. detailed analysis or clean-up) is warranted.
Site Management/Remediation Strategy. The
implementation of a strategy or measures to control or
reduce the level of risk estimated by the risk assessment.
Site-Specific Clean-up Criteria. Numerical values for the
concentration of chemical substances in soil, groundwater,
surface water, and sediments that relate to the suitability of
a site for specific land uses and land use categories.
Site-Specific Remediation Objectives. The process of
applying environmental quality guidelines at the site level
to establish remediation or clean-up targets for the site.
Site-specific remediation objectives may be adopted from
existing guidelines (generic criteria), modified from
existing guidelines, or developed using a risk assessment
approach
Soil Gas. The vapour or gas that is found in the
unsaturated zone.
Surface Water. Natural water bodies, such as rivers,
streams, brooks and lakes, as well as artificial water
courses, such as irrigation, industrial and navigational
canals, in direct contact with the atmosphere.
T
Test Pit. A shallow pit, made using a backhoe, to
characterize the subsurface.
Toxicity. The production of any type of damage, permanent
or temporary, to the structure or functioning of any part of
the body. The conditions of exposure under which toxic
effects are produced — the size of the dose and the
duration of the dosing needed — vary greatly among
chemicals.
W
Water Table. The upper limit of the saturated zone. It is
measured by installing wells that extend a few feet into the
saturated zone and then recording the water level in those
wells.
3
A Federal Approach
to Contaminated Sites
1 Introduction
1.1 Background
This Approach document has been developed by the
Contaminated Sites Management Working Group
(CSMWG) to provide a common federal approach to
managing contaminated sites under federal custody.
In the context of sustainable development, pollution
prevention and the need for effective budgetary
considerations, the CSMWG, an interdepartmental
committee, was established in the summer of 1995 to
provide advice on federal contaminated sites to the Federal
Committee on Environmental Management Systems
(FCEMS).
In pursuit of its mandate, the CSMWG has developed a
generic definition and a policy statement for contaminated
sites:
Definition:
A contaminated site is defined as a site at which
substances occur at concentrations: (1) above
background levels and pose or are likely to pose an
immediate or long-term hazard to human health or
the environment, or (2) exceeding levels specified in
policies and regulations.
Policy:
“Contaminated sites on federal lands shall be
identified, classified, managed and recorded in a
consistent manner.”
1.2 Objective and Scope
This Approach has been developed to support and
augment the above CSMWG’s Policy. It will assist the
CSMWG mandate in establishing a consistent and uniform
government-wide approach to the management of
contaminated sites.
The Approach serves as a proactive management tool
so that the necessary steps are taken to characterize,
classify and prioritize contaminated sites and to ensure
Contaminated Sites
Management Working Group
environmental site management initiatives are implemented
in a timely and cost-effective manner. The Approach
comprises a significant supporting tool in attaining
sound overall due diligence in the management of federal
contaminated sites. This systematic approach will ensure
that limited resources are allocated to the most high-risk
sites.
The potential benefits as a result of meeting the
Approach’s objective include:
1) a consistent federal approach to environmental
site management;
2) long-term strategic planning of overall investigation
and clean-up efforts;
3) more effective allocation of federal resources
between departments;
4) better selection of cost-effective site management
strategies; and
5) implementation of risk-based clean-up criteria
and management options.
1.3 Intended Use
The intended audience for the Approach is managers
and operational personnel who are responsible for
managing contaminated sites on federal lands. Each step
in the Approach process is designed to stand alone and to
outline key components for investigating, managing and
remediating contaminated sites. References to specific
source documents for additional information are found in
each of the steps. The Approach was developed mainly to
build upon these source documents and provide guidance
for their use within the context of the federal contaminated
site management process.
The appendices supplement information found within
the Approach. Appendix A references the numerous
scientific tools, guidance documents and generic
remediation objectives that have been developed by the
Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME),
the National Contaminated Sites Remediation Program
(NCSRP), Environment Canada and Health Canada to
5
A Federal Approach
to Contaminated Sites
provide direction in the management of contaminated sites.
Generic Statements of Work are provided in Appendix B–E
to assist proponents in developing Statements of Work for
specific projects.
1.4 Approach Process
The Approach incorporates a risk-based approach to the
management of contaminated sites. The objectives of a
risk-based environmental management approach are to
assess risks to human health and the natural environment
under the current and intended land use scenarios and to
implement risk management solutions considered to be
protective of those risks. This involves identifying the
contaminants of concern, identifying potential receptors,
determining potential exposure pathways, and estimating
the level of risk based on the pathways. In addition, the
risk-based approach implies a prioritized allocation of
resources within the federal departments.
The risk-based approach incorporates several
components including site identification and
characterization, detailed site investigations and risk
assessment, evaluation of different risk management
strategies, implementation of a selected management
strategy, assessment and monitoring. These components
are realized through a 10-step process known as the Steps
for Addressing a Contaminated Site, which are briefly
described below and are illustrated in Figure 1. These steps
identify scientific tools and documents that are available for
use in the management of federal contaminated sites. Each
step is explained in further detail in the following section.
6
1.5 Reporting Requirements
Treasury Board Secretariat has developed two policies that
need to be considered in the management and reporting of
contaminated sites. The 2000 Contaminated Sites Inventory
Policy and the 1999 Draft Policy on Accounting for Costs
and Liabilities Related to Contaminated Sites provide details
on the reporting requirements.
The 2000 Contaminated Sites Inventory Policy
requires all federal departments to establish and maintain a
database of their known contaminated sites and their solidwaste landfills and to provide this information to Treasury
Board Secretariat for incorporation into a central Federal
Contaminated Sites Inventory and Federal Solid Waste
Landfills Inventory within the Directory of Federal Real
Property.
The 1999 Draft Policy on Accounting for Costs and
Liabilities Related to Contaminated Sites requires all federal
departments to account for all costs and liabilities related
to management and remediation of their contaminated
sites. Departments are to report these costs to the Treasury
Board Secretariat on an annual basis.
More information about these two policies is
available from the Treasury Board Secretariat web site
(www.tbs-sct.gc.ca).
Contaminated Sites
Management Working Group
A Federal Approach
to Contaminated Sites
Figure 1
Steps for Addressing a Contaminated Site
STEP 1
Identify Suspect Site
STEP 2
Historical Review
STEP 3
Initial Testing Program
STEP 4
Classify Site
STEP 5
Detailed Testing Program
STEP 6
ReClassify Site
STEP 7
Develop Remediation/Risk Management Strategy
STEP 8
Implement Remediation/Risk Management Strategy
STEP 9
Confirmatory Sampling
and Final Report
STEP 10
Long-Term Monitoring
NOTE: The steps shown above illustrate the complete process involved in dealing with contaminated sites. There will
be instances where some of the steps may not be required.
Step 1 — Identify Suspect Sites: Identifies potentially
contaminated sites based on activities (past
or current) on or near the site.
Step 2 — Historical Review: Assembles and reviews all
historical information pertaining to the site.
Step 3 — Initial Testing Program: Provides a preliminary
characterization of contamination and site
conditions.
Step 4 — Classify Contaminated Site Using the
CCME National Classification System:
Prioritizes the site for future investigations
and/or remediation/risk management actions.
Step 5 — Detailed Testing Program: Focuses on specific
areas of concern identified in Step 3 and
provides further in-depth investigations and
analysis.
Contaminated Sites
Management Working Group
Step 6 — Reclassify the Site Using the CCME National
Classification System: Updates the ranking
based on the results of the detailed
investigations.
Step 7 — Develop Remediation/Risk Management
Strategy: Develops a site-specific plan to
address contamination issues.
Step 8 — Implement Remediation/Risk Management
Strategy: Implements the site-specific plan
that addresses contamination issues.
Step 9 — Confirmatory Sampling and Final Reporting:
Verifies and documents the success of the
remediation/risk management strategy.
Step 10 — Long-Term Monitoring: If required, ensures
remediation and long-term risk management
goals are achieved.
7
A Federal Approach
to Contaminated Sites
2 Steps for Addressing
a Contaminated Site
2.1 Step 1 — Identify Suspect Sites
The implementation of the Approach requires sound
technical expertise and professional judgement. At each
step, the necessary site information is gathered to enable
effective management decisions to be made. At some sites,
however, it may not be necessary to complete all the steps
before making a final management decision. For instance,
sufficient information relating to a specific step may
already be available, or sufficient information may become
available after undertaking only a few of the steps.
Additionally, some steps may be combined to make the
Approach more efficient. In other cases, at sites where
complex contamination issues are identified, it may be
necessary to undertake certain steps in sequence to obtain
the necessary information before effective management
decisions are made. It must also be recognized that each
site may present a unique set of circumstances; different
approaches, techniques and/or prioritizations may be
required to characterize and remediate sites on a sitespecific basis.
OBJECTIVE
The objective of Step 1 is to identify suspect sites with
relation to environmental issues of concern. A process to
facilitate identification of suspect sites will ensure that
Environmental Site Assessments (ESAs) are undertaken in
a cost-effective and timely manner and that resources are
applied where the most benefit will be realized. This step
also helps establish the scenarios under which further
investigations of a site may be warranted due to past or
current activities at or near a site. Finally, this step will
assist in screening out sites that do not present a potential
risk to human health and/or the environment.
disposal. Some contaminated or potentially contaminated
sites are obvious, such as sanitary landfills, while others
may be innocuous, with the potential for hidden
underground contamination. For example, an underground
storage tank facility may contain one or more tanks which
could be leaking.
How do I identify my potential sites?
There are several different avenues by which potentially
contaminated sites may be identified. The majority of these
avenues are contingent upon previous investigations
and/or reports that may have been generated for the site.
As a preliminary overview, useful information regarding
the site may be obtained from the following sources:
•
previous environmental record(s);
•
internal environmental programs;
•
complaints by citizens;
•
off-site impacts;
•
similarities to other known contaminated sites;
•
visual or olfactory evidence of previous leaks, spills
or discharges; and
•
the nature of current or past activities at the site or
adjacent properties.
The identification of a suspect site is an integral first
step of the Approach. The purpose of the preliminary
overview is to ensure that a review of the site has been
carried out and that areas of environmental concern have
been properly considered. From the information gathered
so far, it may be decided that:
•
METHODOLOGY
For the most part, contaminated sites are typically
associated with commercial, industrial and waste disposal
activities and are commonly the result of improper
chemical storage practices, spills, leaks and waste
Contaminated Sites
Management Working Group
There are sufficient environmental data or evidence
about the site such that the Historical Review (Step 2),
Initial Testing Program (Step 3) and/or Detailed Testing
Program (Step 5) are not required. The next task will
then be to Classify the Site Using the CCME National
Classification System (Step 4); or
9
A Federal Approach
to Contaminated Sites
•
Further investigations are required to identify and
characterize the types, concentrations and extent of
contamination. It is then necessary to proceed with the
next step, the Historical Review (Step 2).
However, there might be instances for which there
are sufficient environmental data or evidence to properly
identify the site as not being suspect (e.g. properly
constructed and decommissioned landfill sites, documented
contaminants stored, handled and disposed of according to
regulations, buried inert construction wastes, etc.).
Suppose I am not confident with the
information I have?
If the review of the site is inconclusive as to whether
the site is potentially contaminated, or if the areas of
environmental concern are not properly addressed, then a
Historical Review (Step 2) should be carried out to obtain
the necessary background information.
It is also important to keep in mind that the physical
geography of sites may have changed significantly
over time, particularly with sites that have a long-term
operational history or had a change in land use.
Consequently, there may be no visual indications of
remnant or historical activities at the site that may have led
to contamination. For instance, closed landfills, waste pits
or dump sites may have been regraded to green space, to
make them more aesthetically pleasing, or to blend them
in with the existing site development.
OUTPUT
Upon completion of the site identification, you will be able
to assess whether you have a suspect site. If the site is
suspected of being contaminated, but more historical and
current information is required, you need to proceed with
a Historical Review (Step 2).
2.2 Step 2 — Historical Review
OBJECTIVE
The objectives of the Historical Review, also known as a
Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment, are to assemble
and review all available historical and current information
pertaining to the site. The Historical Review activities may
be undertaken to:
10
1) identify potential contaminants and environmental
concerns at a site;
2) identify the need for further investigation, particularly
at sites where little existing information is available;
and/or
3) establish the preliminary site characteristics and
develop a program or work plan for subsequent site
investigations.
METHODOLOGY
Following the identification of a suspected contaminated
site in Step 1, the next step is to identify the necessary
background information through the completion of a
Historical Review. It may be necessary to conduct a
Historical Review even if information documenting the
site’s environmental conditions already exists, depending
upon the nature of that information. Examples of such
instances would be:
•
A previous environmental investigation was not
representative of the entire site conditions.
•
Previous site investigations were undertaken without
the benefit of a Historical Review.
•
An unknown element or uncertainty identified in Step 1
requires further qualification.
What will the Historical Review tell me?
The Historical Review will identify, through an assessment
of available existing information, the suspected areas of
potential environmental concern and the need for further
investigation. Additional investigations may be required if
the existing available information is inadequate to evaluate
general or site-specific concerns, or if available information
suggests that there is an elevated risk of potential
contamination.
The Historical Review will help to determine whether
contamination exists on the property as well as the
potential source, nature and location of the contamination.
At this stage of the Historical Review, cursory information
is also gathered upon which a conceptual model can be
developed later.
Contaminated Sites
Management Working Group
A Federal Approach
to Contaminated Sites
What does the Historical Review include?
The Historical Review generally comprises three principal
components:
1) a literature review;
2) a site visit or walk-through; and
3) interviews with informed persons.
For more information on conducting a Historical
Review, the Canadian Standards Association (CSA)
document CAN/CSA Z768 Phase 1 Environmental Site
Assessment (CSA, 1994) outlines a standard approach to
conducting a Historical Review, or Phase 1 Environmental
Site Assessment. In addition, the CCME publication
Guidance Document on the Management of Contaminated
Sites in Canada (CCME, 1997b) outlines the phased
approach to conducting environmental site assessments,
including the elements to be addressed in the initial phase
of an environmental site assessment.
Where can I get the information I need to do
a Historical Review?
1) Literature Review. Historical information pertaining
to the site may be obtained from a literature review of a
variety of sources including:
•
available reports (such as groundwater and geological
reports, environmental baseline reports, incident
reports and previous site investigation reports);
2) Site Visit. A site visit is primarily a visual inspection
of the property. It is used to verify the information gathered
during the literature review and identify any undocumented
site conditions that may impact on the site investigations.
The walk-through will also identify areas of potential
environmental concern including: vegetation stress, key
ecological receptors, leachate breakout, and contaminant
discharge. The site visit essentially brings the historical
review up-to-date with respect to the current land use(s).
3) Interview with Informed Persons. Discussions should
also be held with key site personnel at both the subject
and surrounding lands. An interview is used to corroborate
information gathered during the literature review and site
visit. It also helps identify any gaps in the scope of the
literature review and site visit. For many of the older federal
operations, significant historical data may be obtained from
former or retired employees who worked at the site. In
addition, local residents may be knowledgeable about the
site’s history and conditions and may also provide valuable
information.
Completing the Historical Review will establish the
following preliminary characteristics for the site:
•
Facility characteristics: a current and a historical
description of the site and its facilities, including site
infrastructure. This should also include prior site uses
and surrounding land uses.
•
Contaminant characteristics: identifies contaminants
that may be present at the site.
•
Physical site characteristics: examines the geology,
hydrology and geomorphology using current
information.
•
aerial photographs;
•
insurance maps and reports;
•
property title searches;
•
federal, provincial and municipal archives;
•
regulatory agency records;
•
company records;
•
topographic and geological maps; and
OUTPUT
•
site plans and drawings.
The site’s historical information is now assessed with
regard to potential contaminants, pathways and receptors.
This information will establish whether additional site
investigations are required. Where additional investigations
are warranted, the preliminary information obtained
in the Historical Review will be used to develop a site
characterization work plan.
The literature review should also include any and all
data which may have been gathered for legal, transactional
or environmental reasons. If the information is available, it
should also provide information on the types of suspected
contaminants, where the contamination is likely to be
found, and the subsurface conditions of the site. The
information gathered is used to plan any further activities
at the site.
Contaminated Sites
Management Working Group
A generic Statement of Work for conducting a
Historical Review is included in Appendix B.
11
A Federal Approach
to Contaminated Sites
RELATED DOCUMENTATION
1. CAN/CSA Z768 Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment
(CSA), 1994
2. Guidance Document on the Management of
Contaminated Sites in Canada (CCME), 1997b
2.3 Step 3 — Initial Testing Program
OBJECTIVE
The objective of the Initial Testing Program, also known as
a Phase II Environmental Site Assessment, is to determine
the presence or absence of suspected contaminants and to
characterize the physical site conditions, including geology,
hydrogeology and hydrology. If the results of the Historical
Review have identified a potential environmental concern,
an Initial Testing Program should be undertaken to qualify
and quantify those concerns. Where present, the Initial
Testing Program will provide a preliminary assessment of
the degree, nature and extent of the contamination. The
Initial Testing Program should also provide the necessary
level of information to support management decisions
regarding future investigation needs and requirements.
The more information that is known about the site, the
better the site classification and site prioritization with
respect to the form of action required to meet
remediation/risk management objectives.
The Canadian Standards Association (CSA) document
CAN/CSA Z769 Phase II Environmental Site Assessment
(CSA, 1998) outlines a systematic approach to conducting
an Initial Testing Program, or Phase II Environmental Site
Assessment. Additional information concerning the
development and planning of Initial Testing Programs is
provided in the CCME documents Guidance Document on
the Management of Contaminated Sites in Canada (CCME,
1997b) and Subsurface Assessment Handbook for
Contaminated Sites (CCME, 1994).
1) Planning. The first step in undertaking an Initial Testing
Program is to develop a suitable work plan. The work plan
should be based on the findings and/or uncertainties
identified in the Historical Review (Step 2). In developing
the work plan, the Initial Testing Program should
incorporate the use of technically sound sampling
procedures, quality assurance/quality control procedures
and laboratory analytical procedures. The importance of
collecting a sufficient number of samples cannot be overemphasized at this point, as collecting enough samples
may reduce potential remediation costs.
Information on these procedures and the planning and
implementation of Field Testing Programs can be found in
the CCME documents Guidance Manual on Sampling,
Analysis, and Data Management for Contaminated Sites —
Volume 1: Main Report (CCME, 1993a) and Guidance
Manual on Sampling, Analysis, and Data Management for
Contaminated Sites — Volume II: Analytical Method
Summaries (CCME, 1993b).
METHODOLOGY
An Initial Testing Program, may be undertaken in
one or more stages, depending upon site and contaminant
characteristics, the specific objectives of the study and the
Initial Testing findings.
The Initial Testing Program consists of six principal
stages:
1) planning;
2) field investigation and sampling;
3) sample analyses;
4) data interpretation and evaluation;
5) risk identification; and
6) conceptual model development.
12
The Initial Testing Program may be carried out using a
combination of (1) non-intrusive and (2) intrusive
techniques. (1) Typical non-intrusive techniques used as
initial site investigation methodologies include geophysical
and soil vapour (gas) surveys. These techniques are used
to rapidly identify subsurface contamination that may be
in solid, liquid or gas form, thus allowing a more focused
intrusive investigation approach. (2) Typical intrusive
techniques include a combination of hand augering,
test pitting and drilling procedures to retrieve soil and
groundwater samples for subsequent field screening and
laboratory analyses. Tightness testing of tanks, lines and
pumps may be a component of the program and may be
performed at storage tank facilities.
2) Field Investigation and Sampling. Once potential
“hot spots” have been identified through the Historical
Review (Step 2), a sampling program must be designed to
Contaminated Sites
Management Working Group
A Federal Approach
to Contaminated Sites
obtain more definitive information about the nature and
extent of the contamination. The sampling program should
clearly establish the appropriate sampling techniques and
equipment, sample density, sampling media and analytical
parameters. Appropriate sampling protocols and analytical
methods must be developed to meet the needs of the
investigation.
Information from on-site methods is quickly available and
can also determine the need for, and best location for,
further drilling if required. Soil and water samples collected
during the field testing program may be screened using a
variety of techniques, as described in section 5.3.1 of the
Guidance Document on the Management of Contaminated
Sites in Canada (CCME, 1997b).
The Initial Testing Program should include surface and
subsurface soil sampling, groundwater sampling and
surface water sampling using approved sampling
procedures (e.g. CCME). This program usually begins with
one or two field-screening methods, which permit a closer
identification of suitable locations for test pits, boreholes
and groundwater monitors. Subsurface soil samples are
routinely collected through the excavation of test pits, the
use of hand augers and a portable drill or the drilling of
boreholes. Groundwater samples are collected through
the installation of monitoring wells at strategic borehole
locations. Additional sampling, including sediment, plants
or aquatic organisms, may be warranted under certain sitespecific conditions. Quality assurance/quality control
programs should be established at both the field sampling
and analytical levels to ensure data integrity and confidence
in the data quality. By following the Guidance Manual
on Sampling, Analysis, and Data Management for
Contaminated Sites (CCME, 1993a), a quality assurance
program can be developed specifically for the assessment
of individual contaminated sites.
4) Data Interpretation and Evaluation. The interpretation
of the laboratory data includes (1) a comparison between
the data quality objectives and the findings presented
in the field program, (2) an evaluation of the quality
assurance/quality control data with the data presented and
(3) an extrapolation of the information presented to a form
that will truly represent site conditions. The gathered data
must be representative of the contaminated site being
investigated.
3) Sample Analyses. In the Initial Testing Program,
the sample analyses stage should address the range of
possible contaminants identified in the Historical Review
(Step 2). The analysis stage may become more refined
as investigation activities proceed and the types of
contaminants to be analyzed are properly identified,
or areas of potential environmental concern discarded.
Representative samples should be submitted to a Canadian
Association of Environmental Analytical Laboratories
(CAEAL) or Ministère de l’Environnement (MENV) du
Québec accredited and certified laboratory, or an
organization offering an equivalent level of accreditation,
for quantification of suspected contaminant concentrations.
On-site methods allow samples to be screened for
a variety of suspect contaminants in a cost- and timeeffective manner. Samples with the highest contaminant
concentration identified by the screening method should
then be submitted to a laboratory for detailed analyses
and confirmation of actual contaminant concentrations.
Contaminated Sites
Management Working Group
When a contaminated site has been identified and
the Initial Testing Program has provided information on
the nature and magnitude of contamination at the site,
environmental quality guidelines can be used for the
purpose of evaluating:
•
the degree of contamination at the site;
•
if further site investigations are required; and
•
if management actions are necessary.
The environmental quality guidelines are guidelines
for soil, water and sediments. Generic groundwater and
surface water criteria have been developed for four water
use scenarios: freshwater supporting aquatic life, water
used for irrigation, livestock watering and human drinking
water. Sediments quality guidelines have been developed
for a variety of contaminants in freshwater and
marine/estuarine sediments. The 1999 CCME
Environmental Quality Guidelines provide generic soil
remediation criteria for four different land uses:
agricultural, residential/parkland, commercial and
industrial. The applicable remediation guidelines will vary
according to the prescribed land use, whether present or
future.
Which guidelines do I use?
Many different soil quality criteria or guidelines are
available, which can be confusing for site managers.
•
The CCME released interim soil quality criteria in 1991
and recommended soil quality guidelines in 1997.
13
A Federal Approach
to Contaminated Sites
The 1991 criteria are provided for over 50 parameters,
whereas the 1997 guidelines were released for 20
parameters. The 1997 CCME Soil Quality Guidelines
have been developed to replace the interim values
published in 1991 for specific contaminants. Any
interim values for contaminants listed in the 1991
guidelines that have not yet been replaced in the 1997
guidelines will remain in effect.
•
Since 1997, the word “guidelines” is being used instead
of “criteria” for consistency purposes with other media.
•
As a general rule, sites under federal custody
are excluded from provincial jurisdiction, and
consequently the CCME guidelines are recommended
for use. However, when no CCME guidelines are
available for a parameter, provincial or territorial
guidelines can be used.
•
The most recent CCME guidelines for a parameter
should always be used since they were derived using
the latest and most up-to-date scientific information.
•
When no CCME soil quality guidelines are available
for a parameter, the CCME 1991 interim criteria can
still be used.
•
In cases where no provincial or territorial guidelines are
available, guidelines from international jurisdictions can
be used.
In 1999, the CCME integrated all existing environmental
quality guidelines and criteria for all media into one
document entitled 1999 Canadian Environmental Quality
Guidelines. This document contains the most current
environmental quality guidelines for water, soil, sediment,
tissue and air, including updates and revisions to the
existing environmental quality guidelines published to date.
The 1999 CCME Environmental Quality Guidelines replace
all previous guidelines.
Note: The proposed Canada Wide Standards for
Petroleum Hydrocarbons (PHC) in soil will
establish environmental quality guidelines for
petroleum hydrocarbon contaminated sites.
The application of this standard is still being
developed. Additional information on the CWS is
available on the CCME web site: www.ccme.ca
A site is generally considered contaminated when one
or more samples contain contaminant concentrations in
excess of the appropriate environmental quality guidelines.
Data for these sites should be stored in a departmental
14
reporting or inventory database for sites exceeding
environmental quality guidelines. If contaminant
concentrations do not exceed the guidelines, no further
action is required (i.e. no classification required). There is
no need to go any further in the Approach process.
A generic Statement of Work for an Initial Testing
Program is included in Appendix C.
5) Identify Risks. The information obtained during
the Initial Testing Program will provide valuable site
information, including the nature and location of the
contaminants with respect to the groundwater table,
potential pathways for contaminant migration, the location
of nearby sensitive receptors, and the potential for direct
human exposure to the contaminants. These elements will
allow development of a conceptual model for the site.
Undertaking a qualitative risk assessment as part of the
Initial Testing Program establishes the three components
of risk — contaminants, potential receptors, and exposure
pathways — and focuses the data collection accordingly.
Figure 2 shows the relationship of these three components.
In cases where the risks associated with certain
contaminants on a specific site are not known, further
study of the risks to public health, safety or the
environment may be required. This additional requirement
would be part of the Detailed Testing Program in Step 5.
6) Develop Conceptual Model. The conceptual model
is a desk-top approximation of the physical and chemical
(contaminant) site conditions. Upon completion of the
Initial Testing Program, it is important to have a conceptual
site model of the site, which emphasizes the type and
magnitude of the subsurface contamination, defines the
pathways for contaminant migration and identifies potential
receptors. Where additional investigations are likely to
be required, the conceptual site model provides the
foundation upon which to develop the subsequent stages
of the work. It will also assist in indicating what types of
information must be collected. Figure 3 is an example of a
conceptual site model for the movement of contaminants
to a receptor (human) that would be based on the site
information gathered up to this step.
The three preliminary site characteristics
(contamination, pathways and receptors), when viewed
as a whole, constitute a conceptual site model. Both the
Historical Review and Initial Testing Program must be
thoroughly evaluated and documented to establish the
Contaminated Sites
Management Working Group
A Federal Approach
to Contaminated Sites
Figure 2
Risk Components Relationship
Exposure
Pathways
Receptors
RISK
preliminary site characteristics and determine the potential
for site contamination. The conceptual model should
be established early in the process when addressing
a contaminated site. This allows the resources and
subsequent efforts to focus on the contaminants of concern
as well as the receptors and pathways that are relevant
to site remediation/risk management issues. Once the
preliminary model is established, subsequent investigation
programs and work plans can be developed to refine the
model and to address any critical information gaps.
OUTPUT
Contaminants
Figure 3
The results of the Initial Testing Program will establish
whether the site is contaminated. If contamination is
present, the Initial Testing will identify the nature and
magnitude of the contamination and provide the necessary
information to develop future testing programs. Data
obtained during the Initial Testing will allow development of
a preliminary conceptual site model in relation to the type
and extent of the subsurface contamination, the pathways
for contaminant migration and potential receptors. It will
also provide useful information that can be used for site
classification (Step 4).
Example of a Human Health Conceptual Site Model for the Movement of Contaminant(s) Bound to
Surface Soils to a Person
Contaminants
Source
Contaminants
Release
Mechanism
Environmental
Transport and/or
Residency Media
Exposure
Pathways
Receptors
(Human Health
and/or
Environment)
Surface Soil
Surface
Soils
Dissolve
in Runoff
minimal exposure
Surface Water
Dermal Contact
Incidental
Ingestion
Human
Health
significant pathway
Contaminated Sites
Management Working Group
15
A Federal Approach
to Contaminated Sites
RELATED DOCUMENTATION
1. CAN/CSA Z769 Phase II Environmental Site
Assessment, Canadian Standards Association, 1998
(CSA)
relative priorities for the upcoming detailed testing
program, if required, and the subsequent remediation/risk
management strategy. Assigning relative priority enables
resources to be directed to areas of greatest concern.
6. Canadian Water Quality Guidelines (CCREM), 1987
The National Classification System (NCS) for
Contaminated Sites was developed by the CCME in 1992
to aid in the evaluation of the level of concern and the
development of management priorities for contaminated
sites. The NCS provides a well-documented and uniform
approach to classifying sites as high, medium or low risk.
Once sites have been classified, priorities for action can be
assigned to address contaminated sites on a technical
basis. The NCS is not a qualitative or quantitative risk
assessment, but rather is a tool designed to screen
a site with respect to the need for further action
(characterization, risk assessment, remediation, risk
management, etc.) to protect human health and the
environment.
7. A Protocol for the Derivation of Canadian Sediment
Quality Guidelines for the Protection of Aquatic Life
(CCME), 1995
METHODOLOGY
2. Guidance Document on the Management of
Contaminated Sites in Canada (CCME), 1997b
3. Subsurface Assessment Handbook for Contaminated
Sites (CCME), 1994
4. Guidance Manual on Sampling, Analysis, and Data
Management for Contaminated Sites — Volume 1:
Main Report (CCME), 1993
5. Guidance Manual on Sampling, Analysis, and Data
Management for Contaminated Sites — Volume II:
Analytical Method Summaries (CCME), 1993
8. Recommended Canadian Soil Quality Guidelines
(CCME), 1997c
9. Canadian Soil Quality Guidelines for Copper:
Environmental and Human Health (CCME), 1997d
10. Canadian Soil Quality Guidelines for Pentachlorophenol:
Environmental and Human Health (CCME), 1997e
11. Protocol for the Derivation of Canadian Tissue Residue
Guidelines for the Protection of Wildlife that Consume
Aquatic Biota (CCME), 1997f
12. Canadian Environmental Quality Guidelines (CCME),
1999
2.4 Step 4 — Classify Contaminated
Site Using the CCME National
Classification System
Once a contaminated site has been identified in Steps 1
through 3, the next step is to classify the site using the
NCS Detailed Evaluation Form. The NCS Detailed Form
provides a “first kick” ranking system so that sites can be
prioritized with respect to the level of risk they represent.
Following the Initial Testing Program (Step 3), the
environmental data and information accumulated so far
may be sufficient to undertake classification of the site
using the Detailed Evaluation Form. Sites lacking sufficient
information, as is the case for most initial environmental
investigations, will likely require additional investigations,
as described in the following step (Detailed Testing
Program), to properly complete the NCS.
The NCS Short Evaluation Form should be used only
where sufficient information documenting the site’s
environmental conditions already exists and serious adverse
impacts are known to be occurring. The majority of sites,
however, will require completion of the Detailed Form.
OBJECTIVE
The objective of Step 4 is to classify the contaminated
site(s) identified in Steps 1 through 3, using the
CCME National Classification System. If more than
one contaminated site has been identified, this initial
classification will aid in indicating the level of concern
due to each site. It will then be possible to establish
16
Where can I get a copy of the NCS form?
The NCS form is available in electronic format and
may be downloaded from the CSMWG home page
(www.ec.gc.ca/etad/csmwg/index_e.html). The electronic
format serves as a database allowing storage, retrieval and
Contaminated Sites
Management Working Group
A Federal Approach
to Contaminated Sites
updating of information on numerous sites. A hardcopy is
available from the following address:
CCME Documents
c/o Manitoba Statutory Publications
200 Vaughan Street
Winnipeg, Manitoba R3C 1T5
Web site: www.ccme.ca
What data are required to complete the
Detailed Evaluation Form?
The NCS Detailed Evaluation Form may be applied to sites
where sufficient information is documented about the site’s
environmental conditions. The minimum data requirements
are described in National Classification System for
Contaminated Sites (CCME, 1992) and include:
•
description of site location;
How do I complete the Detailed Evaluation
Form?
•
types of contaminants or materials likely to be present
at the site (and/or description of historical activities);
Under the NCS, sites are assigned one of the following
classes:
•
approximate size of the site and quantity of
contaminants;
•
approximate depth to water table;
•
geologic map or survey information (soil, overburden,
and bedrock information);
•
Class 1: Action Required
•
Class 2: Action Likely Required
•
Class 3: Action May Be Required
•
Class N: Action Not Likely Required
•
annual rainfall data;
•
Class I: Insufficient Information
•
surface cover information;
•
proximity to surface water;
•
topographic information;
1) Contaminant Characteristics — the relative hazard of
contaminants present at a site;
•
flood potential of site;
•
proximity to drinking water supply;
2) Exposure Pathways — the route a contaminant may
follow (e.g. groundwater, surface water, direct contact
and/or air) to a receptor. There are three subcategories: (a) groundwater; (b) surface water; and
(c) direct contact; and
•
uses of adjacent water resources; and
•
land use information (on-site and surrounding).
The Detailed Evaluation Form consists of a series of
questions related to three factors:
3) Receptors — living beings or resources that may
be exposed to and affected by contamination
(e.g. humans, plants, animals, or environmental
resources). There are two sub-categories: (a) human
and animal; and (b) environment.
Under each of the three factor headings, there are
evaluation factors that must be scored individually based
on the specific site and contaminant characteristics.
In Appendix D of the National Classification System for
Contaminated Sites (CCME, 1992), there is a user’s guide
that presents a rationale for the score, guidelines for data
interpretation of the environmental factors and sources of
information to be reviewed for each factor. Based on the
total score and total estimated score, the site can be
classified.
Contaminated Sites
Management Working Group
If there is insufficient information to properly classify
the site, the Class I designation is used until additional
information is obtained to address the gaps. There
may also be a requirement to further refine the relative
classification of sites within each priority category to come
up with firm conclusions about the need and/or scenario
for a remedial action. The additional information required
will be obtained through Step 5: Detailed Testing Program.
The NCS is a screening tool only and has limited
application on northern sites and marine environment
sites, in particular.
OUTPUT
The initial classification (Detailed Evaluation Form) should
be completed for each contaminated site to identify those
posing immediate risks to human health and/or the
environment. Sites will be classified as 1, 2, 3, N or I,
which correlate to high, medium or low priority for action.
Such sites can then be prioritized for further investigation
or remedial actions.
17
A Federal Approach
to Contaminated Sites
RELATED DOCUMENTATION
1. National Classification System for Contaminated Sites
(CCME), 1992
2.5 Step 5 — Detailed Testing Program
OBJECTIVE
The objective of the Detailed Testing Program is to further
define the nature of the site contamination and to address
outstanding issues with respect to the development of an
effective site management strategy.
The specific objectives of the Detailed Testing
Program are:
1) to target and delineate the boundaries of identified
contaminants;
2) to define, in greater detail, site conditions required to
identify all contaminant pathways, particularly with
respect to risk assessment;
3) to provide contaminant and other information
necessary to finalize remediation guidelines or risk
assessment; and
4) to provide all other information required to develop a
Remediation Plan and input to specifications and tender
documents.
These specific objectives will provide useful input in
the implementation of (1) Step 6: Reclassify the Site Using
CCME National Classification System; and (2) Step 7:
Develop Remediation/Risk Management Strategy.
METHODOLOGY
If the results of the Initial Testing Program indicate that
significant contamination exists at the site, a Detailed
Testing Program may be required. Generally, the Detailed
Testing Program (Step 5) will concentrate only on those
areas of concern identified by the Initial Testing Program
(Step 3) and address issues such as information gaps and
data deficiencies.
A Detailed Testing Program may not be required if the
Initial Testing Program:
•
18
was adequate to scope a remedial action plan; or
•
did not identify contaminants at concentrations that
exceed CCME Environmental Quality Guidelines.
In these cases, proceed to Step 7: Develop
Remediation/Risk Management Strategy. For example,
limited contamination may be identified in the vicinity of
an underground storage tank location. In many such
cases, these impacts can be addressed during the tank
decommissioning stage as part of Step 7, without the need
for additional subsurface investigations.
For substances that are not addressed in the 1999
CCME Environmental Quality Guidelines, it may be
appropriate to seek advice from Environment Canada or
the provincial regulatory authority.
What does the Detailed Testing Program
include?
The systematic approach to the Detailed Testing Program
(Step 5) is similar to the Initial Testing Program (Step 3) in
that the same investigative techniques and protocols are
employed. The data collected during the Detailed Testing
Program should be sufficiently representative of the site
conditions to finalize the conceptual site model and to
provide input to the development of an effective risk
management and/or remedial strategy.
As in the case of the Initial Testing Program, the scope
of work during the detailed investigation stage will likely
incorporate a multi-task, multi-phased approach. Specific
activities may include:
1) additional intrusive investigations to quantify all
contaminants and concentrations;
2) computer modelling to establish contaminant
distributions and/or migration patterns; and
3) other activities required to obtain the necessary
information to develop a suitable site
management/remedial strategy.
The Detailed Testing Program should also build upon
data management, quality assurance/quality control
programs, and other systems developed for the Initial
Testing Program (Step 3).
The sampling and analytical programs will focus on
contaminants of concern identified by the Initial Testing
Program. While a smaller suite of chemicals may be
Contaminated Sites
Management Working Group
A Federal Approach
to Contaminated Sites
analyzed, a greater number of samples are usually
collected to quantify the extent of contamination.
The CCME publications Subsurface Assessment
Handbook for Contaminated Sites (CCME, 1994) and
Guidance Document on the Management of Contaminated
Sites in Canada (CCME, 1997b) provide further details on
developing Detailed Testing Programs.
How much site information do I really need?
There is no “cut and dried” answer to this question.
The answer will be specific to the site conditions and
issues at hand. During the detailed investigation stage,
additional information should be gathered about the soil
characteristics, site geology, site hydrogeology, the types
and concentrations of contaminants present and the rate of
contaminant migration. The investigation should comprise
of a sufficient scope of work to fully determine the extent
(horizontal and vertical) of soil and/or groundwater
contamination.
As a baseline, the level of information gathered in
this step should be sufficient to enable final confirmation
of the classification of the site as per CCME National
Classification System Detailed Evaluation Form (Step 6).
A generic Statement of Work for a Detailed Testing
Program (Step 5) is included in Appendix D.
RELATED DOCUMENTATION
1. Subsurface Assessment Handbook for Contaminated
Sites (CCME), 1994
2. Guidance Document on the Management of
Contaminated Sites in Canada (CCME), 1997b
2.6 Step 6 — Reclassify the Site Using
CCME National Classification System
OBJECTIVE
The objective of Step 6 is to confirm the previous site
classification performed in Step 4 or to reclassify a site
based on the data obtained in Step 5: Detailed Testing
Program. Based on the additional information obtained, the
NCS Detailed Evaluation Form that was initially filled out in
Step 4 can be finalized.
METHODOLOGY
After completing the Detailed Testing Program (Step 5),
the additional information available will help confirm or
update the National Classification System score obtained in
Step 4. Sites lacking sufficient information, as is the case
following most initial environmental investigations, likely
require additional investigations as described in the
preceding step, Step 5: Detailed Testing Program, to
properly complete the NCS.
OUTPUT
The nature and extent of the site contaminant conditions,
including the horizontal and vertical distributions of
contaminants, should be thoroughly established. A finalized
conceptual site model that emphasizes the type and
extent of the subsurface contamination should define the
pathways for contaminant migration and identify potential
receptors relative to human health and/or the environment.
As a result, the nature of a contaminant, its transport
mechanism and its impact on human health and/or
the environment is combined with site geological,
hydrogeological and topographical information to produce
a comprehensive model of how contaminants may be
disbursed from a source to a receptor. An example is
shown in Figure 4.
Contaminated Sites
Management Working Group
OUPUT
The output after this step should be a finalized Detailed
Evaluation Form and a site classified as 1, 2, 3, I or N,
according to the potential risk to human health and/or the
environment.
2.7 Step 7 — Develop Remediation/Risk
Management Strategy
OBJECTIVE
The objective of Step 7 is to establish remediation/risk
management goals and thus develop an environmental site
management strategy such that the levels of, or potential
19
A Federal Approach
to Contaminated Sites
Figure 4
Example of a Human Health Conceptual Site Model
Contaminants
Source
Contaminants
Release
Mechanism
Environmental
Transport and/or
Residency Media
Exposure
Pathways
Receptors
(Human Health
and/or
Environment)
Surface Soil
Surface
Soils
Subsurface
Petroleum
Hydrocarbons
in Soil
Dissolve
in Runoff
Surface Water
Dermal Contact
Vehicle/Wind
Erosion
Dust in Air
Incidental
Ingestion
Volatilization
to Soil Gas
Advection/
Diffusion to
Outdoor Air
Inhalation
Human
Health
minimal exposure
significant pathway
exposure to, contaminants is reduced to meet those goals.
Information gathered from previous steps is evaluated
against the proposed remediation objectives to obtain
a remediation level for the site. Integration with other
management issues should be considered and an
appropriate management strategy should be developed.
METHODOLOGY
Prior to the development of a Remediation/Risk
Management Strategy, it must be determined whether the
field results obtained from Step 3 (Initial Testing Program)
and Step 5 (Detailed Testing Program) exceed generic
1999 CCME remediation guidelines. If contaminant
concentrations at the site do not exceed the established
guidelines, no further action may be required. If
contaminant concentrations meet or exceed the generic
guidelines, the process summarized in Figure 5 may be
20
used to develop (1) a Remediation Strategy and/or (2) a
Risk Management Strategy.
A) Remediation Strategy
The process of developing numeric remediation objectives
that will protect both human health and the environment
necessitates appropriate use of both generic and site-specific
information. As shown in Figure 5, there are two approaches
to development of remediation objectives for a site:
•
the Guideline Approach; and
•
the Risk Assessment Approach.
Because contaminated sites can present specific
conditions that are not always accounted for in the
development of “generic” guidelines, site-level information
must be taken into account when applying guidelines
at a site. The process of applying environmental quality
Contaminated Sites
Management Working Group
A Federal Approach
to Contaminated Sites
Figure 5
Stages in the Development of a Remedation/Risk Management Strategy (Step 7)
STEP 7
Develop Remediation/Risk Management Strategy
Remediation
Strategy
Risk Management
Strategy
1. Guideline
Approach
Adopt Guidelines
from Another
Jurisdiction
CCME Method 1
Generic
Guidelines
2. Risk
Assessment Approach
CCME Method 2
Site Specific
Objectives
Establish Remediation Objectives
CCME Method 3
Human Health/Ecological
Risk assessment
Establish Risk Management Objectives
Develop Site Management Strategy
STEP 8
Implement Remediation/Risk Management Strategy
guidelines at the site level is known as establishing sitespecific remediation objectives. In the Guideline Approach,
remediation objectives can either be adopted directly from
the published guidelines (CCME Method 1 — Generic
Guidelines) or be developed from modifications to the
guidelines to take into account site-specific conditions
(CCME Method 2 — Site-Specific Objectives). The
Risk Assessment Approach involves development of
remediation objectives through the use of a site-specific
human health and/or ecological risk assessment (CCME
Method 3 — Human Health/Ecological Risk Assessment).
Contaminated Sites
Management Working Group
Risk Assessment. Risk Assessment is described in the
Proceedings of the Workshop on the Management of
Federal Contaminated Sites (CSMWG, 1997c) as a process
that evaluates the likelihood that adverse effects will occur
or are occurring as a result of exposure to one or more
stressors. Risk Assessment is the scientific and technical
activity that makes use of a detailed evaluation of hazard
and exposure potential at a particular site in order to
recommend a remediation level will meet the goals of the
Site Management Strategy.
21
A Federal Approach
to Contaminated Sites
The CCME publication Guidance Manual for Developing
Site-Specific Soil Quality Remediation Objectives for
Contaminated Sites in Canada (CCME, 1996b) identifies
conditions under which the various methods described
above may be utilized and provides guidance on the
implementation of the methods. Generally speaking, the
Guideline Approach requires fewer resources while
providing a scientifically defensible basis for protection
that is sufficiently flexible to account for certain sitespecific factors. The Risk Assessment Approach can be
more complex and more costly, and is generally utilized
when a guideline-based approach is not suitable for a site.
Do CCME guidelines exist for the contaminant
of concern present at the site?
If the answer to the above question is “yes,” the
CCME generic guidelines may be adopted directly as the
site-specific remediation objectives (CCME Method 1).
However, if the answer is “no,” adopting guidelines from
other jurisdictions is another course of action. If no other
guidelines or options are available, in all likelihood a risk
assessment will have to be performed to develop sitespecific remediation objectives.
The following questions need to be answered in order
to adopt the generic quality guidelines:
•
What are the contaminants?
•
What is the current and intended land use?
•
What type of media is affected (e.g. soil, groundwater,
etc.)?
•
Is the groundwater being used for drinking water or
agricultural purposes?
•
Are the assumed exposure scenarios and receptors
significantly different from those defined by the CCME?
CCME Method 2. Adoption of remediation objectives from
modified guidelines may be utilized in situations where site
conditions, land use, receptors or exposure pathways differ
only slightly from the protocols used in the development of
the CCME Recommended Canadian Soil Quality Guidelines
(CCME, 1997c). Due consideration should be given to the
following factors:
•
natural background levels of priority substances;
•
possible movement of contaminants in soil to
groundwater, air or dust;
•
relevance of the toxicological data that were used
to derive the generic guidelines to the site under
consideration; and
•
land uses and receptors of concern under those
land uses.
2.7.1 The Guideline Approach (CCME Method 1
and CCME Method 2)
CCME Method 1. Guidelines establish conservative,
generic numerical concentrations of a contaminant that
are considered to be safe (non-toxic) for a broad range of
receptors, conditions and regions under defined land uses.
Objectives are numerical concentrations selected or derived
to define acceptable levels of residual contamination at a
specific site. They provide an effective basis for protecting
and restoring land and water uses at contaminated sites
and are generally viewed by financial institutions as
providing the lowest level of risk.
Once the environmental data and evidence for the site
are sufficient, following the Initial or Detailed Testing
Programs (Steps 3 or 5), it is necessary to assess the
degree of contamination at the site. Adopting the generic
CCME soil and groundwater remediation guidelines for the
relevant land use is the primary approach recommended.
The guidelines used for soil and groundwater are the 1999
CCME Canadian Environmental Quality Guidelines. If there
are no CCME guidelines available, guidelines from other
jurisdictions may be adopted.
22
The circumstances under which the soil quality
guidelines can be modified and the methods of
modification are explained in the CCME Guidance Manual
for Developing Site-Specific Soil Quality Remediation
Objectives for Contaminated Sites in Canada (CCME,
1996b). This method should be considered first in the
establishment of site-specific remediation objectives before
planning the use of CCME Method 3: Human
Health/Ecological Risk Assessment.
2.7.2 The Risk Assessment Approach
(CCME Method 3)
CCME Method 3. When site conditions are unique or
particularly sensitive, performing a risk assessment
forms the basis for developing site-specific remediation
objectives. A risk assessment approach may be utilized
when the generic guidelines or modified guidelines
under CCME Method 2 are not suitable for a site and/or
Contaminated Sites
Management Working Group
A Federal Approach
to Contaminated Sites
guidelines from other jurisdictions are not available.
Other factors of concern that may justify the use of a risk
assessment method are:
If the following additional site characteristics have not
already been identified in Steps 2, 3 or 5, the appropriate
action should be taken to collect this information:
•
it is a large site;
•
groundwater presence and usage;
•
little information is available about the contaminants of
concern;
•
age of people frequenting the site;
•
presence of sensitive habitats;
•
land/water use categories may not accurately reflect the
exposure pathways at the site;
•
species of biota that frequent the site;
•
sensitive species or habitats are present; and
•
land usage of the site — agricultural or residential;
•
costs of remediation to guidelines may be too high.
•
surrounding land use; and
•
presence of basements.
To determine if risk assessment is appropriate, answer
the following questions. If the answer to any of the
questions is “yes,” a risk assessment may be needed.
•
Do you have critical or sensitive habitats (e.g.
wetlands)?
•
Do you have any transport media for the contaminants
(e.g. drinking water supply)?
•
Do you have any rare, threatened or endangered
species or ecosystems?
•
Is the existing or intended land use a natural park or
nature preserve?
•
Are there one or more chemicals present about which
little is known in relation to behaviour and toxicity?
•
Are there any unusual site conditions, such as fractured
or karstic bedrock or permafrost, lending uncertainty as
to the fate of the contaminants?
•
Is the nature or thickness of the soil/overburden cover
at the site amenable to leaching of contaminants into
the bedrock?
•
Is there an absence of environmental quality guidelines
for the chemicals of concern?
•
Are there unusual soil pH conditions (<5 or >9) that
may lead to increased mobility of some contaminants?
•
Is the cost of remediation to meet remediation
objectives established from generic or modified
guidelines too high?
•
Are there any exposure pathways of the contaminants
in the ecosystem that are not considered by the generic
guidelines scenarios or that are not understood?
•
Will there be a change in the intended land use?
Contaminated Sites
Management Working Group
There are two basic types of risk assessment:
(1) Human Health Risk Assessment and (2) Ecological Risk
Assessment. One or both of these may be required in the
development of site-specific remediation objectives. To
ensure the protection of both humans (Human Health)
and the environment (Ecological), the two types of
assessments are required as advocated by the CCME. In
situations where both types of risk assessment are used,
the lowest site-specific remediation objectives resulting
from the assessment process should be selected for the
purposes of site remediation.
If a Risk Assessment Approach has been chosen, it is
likely that you will have to hire a qualified consultant with
the necessary technical and scientific expertise to perform
the work. The risk assessment will have to be conducted in
accordance with the CCME protocols for ecological risk
assessment and human health risk assessment. These
include A Protocol for the Derivation of Environmental and
Human Health Soil Quality Guidelines (CCME, 1996a) and
A Protocol for the Derivation of Water Quality Guidelines
for the Protection of Aquatic Life (CCME, 1991c).
For more information on ecological risk assessment as
the basis for developing site-specific remediation
objectives, consult the CCME document A Framework for
Ecological Risk Assessment: General Guidance (CCME,
1996c) and A Framework for Ecological Risk Assessment:
Technical Appendices (CCME, 1997a).
A generic Statement of Work for a Quantitative
Human Health/Ecological Risk Assessment is included in
Appendix C. This Statement of Work will have to be adapted
to properly cover the specific aspects encountered at the site.
23
A Federal Approach
to Contaminated Sites
B) Risk Management Strategy
While the Remediation Strategy developed in Step 7
constitutes the scientific approach towards a site
management strategy, it needs to be complemented
with a risk management aspect to make the overall site
management effective. While the Remediation Strategy
(using CCME Methods 1, 2 or 3) will establish which cleanup objectives are most appropriate, the Risk Management
Strategy will determine if remedial action is required at a
contaminated site. If so, an appropriate remedy will be
selected. “Appropriateness” is influenced not only by the
degree to which a remedial action reduces risk, but also
by the degree that the action meets technical, economic,
social and political needs specific to the contaminated site
and potentially affected stakeholders.
Risk Management. Risk Management (RM) is the
decision-making process in which an action or a policy is
developed once a remediation level has been determined.
It integrates the Remediation Strategy with technical,
political, legal, social and economic considerations to
develop risk reduction and prevention strategies. It is
the active process of reducing risk associated with a
contaminated site to “acceptable” levels or objectives.
These acceptable levels are usually defined by regulators
in conjunction with site managers, owners and other
stakeholders. Generally RM involves a combination of
one or more of the following:
•
contaminant removal or reduction;
•
modifying or limiting use by receptors; and
•
interception or removal of exposure pathways.
This ensures that risks to human health and/or the
environment are minimized through the effective
management of one or more of the three risk components
(contaminants, receptors and exposure pathways).
Some of the initial considerations in the establishment
of an RM Strategy are:
24
•
departmental mandates and policies;
•
solicitation of public and stakeholder input;
•
setting protection goals based on land and water use;
•
identifying resources and logistics restrictions; and
•
outputs from Steps 1 through 6.
The input from decision makers, technical consultants,
regulators and other stakeholders is important in the
development of an RM Strategy, particularly as it pertains to:
•
regulatory permits and approvals;
•
public or stakeholder perception and acceptability;
•
direct impacts and risks to public and/or worker health
and safety;
•
direct impacts on the environment;
•
risks to the environment;
•
other socio-economic impacts (noise, traffic, etc.);
•
costs associated with remedial alternatives;
•
long-term liability;
•
impacts on the value of land or the flexibility of future
development options; and
•
impacts on or disruption of future operations.
Once the initial management considerations have
established the need for remediation and identified the
specific problem(s) at the site, a clear statement of the
problem requiring further action should be formulated
and the goals for site management identified. It is critical
that goals be established for the remediation of the
contaminated site. The effectiveness of RM decisions can
be judged only when the results of these decisions are
compared to the goals established for the site.
The remediation objectives for a site need to be
established in conjunction with the RM objectives in order
to meet site management goals for the current or intended
beneficial land use of the site. It may be that at some point
there will be no requirement to remediate a site, but simply
to monitor it, as part of the RM Strategy. In a property
transfer scenario, remediation to intended land use
requirements is usually negotiated with the new land
purchaser.
C) Cost-Benefit Analysis
Cost-benefit analysis and risk assessment are important
components of Remedial Action Plans. A cost-benefit
analysis will help to determine the optimum
remediation/risk management strategy. In addition, where
there are a large number of sites, a cost-benefit analysis
will assist in prioritizing the sites for remediation. Primary
consideration in prioritizing sites should be given to their
NCS score and risk to human health and environment. In
Contaminated Sites
Management Working Group
A Federal Approach
to Contaminated Sites
cases where human health or a sensitive environment is
affected, the cost-benefit analysis would be used to
compare options, not to justify action. Risk assessment is
important in cases where human health or a sensitive
environment is affected, as described for CCME Method 3
(Risk Assessment Approach).
4. Canadian Water Quality Guidelines (CCREM), 1987
The following questions establish the framework for
any cost-benefit analysis:
7. A Framework for Ecological Risk Assessment: General
Guidance (CCME), 1996c
•
What events, activities or aspects will change as a
result of the action?
8. A Framework for Ecological Risk Assessment: Technical
Appendices (CCME), 1997a
•
What is the estimated value of the environmental and
human health benefits that will come about as a result
of the action?
•
What are the estimated costs associated with and
created by the action?
•
Given the estimated benefits and costs, is remedial
action justified?
Notwithstanding the answers to these questions,
the decision-making process might also be driven by
difficulties in properly quantifying some of the factors as
well as defining the qualitative aspects (i.e. when dealing
with sensitive receptors or wetlands).
5. A Protocol for the Derivation of Environmental and
Human Health Soil Quality Guidelines (CCME), 1996a
6. A Protocol for the Derivation of Water Quality
Guidelines for the Protection of Aquatic Life (CCME),
1991
2.8 Step 8 — Implement Remediation/Risk
Management Strategy
OBJECTIVE
The objective of Step 8 is to implement the
Remediation/Risk Management Strategy developed in
Step 7. This step includes the following items, which
should be examined prior to selection of a technology:
•
evaluating applicable technologies, including the use
of treatability studies where appropriate. These studies
are performed where there is a need to confirm the
effectiveness of a particular technology under specific
site conditions;
•
conducting a cost-benefit analysis;
•
preparing a remedial action plan, including a worker
health and safety plan and tender documents;
•
selecting a contractor; and
•
maintaining proper documentation, quality control,
and communication with stakeholders during
implementation of the remedial action plan.
OUTPUT
A Remediation/Risk Management Strategy is developed
for the contaminated site to meet established remediation
goals. Both strategies will ensure that the remediation
goals are attained more effectively, efficiently and
economically.
RELATED DOCUMENTATION
1. Proceedings of the Workshop on the Management of
Federal Contaminated Sites (CSMWG), 1997
2. Guidance Manual for Developing Site-Specific Soil
Quality Remediation Objectives for Contaminated Sites
in Canada (CCME), 1996b
3. Recommended Canadian Soil Quality Guidelines
(CCME), 1997c
Which of the preceding items need to be addressed will
be dictated by the Site Management Strategy developed as
a result of Step 7.
METHODOLOGY
Technology Evaluation
Following the site investigation, it is necessary to
determine the remedial options. This step is an essential
Contaminated Sites
Management Working Group
25
A Federal Approach
to Contaminated Sites
part of the decision-making process and provides the
justification for any action or inaction and comparison
of remedial alternatives. The CCME Guidance Document
on the Management of Contaminated Sites in Canada,
Section 7 (CCME, 1997b) outlines a process for the
preparation and implementation of risk management
or clean-up plans. Depending on the operational history
of the specific site and the complexity of contamination
problems, remediation can range from being a
straightforward and simple clean-up to a complex,
expensive project over an extended period of time.
Comprehensive evaluation of alternatives, careful
planning of remediation, and controlled yet adaptable
implementation will facilitate effective, efficient and
economical restoration of a contaminated site.
hauling, etc.). Site Remediation Technologies: A Reference
Manual (CSMWG, 1997d) is a good summary of various
remediation technologies.
How do I identify and evaluate remedial
technologies?
There are a few general remediation/risk management
approaches that can be used to achieve the remediation
objectives set in the Remediation/Risk Management
Strategy (Step 7). The three main remedial approaches are:
•
removal and disposal;
•
containment or encapsulation; and
•
treatment.
The principal methods of achieving any of the above
remedial approaches are:
•
in situ — contaminated material, such as soil and
groundwater, is remediated in place on the site without
removal;
•
ex situ — contaminated material is removed by
excavation or pumping, remediated on site and then
replaced; or
•
off-site — contaminated material is removed by
excavation or pumping and transported off site to a
licensed facility, for either remediation or disposal.
Any combination of the above may form the
Remediation Strategy. The Remediation Strategy selected
for a site should be a practical and safe approach to
addressing the contaminants of concern. It should be cost
effective and should mitigate environmental and health
effects. Priority should be given to those technologies
which have the potential of minimizing environmental
impacts during implementation (construction, digging,
26
The following questions should be answered to
evaluate the remedial technologies for your specific site
and contamination matrix:
•
What media are affected by the contamination present
(e.g. soil, groundwater, surface water, debris,
structures, etc.)?
•
What is the contaminant type (e.g. inorganic, volatile
organics, semi-volatile organics, radioactive materials,
etc.)?
•
What are the geological, hydrogeological, hydrological,
ecological and climatic site-specific characteristics?
•
Are there particular site restrictions due to the
proximity of buildings, residential neighbourhoods,
schools or sensitive receptors or wildlife habitat?
•
What are the regulations regarding the substances
of concern?
Research on various remedial technologies may be
required to assess the effectiveness of the methods
proposed for contaminant removal. It is advisable to
carry out a literature review to determine the available
technologies and their applicability to your site.
Environment Canada has many publications that contain
technical summary reports on various remediation
technologies. Technical summaries are also available
on-line from a variety of organizations and agencies
including the Ground-Water Remediation Technologies
Analysis Center (www.gwrtac.org); Remedial Technologies
Network (www.remedial.com); U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency Technology Innovation Office
(www.clu-in.org); and the Ontario Centre for Environmental
Technology Advancement (www.oceta.on.ca).
As there are hundreds of remediation technologies,
selection is a demanding process. But keeping in mind the
chosen remediation approach and site-specific conditions
will narrow the list to a few acceptable alternatives.
Treatability studies, such as a bench scale test or pilot
scale test, can be used to evaluate the performance and
cost effectiveness of a particular technology on a given
contamination matrix.
Contaminated Sites
Management Working Group
A Federal Approach
to Contaminated Sites
What should be included in the Remedial
Action Plan?
What is included in the selection of a suitable
contractor?
The Remedial Action Plan should:
•
summarize all data from previous site investigations;
•
identify contaminants of concern;
•
identify the media affected;
•
identify, quantify and characterize the materials to be
treated or removed;
Preparing detailed specifications and tender documents
and selecting a knowledgeable, experienced contractor is
imperative to successful remediation activities. Both the
primary contractor and subcontractors must be able to
demonstrate previous successful experience using the
recommended remediation technology in similar site
conditions. A proper health and safety plan should also
be developed for the site.
•
if required, summarize the remedial options evaluated
and describe the methodology used to select the
preferred strategy;
The specification and tender documents should contain
the following:
•
describe in detail the process of remediation using the
selected technology;
•
•
detail an implementation plan including schedule and
associated costs;
concise descriptions and specifications that outline
each component of the implementation plan if not in
the contractor’s proposal;
•
•
identify control measures to minimize air emissions,
control surface water, and minimize the risk to worker
health and safety;
a clear statement of the Remedial Action Plan
objectives;
•
•
detail a contingency plan in the event that contaminants
are released into the environment;
pertinent information regarding the site, including
geology, hydrogeology, hydrology, surrounding land
uses and contaminant distribution; and
•
•
identify the fate of residual contaminants; and
a request for unit rates for additional works that may
be encountered but are unforeseen.
•
describe remedial verification and long-term monitoring
plans.
Who should provide input to the Remedial
Action Plan?
Depending upon the complexity and size of the project,
you may want to conduct an independent technical review
of the Remedial Action Plan, as well as solicit input from
the public and stakeholders, such as public interest
groups, through a public consultation process or public
meetings. You may also want to consult regulatory
agencies to determine the need for an environmental
assessment in accordance with the Canadian
Environmental Assessment Act (CEAA) prior to executing
the plan, as well as identify regulatory requirements during
implementation. In cases involving the partial remediation
of a site or implementation of a strategy, regulatory
agencies such as Environment Canada and Health Canada
should be consulted prior to commencing the work to
verify if the approach is acceptable from a regulatory
perspective. If not, other alternatives should be examined.
Contaminated Sites
Management Working Group
In addition, the bidders should be able to visit and walk
through the site and have the opportunity to ask questions
to the existing or previous site managers and users.
Proposals developed in response to the tender should
include:
•
a concise description that outlines each component
of the implementation plan;
•
a detailed work schedule;
•
identification of the need for feasibility studies;
•
bench scale tests;
•
a site monitoring plan;
•
deliverables;
•
a health and safety plan;
•
a quality assurance program;
•
a reporting schedule (i.e., progress or status reports
from the contractor); and
•
a contingency plan.
27
A Federal Approach
to Contaminated Sites
How do I maintain control during
implementation?
RELATED DOCUMENTATION
During the course of conducting remediation, it is critical
to establish and maintain an organized, comprehensive
record-keeping and documentation system as part of
an overall quality assurance program. Reporting and
documentation requirements as well as the chain of
responsibilities should be clearly defined in tender and
contract documents. Quality assurance activities may be
executed by knowledgeable site personnel or a consultant.
1. Guidance Document on the Management of
Contaminated Sites in Canada (CCME), 1997b
Access to a contaminated site should be controlled
during the site investigation and remediation. The site
control methods used (e.g. fencing, posting of signs
regarding restricted access, etc.) will depend on the scale
of the project, land use, proximity to neighbouring
properties, and site accessibility. Controlling access to the
site will help minimize the exposure of workers, protect the
public from site hazards, and prevent vandalism.
2. Site Remediation Technologies: A Reference Manual
(CSMWG), 1997
2.9 Step 9 — Confirmatory Sampling
and Final Reporting
OBJECTIVE
The objective of the Confirmatory Sampling and Final
Reporting is to ensure that remedial objectives are met
following the implementation of a Remedial Action Plan. In
addition, the site conditions will be documented in a report
for future reference.
METHODOLOGY
How should changes in the Remedial Action
Plan be addressed?
During remediation, unanticipated developments frequently
occur. Therefore, a Remedial Action Plan must be
adaptable enough to respond to new site information.
The specification and tender documents should include
provisions to address these changes.
For sites that have been remediated or subjected to risk
management, the confirmatory sampling is completed to
demonstrate that the contamination has been removed or
stabilized effectively and that the clean-up objectives have
been attained. A final report documents all activities
carried out during site decommissioning and clean-up, and
includes drawings, records, and monitoring data (relevant
in program and confirmatory data).
Changes to a Remedial Action Plan may require:
•
increased or reduced treatment system capacity;
•
personal protective equipment; and
What are the steps involved in confirmatory
sampling?
•
monitoring activities.
The following items are included in the confirmatory
sampling of a remediated site:
Depending on the nature of the project and the scope
of the changes to the plan, stakeholder consultation or
communication may be necessary.
•
A sampling of contaminated media (soil and/or
groundwater) is conducted to ensure that remediation
or risk management objectives have been achieved.
•
Sample results are compared with remediation
objectives.
•
If confirmatory sampling results indicate that
remediation objectives were not attained, further
remediation may be necessary.
•
A final report is prepared to present data collected
throughout the remedial process, including a record
of sampling events.
OUTPUT
A definitive Remedial Action Plan that addresses the
Remediation/RM Strategy objectives is established and
implemented for the site.
28
Contaminated Sites
Management Working Group
A Federal Approach
to Contaminated Sites
•
Reports and documents should be retained in
perpetuity or until such time as the property is
transferred from the federal government portfolio.
The completion of remedial activities and the adequacy
of remediation technology is validated by confirmatory
sampling. If sample results indicate that the clean-up
objectives were not attained, further remediation is
required or a change in the remediation technology may
be necessary.
Who should conduct confirmatory sampling?
Sampling should be completed by a third party qualified
to carry out such work, using standardized and consistent
sampling methods. Personnel qualifications should be
outlined in a confirmatory sampling plan. The contractor
is responsible for covering the costs of the confirmatory
sampling to demonstrate that (1) the technology used is
adequate and (2) the deliverables (remediation objectives)
are met.
Where should samples be analyzed?
Samples should be analyzed by a laboratory with an
appropriate quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC)
program and accreditation from the Canadian Association
of Environmental Analytical Laboratories (CAEAL), the
Ministère de l’Environnement (MENV) du Québec or an
organization offering an equivalent level of accreditation.
Ensure that consistent analytical methodologies are used,
and avoid changing laboratories during the remediation
process, if possible. Appropriate numbers of duplicate and
blank sample analyses should be undertaken as well.
OUTPUT
Following the confirmatory sampling program, a final
report recording sampling results and confirming that
remediation/RM objectives were met will be produced.
Alternatively, the report may state that there are levels of
contamination above those addressed by the remediation
objectives and that further remediation is required. Land
use restrictions will be documented if the remediation
objectives cannot be achieved, or a risk assessment
may be performed to demonstrate that residual levels
of contamination are acceptable.
Contaminated Sites
Management Working Group
2.10 Step 10 — Long-Term Monitoring
(Optional)
OBJECTIVE
The objective of Long-Term Monitoring is to confirm
that the nature and extent of the remediation activities
have been carried out as per the site management goals.
Is long-term monitoring required at my site?
It may not always be possible to clean up a site to a level
that results in removal of all significant concentrations
of contaminants. This may lead to short- and long-term
restrictions on intended land use for the site. The feasibility
of clean-up may be limited as a result of:
•
limitations in technology;
•
accepted operating practices of the industry; and/or
•
the nature of the contamination.
Depending on the nature and extent of remedial
activities on the site, long-term monitoring may or may
not be required. Each site must be evaluated according to
potential risks for off-site migration and ongoing impact.
Long-term monitoring is always required in cases where
remediation activities utilized containment, in situ or
isolation techniques. Generally speaking, long-term
monitoring is an integral part of a Risk Management
Strategy and allows the implementation of any contingency
plan previously developed for the site.
METHODOLOGY
How do I develop a long-term monitoring
program?
If a long-term monitoring program is required, the
following questions should aid in its design and
implementation.
•
What are the key parameters that should be measured?
These should be indicative of contamination or of
migration of contamination and/or have significant
impact on the ecosystem.
•
Which sampling locations are indicative of containment
status and mobility?
•
Are these sampling locations going to be accessible
during the sampling period?
29
A Federal Approach
to Contaminated Sites
•
Are there particular, site-specific conditions that may
affect contaminant migration, which should also be
monitored (e.g. groundwater table elevation)?
•
Do current or future land uses on or near the site have
the potential to affect the ecosystem? If yes, what are
the respective indicator contaminants?
•
What is the rate of contaminant mobility and how is
this rate affected by the time of year?
•
What is the appropriate monitoring duration, based on
the rate of contaminant mobility and the potentially
affected land uses?
•
Is it appropriate for the receptors that were identified in
the ecological risk assessment to be sampled for
indicator contaminants? If so, their life cycle and
migration patterns should be considered.
•
What monetary and personnel resources are available
to conduct the long-term monitoring?
Monitoring programs must be developed on a sitespecific basis, be periodic, and be conducted by qualified
individuals. The long-term monitoring program may
consist of:
•
inspection of on-site containment and treatment
facilities;
•
groundwater, surface water and atmospheric sampling
and analyses;
•
inspection of stabilized structures; and
•
inspection of restricted site access measures.
How do I interpret the results?
The long-term monitoring results must be evaluated
against the site-specific remediation objectives developed
in Step 7. In addition to comparing the long-term
monitoring results with the remediation objectives,
contaminant trends should be identified. A steady increase
of a contaminant or an indicator over time could be
indicative of contaminant migration or of additional
30
contamination due to on-site or nearby activities. As well,
site-specific conditions should be documented during
sampling periods, and any possible effects of these
conditions on contaminant migration should be noted.
To determine if the results of the long-term monitoring
program are satisfactory or if follow-up measures are
required, ask the following questions:
•
Are there exceedances of the remediation objectives?
•
Is there a general trend of increasing contamination
concentration over time?
•
Have site-specific conditions varied, which could
increase contaminant migration?
•
Has site redevelopment created an additional receptor
or exposure pathway that must be considered?
If the answer to any of the above questions is “yes,”
additional investigation, as outlined below, may be
required.
What if the Risk Management Strategy needs
to be modified?
If monitoring results indicate exceedance of remediation
objectives, suitable action would include reporting the
exceedances to the appropriate level of management,
and re-evaluating the Remedial Action Plan so that the
necessary contingency measures can be taken. There may
also be a need to consider once again a remediation
program through a re-evaluation of the Risk Management
Strategy. If the results of the re-evaluation are not
adequate, it may be necessary to go back to Step 7:
Develop Remediation/Risk Management Strategy or Step 8:
Implement Remediation/Risk Management Strategy.
OUTPUT
An optional long-term monitoring program will assess the
effectiveness of a Remedial Action Plan identified as part of
the Risk Management Strategy for the site.
Contaminated Sites
Management Working Group
A Federal Approach
to Contaminated Sites
References
Auditor General, December 1997. Chapter 37 —
Sustainable Development Strategy for the Office of
the Auditor General.
Auditor General, November 1996. Chapter 22 — Federal
Contaminated Sites: Management Information on
Environmental Costs and Liabilities.
CCME (Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment),
1999. 1999 Canadian Environmental Quality
Guidelines.
CCME (Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment),
1997a. A Framework for Ecological Risk
Assessment: Technical Appendices. CCME PN 1274.
CCME (Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment),
1997b. Guidance Document on the Management of
Contaminated Sites in Canada. CCME PN 1279.
CCME (Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment),
1997c. Recommended Canadian Soil Quality
Guidelines. CCME PN 1268.
CCME (Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment),
1997d. Canadian Soil Quality Guidelines for Copper:
Environmental and Human Health. CCME PN 1270.
CCME (Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment),
1997e. Canadian Soil Quality Guidelines for
Pentachlorophenol: Environmental and Human
Health. CCME PN 1272.
CCME (Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment),
1997f. Protocol for the Derivation of Canadian
Tissue Residue Guidelines for the Protection of
Wildlife that Consume Aquatic Biota. CCME PN
1290.
CCME (Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment),
1996a. A Protocol for the Derivation of
Environmental and Human Health Soil Quality
Guidelines. CCME PN 1207.
Contaminated Sites
Management Working Group
CCME (Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment),
1996b. Guidance Manual for Developing SiteSpecific Soil Quality Remediation Objectives for
Contaminated Sites in Canada. CCME PN 1197.
CCME (Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment),
1996c. A Framework for Ecological Risk
Assessment: General Guidance. CCME PN 1195.
CCME (Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment),
1995. A Protocol for the Derivation of Canadian
Sediment Quality Guidelines for the Protection of
Aquatic Life. CCME PN 1176.
CCME (Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment),
1994. Subsurface Assessment Handbook for
Contaminated Sites. CCME PN 1144.
CCME (Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment),
1993a. Guidance Manual on Sampling, Analysis, and
Data Management for Contaminated Sites —
Volume I: Main Report. CCME PN 1101.
CCME (Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment),
1993b. Guidance Manual on Sampling, Analysis, and
Data Management for Contaminated Sites —
Volume II: Analytical Method Summaries. CCME PN
1103.
CCME (Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment),
1992. National Classification System for
Contaminated Sites. CCME PN 1005.
CCME (Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment),
1991a. Interim Canadian Environmental Quality
Criteria for Contaminated Sites. CCME PN 1007.
CCME (Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment),
1991b. National Guidelines for Decommissioning
Industrial Sites. CCME-TS/WM-TRE013E.
CCME (Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment),
1991c. A Protocol for the Derivation of Water
Quality Guidelines for the Protection of Aquatic Life.
In Canadian Water Quality Guidelines, CCREM,
1987. Appendix IX. CCME PN 1040.
31
A Federal Approach
to Contaminated Sites
CCREM (Canadian Council of Resource and Environment
Ministers), 1987. Canadian Water Quality Guidelines,
Prepared by the Task Force on Water Quality
Guidelines of the Canadian Council of Resource
and Environment Ministers. CCME PN 1040.
Health Canada, 1998 (first draft). Procedures for
Conducting Human Health Risk Assessments
at Contaminated Sites in Canada.
Health Canada, 1996. Guidelines for Canadian Drinking
Water Quality, Sixth Edition.
CSA (Canadian Standards Association), 1994. Canadian
Standards Association Standard, Phase 1
Environmental Site Assessment, CSA Z768.
Health Canada, 1992. Guidelines for Canadian Recreational
Water Quality.
CSA (Canadian Standards Association), 1998. Canadian
Standards Association Standard, Phase II
Environmental Site Assessment, CSA Z769.
Indian Affairs and Northern Development, 1997.
Framework for Waste and Contaminated Site
Management, Northern Affairs Program.
CSMWG (Contaminated Sites Management Working
Group), 1997a. A Risk Management Framework
for Contaminated Sites — A Discussion Paper.
National Defence, April 1996. DND Contaminated Site
Remediation Framework, Draft Version 2.
CSMWG (Contaminated Sites Management Working
Group), 1997b. Contaminated Sites Management
Working Group, Annual Report 1996–1997.
CSMWG (Contaminated Sites Management Working
Group), 1997c. Proceedings of the Workshop on
the Management of Federal Contaminated Sites.
CSMWG (Contaminated Sites Management Working
Group), 1997d. Site Remediation Technologies:
A Reference Manual.
Environment Canada, January, 1997. A Risk Management
Framework for Contaminated Sites, A Discussion
Paper, First Draft.
Environment Canada, 1996. SEDTEC, Directory of
Contaminated Sediment Removal and Treatment
Technologies.
Treasury Board Secretariat, 2000. Contaminated Sites
Inventory Policy.
Treasury Board Secretariat, 1999. Draft Policy on
Accounting for Costs and Liabilities Related to
Contaminated Sites.
Treasury Board Secretariat, 1998. Real Property
Environment Policy.
Treasury Board Secretariat, 1996. Guide to Monitoring of
Real Property Management.
Treasury Board Secretariat, 1994. Risk Management Policy.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1993. Remediation
Technologies Screening Matrix.
Water Technology International Corporation, 1996.
REMTEC, Site Remediation Treatment Technology
Database.
Green Plan Environmental Corporation, 1995. Methodology
for the Chemical and Technology Evaluation of
Remediated Sites, Report Prepared for the
Hazardous Waste Management Branch,
Environment Canada.
32
Contaminated Sites
Management Working Group
A Federal Approach
to Contaminated Sites
APPENDIX A:
Guidance Tools — Steps for Addressing Contaminated Sites
Numerous guidance documents and scientific tools
focusing on the management of contaminated sites have
been developed for the Canadian Council of Ministers of
the Environment (CCME), Environment Canada and
Health Canada. The Federal Approach was developed not
to replace these tools, but rather to build upon and provide
guidance in their implementation and effective use.
The Federal Approach serves as an overview document,
linking the use of these tools and documents within the
context of the federal contaminated site management
process. A summary of the various scientific tools and
documents and their application to the Federal Approach
is presented below.
Guidance Tools for the Implementation of the Steps for Addressing Contaminated Sites
Guidance Document
Steps for Addressing Contaminated Sites
1
2
Environmental Quality Guidelines, CCME, 1999.
Procedures for Conducting Human Health Risk Assessments
at Contaminated Sites in Canada, Health Canada, 1998.
A Framework for Ecological Risk Assessment: Technical
Appendices, CCME, 1997.
Guidance Document on the Management of
Contaminated Sites in Canada, CCME, 1997.
A Risk Management Framework for Contaminated Sites,
A Discussion Paper, First Draft, Environment Canada, 1997.
Recommended Canadian Soil Quality Guidelines, CCME, 1997.
A Framework for Ecological Risk Assessment:
General Guidance, CCME, 1996.
A Protocol for the Derivation of Environmental and
Human Health Soil Quality Guidelines, CCME, 1996.
Guidance Manual for Developing Site-Specific Soil Quality
Remediation Objectives for Contaminated Sites in
Canada, CCME, 1996.
Protocol for the Derivation of Canadian Sediment Quality
Guidelines for the Protection of Aquatic Life, CCME, 1995.
Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment, CSA Z768,
Canadian Standards Association, 1994.
Subsurface Assessment Handbook for
Contaminated Sites, CCME, 1994.
Guidance Manual on Sampling, Analysis, and
Data Management for Contaminated Sites Volume I: Main Report, CCME, 1993.
Guidance Manual on Sampling, Analysis, and
Data Management for Contaminated Sites Volume II: Analytical Method Summaries, CCME, 1993.
Contaminated Sites
Management Working Group
3
4
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
5
6
7
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
8
9
10
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
33
A Federal Approach
to Contaminated Sites
Guidance Tools for the Implementation of the Steps for Addressing Contaminated Sites
Guidance Document
Steps for Addressing Contaminated Sites
1
2
3
✔
✔
4
5
6
7
8
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix, U.S. EPA, 1993.
National Classification System for Contaminated Sites,
CCME, 1992.
National Guidelines for Decommissioning Industrial Sites,
CCME, 1991.
Interim Canadian Environmental Quality Criteria for
Contaminated Sites, CCME EPC-CS34, 1991.
34
✔
✔
9
10
✔
Contaminated Sites
Management Working Group
A Federal Approach
to Contaminated Sites
APPENDIX B:
Generic Statements of Work for a Historical Review
PURPOSE
REFERENCES
This Statement of Work (SOW) covers methods to be used
and deliverables to be submitted by a consultant when
conducting a Historical Review (also known as a Phase 1:
Environmental Site Assessment, as per the Canadian
Standards Association) of a suspected contaminated site
for the [name of organization].
The following references are listed as guidance documents.
This is not an all-inclusive list; therefore, the contractor
shall ensure that all applicable references are used. Should
more current versions become available during the life of
the contract, they shall take precedence and be referred to
in subsequent work/reports. With the exception of [federal
department and section] policy documents and previous
assessments completed for the property listed herein,
copies of other references will not be made available.
SITE INFORMATION
This SOW applies to a Historical Review to be conducted
at [location]. [This section is to be filled out by the
contaminated site manager and should include general
information pertaining to the sites being examined.
For example, it should include information on known
suspected areas of contamination, the types of
contaminants that the contractor can be expected to find,
key problem areas, etc. This information should be general
and will vary in content depending on the number of sites.]
i. [Federal department and section] policy documents;
ii. [Previous assessment reports such as environmental
audits, environmental site assessments, environmental
baseline studies, well drilling and geotechnical reports];
and
iii. Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment, CAN/CSA
Z768-94, April 1994.
GENERAL
SCOPE OF WORK
The Historical Review includes compilation and review of
sufficient information to identify and evaluate:
To meet the objectives of this mandate, contractors will
carry out the following work, subject to site-specific
environmental issues or other factors:
•
•
the physical condition of the site and its geology,
hydrogeology, facilities and surroundings;
past and present site processes, operations, waste
disposal practices, etc.;
•
potential contaminant pathways and key ecological
receptors;
•
health and safety considerations;
•
regulatory agency concerns;
•
proposed future land use and adjacent land uses;
•
potential problem areas and contaminants of concern;
and
•
1. Compile and review all relevant information, including
(but not restricted to) the following sources and types:
•
previous reports/documents completed for the
property, such as environmental audits, environmental
site assessments, environmental baseline studies, well
drilling and geotechnical reports (including test pits and
borehole logs) for the property;
•
geological, hydrogeological, soil and biological reports
or surveys;
•
aerial photographs and fire insurance plans;
•
topographic maps and site drainage plans, including
areas of fill or water course realignment;
•
water quality records for surface water and
groundwater;
•
site climatological data (e.g. prevailing winds);
the approximate scope of required site investigations.
Contaminated Sites
Management Working Group
35
A Federal Approach
to Contaminated Sites
•
interviews with current and former employees, as well
as individuals with knowledge of the site and
surrounding areas;
•
locations of all hazardous waste storage or disposal
sites that may or may not be contaminated but formerly
contained substances of environmental concern;
•
facility plans, specifications and drawings;
•
•
drawings and inventories of raw materials, product and
fuel storage areas, and transfer points;
the locations of valued ecosystem components (VECs)
including potential human and/or animal receptors; and
•
the locations of monitoring and drinking water wells
including the results of water quality testing.
•
details of waste storage, treatment and disposal areas,
and operational and monitoring data;
•
departmental and regulatory agency compliance files
documenting historical on-site spill events and any
remedial activities;
•
rare/endangered species registry for the area;
•
historical fire plans;
•
asbestos and UFFI surveys;
•
diagrams of any underground utilities, structures,
piping, workings, injection wells or storage tanks, and
their operational history;
•
laboratory operational practices, chemicals used and
waste handling and disposal methods;
•
operation and maintenance procedures for all
components of the facility, and materials utilized;
•
information relating to past or existing equipment
containing PCBs;
•
pest and weed control practices used on the site,
including types of biocides used, application area and
disposal practices; and
•
pertinent federal, provincial/territorial and municipal
regulations.
2. Conduct a site visit to determine any visible signs of
contamination and characterize the general extent of
contamination.
3. The information gathered during the investigations in
paragraph 1 of the present section shall be used by the
contractor to determine the following:
36
•
all areas of potential environmental concern located
within the current site under investigation;
•
the likely contaminants and the periods during which
contaminant-producing activities likely occurred;
4. Prepare a report describing the findings of the
Historical Review activities. The report shall state
whether no further investigation or an Initial Field
Testing is warranted. Where the potential for site
contamination is indicated by available site information,
the report shall describe (a) the contaminant type and
sources, and (b) the areas and media of concern that
must be addressed by an Initial Field Testing.
SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS
1. Final reports shall be submitted in hard copy number
of copies to be specified by Project Manager and/or
electronic form (WordPerfect and/or Microsoft Word
format), including electronic data copies of all tables
and other data as specified by the Project Manager.
Information is given in this format with the
understanding that it will be used as a basis for
subsequent work. Documents may be made available
to other firms involved with subsequent proposal
calls/tenders at the site.
2. Refer any queries about the project from the public,
news media or others to the Project Manager.
3. The Project Manager shall be notified immediately
of conditions that pose an imminent threat to human
health and the environment.
4. There may be a special requirement for a qualitative
preliminary risk assessment, which could be carried
out during the course of the Historical Review. [Name
of organization] reserves the right to include the
requirement for this parallel qualitative risk assessment
in the project Scope of Work. Specific requirements for
this qualitative risk assessment will be determined by
the Project Manager in consultation with the contractor.
Contaminated Sites
Management Working Group
A Federal Approach
to Contaminated Sites
GENERAL REQUIREMENTS
1. The Project Manager shall be a person from
[name of organization] or a designated alternate.
2. Work
The contractor is responsible for providing the people
and resources to fulfil the terms of this SOW, including
the necessary qualified personnel, office space,
reference documents, data-processing supplies,
computers and equipment to interpret the data and
produce the final report. [At the discretion of the
Project Manager, space may be offered at the site
location to compile information. Provide details here.]
3. Site Visits
The contractor is responsible for conducting a site
visit of each potential contaminated site to identify
immediate hazards, discrepancies in drawings, or
surface contamination (e.g. new structures, areas
with dead vegetation, or visual contamination).
4. Liabilities
a. The contractor shall assume responsibility for any
accident or damage caused by its employees or
equipment to [name of organization] property or
personnel.
b. The contractor shall assume responsibility for the
security of its equipment and materials during and
after working hours. [name of organization] shall
not be liable for any vandalism, theft or loss.
5. Notifications/Permits
The contractor shall be responsible for making
whatever representations are necessary to the pertinent
organizations in order to obtain the maps, engineering
reports, aerial photographs and other documents
required to fulfil the terms of this SOW. The costs
incurred in obtaining these documents shall be borne
by the contractor.
6. Progress Reporting and Meetings
a. Progress Reports. Written progress reports
[specify page length] shall be provided to the
Project Manager as determined by the Project
Manager. The progress reports shall include a
synopsis of work completed during the latest report
period and the projected work plan for the following
period. The contractor shall be prepared to meet
with the Project Manager and discuss any matter
Contaminated Sites
Management Working Group
concerning the progress and findings of the site
investigation.
b. Meetings. The contractor shall attend meetings as
requested by the Project Manager. Personnel in
attendance shall include the contractor’s project
manager and representative(s) familiar with all
technical aspects of the project. The contractor shall
prepare minutes of the meetings and send the draft
minutes to the [Name of organization] Project
Manager for review and approval prior to their
dissemination for action. At the discretion of the
Project Manager, the contractor may be required
to maintain an action item list.
7. Quality Assurance and Quality Control
The contractor is expected to identify and adhere
to acceptable quality assurance and quality control
(QA/QC) procedures throughout the project. QA/QC
measures shall be explicitly identified in the
contractor’s work plans and project reports.
8. Health and Safety Program
A detailed health and safety plan (HASP) shall be
maintained on site at all times. Adherence to the health
and safety measures specified in that plan shall be
mandatory for all on-site personnel and all site visitors.
9. Responsibilities and Communication
All formal communication (e.g. letters of direction,
approvals, etc.) will be between the Project Manager
and the contractor.
BIDDERS’ CONFERENCE AND PROPOSALS
1. Bidders’ Conference
A bidders’ conference will be held at [location] on
[date, time] to communicate the requirements of the
contract and address any concerns of the interested
contractors. At the conference, contractors will be
given access to the following information:
a. [name of organization] policy documents;
b. available site drawings; and
c. previous environmental reports such as
Environmental Baseline Studies (EBS)/compliance
audits.
37
A Federal Approach
to Contaminated Sites
[Where possible, the Project Manager will make hard
copies of the relevant information or provide the
contractors with the information on computer disc. For
information that will not be copied (i.e. environmental
baseline studies), a schedule will be developed to permit
contractors to view these documents.]
2. Letter of Interest
Contractors wishing to bid on the work shall submit a
Letter of Interest to the Project Manager at [location]
on or before [date — a minimum of 2 weeks should
be given to the contractors to review the pertinent
information]. The letter is to provide a condensed
version of the technical and management information
requested in the full proposal (next section) and an
overall cost estimate. The letter shall not be more than
six (6) pages in length (3 leaves, double-sided) on
8½" x 11" paper, and the text shall be written in
12 point font. Only the first six pages will be reviewed
and scored. The letter will be used to evaluate and
select the contractor to carry out the work. If additional
information is required prior to making a selection,
the four (4) contractors with the highest score will be
invited to submit full proposals.
It is recognized that industry spends a great deal of
time, effort and money to develop proposals. By taking
this approach, [Name of organization] assures technical
credibility and cost effectiveness without asking every
contractor to expend time, money and resources to
produce full proposals.
3. Full Proposal [if required]
[Time period — 3 weeks is suggested] following the
bidders’ conference, four (4) contractors will be
notified of their eligibility to submit their full proposals
to [specified address] on or before [date/time]. The
proposal is to be submitted in [three] copies outlining
the approach to the Historical Review, a proposed work
schedule, a detailed cost estimate for the work and the
contractor’s relevant experience in carrying out similar
work. The proposal should display a logical, structured
approach and include the necessary information to
address the evaluation criteria.
38
EVALUATION CRITERIA
1. General
Both the Letter of Interest and full proposal will be
evaluated and scored in accordance with the following
criteria. Contractors must cover each criterion.
Proposals should expand on the requirements stated in
the SOW and describe how the contractor plans on
meeting the work requirements.
ITEM
CRITERIA
1.
Understanding of Scope,
Objectives and Possible Problems
15
2.
Approach and Methodology
35
3.
Level of Effort
20
4.
Managerial Experience
30
TOTAL
WEIGHT
100
2. Technical Proposal
a. Understanding of Scope, Objectives and Possible
Problems. The bidder should demonstrate a
comprehensive understanding of the project’s
scope and objectives. As well, the contractor must
demonstrate that direct and peripheral problems
have been anticipated. Proposed solutions to
anticipated problems must be presented.
b. Approach and Methodology. The proposed
approach and methodology should follow an
efficient and logical sequence that will fulfil the
requirements of the Statement of Work. The
proposal should describe the general approach
to the historical review and the reference
documents that will be used. The contractor should
demonstrate its ability to competently evaluate the
results and provide meaningful recommendations.
A work schedule should show that the project
milestones and objectives, both technical and
administrative, will be met.
Contaminated Sites
Management Working Group
A Federal Approach
to Contaminated Sites
c. Level of Effort. The contractor should show that a
sufficient level of effort will be applied to address
the technical requirements of the project in an
efficient and cost-effective manner. Proposals will
be evaluated on their value-for-money, where value
is interpreted as the quality and quantity of work to
be done in direct support of the project. Full
proposals shall include a breakdown of anticipated
work by task and quantity, including:
•
management and supervision;
•
research; and
•
disbursements.
3. Management Proposal
Managerial Experience. The contractor should
demonstrate that its organization, including partners
and subcontractors, has the necessary technical and
managerial background and experience. Include the
background, experience, geographic proximity to the
project site and level of involvement by task for each
key individual. The contractor should also demonstrate
technical background and experience by citing projects
of comparable scope and nature that show successful
and timely completion (include client references and
their points of contact). Indicate other tasks the key
individuals may have during the project. The backup for
key personnel should be named.
4. Contractor Selection
Selection. Selection of the contractor may take place
based on the information provided in the Letter of
Interest, or, depending on the complexity of the project,
it may be necessary to ask contractors to submit their
full proposals.
Contaminated Sites
Management Working Group
Letter of Interest (LOI). The bidder selected for
contract award or invited to submit a full proposal
will be the contractor that:
a. addresses each evaluation criterion in sufficient
depth to allow proper evaluation;
b. obtains a proposal evaluation score of 75% or
higher in each category;
c. meets all the mandatory requirements set out in the
Request for Proposal; and
d. obtains the highest final score on 100, which
includes both the technical proposal and cost.
The technical proposal score obtained following
the evaluation will be recalculated in relation to a
maximum of 90. The lowest budgetary price will get
a score of 10, with the next lowest getting 8, 6, 4, 2
and 0. Contractors should be prepared to commit to
the budgetary price.
Full Proposal. If full proposals are requested, the four
(4) highest scoring bidders will be asked to submit Full
Proposals. Where more than four (4) LOIs score above
75% and where the scores are tightly grouped, up to
six (6) bidders will be invited to submit full proposals.
The successful contractor will be the one meeting the
technical requirements specified in the previous
paragraph and obtaining the highest score on 100,
including both the technical proposal score and the
cost score within the proper budget ceiling of $ [insert
average budget price].
39
A Federal Approach
to Contaminated Sites
APPENDIX C:
Generic Statement of Work for an Initial Testing Program
PURPOSE
i. [Name of organization] policy documents [if any];
This Statement of Work (SOW) has been developed by
[name of organization] to solicit consulting services for
an Initial Testing Program (also known as a Phase II:
Environmental Site Assessment as per the Canadian
Standards Association).
ii. [Previous assessment reports such as environmental
audits, environmental baseline studies, well drilling
and geotechnical reports that are available from the
contaminated site manager’s organization, if any];
SITE INFORMATION
iv. Canadian Environmental Quality Guidelines. CCME,
1999;
This SOW applies to an Initial Testing Program to be
conducted at [location]. [This section is to be filled out by
the contaminated site manager and should include general
information pertaining to the sites being examined.
For example, it should include information on known
suspected areas of contamination, the types of
contaminants that the contractor can be expected to find,
key problem areas, etc. This information should be general
and will vary in content depending on the number of sites.]
GENERAL
The Initial Testing Program involves an initial
characterization of on-site contaminants and/or
identification of off-site contaminant source(s) that may
have affected the site. The objectives of the Initial Testing
Program are to identify:
•
types and concentrations of contaminants, general
locations of contamination, and affected areas; and
•
detailed soil, geological, hydrogeological and
hydrological conditions on and adjacent to the site.
REFERENCES
The following references are listed as guidance documents.
This is not an all-inclusive list; therefore, the contractor
shall ensure that all applicable references are used. Should
more current versions become available during the life of
the contract, they shall take precedence and be referred to
in subsequent work/reports. With the exception of
[contaminated site manager’s organization] policy
documents and previous assessments completed for the
property listed herein, copies of other references will not
be made available.
Contaminated Sites
Management Working Group
iii. Draft Phase II: Environmental Site Assessment.
CAN/CSA Z769;
v. Canadian Soil Quality Guidelines for Copper:
Environmental and Human Health. CCME, 1997;
vi. Canadian Soil Quality Guidelines for Pentachlorophenol:
Environmental and Human Health. CCME, 1997;
vii. Guidance Document on the Management of
Contaminated Sites in Canada, Section 5.3. CCME,
April 1997;
viii.Recommended Canadian Soil Quality Guidelines. CCME,
March 1997;
ix. Guidance Manual for Developing Site-Specific Soil
Quality Remediation Objectives for Contaminated Sites
in Canada. CCME, 1996;
x. A Protocol for the Derivation of Environmental and
Human Health Soil Quality Guidelines. CCME, 1996;
xi. Environmental Code of Practice for Aboveground
Storage Tank Systems Containing Petroleum Products.
CCME, August 1994;
xii. Protocol for the Derivation of Canadian Sediment
Quality Guidelines for the Protection of Aquatic Life.
CCME, March 1994;
xiii.Subsurface Assessment Handbook for Contaminated
Sites. CCME, March 1994;
xiv. Guidance Manual on Sampling, Analysis, and Data
Management for Contaminated Sites, Volumes I and II.
CCME, December 1993;
xv. Environmental Code of Practice for Underground
Storage Tank Systems Containing Petroleum Products
and Allied Petroleum Products. CCME, March 1993;
41
A Federal Approach
to Contaminated Sites
xvi.Interim Canadian Environmental Quality Criteria for
Contaminated Sites — Remediation Criteria for Soil and
Groundwater. CCME, September 1991;
xvii.Guidelines for the Management of Wastes Containing
Polychlorinated Biphenyls. CCME, September 1989;
and
•
communications between the contractor, land
owner/tenant (if applicable), and the Project Manager;
•
compilation, assessment and integration of any
additional data or information; and
•
Initial Testing (Phase II) investigation team, with
alternates identified for key personnel.
xviii.Canadian Water Quality Guidelines. CCREM, 1987.
SCOPE OF WORK
To meet the objectives of this mandate, contractors will
carry out the following work, subject to site-specific
environmental issues or other factors:
1. Design a field sampling and analytical program to
characterize potentially contaminated areas identified by
the Historical Review (Phase I: Environmental Site
Assessment). The proposed program should include
(but may not be limited to) the following:
•
•
42
a Health and Safety Plan encompassing expected site
hazards, location(s) and directions to the nearest aid
facility, personal safety equipment requirements,
personnel and equipment decontamination procedures,
exclusion zones and restrictions to public access, site
health and safety rules, and preventive measures;
identification of media to be sampled and appropriate
sampling equipment and procedures;
2. After approval by the Project Manager, complete the
sampling and analytical program. Prepare a report
describing the program results, including a discussion
of contaminated zones, the potential for contaminant
migration, and effects of off-site contamination.
3. The field work undertaken during the investigations in
paragraph 1 of the present section shall be aimed at:
•
determining whether surface contamination is present
in excess of (CCME) applicable guidelines or any other
guidelines identified by the Project Manager by taking
surface water and sediment samples from bodies of
water in the immediate vicinity of the site (e.g. ponds,
rivers, creeks, lakes or other runoff areas);
•
determining whether subsurface contamination is
present in excess of (CCME, provincial) applicable
guidelines by taking subsurface soil and groundwater
samples from the areas of potential environmental
concern previously identified;
•
gathering general information about the site, such as:
•
sample preservation and shipping requirements;
a. soil characteristics;
•
proposed analytical procedures;
b. subsurface geology;
•
field and laboratory QA/QC procedures and measures;
c. site hydrogeology;
•
proposed sampling locations, with an explicit rationale
for those locations;
d. surficial drainage patterns;
•
description of test pitting, borehole and monitoring well
installation and development procedures;
•
screening methods (e.g. photo-ionization detector
(PID), olfactory, visual) to be used;
•
non-intrusive investigation methods (e.g. geomagnetic,
ground-penetrating radar) to be used;
•
georeferencing of sample locations (e.g. land survey);
•
expected end-point for data (e.g.
hydrogeological/contaminant loading model;
preliminary volumetric estimate of contaminated
material, preliminary ecological risk assessment, etc.);
e. location of nearest structures and down gradient
monitoring and drinking water wells;
f. probable source(s) of contamination; and
g. other relevant topographical information.
•
establishing background levels of contamination at
sites where on-site contaminant levels exceed (CCME)
applicable guidelines or any other applicable guidelines
identified by the Project Manager; and
•
developing a preliminary conceptual model identifying
potential contaminants, exposure pathways and
potential receptors of concern.
Contaminated Sites
Management Working Group
A Federal Approach
to Contaminated Sites
4. The report shall state whether (a) no further
investigation is required, or (b) a Detailed Testing
Program is warranted. Where the potential for site
contamination is indicated by available site information,
the report shall describe (a) the contaminant types, and
the sources and extent of contamination, and (b) the
areas, media and receptors of concern that must be
addressed in a Detailed Testing Program or a Risk
Assessment.
SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS
g. compliance of the processes with applicable
environmental standards;
h. acceptability of processes to involved regulatory
agencies;
i. time frame for completion;
j. the degree of commercialization of the technology
and competition expected in remediation contract
bids; and
k. costs, including engineering overhead and all
foreseeable uncertainties and contingencies.
1. Sample location, topographical, hydrogeological
gradient, and existing site layout plans included in the
report shall be provided in electronic data format (or
format specified by the Project Manager). Final reports
shall be submitted in hard copy ([number of copies to
be specified by Project Manager]) and electronic form
(WordPerfect and/or Microsoft Word formats),
including electronic data copies of all tables and other
data as specified by the Project Manager.
6. There may be a special requirement for a qualitative
risk assessment, which could be carried out during
the course of the Initial Testing Program. [Name
of organization] reserves the right to include the
requirement for this parallel qualitative risk assessment
in the project Scope of Work. Specific requirements for
this qualitative risk assessment will be determined by
the Project Manager in consultation with the contractor.
2. Refer any queries about the project from the public,
news media or others to the Project Manager.
GENERAL REQUIREMENTS
3. The Project Manager shall be notified immediately of
conditions that pose an imminent threat to human
health and the environment.
1. The Project Manager shall be a person from [Name of
organization] or a designated alternate.
2. Work
4. Analysis of data will be in relation to agreed CCME
guidelines or other guidelines identified by the Project
Manager.
The contractor will be responsible for providing the
people and resources to fulfil the terms of this
Statement of Work, including the qualified personnel,
office space, reference documents, laboratory and dataprocessing supplies, and machinery and equipment to:
5. If remediation is required, determine and evaluate
remedial action alternatives, based on the following
parameters:
a. conduct the initial survey (e.g. geophysical survey,
vapour survey, or other innovative techniques)
where site conditions warrant;
a. effectiveness in meeting CCME or other criteria as
appropriate;
b. cost (broken down by major activity and
type/capacity of equipment required);
c. safety procedures to be followed during
remediation;
d. monitoring requirements and costs;
e. reduction of risk as appropriate to site location, site
land use(s), and human health and/or ecological
receptors;
f. commercial utilization of proposed technologies,
preferably in regard to the geographic area;
Contaminated Sites
Management Working Group
b. conduct the field work;
c. dispose of surplus and contaminated excavated
material in approved locations;
d. take soil, groundwater and surface water samples
as appropriate;
e. ship samples to laboratories;
f. analyze the samples;
g. clean up sites on completion of work; and
h. interpret the data and produce the required
deliverables as specified in this SOW.
43
A Federal Approach
to Contaminated Sites
3. Liabilities
a. The contractor shall assume responsibility for any
accident or damage caused by its employees or
equipment to [name of organization] property or
personnel.
b. The contractor shall assume responsibility for the
security of its equipment and materials during and
after working hours [name of organization] shall not
be liable for any vandalism, theft or loss.
4. Notifications/Permits
The contractor shall be responsible for making
whatever representations are necessary to the pertinent
organizations in order to carry out the work required
to fulfil the terms of this SOW. The costs incurred in
obtaining these documents shall be borne by the
contractor.
5. Progress Reporting and Meetings
a. Progress Reports. Written progress reports
[specify page length] shall be provided to the
Project Manager. The progress reports shall include
a synopsis of work completed during the latest
report period and the projected work plan for the
following period. The contractor shall be prepared
to meet with the Project Manager and to discuss
any matter concerning the progress and findings
of the site investigation.
b. Meetings. The contractor shall attend meetings as
requested by the Project Manager. Personnel in
attendance shall include the contractor’s project
manager and representative(s) familiar with all
technical aspects of the project. The contractor
shall prepare minutes of the meetings and send the
draft minutes to the [Name of organization] Project
Manager for review and approval prior to their
dissemination for action. At the discretion of the
Project Manager, the contractor may be required to
maintain an action item list.
6. Quality Assurance and Quality Control
The contractor is expected to identify and adhere to
acceptable quality assurance and quality control
(QA/QC) procedures throughout the project. QA/QC
measures shall be explicitly identified in the
contractor’s work plans and project reports.
7. Health and Safety Program
A detailed health and safety plan (HASP) shall be
maintained on site at all times. Adherence to the health
44
and safety measures specified in that plan shall be
mandatory for all on-site personnel and all site visitors.
8. Responsibilities and Communication
All formal communication (e.g. letters of direction,
approvals, etc.) will be between the Project Manager
and the contractor.
BIDDERS’ CONFERENCE AND PROPOSALS
1. Bidders’ Conference
A bidders’ conference will be held at [location] on
[date, time] to communicate the requirements of the
contract and address any concerns of the interested
contractors. At the conference, contractors will be
given access to the following information:
a. [Name of organization] policy documents;
b. available site drawings; and
c. previous environmental reports such as
Environmental Baseline Studies (EBS) and
environmental assessment or audit reports
for the property.
[Where possible, the Project Manager will make
hard copies of the relevant information or provide the
contractors with the information on computer disc.
For information that will not be copied (i.e. baseline
studies), a schedule will be developed to permit
contractors to view these documents].
2. Letter of Interest
Contractors wishing to bid on the work shall submit a
Letter of Interest to the Project Manager at [location]
on or before [date — a minimum of 2 weeks, where
possible, should be given to the contractors to review
the pertinent information]. The letter is to provide a
condensed version of the technical and management
information requested in the full proposal (next section)
and an overall cost estimate. The letter shall not be
more than six (6) pages in length (3 leaves, doublesided) on 8½" x 11" paper, and the text shall be written
in 12 point font. Only the first six pages will be
reviewed and scored. The letter will be used to evaluate
and select the contractor to carry out the work. If
additional information is required prior to making a
selection, the four (4) contractors with the highest
score will be invited to submit full proposals.
Contaminated Sites
Management Working Group
A Federal Approach
to Contaminated Sites
It is recognized that industry spends a great deal of
time, effort and money to develop proposals. By taking
this approach, [Name of organization] assures technical
credibility and cost effectiveness without asking every
contractor to expend time, money and resources to
produce full proposals.
3. Full Proposal [if required]
[Time period — 3 weeks is suggested] following
the bidders’ conference, four (4) contractors will be
notified of their eligibility to submit their full proposals
to [specified address] on or before [date/time].
The proposal is to be submitted in [number] copies
outlining the approach to the Initial Field Testing
Program, the technologies that will be used, a
proposed work schedule, and a detailed cost estimate
for the work. The proposal should display a logical,
cost-effective approach, and include the necessary
information to address the evaluation criteria.
EVALUATION CRITERIA
1. General
Both the Letter of Interest and full proposal will be
evaluated and scored in accordance with the following
criteria. Contractors must cover each criterion.
Proposals should expand on requirements stated in
the SOW and describe how the contractor plans on
meeting the work requirement.
ITEM
CRITERIA
1.
Understanding of Scope,
Objectives and Possible Problems
15
2.
Approach and Methodology
35
3.
Level of Effort
20
4.
Managerial Experience
30
TOTAL
WEIGHT
100
2. Technical Proposal
a. Understanding of Scope, Objectives and Possible
Problems. The bidder should demonstrate a
comprehensive understanding of the project’s
scope and objectives. As well, the contractor must
demonstrate that direct and peripheral problems
have been anticipated. Proposed solutions to
anticipated problems must be presented.
Contaminated Sites
Management Working Group
b. Approach and Methodology. The proposed approach
and methodology should follow an efficient and
logical sequence that will fulfil the requirements of
the Statement of Work. The proposal should explain
how sample results will be obtained and analyzed,
how quality assurance and quality control will
be maintained, and how the health and safety
requirements will be met. The contractor should
demonstrate its ability to competently evaluate the
results and provide meaningful recommendations.
A work schedule should show that the project
milestones and objectives, both technical and
administrative, will be met.
c. Level of Effort. The contractor should show that a
sufficient level of effort will be applied to address
the technical requirements of the project in an
efficient and cost-effective manner. Proposals will
be evaluated on their value-for-money, where value
is interpreted as the quality and quantity of work
to be done in direct support of the project. Full
proposals shall include a breakdown of anticipated
work by task and quantity, including:
• management and supervision;
• analysis; and
• disbursements.
3. Management Proposal
Managerial Experience. The contractor should
demonstrate that its organization, including partners
and subcontractors, has the necessary technical and
managerial background and experience. Include the
background, experience, geographic proximity to the
project site and level of involvement by task for each
key individual. The contractor should also demonstrate
technical background and experience by citing projects
of comparable scope and nature that show successful
and timely completion (include client references and
their points of contact). Indicate other tasks the key
individuals may have during the project. The backup for
key personnel should be named.
4. Contractor Selection
Selection. Selection of the contractor may take place
based on the information provided in the Letter of
Interest, or, depending on the complexity of the project,
it may be necessary to ask contractors to submit their
full proposals.
45
A Federal Approach
to Contaminated Sites
Letter of Interest (LOI). The bidder selected for
contract award or invited to submit a full proposal
will be the contractor that:
a. addresses each evaluation criterion in sufficient
depth to allow proper evaluation;
b. obtains a proposal evaluation score of 75% or
higher in each category;
c. meets all the mandatory requirements set out in
the Request for Proposal; and
d. obtains the highest final score on 100, which
includes both the technical proposal and cost.
The technical proposal score obtained following
the evaluation will be recalculated in relation to a
maximum of 90. The lowest budgetary price will get
a score of 10 with the next lowest getting 8, 6, 4, 2
and 0. Contractors should be prepared to commit to
the budgetary price.
Full Proposal. If full proposals are requested, the four
(4) highest scoring bidders will be asked to submit full
proposals. Where more than four (4) LOIs score above
75% and where the scores are tightly grouped, up to
six (6) bidders will be invited to submit full proposals.
The successful contractor will be the one meeting
the technical requirements specified in the previous
paragraph and obtaining the highest score on 100,
including both the technical proposal score and the
cost score within the proper budget ceiling of $ [insert
average budget price].
46
Contaminated Sites
Management Working Group
A Federal Approach
to Contaminated Sites
APPENDIX D:
Statement of Work for a Detailed Testing Program
PURPOSE
•
This Statement of Work (SOW) has been developed by
[Name of organization] to solicit consulting services for
a Detailed Testing Program (also known as a Phase II:
Environmental Site Assessment as per the Canadian
Standards Association).
to provide contaminant and other information
necessary to finalize environmental quality remediation
guidelines or risk assessment; and
•
to provide all other information required to develop a
Remediation Plan and input to specifications and tender
documents.
SITE INFORMATION
REFERENCES
This SOW applies to a Detailed Testing Program to be
conducted at [location]. [This section is to be filled out
by the Project Manager and should include general
information pertaining to the sites being examined.
For example, it should include information on known
suspected areas of contamination, the types of
contaminants that the contractor can be expected to find,
key problem areas, etc. This information should be general
and will vary in content depending on the number of sites.]
GENERAL
The following references are listed as guidance documents.
This is not an all-inclusive list; therefore, the contractor
shall ensure that all applicable references are used. Should
more current versions become available during the life of
the contract, they shall take precedence and be referred to
in subsequent work/reports. With the exception of [name
of organization] policy documents and previous
assessments completed for the property listed herein,
copies of other references will not be made available.
i. [Name of organization] policy documents [if any];
The Detailed Testing Program includes a detailed
characterization of on-site contaminants and/or
identification of off-site contaminant source(s) that may
have affected the site. It should not be carried out unless
previous investigations, such as an Initial Testing Program,
have validated that:
ii. [Previous assessment reports such as Historical
Review report, Initial Testing Program report,
environmental impact assessments, environmental
baseline studies, well drilling and geotechnical reports
that are available from the Project Manager’s
organization [if any];
•
contamination is present at the site in concentrations
exceeding established guidelines;
iii. Canadian Soil Quality Guidelines for Copper:
Environmental and Human Health. CCME, 1997;
•
the site has area(s) of environmental concern. Potential
exposure pathways exist for contaminants to come into
contact with valued ecosystem components (VECs);
and
iv. Canadian Soil Quality Guidelines for Pentachlorophenol:
Environmental and Human Health. CCME, 1997;
•
further investigation is required prior to proceeding
with a Remediation or Risk Management Strategy.
The objectives of a Detailed Testing Program are:
•
•
to target and delineate the boundaries of identified
contamination;
to define, in greater detail, site conditions and to
identify all contaminant pathways, particularly with
respect to possible risk assessment;
Contaminated Sites
Management Working Group
v. Guidance Document on the Management of
Contaminated Sites in Canada, Section 5.4. CCME, April
1997;
vi. Canadian Environmental Quality Guidelines. CCME
1999;
vii. A Framework for Ecological Risk Assessment: Technical
Appendices. CCME, March 1997;
viii.Guidance Manual for Developing Site-Specific Soil
Quality Remediation Objectives for Contaminated Sites
in Canada. CCME, 1996;
47
A Federal Approach
to Contaminated Sites
•
a Health and Safety Plan encompassing expected
site hazards, location(s) and directions to the
nearest aid facility, personal safety equipment
requirements, personnel and equipment
decontamination procedures, exclusion zones and
restrictions to public access, site health and safety
rules, and preventive measures;
•
the identification of previously undiscovered
contaminant zones as a result of the gap analysis,
if required, and delineation of both new and
previously discovered zones;
xiii.Subsurface Assessment Handbook for Contaminated
Sites. CCME, March 1994;
•
xiv. Guidance Manual on Sampling, Analysis, and Data
Management for Contaminated Sites, Volumes I and II.
CCME, December 1993;
the assessment of analyzed site contamination
levels by comparing contaminant levels with
appropriate federal or provincial criteria;
•
xv. Environmental Code of Practice for Underground
Storage Tank Systems Containing Petroleum Products
and Allied Petroleum Products. CCME, March 1993;
development of a thorough knowledge of the
hydrology and hydrogeology of the area including
soil permeability and groundwater flow gradients;
•
sampling of media using appropriate sampling
equipment and procedures;
•
sample preservation and shipping requirements;
•
proposed analytical procedures;
•
field and laboratory QA/QC procedures and
measures;
•
proposed sampling locations, with an explicit
rationale for those locations;
•
description of borehole and monitoring well
installation and development procedures;
•
screening methods (e.g. photo-ionization detector
(PID), olfactory, visual) to be used;
•
georeferencing of sample locations (e.g. land
survey);
•
assessment criteria;
•
expected end-point for data (e.g.
hydrogeological/contaminant loading model;
detailed volumetric estimate of contaminated
material, preliminary ecological risk assessment,
etc.);
•
communications between the contractor, land
owner/tenant (if applicable), and the Project
Manager;
•
compilation, assessment and integration of any
additional data or information;
ix. A Protocol for the Derivation of Environmental and
Human Health Soil Quality Guidelines. CCME, 1996;
x. A Framework for Ecological Risk Assessment: General
Guidance. CCME, 1996;
xi. Environmental Code of Practice for Aboveground
Storage Tank Systems Containing Petroleum Products.
CCME, August 1994;
xii. Protocol for the Derivation of Canadian Sediment
Quality Guidelines for the Protection of Aquatic Life.
CCME, March 1994;
xvi.Interim Canadian Environmental Quality Criteria for
Contaminated Sites — Remediation Criteria for Soil and
Groundwater. CCME, September 1991;
xvii.Guidelines for the Management of Wastes Containing
Polychlorinated Biphenyls. CCME, September 1989;
and
xviii.Canadian Water Quality Guidelines, CCREM, 1987.
SCOPE OF WORK
To meet the objectives of this mandate, contractors will
carry out the following work, subject to site-specific
environmental issues or other factors:
1. Design a field sampling and analytical program to
further characterize contaminated areas identified by
the Initial Testing Program (Phase II: Environmental
Site Assessment). The proposed program should
include (but may not be limited to) the following:
•
48
a review of previous Site Investigation Studies such
as the Historical Review (Phase I) report and the
Initial Testing Program report (Phase II) to
determine the site’s history, environmental setting
and known environmental condition and to identify
any gaps in the site’s history and land use
practices;
Contaminated Sites
Management Working Group
A Federal Approach
to Contaminated Sites
•
identification and evaluation of remedial and/or risk
management alternatives appropriate to site
conditions, addressing the following considerations
as a minimum:
e. soil pH;
f. moisture content;
g. microbial density; and
h. chemical characteristics of the soil in terms of
electron acceptors, nutrients, and metal content
(i.e. SO4, CO2, total N2, NO2, NO3, P, K, Fe+2, Fe+3,
Mn, Zn, and Cu concentrations).
a. expected effectiveness of each alternative in
meeting federal regulatory requirements and
applicable federal or provincial contaminant criteria;
b. technical feasibility of implementing each
alternative;
•
establishing the hydrogeology of the site including
the depth to the water table, local hydraulic
gradient, soil permeability (e.g. slug tests), and
the groundwater flow direction;
•
establishing the chemical composition of the
groundwater;
•
characterizing the subsurface contamination
by taking soil and groundwater samples at an
appropriate number of locations to determine the
type, form, concentrations, and horizontal and
vertical extent of contamination;
•
determining the contaminant sources and the
surface and subsurface routes (i.e. past, present
and estimated future) for contaminant migration.
Retardation factors that may limit the rate of
contaminant migration should also be identified;
and
•
revising the conceptual model of each contaminated
site, created during the previous Initial Testing
Program, to reflect the environmental knowledge
attained during the Detailed Testing Program.
c. estimated length of time to complete
remediation/management of the site; and
d. estimated cost of implementing each
remediation/management alternative to completion;
and
•
detailed testing investigation team, with alternates
identified for key personnel.
2. After approval by the Project Manager, complete the
sampling and analytical program. Prepare a report
describing the program results, including a discussion
of contaminated zones, the potential for contaminant
migration, and effects of off-site contamination.
3. The field work undertaken during the investigations in
paragraph 1 of the present section shall be aimed at:
•
determining contaminant concentrations in surface
water runoff areas in the immediate vicinity of the
site;
•
determining background levels of possible
contaminants, as well as the natural composition of
the soil and groundwater;
•
establishing the subsurface geology of the site
including the nature, thickness, heterogeneity,
lateral extent and continuity of surficial deposits,
depth to bedrock, changes in soil stratigraphy, and
the presence of underground anomalies;
•
establishing the physical and chemical properties of
the soil. Sufficient samples should be taken from
each stratigraphic unit affected by the
contamination to determine the following:
4. The report shall provide recommendations on
remedial/risk management measures based on known
technology. Recommendations should include the type
and capacity of equipment required, the time required
to complete the remediation and/or risk management
measures, the safety procedures to be practised during
implementation of the remediation/risk management
measures, and costs broken down by major activity. If
the property does not require remediation or risk
management of the site contaminants, the contractor
shall provide that conclusion in the Detailed Testing
Program report.
a. effective grain size;
b. soil porosity;
c. soil density;
d. organic carbon content;
Contaminated Sites
Management Working Group
SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS
1. Sample location, topographical, hydrogeological
gradient, and existing site layout plans included in
the report shall be provided in electronic data form
49
A Federal Approach
to Contaminated Sites
(AutoCad 14 [or format specified by the Project
Manager]). Final reports shall be submitted in hard
copy ([number of copies to be specified by Project
Manager]) and electronic form (WordPerfect and/or
Microsoft Word formats), including electronic data
copies of all tables and other data as specified by the
Project Manager.
2. Refer any queries about the project from the public,
news media or others to the Project Manager.
3. The Project Manager shall be notified immediately of
conditions that pose an imminent threat to human
health and the environment.
4. Analysis of data will be in relation to agreed CCME
guidelines or other guidelines identified by the Project
Manager.
5. There may be a special requirement for a qualitative
risk assessment, which could be carried out during the
course of the Detailed Field Testing Program. [Name
of organization] reserves the right to include the
requirement for this parallel qualitative risk assessment
in the project Scope of Work. Specific requirements for
this qualitative risk assessment will be determined by
the Project Manager in consultation with the contractor.
GENERAL REQUIREMENTS
1. The Project Manager shall be a person from [Name of
organization] or a designated alternate.
2. Work
The contractor will be responsible for providing the
people and resources to fulfil the terms of this
Statement of Work, including the qualified personnel,
office space, reference documents, laboratory and dataprocessing supplies, and machinery and equipment to:
a. conduct the site visit;
b. conduct the surface and sub-surface investigations
(i.e. drill boreholes, take soil samples, and put in
place monitoring wells);
c. dispose of surplus and contaminated excavated
material in approved locations;
d. take appropriate soil, groundwater, surface water
and sediments samples;
f. analyze the samples;
g. clean up sites on completion of work;
h. interpret the data and produce the required
deliverables as specified in this SOW; and
i. monitoring.
3. Liabilities
a. The contractor shall assume responsibility for any
accident or damage caused by its employees or
equipment to [Name of organization] property,
personnel and monitoring wells.
b. The contractor shall assume responsibility for the
security of its equipment and materials during and
after working hours. [Name of organization] shall
not be liable for any vandalism, theft or loss.
4. Notifications/Permits
The contractor shall be responsible for making
whatever representations are necessary to the pertinent
organizations in order to carry out the work required to
fulfil the terms of this SOW. The costs incurred in
obtaining these documents shall be borne by the
contractor.
5. Progress Reporting and Meetings
a. Progress Reports. Written progress reports
[specify page length] shall be provided to the
Project Manager for periods determined by the
Project Manager. The progress reports shall include
a synopsis of work completed during the latest
report period and the projected work plan for the
following period. The contractor shall be prepared
to meet with the Project Manager and to discuss
any matter concerning the progress and findings
of the site investigation.
b. Meetings. The contractor shall attend meetings
as requested by the Project Manager. Personnel in
attendance shall include the contractor’s project
manager and representative(s) familiar with all
technical aspects of the project. The contractor
shall prepare minutes of the meetings and send the
draft minutes to the [Name of organization] Project
Manager for review and approval prior to their
dissemination for action. At the discretion of the
Project Manager, the contractor may be required
to maintain an action item list.
e. ship samples to laboratories;
50
Contaminated Sites
Management Working Group
A Federal Approach
to Contaminated Sites
6. Quality Assurance and Quality Control
The contractor is expected to identify and adhere to
acceptable quality assurance and quality control
(QA/QC) procedures throughout the project. QA/QC
measures shall be explicitly identified in the
contractor’s work plans and project reports.
8½" x 11" paper, and the text shall be written in 12
point font. Only the first six pages will be reviewed and
scored. The letter will be used to evaluate and select
the contractor to carry out the work. If additional
information is required prior to making a selection,
the four (4) contractors with the highest score will be
invited to submit full proposals.
7. Health and Safety Program
A detailed health and safety plan (HASP) shall be
maintained on site at all times. Adherence to the health
and safety measures specified in that plan shall be
mandatory for all on-site personnel and all site visitors.
8. Responsibilities and Communication
All formal communication (e.g. letters of direction,
approvals, etc.) will be between the Project Manager
and the contractor.
BIDDERS’ CONFERENCE AND PROPOSALS
1. Bidders’ Conference
A bidders’ conference will be held at [location] on
[date, time] to communicate the requirements of the
contract and address any concerns of the interested
contractors. At the conference, contractors will be
given access to the following information:
a. [name of organization] policy documents;
It is recognized that industry spends a great deal of
time, effort and money to develop proposals. By taking
this approach, [Name of organization] assures technical
credibility and cost effectiveness without asking every
contractor to expend time, money and resources to
produce full proposals.
3. Full Proposal [if required]
[Time period — 3 weeks is suggested] following
the bidders’ conference, four (4) contractors will be
notified of their eligibility to submit their full proposals
to [specified address] on or before [date/time].
The proposal is to be submitted in [number] copies
outlining the approach to the Detailed Testing Program,
the technologies that will be used, a proposed work
schedule, and a detailed cost estimate for the work.
The proposal should display a logical, cost-effective
approach, and include the necessary information to
address the evaluation criteria.
b. available site drawings; and
c. previous reports such as Environmental Baseline
Studies (EBS) and environmental assessment or
audit reports for the property.
[Where possible, the Project Manager will make
hard copies of the relevant information or provide the
contractors with the information on computer disc.
For information that will not be copied (i.e. baseline
studies), a schedule will be developed to permit
contractors to view these documents].
2. Letter of Interest
Contractors wishing to bid on the work shall submit a
Letter of Interest to the Project Manager at [location]
on or before [date — a minimum of 2 weeks should
be given to the contractors to review the pertinent
information]. The letter is to provide a condensed
version of the technical and management information
requested in the full proposal (next section) and an
overall cost estimate. The letter shall not be more than
six (6) pages in length (3 leaves, double-sided) on
Contaminated Sites
Management Working Group
EVALUATION CRITERIA
1. General
Both the Letter of Interest and full proposal will be
evaluated and scored in accordance with the following
criteria. Contractors must cover each criterion.
Proposals should expand on requirements stated in
the SOW and describe how the contractor plans on
meeting the work requirement.
ITEM
CRITERIA
1.
Understanding of Scope,
Objectives and Possible Problems
15
2.
Approach and Methodology
35
3.
Level of Effort
20
4.
Managerial Experience
30
TOTAL
WEIGHT
100
51
A Federal Approach
to Contaminated Sites
2. Technical Proposal
a. Understanding of Scope, Objectives and Possible
Problems. The bidder should demonstrate a
comprehensive understanding of the project’s
scope and objectives. As well, the contractor must
demonstrate that direct and peripheral problems
have been anticipated. Proposed solutions to
anticipated problems must be presented.
b. Approach and Methodology. The proposed
approach and methodology should follow an
efficient and logical sequence that will fulfil the
requirements of the Statement of Work. The
proposal should explain how sample results will be
obtained and analyzed, how quality assurance and
quality control will be maintained, and how the
health and safety requirements will be met.
The contractor should demonstrate its ability to
competently evaluate the results and provide
meaningful recommendations. A work schedule
should show that the project milestones and
objectives, both technical and administrative,
will be met.
c. Level of Effort. The contractor should show that a
sufficient level of effort will be applied to address
the technical requirements of the project in an
efficient and cost-effective manner. Proposals will
be evaluated on their value-for-money, where value
is interpreted as the quality and quantity of work
to be done in direct support of the project. Full
proposals shall include a breakdown of anticipated
work by task and quantity, including:
•
management and supervision;
•
analysis; and
•
disbursements.
3. Management Proposal
Managerial Experience. The contractor should
demonstrate that its organization, including partners
and subcontractors, has the necessary technical and
managerial background and experience. Include the
background, experience, geographic proximity to the
project site and level of involvement by task for each
key individual. The contractor should also demonstrate
technical background and experience by citing projects
of comparable scope and nature that show successful
and timely completion (include client references and
their points of contact). Indicate other tasks the key
individuals may have during the project. The backup
for key personnel should be named.
52
4. Contractor Selection
Selection. Selection of the contractor may take place
based on the information provided in the Letter of
Interest, or, depending on the complexity of the project,
it may be necessary to ask contractors to submit their
full proposals.
Letter of Interest (LOI). The bidder selected for
contract award or invited to submit a full proposal
will be the contractor that:
a. addresses each evaluation criterion in sufficient
depth to allow proper evaluation;
b. obtains a proposal evaluation score of 75% or
higher in each category;
c. meets all the mandatory requirements set out in
the Request for Proposal; and
d. obtains the highest final score on 100, which
includes both the technical proposal and cost.
The technical proposal score obtained following
the evaluation will be recalculated in relation to a
maximum of 90. The lowest budgetary price will get
a score of 10, with the next lowest getting 8, 6, 4, 2
and 0. Contractors should be prepared to commit to
the budgetary price.
Full Proposal. If full proposals are requested, the four
(4) highest scoring bidders will be asked to submit full
proposals. Where more than four (4) LOIs score above
75% and where the scores are tightly grouped, up to
six (6) bidders will be invited to submit full proposals.
The successful contractor will be the one meeting the
technical requirements specified in the previous
paragraph and obtaining the highest score on 100,
including both the technical proposal and the cost
score within the proper budget ceiling of $ [insert
average budget price].
Contaminated Sites
Management Working Group
A Federal Approach
to Contaminated Sites
APPENDIX E:
Generic Statement of Work for Human Health and/or Ecological Risk Assessment
PURPOSE
REFERENCES
This Statement of Work (SOW) has been developed by
[Name of organization] to solicit consulting services for
a Human Health and/or Ecological Risk Assessment at
suspect contaminated sites.
The following references are listed as guidance documents.
This is not an all-inclusive list; therefore, the contractor
shall ensure that all applicable references are used. Should
more current versions become available during the life of
the contract, they shall take precedence and be referred to
in subsequent work/reports. With the exception of [project
manager’s organization] policy documents and previous
assessments completed for the property listed herein,
copies of other references will not be made available.
SITE INFORMATION
This SOW applies to a Human Health and/or Ecological
Risk Assessment to be conducted at [location]. [This
section is to be filled out by the Project Manager and
should include general information pertaining to the sites
being examined. For example, it should include information
on known suspected areas of contamination, the types of
contaminants that the contractor can be expected to find,
key problem areas, etc. This information should be general
and will vary in content depending on the number of sites.]
GENERAL
The Human Health and/or Ecological Risk Assessment
includes an assessment of the risks posed by soil,
groundwater, sediment and surface water contamination
on human or ecological receptors. It may be carried out
concurrently with either the Initial Testing Program or
the Detailed Testing Program if it is established early in
the contaminated site management process that Risk
Assessment is warranted. The objectives of the Human
Health and/or Ecological Risk Assessment are:
•
to address significant ecological concerns that cannot
be addressed otherwise;
•
to close unacceptable data gaps such as:
a. exposure conditions that are particularly
unpredictable or uncertain;
b. lack of information about receptors; and
c. high degree of uncertainty about hazard levels; and
•
to address site characteristics that are not amenable to
other contaminated site management strategies.
i. [Project Manager’s organization] policy documents
[if any];
ii. [Previous assessment reports such as Historical
Review report, Initial and Detailed Testing Program
reports if available, environmental impact assessments,
environmental baseline studies, well drilling and
geotechnical reports that are available from the project
manager’s organization, if any];
iii. Guidance Document on the Management of
Contaminated Sites in Canada, Section 6.2.1.2. CCME,
April 1997;
iv. A Framework for Ecological Risk Assessment: Technical
Appendices. CCME, March 1997;
v. A Protocol for the Derivation of Environmental and
Human Health Soil Quality Guidelines. CCME, March
1996;
vi. Guidance Manual for Developing Site-Specific Soil
Quality Remediation Objectives for Contaminated Sites.
CCME, March 1996;
vii. A Framework for Ecological Risk Assessment: General
Guidance. CCME, March 1996;
viii.A Framework for Ecological Risk Assessment at
Contaminated sites in Canada: Review and
Recommendations. Environment Canada, 1994;
ix. Framework for Ecological Risk Assessment. United
States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA),
1992;
x. CCME Environmental Quality Guidelines 1999; and
Contaminated Sites
Management Working Group
53
A Federal Approach
to Contaminated Sites
xi. Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund — Volume 1:
Human Health Evaluation Manual. United States
Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA), 1991.
•
if an ecological risk exists at the site based on
discussions with regulatory agencies (i.e. Hazard
Index is greater than 1);
•
whether the risks can be mitigated through the
implementation of a risk management strategy;
To meet the objectives of this mandate, contractors will
carry out the following work, subject to site-specific
environmental issues or other factors:
•
whether the site will self-remediate over the long
term through natural processes such as
bioremediation;
1. Conduct the Risk Assessment to determine the
significance of contamination at the site(s) of concern;
•
whether site remediation is required; and
•
whether completion of remediation project is
justified, and why.
SCOPE OF WORK
2. Review the results of previous testing programs to
verify that a contaminant exposure pathway exists that
may present a human or ecological health concern.
For each contaminant, pathway and receptor of concern
the contractor shall:
•
review previous information about the site and
gather the necessary data to conduct the Human
Health and/or Ecological Risk Assessment;
•
conduct an exposure assessment to establish the
complexity of the Risk Assessment, appropriate
exposure amortization, characteristics of receptors,
and the bio-availability of contaminants (as
appropriate). The pathways by which individuals,
flora or fauna may come in contact with the
contaminants of concern will be identified and their
exposure will be quantified;
•
conduct the toxicity assessment by classifying the
contaminants of concern, establishing the toxicity
assessment end-points for ecological receptors,
and developing exposure limits, concentration limits
and/or potency factors for contaminants of concern,
as appropriate; and
•
conduct the risk characterization using equations
appropriate to the contaminants of concern, provide
a sample calculation of the results, and conduct an
evaluation/interpretation of the risk estimates.
3. Based on the results of the previous investigations and
the Risk Assessment, the contractor shall indicate the
following:
•
54
if a human health risk exists at the site (i.e.
Numerical Cancer Risk estimate is greater than
1 x 10–6);
4. After approval of the work plan by the Project Manager,
complete the Risk Assessment process. Prepare a
report, making recommendations regarding the action
required at the site. If no unacceptable risk is found and
there is evidence that the contaminants are naturally
degrading, the contractor should indicate that no
further work is required. The contractor shall also
provide a rationale for the conclusions made in the
Risk Assessment.
5. The work undertaken during the Risk Assessment shall
be aimed at:
•
meeting the requirements laid out in the present
Statement of Work by taking a logical, structured
and cost-effective approach;
•
conducting a review of pertinent documentation
related to the site to avoid repetition. The contractor
shall also conduct an inspection of the site, noting
any changes since the time of the earlier reports.
The information gathered should be used to develop
an understanding of the potential risks to human
and ecological health, based on the types of
contaminants, hydrogeological and topographical
information, soil characteristics, habitat, habitat
adjoining the property, and the current and
proposed future land use of the site;
•
conducting an Exposure Assessment of the site(s).
This involves determining the concentrations of
contaminants in the appropriate environmental
media in terms of either a point estimate (e.g.
mean, 95th percentile, maximum) or a probability
distribution function if a probabilistic approach has
been chosen. The contractor shall amortize the
exposure to the scenarios under investigation and
characterize the receptors concerning the exposure
Contaminated Sites
Management Working Group
A Federal Approach
to Contaminated Sites
factors. Several steps in the Exposure Assessment
will involve discussions with appropriate [Name of
organization] personnel and regulatory officials to
establish acceptable parameters for the
assessment;
•
•
conducting a Toxicity Assessment of the site(s).
For human health risk assessments, this involves
classifying each of the contaminants of concern
with regard to their potential toxicity or
carcinogenicity. For ecological risk assessments,
the contractor will propose appropriate assessment
end-points for the site, for discussion with the
[Name of organization] Project Manager and
appropriate regulatory officials. The contractor shall
identify Toxicity Reference Values or Concentration
Limits for human health assessments or derive
limits using standard protocols if appropriate
regulatory limits are not available. In the case of
ecological assessments, the contractor shall identify
or develop appropriate Toxicity Reference Values or
Concentration Limits based on receptors of
concern; and
determining the risks associated with exposure to
contaminants on the site for both ecological and
human receptors as appropriate. Risks will be
calculated as Hazard Quotients or Indices,
Numerical Cancer Risk Estimates, or Exposure
Ratios. The contractor shall evaluate and interpret
the risk estimates and provide sources of
uncertainty in the Risk Assessment process. The
contractor shall also provide a sample calculation of
risk estimates for both a threshold and nonthreshold response contaminant.
6. The report shall outline the procedures, rationales and
assumptions made during the assessment, and will
clearly state the combinations of contaminants,
receptors and pathways that may constitute a health
risk. A Conceptual Model of the contaminant source,
release mechanism, transportation and fate
mechanisms, exposure media, exposure route and
receptors will be included in the report for the
contaminants that present an unacceptable health risk.
The contractor shall make recommendations with
regard to the action that should be taken at the site. If
multiple sites present unacceptable health risks, the
contractor shall prioritize the sites based on their
associated risks. If it is determined that the site does
not present an unacceptable health risk, the contractor
Contaminated Sites
Management Working Group
shall recommend, with an appropriate rationale, to
cease action at the site.
SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS
1. All new and existing site layout plans included in
the report shall be provided in electronic data form
(AutoCad 14 [or format specified by the Project
Manager]). Final reports shall be submitted in hard
copy ([number of copies to be specified by Project
Manager]) and electronic form (WordPerfect and/or
Microsoft Word formats), including electronic data
copies of all tables and other data as specified by the
Project Manager. Information, data, drawings, etc.,
gathered as part of the project shall be made available
only to [name of organization] unless otherwise
approved in writing by a representative of [name of
organization]. The information, data, drawings, etc.,
provided will be used by the [name of organization] as
it sees fit.
2. Refer any queries about the project from the public,
news media or others to the Project Manager.
3. The Project Manager shall be notified immediately of
conditions that pose an imminent threat to human
health and the environment.
4. Analysis of data will be in relation to agreed CCME
guidelines or other guidelines identified by the Project
Manager.
GENERAL REQUIREMENTS
1. The Project Manager shall be a person from [Name of
organization] or a designated alternate.
2. Work
The contractor will be responsible for providing
the people and resources to fulfil the terms of this
Statement of Work, including the qualified personnel,
office space, reference documents, laboratory and dataprocessing supplies, and machinery and equipment to:
a. conduct the Human Health and/or Ecological Risk
Assessment; and
b. submit required reports and deliverables.
3. Liabilities
a. The contractor shall assume responsibility for any
accident or damage caused by its employees or
55
A Federal Approach
to Contaminated Sites
equipment to [Name of organization] property or
personnel as a result of the contractor’s activities.
b. The contractor shall assume responsibility for the
security of its equipment and materials during and
after working hours. [Name of organization] shall
not be liable for any vandalism, theft or loss.
4. Notifications/Permits
The contractor shall be responsible for making
whatever representations are necessary to the pertinent
organizations in order to carry out the work required
to fulfil the terms of this SOW. The costs incurred
in obtaining these documents shall be borne by the
contractor.
5. Progress Reporting and Meetings
a. Progress Reports. Written progress reports in
the form of 1- to 4-page faxes shall be provided to
the Project Manager for periods determined by the
Project Manager. The progress reports shall include
a synopsis of work completed during the latest
report period and the projected work plan for the
following period. The contractor shall be prepared
to meet with the Project Manager and to discuss
any matter concerning the progress and findings
of the site investigation.
b. Meetings. The contractor shall attend meetings
as requested by the Project Manager. Personnel
in attendance shall include the contractor’s project
manager and representative(s) familiar with all
technical aspects of the project. The contractor
shall prepare minutes of the meetings and send the
draft minutes to the [Name of organization] Project
Manager for review and approval prior to their
dissemination for action. At the discretion of the
Project Manager, the contractor may be required
to maintain an action item list.
6. Quality Assurance and Quality Control
The contractor is expected to identify and adhere to
acceptable quality assurance and quality control
(QA/QC) procedures throughout the project. QA/QC
measures shall be explicitly identified in the
contractor’s work plans and project reports.
7. Health and Safety Program
A detailed health and safety plan (HASP) shall be
maintained on site at all times. Adherence to the health
56
and safety measures specified in that plan shall be
mandatory for all on-site personnel and all site visitors.
8. Responsibilities and Communication
All formal communication (e.g. letters of direction,
approvals, etc.) will be between the Project Manager
and the contractor.
BIDDERS’ CONFERENCE AND PROPOSALS
1. Bidders’ Conference
A bidders’ conference will be held at [location] on
[date, time] to communicate the requirements of the
contract and address any concerns of the interested
contractors. At the conference, contractors will be
given access to the following information:
a. [Name of organization] policy documents;
b. available site drawings; and
c. previous reports such as Environmental Baseline
Studies (EBS) and environmental assessment or
audit reports for the property.
[Where possible, the Project Manager will make hard
copies of the relevant information or provide the
contractors with the information on computer disc.
For information that will not be copied (i.e. baseline
studies), a schedule will be developed to permit
contractors to view these documents].
2. Letter of Interest
Contractors wishing to bid on the work shall submit a
Letter of Interest to the Project Manager at [location]
on or before [date — a minimum of 2 weeks should
be given to the contractors to review the pertinent
information]. The letter is to provide a condensed
version of the technical and management information
requested in the full proposal (next section), and an
overall cost estimate. The letter shall not be more
than six (6) pages in length (3 leaves, double-sided)
on 8½" x 11" paper, and the text shall be written in
12 point font. Only the first six pages will be reviewed
and scored. The letter will be used to evaluate and
select the contractor to carry out the work. If additional
information is required prior to making a selection,
the four (4) contractors with the highest score will be
invited to submit full proposals.
Contaminated Sites
Management Working Group
A Federal Approach
to Contaminated Sites
It is recognized that industry spends a great deal of
time, effort and money to develop proposals. By taking
this approach, [Name of organization] assures technical
credibility and cost effectiveness without asking every
contractor to expend time, money and resources to
produce full proposals.
3. Full Proposal [if required]
[Time period — 3 weeks is suggested] following
the bidders’ conference, four (4) contractors will be
notified of their eligibility to submit their full proposals
to [specified address] on or before [date/time].
The proposal is to be submitted in [number] copies
outlining the approach to the Risk Assessment, the
technologies that will be used, a proposed work
schedule, and a detailed cost estimate for the work.
The proposal should display a logical, cost-effective
approach and include the necessary information to
address the evaluation criteria.
EVALUATION CRITERIA
1. General
Both the Letter of Interest and full proposal will be
evaluated and scored in accordance with the following
criteria. Contractors must cover each criterion.
Proposals should expand on requirements stated in
the SOW and describe how the contractor plans on
meeting the work requirement.
ITEM
CRITERIA
1.
Understanding of Scope,
Objectives and Possible Problems
15
2.
Approach and Methodology
35
3.
Level of Effort
20
4.
Managerial Experience
30
TOTAL
WEIGHT
100
2. Technical Proposal
a. Understanding of Scope, Objectives and Possible
Problems. The bidder should demonstrate a
comprehensive understanding of the project’s
scope and objectives. As well, the contractor must
demonstrate that direct and peripheral problems
have been anticipated. Proposed solutions to
anticipated problems must be presented.
Contaminated Sites
Management Working Group
b. Approach and Methodology. The proposed
approach and methodology should follow an
efficient and logical sequence that will fulfil the
requirements of the Statement of Work. The
proposal should explain how sample results will be
obtained and analyzed, how quality assurance and
quality control will be maintained, and how the
health and safety requirements will be met. The
contractor should demonstrate its ability to
competently evaluate the results and provide
meaningful recommendations. A work schedule
should show that the project milestones and
objectives, both technical and administrative,
will be met.
c. Level of Effort. The contractor should show that a
sufficient level of effort will be applied to address
the technical requirements of the project in an
efficient and cost-effective manner. Proposals will
be evaluated on their value-for-money, where value
is interpreted as the quality and quantity of work
to be done in direct support of the project. Full
proposals shall include a breakdown of anticipated
work by task and quantity, including:
• management and supervision;
• analysis; and
• disbursements.
3. Management Proposal
Managerial Experience. The contractor should
demonstrate that its organization, including partners
and subcontractors, has the necessary technical and
managerial background and experience. Include the
background, experience, geographic proximity to the
project site and level of involvement by task for each
key individual. The contractor should also demonstrate
technical background and experience by citing projects
of comparable scope and nature that show successful
and timely completion (include client references and
their points of contact). Indicate other tasks the key
individuals may have during the project. The backup
for key personnel should be named.
4. Contractor Selection
Selection. Selection of the contractor may take place
based on the information provided in the Letter of
Interest, or, depending on the complexity of the project,
it may be necessary to ask contractors to submit their
full proposals.
57
A Federal Approach
to Contaminated Sites
Letter of Interest (LOI). The bidder selected for
contract award or invited to submit a full proposal
will be the contractor that:
a. addresses each evaluation criterion in sufficient
depth to allow proper evaluation;
b. obtains a proposal evaluation score of 75% or
higher in each category;
c. meets all the mandatory requirements set out in
the Request for Proposal; and
d. obtains the highest final score on 100, which
includes both the technical proposal and cost.
The technical proposal score obtained following
the evaluation will be recalculated in relation to a
maximum of 90. The lowest budgetary price gets a
score of 10, with the next lowest getting 8, 6, 4, 2
and 0. Contractors should be prepared to commit to
the budgetary price.
Full Proposal. If full proposals are requested, the four
(4) highest scoring bidders will be asked to submit full
proposals. Where more than four (4) LOIs score above
75% and where the scores are tightly grouped, up to
six (6) bidders will be invited to submit full proposals.
The successful contractor will be the one meeting the
technical requirements specified in the previous
paragraph and obtaining the highest score on 100,
including both the technical proposal score and the
cost score within the proper budget ceiling of $ [insert
average budget price].
58
Contaminated Sites
Management Working Group
Canadian Cataloguing in Publication Data
A federal approach to contaminated sites
Issued also in French under title: Approche fédérale en matière de lieux contaminés.
ISBN 0-662-65363-7
Cat. No. En40-611/2000
1. Hazardous waste site remediation – Canada – Handbooks, manuals, etc.
2. Brownfields – Government policy – Canada.
3. Environmental monitoring – Canada.
I. Dillon Consulting Limited.
II. Canada. Contaminated Sites Management Working Group.
III. Canada. Environment Canada.
TD1045.C3F52 2000
363.739'44'0971
C00-980470-6E
This document has been reviewed by the members of the federal interdepartmental Contaminated Sites Management
Working Group (CSMWG) and approved for publication. Any reference to trade names or commercial products does
not constitute recommendation or endorsement for use.
A copy of this report is available in both French and English from the CSMWG home page
(www.ec.gc.ca/etad/csmwg/index_e.html).
© Minister of Public Works and Government Services 2000
Was this manual useful for you? yes no
Thank you for your participation!

* Your assessment is very important for improving the work of artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project

Download PDF

advertisement