EPA

United States

Environmental Protection

Agency

Office of Solid Waste and 

Emergency Response 

(5102G)

EPA 542-R-01-005

February 2001

www.brownfieldstsc.org

www.epa.gov/TIO

Brownfields Technology Primer: 

Requesting and Evaluating Proposals That Encourage

Innovative Technologies for Investigation and Cleanup
Brownfields Technology Primer: 

Requesting and Evaluating Proposals That

Encourage Innovative Technologies for

Investigation and Cleanup

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response

Technology Innovation Office

Washington, DC 20460
BROWNFIELDS TECHNOLOGY PRIMER: 

REQUESTING AND EVALUATING PROPOSALS THAT ENCOURAGE 

INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGIES FOR INVESTIGATION AND CLEANUP

NOTICE

This document has been funded by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

under Contracts 68-W-99-003 and 68-W-99-020 to Tetra Tech EM Inc. The document was

subjected to the Agency’s administrative and expert review and was approved for publication as

an EPA document. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute

endorsement or recommendation for use.
BROWNFIELDS TECHNOLOGY PRIMER: 

REQUESTING AND EVALUATING PROPOSALS THAT ENCOURAGE 

INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGIES FOR INVESTIGATION AND CLEANUP

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The Technology Innovation Office would like to acknowledge and thank the individuals who

reviewed and provided comments on draft documents. The reviewers included representatives of

business and community organizations, legal institutions, EPA Headquarters and regional offices,

local government and city planning offices, and remediation contractors.
BROWNFIELDS TECHNOLOGY PRIMER: 

REQUESTING AND EVALUATING PROPOSALS THAT ENCOURAGE 

INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGIES FOR INVESTIGATION AND CLEANUP

i

CONTENTS

Section Page

1.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................ 1

1.1 Purpose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

1.2 Background ........................................................... 2

1.3 Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

2.0 ADVANTAGES AND USES OF INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGIES .................... 4

2.1 Advancements in Innovative Technologies ................................... 4

2.2 Characterization and Monitoring Technologies ............................... 4

2.3 Remediation Technologies ............................................... 5

2.4 Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

3.0 INCORPORATING INNOVATIVE APPROACHES INTO YOUR RFP .................. 8

3.1 Types of Information Contained in Requests for Proposals ...................... 8

3.2 Incorporating Innovative Technologies into the RFP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

3.2.1 Site-Specific Information to be Included . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

3.2.2 Technologies Used At Similar Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

3.2.3 Special Considerations for Brownfields Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

3.2.4 Examples of RFP formats for Brownfields Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

4.0 EVALUATING CONTRACTORS’ PROPOSALS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

4.1 Evaluating the Proposed Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

4.1.1 Characterization Technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

4.1.1.1 Selection of Locations for Sampling Points . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

4.1.1.2 Hydrogeologic Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

4.1.1.3 Boreholes and Drilling Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

4.1.1.4 Soil and Water Samples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

4.1.2 Remediation Technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

4.1.2.1 Treatability Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

4.1.2.2 Full-Scale Remediation Technology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

4.2 Evaluating Qualifications of Personnel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

4.3 Evaluating Corporate Experience . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

4.3.1 Experience in Performing Similar Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

4.3.2 Past Performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

4.4 Evaluating the Contractor’s Quality Assurance and Quality Control Procedures . . . . . 34

4.5 Evaluating the Contractor’s Cost Proposal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

4.6 Evaluating the Contractor’s Insurance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
BROWNFIELDS TECHNOLOGY PRIMER: 

REQUESTING AND EVALUATING PROPOSALS THAT ENCOURAGE 

INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGIES FOR INVESTIGATION AND CLEANUP

ii

TABLES

3-1 Publicly Available Documents and Reports That Provide Site Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

3-2 Examples of Publicly Available Information Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

3-3 Selected Typical Brownfields Sites, Contaminants, and Media . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

3-4.a Special Considerations at Brownfields Sites for Selecting Innovative Characterization 

Technologies – Examples of Sample Access, Collection, and Extraction Tools . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

3-4.b Special Considerations at Brownfields Sites for Selecting Innovative Characterization 

Technologies – Examples of Sample Analysis Tools for VOCs, SVOCs, and Pesticides . . . . . 20

3-4.c Special Considerations at Brownfields Sites for Selecting Innovative Characterization 

Technologies – Examples of Sample Analysis Tools for Inorganics and Metals . . . . . . . . . . . 22

3-5 Special Considerations at Brownfield Sites – Examples of Remediation Technologies . . . . . . 23

4-1 Environmental Insurance Products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

APPENDIX

Sources of Innovative Technology Information
BROWNFIELDS TECHNOLOGY PRIMER: 

REQUESTING AND EVALUATING PROPOSALS THAT ENCOURAGE 

INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGIES FOR INVESTIGATION AND CLEANUP

1

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Purpose

Innovative technologies and streamlined strategies

for assessing, characterizing, monitoring, and

remediating contamination have potential to

minimize the cost and time required to clean up

brownfields sites. With proper planning and

consideration of the options available for using

innovative technologies and streamlined

strategies, many of those sites will move faster to

the redevelopment phase than could be achieved

by using more traditional cleanup approaches. By

carefully selecting technologies and approaches

for conducting site investigations, and then

analyzing and using the data gathered as a basis

for evaluating all reasonable remediation options,

decision makers will be in a strong position to

select technologies that will achieve the cleanup

objectives at the site in timely manner, while

assuring the required protection of human health

and the environment. 

The Brownfields Technology Support Center

(BTSC) (see box on the next page) prepared this

primer to assist site owners, project managers, and

others preparing requests for proposals (RFP) to

solicit support in conducting activities to

investigate and clean up contaminated sites. The

primer is not a general guidance document on

preparing RFPs for the investigation and cleanup

of sites. Rather, it is specifically intended to assist

those individuals in writing specifications that

encourage contractors and technology vendors

(both referred to as contractors in this document)

to propose options for using innovative

characterization and remediation technologies at

brownfields sites. The primer also provides

information, from a technology perspective, to

guide review teams in their evaluations of

proposals and the selection of qualified

contractors.

The BTSC previously issued a document titled

Assessing Contractor Capabilities for Streamlined

Site Investigations [EPA 542-R-00-001]. That

document provides information useful to

brownfields decision makers as they interview

contractors to determine each contractor’s

qualifications to provide streamlined and

innovative strategies for conducting site

investigations. A number of Brownfields Pilot

Coordinators and others requested that the BTSC

supplement that document by developing this

primer. It is hoped that the use of the information

in this primer by the brownfields community will

encourage contractors to consider the use of

innovative technologies earlier in the proposal

“pipeline,” preferably at the time the contractors

are preparing their proposals, and will create a

more receptive atmosphere for contractors that do

so. RFPs that clearly define the requirements and

expectations for contractors to use innovative

technologies will encourage contractors to “think

outside of the box” and consider non-traditional

approaches as they prepare their proposals.
BROWNFIELDS TECHNOLOGY PRIMER: 

REQUESTING AND EVALUATING PROPOSALS THAT ENCOURAGE 

INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGIES FOR INVESTIGATION AND CLEANUP

2

Brownfields Technology Support Center

EPA established the Brownfields

Technology Support Center to ensure that

brownfields decision makers are aware of

the full range of technologies available for

conducting site assessments and

cleanup, and can make informed

decisions for their sites. The center can

help government decision makers

evaluate strategies to streamline the site

assessment and cleanup process, identify

and review information about complex

technology options, evaluate contractor

capabilities and recommendations,

explain complex technologies to

communities, and plan technology

demonstrations. The center is

coordinated through EPA’s Technology

Innovation Office and works through

EPA’s Office of Research and

Development laboratories. Localities can

submit requests for assistance:

• Directly through their EPA Regional

Brownfields Coordinators

• Online at <http://brownfieldstsc.org>

• By calling 1 (877) 838-7220 (toll free). 

For more information about the program, the central

point of contact is Dan Powell of the EPA Technology

Innovation Office at (703) 603-7196 or

<powell.dan@epa.gov>.

When developing this primer, the BTSC reviewed

a number of RFPs prepared by brownfields

communities. Many of those communities

recognized the advantages of innovative

technologies and required their inclusion in

proposals. Although that trend is encouraging, the

use of innovative technologies could be much

more widespread at brownfields sites. Individuals

who prepare RFPs and evaluate proposals should

be aggressive in

identifying the many

contractors across

the nation that offer

innovative

technologies.

The BTSC produced

this primer to serve

as a resource for

general information;

localities, states, and

federal brownfields

staff can turn to the

BTSC for further

assistance

addressing sitespecific issues. The

BTSC can assist

localities in scoping

potential technology

options for their

sites and using the

information obtained

in the RFP process. 

The BTSC also can

identify other

sources of

information to assist

individuals who

prepare RFPs and

contractors who submit proposals in conducting

research to identify appropriate technology

options for the site under review.

1.2 Background

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

has defined brownfields sites as “abandoned,

idled, or under-used industrial and commercial

facilities where expansion or redevelopment is

complicated by real or perceived environmental

contamination.” Numerous technology options

are available to assist those involved in the

cleanup of brownfields sites. EPA’s Technology

Innovation Office (TIO) encourages the use of

innovative, cost-effective technologies to

characterize and clean up contaminated sites. An

innovative technology is a technology that has

been field-tested and applied to a hazardous waste

problem at a site,

but lacks a long

history of full-scale

use. Although

readily available

information about

its cost and how

well it works may

be insufficient to

encourage use under

a wide variety of

operating

conditions, an

innovative

technology has

potential to

significantly

minimize the cost

and time required to

redevelop

brownfields sites. 

The process of

redeveloping

brownfields sites

provides an

excellent framework

for using innovative

technologies

because: (1) state

and federal

regulators tend to be flexible in approving cleanup

plans for brownfields sites, particularly those sites

for which voluntary cleanup plans have been

submitted; (2) most of the current brownfields

sites are not encumbered by a history of litigation

or enforcement actions for which traditional

technologies may already have been specified; and

(3) redevelopment plans have been prepared for

many brownfields sites and are used to establish

site-specific cleanup targets and the time frames
BROWNFIELDS TECHNOLOGY PRIMER: 

REQUESTING AND EVALUATING PROPOSALS THAT ENCOURAGE 

INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGIES FOR INVESTIGATION AND CLEANUP

3

for cleanup – this information provides an

excellent basis for tailoring innovative approaches

to the investigation and cleanup of individual

sites.

1.3 Approach

Although the structure of RFPs will vary, the

criteria listed below are those typically used to

evaluate and select contractors for individual

projects. Many RFPs specify how the criteria will

be used to evaluate individual proposals. 

Contractors typically structure their proposals

according to the criteria to ensure they respond to

each item. The criteria are:

 Proposed technical methodology based on site

requirements and the schedule for performing

the work

 Qualifications of the contractor’s proposed

project management team and other key staff

 Corporate experience in performing similar

work

 Proposed quality assurance and quality control

procedures

 Proposed price to complete the project

Individuals preparing RFPs should define sitespecific conditions and potential challenges

clearly so that bidders can respond adequately to

each criterion. This primer provides information

on how to apply each criterion in preparing RFPs.

The primer illustrates the importance of providing

prospective bidders with as much site information

as possible. Individuals preparing RFPs should

ensure all relevant information is communicated

effectively to all prospective bidders. Contractors

then have the basis to fully understand the

conditions of the site and can provide proposals

that offer sound and viable approaches for

assessing and cleaning up the site. The selection

officials also should review all available

information to ensure they understand the site

requirements and will select a contractor with

qualified and experienced staff to perform the

work correctly. 

In all cases, selection officials and contractors

should make every effort to tailor the RFPs and

the responses to those RFPs to the specific

redevelopment and regulatory goals for the site

under review. The use of generic objectives, such

as “define the nature and extent of contamination”

without the context of the ultimate site goals can

lead to costly, time-consuming site investigations

and cleanup activities.
BROWNFIELDS TECHNOLOGY PRIMER: 

REQUESTING AND EVALUATING PROPOSALS THAT ENCOURAGE 

INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGIES FOR INVESTIGATION AND CLEANUP

4

2.0 ADVANTAGES AND USES OF

INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGIES

2.1 Advancements in Innovative

Technologies

The discussion below illustrates the uses and

advantages of innovative technologies for

characterization and remediation. Over the past

decade there have been significant advancements

in the development and use of innovative

technologies. Over the next decade, technology

advancements are expected to continue to increase

significantly as thousands of brownfields sites

across the nation, as well as outside the U.S., are

cleaned up.

2.2 Characterization and Monitoring

Technologies

In the past, characterizing a contaminated site

typically included: (1) reviewing past records of

the site, (2) drilling one well upgradient of the

contaminated area to obtain background

information, (3) drilling three wells downgradient

to locate and characterize the contamination, (4)

sending the samples to an off-site Contract

Laboratory Program (CLP) laboratory and waiting

several weeks or months for the results, and (5)

sometimes conducting a geophysical survey to

better understand the underground flow patterns

of contamination. This approach, which often

required several sampling events and

mobilizations to gather sufficient information to

accurately characterize the site and design valid

cleanup options, may not be efficient enough to

support brownfields redevelopment. New

technologies and approaches, developed and

optimized over the past 5 to 10 years, are now

emerging on the market. Such approaches are

designed to gather information in greater detail

and more frequently, with immediate or real-time

data output. Examples of new technologies and

approaches for characterization activities include: 

(1) hand-held chemical screening tools that take

readings and display results immediately; (2)

direct-push drilling techniques rigged with

detection devices that collect samples as the probe

is penetrating the subsurface; and (3) on-site

mobile laboratories that provide results in 24

hours or less.

New, innovative characterization strategies also

include flexible or dynamic work plans, which

provide the basis for a continuous and efficient

characterization process. Under these strategies, a

work plan is designed to conduct sampling at

locations at which contamination is suspected. If

the locations investigated are not contaminated,

the sampling plan can be revised on site and the

sampling can continue, with the new information

obtained used to guide the additional sampling. 

Through such an approach, repeated mobilizations

to the same site can be avoided. Since the amount

of funds available often determines the extent of

characterization work done at a site, effective

coupling of inexpensive field techniques with

limited off-site analyses can provide a more

complete picture of site conditions, thereby

reducing uncertainty.
BROWNFIELDS TECHNOLOGY PRIMER: 

REQUESTING AND EVALUATING PROPOSALS THAT ENCOURAGE 

INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGIES FOR INVESTIGATION AND CLEANUP

5

Implementing

Data Collection Plans 

Plan Field

Work 

Conduct and 

Document Field 

Work

Planning

To Collect Data

Understand What Has 

Happened

Determine End Goals

Select the Tools

Dynamic Work Plans

Implementing

Data Collection Plans 

Plan Field

Work 

Conduct and 

Document Field 

Work

Planning

To Collect Data

Understand What Has 

Happened

Determine End Goals

Select the Tools

Dynamic Work Plans

Comprehensive, up-front planning is essential to

effectively use innovative strategies for

characterizing sites. Proper planning will ensure

that the only data that will be collected are data

that will lead to decisions about the site and that 

the data collection process is efficient. If known

at the time of characterization, the end use and

ultimate cleanup goals for the site should be used

as the basis for developing a sampling plan that

will ensure that the correct data are collected the

first time and will provide sufficient information

to support the design of remediation options. If

the reuse plan for the site is not fully defined at

characterization, those designing the sampling

plan should take advantage of the best information

available on the basis of zoning or other general

reuse plans for the area. In addition to providing

as accurate a picture as possible of the site, a wellplanned approach can help avoid delays and

expenses associated with unnecessary collection

of data.

In designing site characterization plans, every

effort should be made to collect the first time the

information needed to support future decisions

about remediation alternatives. Because the data

required for making decisions about remediation

technologies vary from technology to technology,

and from site to site, it is essential that contractors

carefully define the data that will be needed to

assess remediation options and include those data

points in their characterization plans.

Some sites require the use of more intricate

innovative methods than other sites. For example,

sites that are relatively uncontaminated with

simple and homogeneous geology and hydrology

typically lend themselves to a simpler collection

and analysis process than sites at which

complexities such as fractured rock are present. 

For such sites, extensive data typically are needed

to identify accurately the vertical and lateral

extent of contamination.

The planning phase also should include early

coordination with the state regulatory authority to

ensure that the state is aware of the work that will

be performed. Although state approval generally

is not necessary for characterization activities,

state “buy-in” at this point will facilitate any

concurrences or approvals that may be necessary

as the project moves forward to redevelopment. It

may be beneficial to request the state’s comments

on quality assurance and quality control plans or

other critical activities and take advantage of the

expertise and experience members of the state

staff have with similar sites.

2.3 Remediation Technologies

For remediation technologies, traditional

approaches of simple containment or “digging and

hauling” off-site can be replaced or augmented by

treatment technologies that use biological,

physical and chemical, and thermal processes. 

Advances have been made in using containment to

eliminate the migration of contaminants on site. 

New technologies and containment strategies can

be used for soil, sediments, sludges, groundwater,

surface water, and leachate. A key consideration

in selecting technologies at individual sites is

control of sources of contamination (hot spots). In

some cases, the sources can be removed; in other

cases, they can be contained, with or without

further treatment. Innovative technologies can be

used very effectively as a source control option.

The evaluation of remediation options requires

detailed information about the site, including the

past, current, and planned uses of the site. In

evaluating remediation options, consideration of

potential impacts on nearby neighborhoods and

potential long-term liabilities from remediation
BROWNFIELDS TECHNOLOGY PRIMER: 

REQUESTING AND EVALUATING PROPOSALS THAT ENCOURAGE 

INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGIES FOR INVESTIGATION AND CLEANUP

6

Reasons for Considering Innovative

Treatment Options Include:

• Cost (both capital and long-term

maintenance costs)

• Time (when other alternatives require

long-term stewardship)

• Permanent destruction (nondestructive

options often entail residual risk)

• Neighborhood concerns (community

and nearby businesses)

• Logistical considerations (applicability

with existing structures and space

requirement for equipment) 

activities must be factored into the decisionmaking process. Decision makers also should

weigh the costs and benefits of treating

contaminants against the cost and benefits of

leaving them in place, untreated. Containment

options or the use of institutional controls, such as

deed restrictions, easements, zoning restrictions,

or prohibitions against drilling in the area of

contamination, may be considerably quicker and

cheaper than treatment alternatives. However,

decision makers should weigh the full costs of

such options, including capital costs, long-term

sampling and analysis costs, and replacement

costs for equipment, as well as concerns about

potential long-term risks associated with

contaminants left in place, against the cost options

that would permanently remove or destroy the

contaminants.

Decision makers also

should consider special

construction needs during

the remediation process. 

Innovative technologies

provide excellent

alternatives for

remediating brownfields

sites where existing

buildings and other

structures are to be

preserved and not

damaged. For example,

steam injection has been

used successfully at sites where excavation of

contaminated soils under structures was not

feasible. Section 3 of the primer provides more

detailed information about considerations for

brownfields sites

2.4 Examples

The following examples illustrate how innovative

characterization and remediation technologies

expedited cleanup time frames, resulted in

significant cost savings, and achieved a better

result than traditional approaches that were

proposed or previously used at the sites. 

Example 1

The city of Newark, New Jersey successfully used

innovative characterization technologies to

support the redevelopment of a brownfields site

that consists of approximately 700 acres of public

and private property. The project was

administered by the city of Newark under an EPA

pilot grant. By using innovative characterization

approaches, assessments were completed for

portions of the site in only 20 days, instead of 120

days, as originally was anticipated. Cost savings

were realized by using a one-time mobilization

and minimizing the cost of analysis required. 

Additional information about this project and the

names of individuals to contact can be found at

<http://www.epa.gov/r02earth/superfnd/brownfld/

newrkcv.htm>.

Example 2

The use of innovative

characterization

approaches, such as

immunoassay kits, resulted

in a faster and cheaper

cleanup than originally was

anticipated at the

Wenatchee Tree Fruit

Facility in the state of

Washington. The site was

contaminated with

pesticides. Originally, it

was estimated that it would

be necessary to evacuate

780 tons of soil and transport the soil to an off-site

incinerator, at a cost of $1 million. The U.S.

Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) proposed the

use of immunoassay kits to guide sampling,

removal, and disposal decisions, in one

mobilization effort under a dynamic work plan. 

Using the USACE approach, 334 tons of soil were

landfilled and 56 tons incinerated. The total

project cost was approximately $589,000, far less

than the estimate. Additional information about

this project can be found in the EPA publication

Innovations in Site Characterization Case Study:

Site Cleanup of the Wenatchee Tree Fruit Test

Pilot Site Using a Dynamic Work Plan (EPA 542-

R-00-009). The publication can be viewed online

at <http://www.clu-in.org/pub1.htm>.
BROWNFIELDS TECHNOLOGY PRIMER: 

REQUESTING AND EVALUATING PROPOSALS THAT ENCOURAGE 

INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGIES FOR INVESTIGATION AND CLEANUP

7

The Brownfields Technology Support Center Can Help!!!

The BTSC can provide assistance to local, state, and federal government

brownfields staff during the RFP process on: 

• Preliminary scoping of innovative approaches for site-specific needs

• Identification of sources of information

• Description(s) of a technology (or technologies)

Example 3

In 1998, six-phase heating (SPH) technology was

implemented to remediate pools of dense nonaqueous phase liquid (DNAPL) at a former

manufacturing facility near Chicago, Illinois. The

site was contaminated with trichloroethylene

(TCE) and 1,1,1-trichloroethane (TCA) and is

located in a tight, heterogeneous silty-clay

formation. Three sources of contamination (hot

spots) were identified, each having pools of

DNAPL. Before SPH, a combination of steam

injection and conventional groundwater and soil

vapor extraction (SVE) technologies had been in

operation since 1991. During the seven years of

operation, the groundwater extraction and SVE

removed 30,000 pounds of TCE and TCA; and

reduced the groundwater concentration to below

site-specific risk-based closure levels, but were

not successful in reducing the hot spots to

acceptable levels. SPH successfully removed free

phase of DNAPL present in approximately 24,000

cubic yards of subsurface materials in 130 days. 

The hot spot concentrations were reduced to

below site-specific risk-based closure levels. A

case study on this project can be found on the

Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable

(FRTR) case study data base at

<http://www.frtr.gov>.
BROWNFIELDS TECHNOLOGY PRIMER: 

REQUESTING AND EVALUATING PROPOSALS THAT ENCOURAGE 

INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGIES FOR INVESTIGATION AND CLEANUP

8

3.0 INCORPORATING INNOVATIVE 

APPROACHES INTO YOUR RFP

3.1 Types of Information Contained in

Requests for Proposals

An RFP serves as the mechanism through which

a site owner or operator procures the contractor

that offers the best approach, qualifications, and

cost estimate for the requested services. The

components that typically are found in RFPs for

cleaning up hazardous waste sites are:

Purpose: This section provides a concise

statement of the work the contractor is being

asked to perform, for example:

“The City of Pleasantville is soliciting proposals

to select a qualified consulting firm to perform a

Phase II/III Environmental Assessment ... .”

Background and Project Information: This

section provides relevant site information that

contractors should use to develop their

approaches and cost estimates. (Section 3.2.1

presents a detailed description of such

information.)

Scope of Work: The scope of work presents

the key information bidders use to prepare their

proposed methodologies. It provides detailed

information about each task the contractor is

being asked to perform and clearly identifies the

interim and final deliverables for each task. The

requirements in the scope of work also are used

as the basis for comparing the proposals

received for technical adequacy.

Inquiries: This section provides the name,

telephone number, and address of a contact

person(s) who can answer questions from

bidders and provide copies of reports or other

site information that is available to bidders. It

also specifies the procedure and deadline for

submitting inquiries. 

Proposal Format and Submittal: This section

describes the information that must be included

in the written proposal, as well as the format to

be used. At a minimum, the required

information includes:

 Corporate experience – Presents a

description of the contractor’s experience

in performing similar projects over a

certain period of years (typically the past

three to five years) and the firm’s

familiarity with applicable regulations and

provides references for the projects listed

 Qualifications of key personnel, including

subcontractors – Presents a table of staff

that lists the project management team

and other key personnel assigned to the

project, including titles, functions,

locations, and availability for the project,

and resumes that demonstrate the
BROWNFIELDS TECHNOLOGY PRIMER: 

REQUESTING AND EVALUATING PROPOSALS THAT ENCOURAGE 

INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGIES FOR INVESTIGATION AND CLEANUP

9

experience and qualifications of each key

staff member

 Organizational chart – Shows the

responsibilities and lines of authority for

the project management team and support

staff

 Technical methodology, implementation

plans, and schedule – Demonstrates the

contractor’s understanding of the scope of

work and includes measurable

performance objectives and specific tasks,

descriptions of deliverables, descriptions

of the proposed methodology for each

task, and milestones and schedules for

completing tasks

 Cost proposal – Identifies the components

and format for the cost proposal, for

example, as a lump sum or a time-andmaterials estimate

 Quality assurance project plan (QAPP) –

Describes the quality assurance (QA) and

quality control (QC) requirements for

conducting the work

 Insurance coverage – Presents the

information required to verify the

insurance program the contractor has in

place to guarantee successful completion

of the project

Terms and Conditions: This section identifies

the terms and conditions to which the contractor

must adhere. Examples of terms and conditions

are:

 Conflict of interest – The RFP shall

specify the contractor must not create a

situation designed to influence activities

or decisions under the project in ways that

could lead to personal gain for the

contractor or give an improper advantage

to third parties in their dealings with the

site owner or operator

 Compliance with relevant laws and

regulations – The RFP shall clearly

identify by reference the laws and

regulations that apply to the project

 Termination of contract – The RFP shall

clearly identify conditions that will result

in termination of the contract

 Validity of the proposal – The RFP shall

specify the time period for which the

proposal is to remain valid from the date

of submittal

Schedule of Events: This section identifies

deadlines for such events as the submittal of

questions and responses to questions and the bid

opening date.

Evaluation Criteria: The criteria that will be

used to evaluate proposals are discussed in this

section. A common evaluation method is to

assign points to each of the dominant criteria,

such as corporate qualifications to provide the

required services, the contractor’s reputation for

competence in performing similar work, the

professional and educational experience of key

personnel to be assigned to the project, the

proposed cost to complete the project, and the

contractor’s technical approach for completing

the project. A weighting factor is applied to the

points assigned to each of the criteria, typically

based upon the importance of that criterion to

each project. 

For all RFPs for site cleanups, the technical

approach must be evaluated on the extent to

which the approach is based upon sound science

and logical strategies. For proposals involving

innovative approaches and technologies, the

contractor’s proposed strategies must include

specific components to ensure the success of the

project. Those components should be defined in

the evaluation criteria and presented in the RFP

so that prospective bidders will understand the

importance of the components to the success of

the project. Those components include:

 A direct and clear correlation between the

proposed analytical methods and the

decisions to be made and the data quality

required

 Maximization of the use and capabilities

of field analytical tools to support

decisions
BROWNFIELDS TECHNOLOGY PRIMER: 

REQUESTING AND EVALUATING PROPOSALS THAT ENCOURAGE 

INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGIES FOR INVESTIGATION AND CLEANUP

10

Assessing

Contractor

Capabilities for

Streamlined Site

Investigations 

(EPA 542-R-00-001)

This document

familiarizes and

encourages

brownfields decision

makers to

investigate and

employ innovative

methods for characterizing their sites and to assist

decision makers in assessing contractors'

capabilities and familiarity with those methods, as

well as to suggest additional items that contractors

should consider in conducting their activities. The

document can be viewed online at

<http://brownfieldstsc.org> or ordered through the

National Service Center for Environmental

Publications (NSCEP) at 1 (800) 490-9198.

 Minimization of the number of field

mobilizations

 Thorough evaluation and consideration of

the use of treatment options that treat

waste in place

 Minimization of long-term maintenance

and monitoring requirements

 Minimization of restrictions on future site

use

Those considerations are key to the success of

many brownfields projects for which an

efficient and expeditious cleanup is required and

the site must be made available for a specific

reuse.

Oral Presentations: It is becoming more

common to require contractors to make oral

presentations in conjunction with the submittal

of their written proposals. For example, a

screening of written proposals for such key

elements as corporate or personnel

qualifications may be conducted. Those bidders

who qualify would then make oral presentations

to the selection officials about their technical

methodology. Oral presentations provide a

more interactive framework than written

proposals and can expedite the selection

process.

In conducting oral presentations, selection

officials should prepare in advance a standard

list of questions to ask each contractor to ensure

that officials are asking appropriate questions

and will obtain the information they need. 

Using a standard list of questions also ensure

that all contractors are treated fairly and

equitably during the oral presentations. The

document Assessing Contractor Capabilities for

Streamlined Site Investigations provides a series

of questions that selection officials can use

when interviewing contractors. The box above

provides additional information about the

document.

3.2 Incorporating Innovative

Technologies into the RFP

Currently, many RFPs for characterization and

remediation work: (1) allow bidders to include

in their proposals options for innovative

approaches, in addition to traditional

approaches; (2) encourage bidders to submit

alternative approaches, including separate cost

proposals for the innovative approaches; or (3)

require bidders to provide such information. 

Although such scenarios encourage contractors

to consider innovative approaches, the

responsibility for the thought process of

considering and selecting technology options

rests solely with the prospective bidders.

Individuals preparing RFPs should identify

opportunities to encourage contractors to use

innovative technologies by: (1) ensuring that all

available, non-confidential, relevant site-specific

information, including the goals for cleanup and

redevelopment, is included in the RFP so that

bidders can identify appropriate technology

options and (2) specifying potential options for

innovative technologies that must be considered

on the basis of use of those technologies at

similar sites. The two steps are discussed in

more detail in sections 3.2.1 and 3.2.2.
BROWNFIELDS TECHNOLOGY PRIMER: 

REQUESTING AND EVALUATING PROPOSALS THAT ENCOURAGE 

INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGIES FOR INVESTIGATION AND CLEANUP

11

Site-Specific Drivers

Redevelopment objectives

Past use

Geology

Climate

Structures

Water bodies

Site-Specific Drivers

Redevelopment objectives

Past use

Geology

Climate

Structures

Water bodies

Providing comprehensive site-specific

information and taking advantage of experiences

at other sites reduces the likelihood that

arbitrary decisions will be made about

technologies and increases the chances of

success in cleaning up sites correctly the first

time. Those preparing RFPs and prospective

contractors must understand the redevelopment

goals for the site, if they have been established,

and how the goals affect the selection of

characterization and remediation technologies. 

If the redevelopment goals have not been

established, the proposed zoning and potential

general uses of the site (residential, commercial,

or industrial) should be used as a guide for

selecting technologies. In all cases, presenting

site-specific goals, rather than using generic

boilerplate language in the discussion of cleanup

objectives, will better guide the selection of

technologies.

3.2.1 Site-Specific Information to be

Included

Studies and reports completed for many

brownfields sites, typically referred to as Phase

I, II, or III site assessments or site remediation

plans, are an excellent source of information for

crafting RFPs for characterization and

remediation work. The information provided in

such documents should be included in the RFP. 

As a cleanup progresses through the

characterization, monitoring, and remediation

phases, the level of detail available about the

site increases significantly, enhancing the ability

to make decisions about technologies.

Listed below are the types of information

typically found in site reports and studies:

Phase I Reports – Environmental Assessments

 Physical information about the site, including

location, size, prominent features, geology,

physiography, and environmental setting

 Historical information about the site and its

adjacent properties, including chronology of

ownership, past and present operations and

processes, inventory of products and wastes

handled at the site, locations of product and

waste storage and disposal areas, transcripts

of interviews with knowledgeable

individuals, and reviews of past

environmental investigations and cleanups

 Results of physical reconnaissance of the site

 Recommendations for the Phase II work

 Development of cleanup levels in accordance

with federal, state, or local regulations in

light of future land use

 Development of corrective action alternatives

and detailed evaluations of each alternative,

using such criteria as effectiveness,

efficiency, implementability, and cost

 Presentation of preferred remediation

alternatives

Phase II Reports – Environmental Assessments

 Site maps that indicate all areas of concern

identified in the Phase I environmental

assessment

 Locations of sampling grids for each

environmental medium

 Results of analysis of samples from each

sampling location

 Rationale for selecting sampling locations

and analytical parameters

 Description of sampling protocol and

analytical methods

 Description of QA/QC procedures
BROWNFIELDS TECHNOLOGY PRIMER: 

REQUESTING AND EVALUATING PROPOSALS THAT ENCOURAGE 

INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGIES FOR INVESTIGATION AND CLEANUP

12

The Brownfields Technology

Support Center Can Help!!!

• Help to identify qualifications to implement

innovative approaches

• Help to determine the QA and QC requirements to

support streamlined approaches for the project

• Help in the selection of site-specific evaluation

criteria and weighting factors to determine the

success of innovative approaches

• Help to define the site-specific information that can

be included in the RFP to encourage innovative

approaches

Phase III Reports –

Environmental

Assessments and

Corrective Action and

Remediation Plans

 Information about

the nature, effects,

and magnitude of

contamination

In addition to the

Phase I, II, and III

reports, other sources

of publicly available

information about the site or the area in the

vicinity of the site may provide useful information

for the RFP. For example, many states require

studies to identify leaks from underground storage

tanks. Individuals preparing an RFP should

research thoroughly information about the site,

checking with the engineering department of the

city, state regulatory officials, and others who

have knowledge of the site or who may be able to

provide past reports and studies. Table 3-1 

provides additional

examples of publicly

available documents

and reports that

contain site-specific

information or

information about the

area adjacent to or

near a site that could

enhance the quality of

an RFP. Commonly

available documents,

such as utility

records, can provide

useful information in

a variety of ways. For example, older records

will show the names of businesses that were

located at the site, which may indicate the types

of activities conducted and the contaminants

potentially generated. Utility records also can

show the layout of water supply lines and

service structures, potential pathways for

exposure at the site. The Internet and other

electronic means of dissemination give potential

bidders easy access to such documents.

TABLE 3-1

PUBLICLY AVAILABLE DOCUMENTS AND REPORTS THAT PROVIDE SITE

INFORMATION

Documents/Reports

Type of Information Provided

Source of the

Document/Report

Site

History

and Past

Uses

Assessment of

Potential

Contaminants

of Concern

(COC)

Assessment

of COCs

Migration

Assessment of

Sensitive

Environments

in the Vicinity

of the Site

Assessment

of Potential

Characterization

or Remediation

Options

Superfund Records

of Decision (RODs)

for target sites or for

nearby or adjacent

properties

77 7 7 7 Abstract:

http://www.epa.gov/superfund

Hard copy: National Technical

Information Service

Springfield, Virginia 22161

(703) 605-6000 or

<http://www.ntis.gov>

USGS Reports 7 7 http://usgs.gov

Utility Records 7 7 Local Utility Company

Tax Records 7 7 State or Local Government

Office

Administrative and

Enforcement Orders

77 7 EPA or State Public Record

Office

Soil Conservation

Studies

7 7 http://usda.gov
BROWNFIELDS TECHNOLOGY PRIMER: 

REQUESTING AND EVALUATING PROPOSALS THAT ENCOURAGE 

INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGIES FOR INVESTIGATION AND CLEANUP

13

Technical Assistance to 

Brownfields (TAB) Program

<http://www.toscprogram.org/tab-overview.html>

The TAB program has been established to help

communities cleanup and redevelop properties that

have been damaged by or undervalued because of

environmental contamination through workshops,

such as those on leadership training, risk

assessment, brownfields processes, site

assessment, and cleanup alternatives.

Center Program Contacts:

Great Lakes/Mid-Atlantic: 

Lisa Szymecko

1 (800) 490-3890

szymecko@egr.msu.edu

Great Plains/Rocky Mountains:

Blase Leven

(785) 532-0780

baleven@ksu.edu 

Terrie Boguski

(913) 780-3328

mboguski@tfs.net

Northeast:

William Librizzi

(873) 596-5846

librizzi@admin.njit.edu

South & Southwest:

Bob Schmitter

(404) 894-8064

bob.schmitter@gtri.gatech.edu

Western:

Michael Fernandez

(541) 737-4023

Michael.Fernandez@orst.edu

National Program Contact:

Nigel Fields, Program Assistant

U.S. EPA (MC 8703)

1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW

Washington, DC 20460

(202) 564-6936

fields.nigel@epa.gov 

3.2.2 Technologies Used At Similar Sites

In addition to including site-specific information,

individuals preparing RFPs also should take the

initiative to provide suggestions for the use of

innovative technologies at their site. Taking that

extra step will: (1) demonstrate to prospective

bidders that the decision makers for the contract

are committed to the use of innovative

technologies and (2) facilitate the process of

reviewing proposals and selecting the most

qualified contractor. However, identifying

innovative technologies during the preparation of

an RFP is a challenging step, particularly for

individuals who have little or no technical

experience in site cleanup activities, a common

situation in the case of brownfields sites, at which

the economic development staff or other staff who

traditionally do not prepare RFPs for site cleanup

work frequently are responsible for soliciting

proposals. Fortunately, a number of excellent

resources are available that provide information

about innovative technologies and their

application at sites.

Those resources, including the Brownfields

Technology Support Center, EPA Regional

Brownfields Coordinators, the EPA National

Center for Environmental Research Information,

USACE, and the hazardous substance research

centers including the Technical Assistance to

Brownfields (TAB) program, are available to

discuss potential technology options for individual

sites and to provide assistance in sorting through

the large amounts of published information. 

The Directory of Technology Support Services to

Brownfields Localities (EPA 542-B-99-005)

provides information about EPA offices, nongovernment organizations funded by EPA, and

other federal agencies that may be able to provide

expertise to assist in the selection of technologies

for characterizing and cleaning up brownfields

properties. The directory is available online at

<http://brownfieldstsc.org>. The box above

provides additional information about the TAB

Program.

Reports and many online databases list new

technologies and discuss how they are used,

whether they have been demonstrated and proven

effective and reliable, the types of conditions

under which they have been the most effective,

and their performance specifications. One of

those resources is EPA‘s Treatment Technologies

for Site Cleanup: Annual Status Report (ASR)

(ninth edition), April 1999 (EPA 542-R-99-001). 

The report also is available online at <http://cluin.org/pub1.htm>.

Listed below are examples of site characterization

and remediation technology databases:

 EPA REmediation And CHaracterization

 Innovative Technologies (EPA REACH IT) at

<http://www.epareachit.org>
BROWNFIELDS TECHNOLOGY PRIMER: 

REQUESTING AND EVALUATING PROPOSALS THAT ENCOURAGE 

INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGIES FOR INVESTIGATION AND CLEANUP

14

Road Map to Understanding Innovative Technology Options for Brownfields

Investigation and Cleanup, Second Edition 

(EPA 542-B-99-009)

The Road Map to Understanding Innovative Technology Options for Brownfields

Investigation and Cleanup is a companion document to the Tool Kit of Information

Resources for Brownfields Investigation and Cleanup. Used together, the

resources link technology options to the general steps involved in the

characterization and cleanup of a brownfields site. The road map is intended for

the various individuals involved in or affected by the redevelopment of brownfields

sites, whether public projects, private developments, or projects pursued under

public-private partnerships. The second edition has been expanded significantly

to include new and updated resources. The document can be viewed online at

<http:/brownfieldstsc.org or ordered through the National Service Center for

Environmental Publications (NSCEP) at 1 (800) 490-9198.

Internet Technology

Seminars

EPA’s Technology Innovation

Office offers an Internet

Technology Seminar Series as

an efficient and cost effective alternative to

traditional conferences and classroom training. The

seminars are open to the public. Between the

initiation of the series in the fall of 1998 and January

2001, EPA offered 28 Internet seminars. Topics

include:

• Dynamic Data Collection Strategy; Systematic

Planning for Field-Based Measurements

• Specific Field Analytical Technologies

(Monitoring VOCs in Groundwater, Immunoassay

for PCBs) 

• Cleanup Approaches (Permeable Reactive

Walls; In-Situ Bioremediation; Natural

Attenuation)

More than 4,500 persons in both public and private

sectors have participated in the seminars. 

Participants have joined from over 350

municipalities in 49 states and over 20 countries on

six continents. EPA’s Office of Research and

Development, EPA’s Office of Solid Waste, the U.S.

Army Corps of Engineers, and the Interstate

Technology and Regulatory Cooperative Workgroup

have co-sponsored and contributed to the seminars. 

The schedule and descriptions of upcoming

seminars, as well as information about and

descriptions of past seminars (which have been

archived), are available online at:

<http://clu-in.org/studio>

For more information about the seminars, the central

point of contact is Jeff Heimerman of the EPA

Technology Innovation Office at (703) 603-7191 or

<heimerman.jeff@epa.gov>.

 Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable

(FRTR) Field Sampling and Analysis

Technologies Matrix and Reference Guide at

<http://www.frtr.gov/site>

 FRTR Screening Matrix and Reference Guide

at <http://www.frtr.gov/matrix2/

top_page.html>

 FRTR Cost and Performance Reports and

Internet site at <http://www.frtr.gov/cost>

 U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Preferred

Alternatives Matrix at

<http://www.em.doe.gov/define>

 DOE Vendor Database for Environmental

Applications at <http://www.cmst.org/

vendor/>

Other resources include the EPA Internet

Technology Seminar Series and the Road Map to

Understanding Innovative Technology Options for

Brownfields Investigation and Cleanup. The

Internet Technology Seminar Series provides

online seminar sessions to discuss innovative

remediation approaches. Each topic is packaged

in a 2- to 2 1⁄2-hour session. Participants can listen

to presenters over the Internet or telephone and

view presentation slides online. See the boxes to

the right and below for additional information

about the Internet seminars and the road map.

Table 3-2 provides a comprehensive list of

information resources and the types of information

each provides. Appendix A presents more

information about these and other resources.
BROWNFIELDS TECHNOLOGY PRIMER: 

REQUESTING AND EVALUATING PROPOSALS THAT ENCOURAGE 

INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGIES FOR INVESTIGATION AND CLEANUP

15

TABLE 3-2

EXAMPLES OF PUBLICLY AVAILABLE INFORMATION RESOURCES

(Page 1 of 3)

Resource

TYPES OF INFORMATION

Remedial

Evaluation

Characterization

Strategies/Plans

Characterization

Technologies 

(Monitoring, 

Health, 

and Safety

Analytical)

Remediation

Technologies

Site Types

Addressed

Contaminants

Addressed

Cost

Information

Pe

In

EPA REACH IThttp://www.epareachit.org

7 77 7 7 

FRTR Case Studieshttp://www.frtr.gov/cost/

77 7 7 

FRTR Remediation TechnologiesScreening Matrixhttp://www.frtr.gov/matrix2/top_page.html

77 7 7 

FRTR Characterization TechnologiesMatrixhttp://www.frtr.gov/site

7 77 7

CLU-INhttp://clu-in.orgCitizens’ Guides to Innovative TreatmentTechnologieshttp://clu-in.org/pub1.htm

7 7

A Guideline for Dynamic Workplans andField Analytics: The Keys to Cost-EffectiveSite Characterization and Cleanuphttp://clu-in.org/pub1.htm

7

A Dynamic Site Investigation: AdaptiveSampling and Analysis Program forOperable Unit 1 at Hanscom Air ForceBase, Bedford, Massachusettshttp://clu-in.org/pub1.htm

7

Application of Field-BasedCharacterization Tools in the WaterfrontVoluntary Settinghttp://clu-in.org/pub1.htm

7
TABLE 3-2

EXAMPLES OF PUBLICLY AVAILABLE INFORMATION RESOURCES

(Page 2 of 3)

BROWNFIELDS TECHNOLOGY PRIMER: 

REQUESTING AND EVALUATING PROPOSALS THAT ENCOURAGE 

INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGIES FOR INVESTIGATION AND CLEANUP

Resource

TYPES OF INFORMATION

Remedial

Evaluation

Characterization

Strategies/Plans

Characterization

Technologies 

(Monitoring, 

Health, 

and Safety

Analytical)

Remediation

Technologies

Site Types

Addressed

Contaminants

Addressed

Cost

Information

Pe

In

16

Assessing Contractor Capabilities forStreamlined Site InvestigationsEPA 542-R-00-001http://brownfieldstsc.org

 

Assessment of Phytoremediation as an In Situ Technique for CleaningOil-Contaminated Siteshttp://clu-in.org/pub1.htm

7 7

Directory of Technology Support Servicesto Brownfields LocalitiesEPA 542-B-99-005http://brownfieldstsc.orgField Analytical and Site CharacterizationTechnologies - Summary of ApplicationsEPA 542-R-97-011 http://clu-in.org/pub1.htm

7 77 

Phytoremediation Decision Treehttp://clu-in.org/pub1.htm

7 7

Quality Assurance Guidance forConducting Brownfields Site AssessmentsEPA 540-R-98-038 http://clu-in.org/pub1.htm

7

Road Map to Understanding InnovativeTechnology Options for BrownfieldsInvestigation and Cleanup, Second EditionEPA 542-B-99-009http://brownfieldstsc.org

7 7 77 7

Tool Kit of Information Resources forBrownfields Investigation and CleanupEPA 542-B-99-009http://clu-in.org/pub1.htm
TABLE 3-2

EXAMPLES OF PUBLICLY AVAILABLE INFORMATION RESOURCES

(Page 3 of 3)

BROWNFIELDS TECHNOLOGY PRIMER: 

REQUESTING AND EVALUATING PROPOSALS THAT ENCOURAGE 

INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGIES FOR INVESTIGATION AND CLEANUP

Resource

TYPES OF INFORMATION

Remedial

Evaluation

Characterization

Strategies/Plans

Characterization

Technologies 

(Monitoring, 

Health, 

and Safety

Analytical)

Remediation

Technologies

Site Types

Addressed

Contaminants

Addressed

Cost

Information

Pe

In

17

Field Analytic Technologies Encyclopedia(FATE)http://fate.clu-in.org

7

DOE Vendor Database for EnvironmentalApplicationshttp://www.cmst.org/vendor

7

Hazardous Waste Site Characterization (onCD-ROM)http://www.epa.gov/ncepihom

7

Ames Laboratory's EnvironmentalProtection Scienceshttp://www.epsci.ameslab.gov

7

Evaluation of Selected EnvironmentalDecision Support Softwarehttp://clu-in.org/pub1.htm

7 7

Uncertainty Management: ExpeditingCleanup Through Contingency Planninghttp://clu-in.org/pub1.htm

7

Environmental Technology VerificationReports, Site Characterization andMonitoring Technologies (43 verified as of9/1/00)http://www.epa.gov/etv/02/02_main.htm

7 77 7

Treatment Technologies for Site Cleanup: Annual Status Report (ninth edition)EPA 542-R-99-001http://clu-in.org/products/asr/index2.html

77 7

Notes:See Appendix A for details on how to access the resources.
BROWNFIELDS TECHNOLOGY PRIMER: 

REQUESTING AND EVALUATING PROPOSALS THAT ENCOURAGE 

INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGIES FOR INVESTIGATION AND CLEANUP

18

3.2.3 Special Considerations

for Brownfields Sites

For many brownfields sites, special considerations

must be factored into the selection of

characterization and remediation technologies. 

Typically, such considerations affect brownfields

sites that are located in residential or business

areas, that contain buildings and structures that

will remain in place, and that are targeted for a

specific reuse. Among the special considerations

that could significantly influence the selection of

characterization or remediation technologies:

 The characterization and or remediation

process must be completed within a defined

time frame for redevelopment

 Community concerns about the potential risks

posed by cleanup activities must be addressed

 Noise and traffic during cleanup must be

minimized in residential neighborhoods

 Access to the contamination present is difficult

because the contamination is adjacent to or 

under a building or other structure that will

remain in place

 Site activities must not cause damage to

historic buildings located on site or near the

site

 The impact of site activities on on-going

businesses must be minimized

 The proposed location of new buildings,

structures, and parking lots limits the feasibility

of some characterization and remediation

options

 The effects of long-term monitoring and

remediation activities must be considered

relative to the proposed site design

Table 3-3 provides a general overview of

contaminants and media at five common types of

brownfields sites. Tables 3-4.a, 3-4.b, and 3-4.c

present special considerations related to

commonly used characterization technologies that

may influence the selection of those technologies

for individual sites. Table 3-5 provides similar

information for remediation technologies.

TABLE 3-3

SELECTED TYPICAL BROWNFIELDS SITES, CONTAMINANTS, AND MEDIA

No. Site Type Contaminants Media

1 Dry Cleaning

Operation

Solvent containing halogenated VOCs and SVOCs, such as PCE Soil, groundwater, surface

water, and sediment

2 Wood Treating

Operation

TPH, PAHs, PCP, creosote, and metals, such as chromated copper

arsenate (CCA)

Soil, sludge, groundwater,

surface water, and sediment

3 Gas Station and

Tank Farm

TPH, BTEX, VOCs, and SVOCs Soil, groundwater, surface

water, and sediment

4 Railroad Yard TPH, phthalates, carbazole, dibenzofurans, dieldrin, PAHs, metals

(lead, copper, zinc, nickel, antimony, and mercury), and

chlorinated and non-chlorinated solvents.

Soil, sediment, sludge,

groundwater, and surface

water

5 Manufactured

Gas Plant (MGP)

Non-halogenated VOCs and non-halogenated SVOCs, such as

PAHs and carcinogenic PAHs, including naphthalene,

phenanthrene and anthracene chrysene and benzo(a)pyrene.

Soil, sediment, sludge,

groundwater, and surface

water

Notes:

 VOC = Volatile organic compound

SVOC = Semivolatile organic compound

 PCE = Perchloroethylene

 TPH = Total petroleum hydrocarbon

 PAH = Polyaromatic hydrocarbons

 PCP = Pentachlorophenol

BTEX = Benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylenes
BROWNFIELDS TECHNOLOGY PRIMER: 

REQUESTING AND EVALUATING PROPOSALS THAT ENCOURAGE 

INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGIES FOR INVESTIGATION AND CLEANUP

19

TABLE 3-4.a1

SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS AT BROWNFIELDS SITES 

FOR SELECTING INNOVATIVE CHARACTERIZATION TECHNOLOGIES –

Examples of Sample Access, Collection, and Extraction Tools

Technology

CONSIDERATIONS

Potential Impact

on Buildings and

Other Structures

Impact to Nearby

Businesses

or Community Media

Range of Nominal

Working Depth

Sample Acquisition

Time2

St

Tec

Hollow-Stem Auger Yes 

(when it is performed

in close proximity to

buildings or

structures, it may

cause formation and

foundation fractures) 

Yes

(potential disruption

resulting from

vibration, noise, and

foundation fractures)

Soil and

Groundwater (for

unconsolidated

formations)

Up to 200 feet Immediate Com

avai

routinel

tech

Directional Drilling No No Soil and

Groundwater (for

unconsolidated

formations)

Up to 100 feet Rapid Com

avai

routinel

tech

Cable Tool No Yes 

(potential disruption

from noises)

Soil and

Groundwater (for

consolidated

formations)

Less than 5,000 feet Rapid Com

avai

routinel

tech

Cone Penetrometer(CPT)

No No Soil, Groundwater Up to 100 feet Immediate Com

avai

routinel

tech

Direct Push Sampler No No Soil, Soil Gas, and

Groundwater

Up to 100 feet Immediate Com

avai

routinel

tech

Notes:1. Adapted from the Field-Based Site Characterization Technologies Course, Participant Manual, USEPA, CERCLA Education Center, TIO, September 1999, and from the Fie

Matrix by the FRTR (http://www.frtr.gov/site). All techniques are site-specific.

2. Immediate = generally less than 10 minutes; rapid = generally less than 1 hour
BROWNFIELDS TECHNOLOGY PRIMER: 

REQUESTING AND EVALUATING PROPOSALS THAT ENCOURAGE 

INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGIES FOR INVESTIGATION AND CLEANUP

20

TABLE 3-4.b

SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS AT BROWNFIELDS SITES 

FOR SELECTING INNOVATIVE CHARACTERIZATION TECHNOLOGIES –

Examples of Sample Analysis Tools for VOCs, SVOCs, and Pesticides

(Page 1 of 2)

TECHNOLOGY

CONSIDERATIONS

Media Throughput

Status

of Technology Advantages Limitations

In Situ

or Ex Situ

Technology Un

Laser-InducedFluorescence (LIF)

Soil and

Groundwater

Average of 300 feet

per day, continuous

reading 

Commercially

available and

routinely used

field technology

• Continuous, realtime data• No soil cuttings• Quick

decontamination

• Expensive on small

projects

• Large equipment• Difficult mobilization for

rough terrain

In situ Rental: $

$3,000 peincluding 

GasChromatography/Mass Spectrometry(GC/MS)

Soil,

Groundwater, and

Gas (extraction

required except

for gas)

30 - 50 samples per

day

Commercially

available and

routinely used

field technology

• Definitive

compoundidentification

• Identify

components thatcannot be detectedby PID and FID

• Available in

portable units

• Expensive• High degree of

experience needed tooperate instrumentation

Ex situ Purchase: 

$100,000 Rental: $month

Gas Chromatography- Photo-IonizationDetector (GC - PID)

Soil,

Groundwater, and

Gas (extraction

required except

for gas)

30 - 50 samples per

day

Commercially

available and

routinely used

field technology

• Produce definitive

data with properQA/QC

• Proven technique• No solvents

needed for VOCanalysis

• Need experienced

operator

• Sensitive to moisture• Dual columns are

required for positiveidentification of analytes

Ex situ Purchase: 

$50,000Rental: $$3,000 pe

Gas Chromatography- Flame-IonizationDetector (GC - FID)

Soil,

Groundwater, and

Gas (extraction

required except

for gas)

30 - 50 samples per

day

Commercially

available and

routinely used

field technology

• Produce definitive

data with properQA/QC

• Proven technique• No solvents

needed for VOCanalysis

• FID is stable, lowmaintenance

detector

• Need experienced

operator

• Dual columns are

required for positiveidentification of analytes

Ex situ Purchase: 

$50,000Rental: $$3,000 pe
TABLE 3-4.b

SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS AT BROWNFIELDS SITES 

FOR SELECTING INNOVATIVE CHARACTERIZATION TECHNOLOGIES –

Examples of Sample Analysis Tools for VOCs, SVOCs, and Pesticides

(Page 2 of 2)

BROWNFIELDS TECHNOLOGY PRIMER: 

REQUESTING AND EVALUATING PROPOSALS THAT ENCOURAGE 

INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGIES FOR INVESTIGATION AND CLEANUP

TECHNOLOGY

CONSIDERATIONS

Media Throughput

Status

of Technology Advantages Limitations

In Situ

or Ex Situ

Technology Un

21

Detector Tubes(ColorimetricIndicator Tubes)

Soil,

Groundwater, and

Gas (extraction

required except

for gas)

> 100

measurements per

day

Commercially

available and

routinely used

field technology

• Small size• Easy to use• Rapid analysis• Cost effective

• Semiquantitative

(subjective) results

Ex situ Purchase:

Tube: $3 tubePump: $3

Immunoassay Soil and

Groundwater

up to 50 samples

per day

Commercially

available

technology with

moderate field

experience

• Small size• Easy to use• Rapid analysis• Cost effective

• Interference from similar

compounds

• Matrix-dependent results

(soil)

Ex situ $10 - $50 

(supplies only)

Notes:Adapted from the Field-Based Site Characterization Technologies Course, Participant Manual, USEPA, CERCLA Education Center, TIO, September 1999, and from the Field S

by the FRTR (http://www.frtr.gov/site).
BROWNFIELDS TECHNOLOGY PRIMER: 

REQUESTING AND EVALUATING PROPOSALS THAT ENCOURAGE 

INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGIES FOR INVESTIGATION AND CLEANUP

22

TABLE 3-4.c

SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS AT BROWNFIELDS SITES 

FOR SELECTING INNOVATIVE CHARACTERIZATION TECHNOLOGIES –

Examples of Sample Analysis Tools for Inorganics and Metals

TECHNOLOGY

CONSIDERATIONS

Media Throughput

Status of

Technology Advantages Limitations

In situ/ 

Ex situ

Technology Un

Inductively-CoupledPlasma-AtomicEmissionSpectroscopy (ICPAES)

Soil,

Groundwater, and

Gas (extraction

required except

for gas)

25 to 50 samples

per day

Commercially

available

technology

with limited

field

experience

• Multielement technique• Low detection limit• Definitive data with

appropriate QA/QC

• Expensive• Interference from iron

and uranium

Ex situ Expensiv

X-Ray Fluorescence Soil,

Groundwater, and

Gas (extraction

required for gas)

• 50 to 100

samples perday (ex situ)

• > 100 samples

per day (insitu)

Commercially

available and

routinely used

field

technology

• Portable• Relatively easy to use• Fast and multielement

analysis

• Non-destructive technique• Definitive results with

appropriate QA/QC

• High detection limit

(tens to thousands ofparts per million)

• Involves the use of

radioactive sources

• Matrix-variable results

In situ and

Ex situ

Purchase: $60,000Rental: $$2,000 pe

Mercury VaporAnalyzers

Soil and Gas Hundreds of

measurements

per day

Commercially

available

technology

with moderate

field

experience

• Portable• Easy to use• Rapid response

• Potential interference

from sulfur

Ex situ Purchase: 

$7,000Rental: $per week

Notes:Adapted from the Field-Based Site Characterization Technologies Course, Participant Manual, USEPA, CERCLA Education Center, TIO, September 1999, and from the Field S

by the FRTR (http://www.frtr.gov/site).
BROWNFIELDS TECHNOLOGY PRIMER: 

REQUESTING AND EVALUATING PROPOSALS THAT ENCOURAGE 

INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGIES FOR INVESTIGATION AND CLEANUP

23

TABLE 3-5

SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS AT BROWNFIELD SITES –

Examples of Remediation Technologies

(Page 1 of 3)

TECHNOLOGY

CONSIDERATIONS

In situ/ 

Ex situ

Technology

Space Requirement for

Treatment

Potential

Impact to

Buildings 

and Structures1

Impact

 to Nearby

Businesses2 or

Community3

Remediation

Time Frame4 Cost Range5

Frequency

of Use/ 

Status of

Technology

Targeted

Contaminant

(Organics/

Metals)

Targeted Media

(Groundwater,

Soil, Sludge)

SVE In situ Treatment areas will be the

same size as the

contamination area. 

Designated area is required

to house the aboveground

treatment unit (e.g.

compressor and emission

control unit).

No Yes

(Potential vapor

buildup in basements

within the radius

influence of air

injection wells)

Contaminant

specific

$10 - $40 /cy Full Scale Semivolatile

and volatile

organics

Soil 

Bioventing In situ Treatment area will be the

same size as the

contamination area. 

Designated area is required

to house the aboveground

treatment unit (e.g.

blower).

No Yes

(Potential vapor

buildup in basements

within the radius

influence of air

injection wells)

Contaminant

specific

$10 - $50 /cy Full Scale Semivolatile

and volatile

organics

Soil 

Phytoremediation In situ Treatment area will be the

same size as the

contamination area.

Yes

(Potential

foundation

fracture caused

by root

penetrations)

No Long $60,000 -

$100,000 per

acre (50 cm

deep)

Emerging Organics Soil and Sludge 

NaturalAttenuation

In situ No treatment area is

required.

No No Long Site specific Full Scale Organics and

inorganics

Groundwater,

Soil, and Sludge

ChemicalOxidation

In situ Treatment area will be the

same size as the

contamination area. 

Designated area is required

to house the aboveground

treatment unit such as

pumps and chemical

injection unit.

Yes 

(Potential

formation and

foundation

fractures caused

by pressure

buildup from

chemical

reaction and

injection)

Yes

(Potential pressure

buildup from chemical

reaction and highpressure injection

system)

Short Site-specific Full Scale Organics and

Metals

Groundwater 
TABLE 3-5

SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS AT BROWNFIELD SITES –

Examples of Remediation Technologies

(Page 2 of 3)

BROWNFIELDS TECHNOLOGY PRIMER: 

REQUESTING AND EVALUATING PROPOSALS THAT ENCOURAGE 

INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGIES FOR INVESTIGATION AND CLEANUP

TECHNOLOGY

CONSIDERATIONS

In situ/ 

Ex situ

Technology

Space Requirement for

Treatment

Potential

Impact to

Buildings 

and Structures1

Impact

 to Nearby

Businesses2 or

Community3

Remediation

Time Frame4 Cost Range5

Frequency

of Use/ 

Status of

Technology

Targeted

Contaminant

(Organics/

Metals)

Targeted Media

(Groundwater,

Soil, Sludge)

24

Solidification /Stabilization

In situ Treatment area will be the

same size as the

contamination area.

No Yes

(Traffic congestion

from heavy

equipment)

Short $40 - $60 / cy

- shallow

$150 - $250 /

cy - deep

Full Scale Metals Soil and Sludge 

Landfarming Ex situ Landfarming requires a

vast footprint because soil

or sludge will be spread

out in one 18-inch lift.

No Yes

(Traffic congestion

during earth-moving

operation and air

quality issues;

potential volatile air

emissions)

Average < $75/cy

(Only

includes costs

of excavation,

placement of

soil on a

prepared

liner, and ex

situ

treatment)

Full Scale Organics Soil and Sludge 

Low TemperatureThermalDesorption

Ex situ Staging and treatment area

outside of the

contaminated zone is

required.

No Yes

(Potential noise,

vibration, and traffic

congestion;

potential volatile air

emissions)

Short $40 - $300

/ton

(excluding

excavation,

transport, and

utilities)

Full Scale Organics Soil and Sludge 

Air Sparging In situ Treatment area will be the

same size as the

contamination area. 

Designated area is required

to house the aboveground

treatment unit.

No No Average $150,000 -

$350,000 per

acre 

(only 1

estimate)

Full Scale Organics Groundwater 

Dual PhaseExtraction

In situ Treatment area will be the

same size as the

contamination area. 

Designated area is required

to house the aboveground

treatment unit.

No No Average $2,500 -

$4,000 per

month for

dual pumping

system

Full Scale Organics Groundwater 
TABLE 3-5

SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS AT BROWNFIELD SITES –

Examples of Remediation Technologies

(Page 3 of 3)

BROWNFIELDS TECHNOLOGY PRIMER: 

REQUESTING AND EVALUATING PROPOSALS THAT ENCOURAGE 

INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGIES FOR INVESTIGATION AND CLEANUP

TECHNOLOGY

CONSIDERATIONS

In situ/ 

Ex situ

Technology

Space Requirement for

Treatment

Potential

Impact to

Buildings 

and Structures1

Impact

 to Nearby

Businesses2 or

Community3

Remediation

Time Frame4 Cost Range5

Frequency

of Use/ 

Status of

Technology

Targeted

Contaminant

(Organics/

Metals)

Targeted Media

(Groundwater,

Soil, Sludge)

25

ThermallyEnhanced SVE

In situ Treatment area will be the

same size as the

contamination area. 

Designated area is required

to house the aboveground

treatment unit.

Yes

(Potential

formation and

foundation

fracture from

high-pressure

injection system

- if steam is

used. In

addition, the use

of steam on clay

formation may

cause settling)

Yes

(Potential disruption

due to potential

damage to buildings

and structures;

potential vapor buildup in basements

within the radius of

influence; and air

emissions)

Short $43/cy for

VOCs

$80 - $100/cy

for SVOCs

Full Scale Organics Soil and Sludge 

Landfill Ex situ Treatment area will be the

same as the contamination

area.

No Yes

(Traffic congestion

during landfill

construction;

noise, vibration, and

potential air emissions

from earth-moving

activities)

Short $175,000 per

acre (RCRA

D)

$225,000 per

acre (RCRA

C)

Full Scale Organics and

metals

Soil and Sludge 

Bioreactor Ex situ Treatment area will be the

same size as the

contamination area. 

Designated area is required

to house the aboveground

treatment unit.

No Yes

(Traffic congestion, air

emissions, noise, and

vibration during earthmoving operations)

Average Site-specific Full Scale Organics Groundwater 

Notes:1 Potential damage might be in the form of foundation fracture.2 Disruptions might be in the form of noise, vibration, traffic from heavy equipment, and air emissions

during remediation stages.

3 Risk to the community, such as air emissions, potential vapor buildup in basements, noise, vibrations,

and ingestion and inhalation of contaminated materials, may occur during and after remediation.

4 Long = more than 3 years for in situ soil; more than 1 year for ex 

Average = 1 - 3 years for in situ soil; 0.5 - 1 year for ex situ soilShort = less than 1 year for in situ soil; less than 0.5 year for ex groundwater.

5 Adapted from the Technologies Screening Matrix of the FRTR 6 The reuse limitation applies to the period after remediation, unle

include use as an industrial park, a commercial parking lot, a sopark, or a residential area.
BROWNFIELDS TECHNOLOGY PRIMER: 

REQUESTING AND EVALUATING PROPOSALS THAT ENCOURAGE 

INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGIES FOR INVESTIGATION AND CLEANUP

26

3.2.4 Examples of RFP Formats

for Brownfields Sites

This section presents examples of two RFP

formats for brownfields sites that illustrate how

innovative approaches are incorporated into RFPs. 

Only portions of the language in the RFPs are

included. 

A national brownfields site assessment pilot city

issued an RFP to solicit services to perform a

Phase II/III environmental assessment for a 1,200-

acre site in the city. The site is designated for

reuse as an agribusiness park because it has

extensive infrastructure suitable to serve

agribusiness needs. The language used in the RFP

was:

“Option A: Provide costs for each boring and/or test

for an estimated 50 temporary boring wells.

• Temporary Well: The cost to construct and

install a temporary well shall be quoted on a per

linear foot basis. ...

• Soil Sampling: BTEX using Method OA-1 ...

• Groundwater Sampling: BTEX using Method

OA-1, base neutral and acid extractables in

water using USEPA Method 8270, ...”

“Option B: Cost for each boring and/or test described

above in Option A shall be provided by using a direct

push method with a mobile lab for an estimated 50

temporary boring wells. Describe whom the lab is

certified by or the time frame for obtaining

certification. In addition, indicate if more stringent

standards will be applied to ensure quality

assurance/quality control and explain them. State the

level of expertise that the project operator has with

this equipment. Describe the cost savings advantages

of this approach.”

The RFP encouraged potential bidders to use an

innovative approach by specifying a technology,

in this case direct-push technology. The RFP

prompted contractors to provide two optional

approaches, traditional drilling with off-site

laboratory analysis and the direct-push method

with on-site mobile laboratory analysis. The RFP 

requested the total cost for each option and a

description of the cost savings anticipated through

the use of the innovative technology. In this RFP,

the city established the requirements for the cost

format using the traditional approach, in this case

auger drilling, while leaving flexibility for the cost

format for the innovative approach. Defining the

innovative technology in the RFP makes it easier

for decision makers who have only limited

understanding of innovative approaches to review

proposals.

On the other hand, the reference to specific

methods may discourage contractors from

proposing alternative approaches. By adding the

phrase “or equivalent” to the language,

brownfields communities can encourage

contractors to propose solutions that provide data

of a sufficient quality to support decision-making

needs. Communities should avoid absolute

language and instead ensure that analyses and

cleanup techniques are relevant to the decisions to

be made and, if known, the ultimate or proposed

site use.

A second pilot city issued its RFP for site

investigations that were being conducted in its

efforts to redevelop a 214-acre area along a creek. 

The planned future use is commercial

redevelopment. The proposal encouraged the use

of innovative characterization approaches, but did

not define specific options. The language in the

RFP stated: 

“The contractor shall test for the presence of various

contaminants, using field screening sampling

techniques and innovative technologies where

appropriate ... .”

The “open-ended” or general style of language

allows a wide range of responses by the

contractors. The disadvantage of the approach is

that it is difficult for decision makers who are not

familiar with the proposed options to compare and

evaluate proposals.
BROWNFIELDS TECHNOLOGY PRIMER: 

REQUESTING AND EVALUATING PROPOSALS THAT ENCOURAGE 

INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGIES FOR INVESTIGATION AND CLEANUP

27

4.0 EVALUATING CONTRACTORS’ PROPOSALS

4.1 Evaluating the Proposed Methodology

When evaluating proposals, decision makers

should carefully assess the reasonableness and

completeness of the information submitted for

each technical task. Decision makers also should

be confident that the methodology in the selected

proposal is appropriate for the site and that the

contractor’s proposed work activities will not

cause damage or pollution problems. Proposals

for site cleanup activities typically present

information that requires an understanding of the

technical concepts of site characterization and

remediation. Discussed below are technical

activities typically addressed in proposals for

innovative (and traditional) approaches for

cleaning up sites. Some of the information

presented may include more technical detail than

decision makers typically see in proposals. When

in-house expertise is not available, and for those

who seek assistance to better understand the

technical concepts, a number of resources are

available, as noted in Section 3.2.2. The

assistance of the resources listed there is free and

usually provided on a quick-turnaround basis.

4.1.1 Characterization Technologies

Contractors that propose innovative sampling and

cleanup technologies may include field-based site

characterization technologies to supplement

traditional approaches to sampling and analysis. 

Field-based technologies span a broad spectrum of

analytical techniques, ranging from indicator tubes

to field laboratories that provide gas

chromatography/mass spectrometry (GC/MS)

analysis. Because innovative technologies are

used to expedite characterization and cleanup

processes and reduce the costs of those activities,

the contractor should demonstrate how innovative

site characterization technologies would achieve

that goal for the site.

In evaluating proposals, the decision makers must

carefully evaluate the contractor’s proposed

approach for developing a QA plan and sampling

plan for the site. The contractor must clearly lay

out the decision logic that will be followed in

determining data needs and describe how the

proposed approach for collecting and analyzing

samples will support the decision logic. A clear

delineation of the logic also will assist in

presenting information to and obtaining

concurrence from regulatory officials for the use

of innovative options. The logic used and plans

prepared are essential in defending any decisions

about the selection of remediation approaches at

the site.

Field-based site characterization technologies

expedite the cleanup process in several ways. For

example, field-based techniques can provide data

in hours instead of days, weeks, or even months. 

Such rapid turnaround reduces the

characterization time by eliminating the time spent

waiting for analytical results from an off-site

laboratory. In addition, rapid analytical
BROWNFIELDS TECHNOLOGY PRIMER: 

REQUESTING AND EVALUATING PROPOSALS THAT ENCOURAGE 

INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGIES FOR INVESTIGATION AND CLEANUP

28

The Brownfields

Technology Support

Center Can Help!!!

The BTSC also can provide assistance

in evaluating technical aspects of the

contractors’ proposals for sitespecific needs, including:

• Identification of characterization

technologies on the basis of the

characteristics of the site, such as

selection of drilling methods, and

sampling instruments and methods

• Identification of remediation

technologies that provide the most

innovative approaches that save

time and money

turnaround may allow project managers to modify

the sampling plan during the characterization

process and more accurately characterize the site,

in less time than traditional methods take. When a

site is rapidly and, more important, accurately

characterized during the first mobilization,

subsequent mobilizations are eliminated, saving

time and money.

Expediting the site characterization process also

can reduce on-site labor costs

and analytical expenses. 

Further, field analytical

techniques can produce data

for a fraction of the cost of

fixed laboratory analysis. For

example, immunoassay test

kits can produce quantitative

data for as little as $20 to $40

per sample, compared with

$500 per sample for fixed

laboratory data. Again, the

appropriate use of data from

both field and fixed

laboratories must be judged in

accordance with the level of

data quality required to

support the decisions to be

made.

Because innovative technologies are not as widely

used as more traditional approaches, a contractor

that proposes innovative approaches should be

able to explain why it believes its proposed

approach is feasible and specify its potential

advantages for the site. Whether proposing an

innovative or a traditional approach, the contractor

should demonstrate a thorough knowledge of

potential limitations and problems with proposed

technologies and describe contingencies for

adjusting the approach should it be necessary. As

with any analytical approach, such knowledge is

crucial in presenting plans to regulators and

addressing their concerns about limitations of the

chosen field methods. A qualified contractor must

be able to explain why data are being collected

and how the data will advance decision making at

a site, regardless of the technique or technology

that is proposed.

In cases in which innovative site characterization

techniques may not be a substitute for traditional

sampling and fixed laboratory analysis, they still

may be very effective as a supplement.

Proposals that include the use of dynamic work

plans should describe the contractor’s plan for

ensuring effective communication and facilitating

on-site decision making among the members of

the project team. The plan should describe: 

(1) the procedures for managing and interpreting

(potentially large quantities of) field data daily or

more quickly; (2) roles and

responsibilities among

contractor staff for making

decisions about the need to

obtain additional field data;

and (3) communication of

those decisions in a timely

manner to the site owner and

regulatory staff, if so

required.

Discussed below is the

evaluation of key aspects of

methodologies proposed by

contractors. Because each

methodology must be tailored

to the site under review, not

every item may be applicable

to every proposal.

4.1.1.1 Selection of Locations

for Sampling Points

The geology of a site controls the migration of

contaminants. Once the geology at a site has been

defined, predictions of the direction of migration

become more reliable. Higher detection rates then

can be achieved by selecting locations at which

the pattern of migration indicates contamination is

present. The contractor’s proposed methodology

can describe:

 Data or other considerations that will influence

the contractor’s selection of borehole or

sampling locations other than upgradient or

downgradient locations

 Statistical methods or modeling programs the

contractor will use to assist in the selection of

sampling locations
BROWNFIELDS TECHNOLOGY PRIMER: 

REQUESTING AND EVALUATING PROPOSALS THAT ENCOURAGE 

INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGIES FOR INVESTIGATION AND CLEANUP

29

 Geophysical methods the contractor will use to

gain a better understanding of the geology at

the site

 Geophysical methods the contractor will use to

determine the locations of subsurface utilities

or underground structures

 Geological information that will influence the

contractor’s selection of sampling locations

 Additional geological information the

contractor will seek and its significance

4.1.1.2 Hydrogeologic Conditions

Hydrological information typically is obtained

from regional groundwater flow maps or from

potentiometric plots derived from groundwater

levels taken from existing wells. New

groundwater flow meters are available that attach

to drilling equipment, such as cone penetrometry

technology (CPT) probes that can place flow

meters at any particular saturated layer. Another

option is to use pore information from CPT or

geoprobe technologies to obtain detailed

information about flow patterns at a particular

site. The contractor’s proposed methodology can

describe:

 The proposed method for determining detailed

groundwater flow patterns at the site

 The proposed method of using the flow pattern

information in selecting sampling locations

 The contractor’s capability to obtain

information about groundwater flow patterns

by means other than the use of published

potentiometric surfaces

4.1.1.3 Boreholes and Drilling Methods

With today’s technologies, soil depth profiles may

be obtained quickly (within minutes to hours) with

direct-push techniques, providing geological

information continuously as the probe penetrates

the subsurface. The probe can be withdrawn

while exuding grouting material so that the

borehole is sealed and no well remains to be

maintained. The information obtained can be used

to prepare a complete record of the site. The

contractor’s proposed methodology can describe:

 Factors that influence the contractor’s decision

to use direct-push methods rather than standard

drilling procedures

 The contractor’s rationale for the determination

of the number of samples required

 Information about how subsurface soil depth

profiles will be used in determining what soil

samples are to be taken

 The method to be used to collect soil samples

for analysis

4.1.1.4 Soil and Water Samples

Many test kits and hand-held instruments for

analyzing soil and water in the field are available. 

Such techniques often are used to quickly gather

information about contamination that then is used

as a guide to determine whether more detailed

laboratory analysis is warranted. Generally, site

managers and regulators will stipulate the

percentage of duplicate analyses that must be run

by standardized methods to ensure the quality of

the field analysis methods. That percentage

should be based on site-specific conditions. A

proper QC protocol must be constructed to

support specific aspects of data quality that are

important in defending site-specific decisions. A

QA protocol must describe the process that will be

followed to ensure that matrix interferences,

equipment malfunction, and other issues will not

cause data to be ambiguous or misleading. Many

field methods have been verified for their

accuracy, precision, and reliability through formal

verification programs, but site-specific

performance always should be assessed. Using a

mix of field methods and standard analysis

methods expedites the field program and increases

the quality of the data and their usefulness in

supporting conclusions about the site’s condition.

An understanding of the analyte[s] (specific

chemical[s] or contaminant[s]) that the technology

targets and the principles upon which the

technology is based is essential to the selection of

the correct technology for a site. No single

technology is effective for every contaminant, and
BROWNFIELDS TECHNOLOGY PRIMER: 

REQUESTING AND EVALUATING PROPOSALS THAT ENCOURAGE 

INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGIES FOR INVESTIGATION AND CLEANUP

30

Factors That May Necessitate

Innovative Cleanup Approaches

• Stakeholders prefer that contamination be treated

in place rather than disturbed and moved off site.

• Site owners may prefer fully treating contaminants

over containment remedies or long-term

institutional controls to offset long-term risk,

residual liability, and long-term operations and

maintenance costs.

• The excavation of contaminated soils under

existing buildings and structures is not feasible

because of potential damage to those buildings or

structures or disruption of ongoing businesses.

• Cleanup must be accomplished within a specified

time frame to meet milestones for redevelopment of

the site. Time factors also may favor the use of an

innovative approach over a traditional response

that involves a long-term remedy.

• Full reuse plans have not been developed for the

site, and interim treatment activities, such as

phytoremediation, allow treatment to proceed while

final decisions are being made.

• The budget for cleanup is limited, and innovative

approaches offer less expensive options than

traditional approaches.

• Innovative approaches can be designed and

configured to blend in with the proposed reuses of

the site.

each has various advantages and limitations. For

example, a test kit may be marketed as a

technology for detecting polychlorinated

biphenyls (PCB). However, the kit may respond

to any organochloride (chlorinated hydrocarbon

pesticide such as DDT) because of the chemical

reaction the kit uses. In such a case, the kit would,

in fact, be effective in identifying most

organochlorides but would not distinguish

between chlorinated pesticides and PCBs. 

Therefore, if the goal is to establish the presence

of organochlorides, the

test kit would be

effective. However, if

the goal is to quantitate

PCBs in the presence

of chlorinated

organics, the test kit

would not be effective.

Cross-reactivity is

another potential

concern associated

with test kits used

during site

characterization. 

Cross-reactivity is the

degree to which a test

kit responds to

compounds other than

the target analyte. For

example, organic

immunoassay test kits

designed for PCBs

usually are calibrated

with a specific Aroclor

(trade name of PCBs),

but the kits will

respond to other

congeners (compounds

within the same class)

on the basis of degree of chlorination. When a

contractor proposes technologies that do not

produce definitive data, the contractor should

demonstrate an understanding of cross-reactivity

and interferences. Further, the contractor should

demonstrate an understanding of how those issues

affect data quality and the overall site

characterization project.

Field-based site characterization technologies

produce data quality ranging from qualitative to

definitive. The type of data generated by fieldbased technologies depends on the degree of

sophistication of the technology and the QA/QC

measures implemented. Some methods produce

only qualitative information, with no quantitative

information. Others provide quantitative

information that is above or below a designated

level and is referred to as semi-quantitative data. 

That term can describe data showing a range of

concentrations. Quantitative data provide an

analyte concentration for a sample, and definitive

data, usually produced

by GC/MS, confirm

the presence of the

analyte and its

concentration. The use

to which the field

analytical data will be

put usually determines

the degree of QA/QC

required. Data used to

confirm the presence

or absence of a

contaminant, thereby

allowing the project

manager to more

accurately direct

further sampling and

analysis, usually

require less stringent

QA/QC. Qualitative or

semi-quantitative data

may be sufficient for

such requirements. 

However, if the field

analytical data are used

to confirm the presence

or absence of a

contaminant and must

withstand legal

scrutiny, the data must

be definitive, and a sophisticated technique, such

as GC/MS, must be employed.

The contractor’s proposed methodology can

describe:

 Field analytical methods for identification of

volatile contaminants, such as benzene or

trichloroethylene (TCE), particular

semivolatile contaminants, or metals
BROWNFIELDS TECHNOLOGY PRIMER: 

REQUESTING AND EVALUATING PROPOSALS THAT ENCOURAGE 

INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGIES FOR INVESTIGATION AND CLEANUP

31

 The selection of field test kits for the project

 The method of determining the locations and

number of samples

 The strategy or justification for the mix of field

analytical methods and laboratory analysis that

is proposed

 The procedure for confirming the accuracy of

the measurements

4.1.2 Remediation Technologies

When evaluating remediation options, a number of

factors should be considered to identify the most

technically feasible and cost-effective technology

for a specific site. The general considerations for

all sites are applicability, implementability,

effectiveness, remediation time frame, cost, and

regulatory compliance. Specific factors may

include current or future use of the site,

remediation objectives, proximity to neighbors or

businesses, proximity to historic buildings,

potential long-term liability and risk, future reuse,

and regulatory considerations, as well as

evaluation of treatment options compared with

containment and institutional controls. For

individual sites, one or more factors may be

dominant. RFPs should clearly state extenuating

circumstances that may require innovative cleanup

approaches rather than traditional containment or

removal.

Because the performance of each technology

depends heavily on site-specific conditions and

characteristics, a treatability study should be

conducted before full-scale implementation of any

technology, innovative or traditional. The

following sections present information for use in

evaluating such proposed activities.

4.1.2.1 Treatability Studies

Before the final remediation technology is

selected, a treatability study should be conducted

to demonstrate that the treatment technology will

work at that site. To avoid problems and delays

that may occur if a technology fails to perform as

intended, the treatability study should be

performed as early as possible in the study phases

of the project. The requirements for a treatability

study that are set forth in an RFP should be

tailored to the complexity of the site. At a

minimum, the RFP should specify that the

contractor must demonstrate that the technology

will work before the contractor proceeds with

remediation activities. The expenses of the

treatability study are paid in various manners. In

some cases, the contractor performing the

treatability study may assume such expenses

because the study is an opportunity to further test

the technology and obtain performance data for it. 

In other cases, the RFP may stipulate that the

contractor will be reimbursed for the cost of the

treatability study upon successful completion of

that study.

Many treatment technologies are patented, and the

patent owner may be reluctant to sell patent rights

or licensing agreements to another vendor or

contractor. An RFP for remediation work must

define clearly the process by which the patent

holder will allow another vendor or contractor to

use the technology, if the patent holder is not to

perform the work. On the other hand, many

companies may be reluctant to participate in a

treatability study if their participation would

preclude them from later bidding on the

remediation contract. Local conflict of interest

procedures should be checked carefully to ensure

that contractors are not precluded from future

work in such situations.

4.1.2.2 Full-Scale Remediation

Technology

It first must be determined whether the proposed

technology is applicable and implementable for

the site, in light of the contaminant(s) of concern

(COC) and the site characteristics. For example,

phytoremediation is not appropriate if the

concentrations of contaminants are toxic to plants,

nor is it implementable if the contamination is

located in the deep strata of a geological formation

beyond the root zones of plants that could be used

at the site. Soil vapor extraction (SVE) alone is

not applicable for treating a site at which a tight

clay formation is present because the SVE process

depends on the ability of the subsurface area to

exchange air. SVE also is not applicable for a site

contaminated with non-volatile COCs, inorganic

compounds, or metals because volatilization is the

prime removal mechanism in SVE.
BROWNFIELDS TECHNOLOGY PRIMER: 

REQUESTING AND EVALUATING PROPOSALS THAT ENCOURAGE 

INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGIES FOR INVESTIGATION AND CLEANUP

32

The proposed methodology then must be

evaluated for short-term and long-term

effectiveness. Short-term effectiveness is related

to potential risks to the community and

construction workers during remediation, while

long-term effectiveness is related to risks to the

community that remain after remediation work has

been completed. For example, a proposed

innovative technology that uses a cap consisting of

a shallow layer of compacted soil for a site in a

proposed residential area that is contaminated

with friable asbestos may be an effective approach

for the short term. Risk to construction workers

during remediation can be mitigated by providing

workers with appropriate personal protective

equipment (PPE). However, such a cap may not

be an effective solution for the long term because

the contaminant remains in place and any number

of potential residential activities could disturb the

structure of the cap and expose the contaminants.

Third, the time frame of the proposed remediation

technology must be consistent with the future use

of the site. Brownfields sites for which

commercial or residential use or redevelopment as

industrial parks has been designated typically are

on a fast-track schedule for transfer. A technology

such as phytoremediation would not be an

acceptable option for fast-track sites because it

may take a number of years to completely

remediate the site by such an approach.

Fourth, the proposed remediation must be costeffective. For a project for which the budget is

limited, cost can be a determining factor in the

selection of a technology. However, since the

least costly approach may not bring about the

most expeditious site remediation, a balance

between potential cost savings and time frames

may be necessary. Similarly, both short-term

construction costs and long-term operation and

maintenance costs must be considered. For

example, a cap for soil and a pump-and-treat

remedy for groundwater initially may be

considered preferred options because those

options would move a site quickly to

redevelopment and would appear to be costeffective, as well. However, in assessing the cost

of such an option, the cost of maintaining a cap

over a long period of time, 30 years or more, as

well as construction costs, must be considered. 

For pump-and-treat systems and other long-term

remedies that require operating equipment, site

owners should consider replacement costs as well

as maintenance costs because pumps and other

equipment eventually may need to be replaced.

Finally, the proposed methodology must comply

with state regulations governing cleanups. In all

cases, localities should work with state and federal

regulators to ensure that regulatory requirements

are addressed appropriately in the RFP. 

Depending upon the complexity of the site, the

past history of the site, and the procedures

regulators require for cleanups at brownfields

sites, compliance may require full review and

approval by the state or less formal concurrence. 

In some cases, application of the risk-based

corrective action (RBCA) standards may affect the

selection of technologies. Approval of the state

may be required for specific remediation

activities, such as air emissions, groundwater reinjection, or health and safety procedures. The

various ways in which states regulate or limit the

use of some technologies could affect the use of

those technologies at particular sites. For

example, although land farming is an established

technology for remediating sites contaminated

with fuel or petroleum, some states limit the use of

land farming as a remediation technology. (Land

farming relies on biological and chemical

reactions in soil to degrade, transform, or

immobilize hazardous constituents.) Similarly,

design and operating requirements may differ

according to the location of the land-farming site. 

For a site in an urban area, the state may require

an enclosure and off-gas treatment unit control for

emissions of VOCs, but such requirements might

not be applicable in a rural setting.

Table 3-5, which presents an overview of a

number of innovative technologies, can be used as

a reference when evaluating the contractor’s

proposed remediation technologies.

4.2 Evaluating Qualifications of Personnel

To effectively implement innovative technologies,

the contractor staff must be fully qualified and

experienced in the proposed work. To ensure that

the contractor selected has the appropriate

qualified staff to perform the work, RFPs should

require that bidders provide information that

demonstrates:
BROWNFIELDS TECHNOLOGY PRIMER: 

REQUESTING AND EVALUATING PROPOSALS THAT ENCOURAGE 

INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGIES FOR INVESTIGATION AND CLEANUP

33

• The experience of each key staff member in

using innovative technologies under site

conditions covered by the RFP

• The availability of the full range of technical

disciplines needed

Care should be taken to ensure that the

contractor’s personnel have expertise in the

specialized disciplines needed to support

innovative technologies.

Various factors determine the disciplines required

to support the cleanup of a specific site. The types

of contaminants at the site may require a chemist

who has highly specialized experience, the

physical characteristics of the site might require

an in-depth understanding of local geology or

hydrogeology, or implementation of a technology

might require an understanding of specialized

modeling software. Similarly, analytical quality

control protocols must be designed by a qualified

analytical chemist who can ensure that analytical

methods will produce data of a quality adequate to

support the decisions to be made or to maximize

the efficiency of in-field analyses. In addition,

trained scientists or engineers must be on site to

interpret the data as they are generated.

Staff who have the appropriate background in

chemistry can predict the mobility of

contaminants. For example, if metals were

released at the site, the mobility of the metals is

dependent on the speciation of the metals, which

in turn is dependent on the reduction oxidation

(redox) conditions at the site. For example, metals

such as chromium (commonly used in industry)

exist in various states. However, chromium is

mobile only in the CrVI state. Therefore, a

chemist can predict whether chromium will

migrate to the groundwater and determine where

to sample. On the other hand, if the contaminant

is a solvent, it very likely will migrate with the

groundwater and break down to other chemical

species.

Resumes of key staff members must describe their

experience in using field analytical methods, test

kits, and field screening methods or in designing

site-specific remediation plans. Information about

the technical experience of the staff must establish

a direct correlation between that experience and

the needs of the project. Further, the capabilities

of the contractor’s proposed management and

coordination teams must be assessed carefully

against the requirements of the project. For

example, individuals who demonstrate experience

in managing characterizations of large, complex

sites and the ability to meet short deadlines may

be needed to complete a specific project.

Another consideration is the experience of the

contractor’s staff in working in the state in which

the site is located. It is advantageous for the staff

to be familiar with that state’s regulations and

procedures for characterizing and remediating

contaminated sites and policies related to the

cleanup and redevelopment of brownfields sites,

including familiarity with state voluntary cleanup

programs and procedures for obtaining “no further

action” letters. The contractor’s team also should

include a registered professional engineer and a

licensed geologist, ideally with registry and

licensing in the state in which the site is located. 

Individuals who have such credentials can

facilitate the processes of obtaining operating

permits and approvals of technical designs.

In summary, the contractor must have access to a

multidisciplined team that can address all aspects

of the project. In general, teams should include

individuals who have expertise in chemistry,

geochemistry, geology, hydrogeology, biology,

toxicology, civil engineering, and soil sciences. 

Depending upon site-specific conditions and

proposed remediation options, other expertise also

may be required. Specialized expertise may be

required to conduct environmental and public

health risk assessments, operate models, or

perform complicated statistical analyses.

4.3 Evaluating Corporate Experience

Bidders must demonstrate the corporate

experience that will enable them to complete the

proposed project successfully. They should

describe their experience in completing similar

projects and provide references for those projects.

4.3.1 Experience in Performing Similar

Projects

Depending upon the specifications for the project,

bidders must be able to demonstrate their

experience in selecting and using specialized field
BROWNFIELDS TECHNOLOGY PRIMER: 

REQUESTING AND EVALUATING PROPOSALS THAT ENCOURAGE 

INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGIES FOR INVESTIGATION AND CLEANUP

34

equipment, designing remediation plans, and

performing remediation activities in similar

settings. In their proposals, contractors should

identify problems that might affect the project and

describe how they would resolve such problems. 

Their recommendations could be based on

“lessons learned” from similar projects. A

contractor’s ability to clearly define potential

problems and provide sound resolutions is a good

indication that the contractor understands the

details of the project and the issues that might

affect it. The use of dynamic work plans and

other innovative strategies includes an inherent

element of uncertainty. The contractor might

encounter problems that may require creative,

sound thinking to resolve the problems and keep

the project moving forward. As an alternative, the

contractor’s ability to respond to problems could

be tested by including in the RFP a list of

potential problems and requiring contractors to

submit resolutions in their proposals.

4.3.2 Past Performance

As is the case in selecting a contractor for any

type of work, a good, reliable contractor should be

able to provide references for past performance. 

RFPs should require a minimum number of

references for projects similar to the proposed

project. The RFP should require specific

information about each project used as a

reference, including: (1) the name and location of

the project; (2) a brief description of the project;

(3) the period of performance; and (4) the name,

address, and telephone number of a contact

person. The RFP should specify how far into the

past the contractor can reach in selecting recent

reference projects. Because innovative

technologies and streamlined strategies evolve

quickly, shorter time periods, such as one to two

years, may be appropriate for projects that involve

such options.

4.4 Evaluating the Contractor’s Quality

Assurance and Quality Control

Procedures

Contractors must understand the importance of

using sound quality assurance and quality control

procedures in completing their work, and they

must be prepared to fully implement those

procedures, as well. In general terms, QA is an

integrated system of management activities carried

out to ensure that the work performed and the

products provided are of the type and quality

needed and expected. QC is the system of

technical activities that measure and control

quality to ensure that data meet the needs of users. 

In characterizing and monitoring brownfields

sites, errors can occur in the field or laboratory;

therefore, QA/QC procedures must be built into

all key activities. Contractors must be prepared to

implement QA/QC procedures for all aspects of

the project, including planning, sample collection,

laboratory analysis, data review, and data

assessment.

RFPs for any type of technical activity usually

include specific procedures that contractors must

implement to ensure that federal, state, or local

QA/QC requirements are met. A contractor must

establish and carry out a sound QA/QC program

to ensure that all data the contractor provides is

defensible and that officials can have a high level

of confidence in using the data to support

decisions about the potential reuse of the site. 

Depending on the site-specific situation, the types

of decisions to be made about the site, and the

entity that will make those decisions, it may be

necessary that data be defensible on a regulatory

or a scientific basis, or both.

A major challenge associated with the

redevelopment of brownfields sites is uncertainty

about potential environmental risks and liability

related to contamination that has not been

characterized properly. Requiring contractors to

explain their proposed QA/QC procedures for

individual sites and ensuring that those procedures

meet established requirements for collecting and

analyzing environmental data will reduce that

uncertainty. All RFPs that include site

investigation activities and monitoring should

require that each bidder include a detailed quality

assurance project plan (QAPP) in its proposal. The

objectives of the QAPP are to ensure the accuracy,

precision, comparability, representativeness, and

completeness of the data generated.

Streamlined investigation and monitoring

strategies rely heavily on comprehensive, up-front

planning designed to collect only data that will

support the decisions to be made about the site,
BROWNFIELDS TECHNOLOGY PRIMER: 

REQUESTING AND EVALUATING PROPOSALS THAT ENCOURAGE 

INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGIES FOR INVESTIGATION AND CLEANUP

35

while simultaneously gathering all the data

necessary to support a defensible decision. That

planning process is done through the development

of a conceptual site model and the establishment

of data quality objectives (DQO). Contractors

must be able to demonstrate relevant experience in

conducting the DQO process and be prepared to

participate in that process. Further, contractors

must be able to demonstrate how they will

maintain QA/QC as they implement their site

assessment work plan. Because site

characteristics, the decisions to be made, and data

quality needs vary from site to site, the

contractor’s qualifications should be evaluated

against the particular requirements for the site

covered by the RFP.

Additional information about the QA process is

available in the Quality Assurance Guidance for

Conducting Brownfields Site Assessments, EPA

540-R-98-038, September 1998. Another source

of information is the EPA waste methods guidance

Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste,

Physical/Chemical Methods (SW-846). SW-846

is a compendium of sampling and analytical

methods that have been evaluated and approved

for use in complying with regulations under

RCRA. Although a number of states have ratified

SW-846 methods formally, the methods, as stated

by EPA, are intended as a guide. In many cases

the use of other methods is permitted if it can be

demonstrated they are sufficiently sensitive,

adequate, and precise to support the decisions to

be made. Again, the site-specific data quality

requirements that support decisions about a site

should be the principal consideration for the

technology selection. 

4.5 Evaluating the Contractor’s Cost

Proposal

A variety of factors could influence the selection

of the appropriate type of pricing mechanism(s)

for a particular site. Generally, site

characterization work entails more uncertainties

than cleanup work. Contractors commonly

propose different pricing mechanisms for different

types of activities – for example, time-andmaterials or a combination of time-and-materials

and fixed- price contracting mechanisms for

characterization projects and fixed-price or fixedunit-price mechanism for cleanup projects.

Fixed-price contracting may be appropriate when

activities are defined clearly. Contracts that

incorporate performance specifications or a

combination of lump-sum payments and fixed unit

prices for work that cannot be defined clearly at

the time of the bid add flexibility to the fixedprice procurement process, while adding a level of

protection against cost overruns. Unit pricing is

appropriate for potentially high-volume or

unpredictable items, such as clearing, backfilling,

installation of wells, and treatment of

contaminated media. If the actual quantity of a

given item varies significantly from the estimated

quantity set forth in the contract, it may be

beneficial to negotiate a reduction in the unit price

for that item.

Contracting for innovative treatment technologies

may require the examination of special

considerations in soliciting bids, evaluating cost

proposals, and preparing contracts, particularly

when the entity soliciting the bid has little or no

experience in purchasing such services or when

the conditions at the site are complex or

undefined. In many cases, actual costs of

treatment have varied significantly from budget

estimates and bids because the extent and types of

contamination were not characterized adequately

or the quantities of waste, soil, or groundwater to

be treated were estimated poorly. Further, some

treatment technologies, because they are not

typical construction projects, are better scoped out

and priced under a service contract.

RFPs may specify innovative contracting

approaches as one of the requirements for the

proposal. For example, pay-for-performance

cleanup agreements might be established; under

such agreements, preestablished payments are

made to the contractor as the project reaches

measurable environmental goals. Paying for

cleanups through such agreements rewards

contractors for reaching cleanup goals quickly and

efficiently.

4.6 Evaluating the Contractor’s

Insurance

Insurance coverage of several types is appropriate

for protection against potential damages and

liabilities associated with characterization and

remediation activities at contaminated sites. Some
BROWNFIELDS TECHNOLOGY PRIMER: 

REQUESTING AND EVALUATING PROPOSALS THAT ENCOURAGE 

INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGIES FOR INVESTIGATION AND CLEANUP

36

coverage may be standard requirements in any

contract issued by a brownfields community,

private company, or other entity. Other

specialized coverage may be required for a

particular site or project. Typically, those entities

that issue contracts take the prime responsibility

for determining their insurance needs for the

project because they could be ultimately

responsible for any damages, both environmental

and business. For brownfields sites, banks and

other lending institutions will specify the

insurance coverage that must be in place to protect

their loans. Before any contract is signed, it is

incumbent upon all parties to understand their

potential risks and to be assured that all

appropriate coverage is in place. Table 4-1 lists

information about six types of environmental

insurance products that should be considered.

At any contaminated site, there is potential risk

that site investigation and remediation activities

could disturb the contaminants and cause

pollution damage. The types of insurance

necessary and the limits of coverage will vary

from site to site. Such factors as the potential

types of contaminants present, proximity to

groundwater, the degree to which the site has been

properly characterized, and proximity to ongoing

businesses and population centers must be

considered in determining the types and level of

insurance necessary. Questions about the

availability and selection of insurance products for

a specific site should be directed to insurance

companies and underwriters that specialize in

environmental insurance products.

TABLE 4-1

ENVIRONMENTAL INSURANCE

PRODUCTS

Type of

Coverage Key Features of Coverage

Bodily injury

and property

damage

Provides compensation for bodily

injury and property damage caused

by a pollution condition, such as a

release of hazardous or toxic

materials. Covers injuries to

others that occur on site or off site.

Contract

damages

Provides compensation when

pollution impairs the insured’s

ability to perform under a contract. 

Environmental

cleanup costs

Pays for the costs the insured must

incur to address its pollution

problems and comply with

government standards established

to protect human health and the

environment. Covered costs

include those for site investigation

and for the removal, treatment, or

disposal of wastes.

Remediation

cost overruns 

(also called

cleanup cost

cap or stoploss insurance)

Pays for cleanup costs, including

remediation costs, that

substantially exceed the budget. 

The insurer pays only if the project

cost exceeds the estimated project

cost, plus an agreed-upon buffer

amount over the estimated cost. 

Business

interruption

Pays for internal costs, such as loss

of income or salary to employees,

that the insured suffers as a result

of pollution.

Legal defense

expenses

Coverage pays for the insured’s

legal costs incurred to defend or

settle a dispute about liability for

pollution.
BROWNFIELDS TECHNOLOGY PRIMER: 

REQUESTING AND EVALUATING PROPOSALS THAT ENCOURAGE 

INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGIES FOR INVESTIGATION AND CLEANUP

Appendix

Sources of Innovative Technology Information 
BROWNFIELDS TECHNOLOGY PRIMER: 

REQUESTING AND EVALUATING PROPOSALS THAT ENCOURAGE 

INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGIES FOR INVESTIGATION AND CLEANUP

Appendix A-1 Sources of Innovative Treatment Information

BULLETINS, FACT SHEETS, JOURNALS, AND NEWSLETTERS

Bibliography for Innovative Site Clean-Up Technologies, August 1999 Update

http://clu-in.org/pub1.htm

The bibliography is a comprehensive list of information resources related to innovative site cleanup

technologies that includes titles and document numbers. The bibliography lists resources by

categories, including: technology survey reports; information about programs of the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA); groundwater (in situ) treatment; thermal treatment;

bioremediation; soil vapor extraction (SVE) and enhancements of that technology; physical and

chemical treatment; conferences and international surveys; technical support; community relations;

bulletin board systems, databases, software, and the Internet; technology newsletters; and innovative

site remediation engineering technology monographs. Information on how to order individual

documents also is provided.

Citizen's Guides to Understanding Innovative Treatment Technologies

http://clu-in.org/pub1.htm

The Citizen's Guides to Understanding Innovative Treatment Technologies fact sheets are four-page

guides prepared by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to provide site managers with

non-technical outreach materials. The guides, which are available in English and Spanish, are

intended to be shared with communities in the vicinity of a cleanup site at which innovative treatment

technologies are in use or under consideration. The guides present information about innovative

treatment technologies that have been selected or applied at some cleanup sites, provide overviews of

innovative treatment technologies, and present success stories about sites at which innovative

treatment technologies have been applied. The second document number listed after each title is the

document number of the guide in Spanish. 

Ground Water Currents

http://clu-in.org/products/newsltrs/tt&gwc.htm

Ground Water Currents is a leading source of information about recent developments in innovative

groundwater treatment, characterization, sampling, and monitoring technologies. The newsletter

provides information about developments and demonstrations, new regulations, conferences, and

publications. For example, the June 1999 issue features topics related to the flushing of dense nonaqueous phase liquids (DNAPL) with alcohol, cost-effective sampling of groundwater monitoring

wells, in situ chemical oxidation through recirculation, and a new remediation group for dry-cleaner

sites convened in April 1999.

Tech Trends

http://clu-in.org/products/newltrs/tt&gwc.htm

Tech Trends focuses on recent applications of innovative technologies for site characterization and

remediation. The newsletter includes descriptions of and performance data for innovative source

control and site characterization technologies that have been applied in the field. The newsletter,

which is updated quarterly, is a valuable tool for keeping abreast of the most recent developments in

innovative technologies and can be subscribed at the web address provided above.
BROWNFIELDS TECHNOLOGY PRIMER: 

REQUESTING AND EVALUATING PROPOSALS THAT ENCOURAGE 

INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGIES FOR INVESTIGATION AND CLEANUP

Appendix A-2 Sources of Innovative Treatment Information

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 3 Industry Profile Fact Sheets

http://www.epa.gov/reg3hwmd/brownfld/industry.htm

Developed by EPA Region 3, the fact sheets are designed to assist in the initial planning and

evaluation of sites that are under consideration for remediation, redevelopment, or reuse. The fact

sheets provide general descriptions of site conditions and contaminants commonly found at selected

industrial sites. Each fact sheet provides information about the processes conducted in the industry;

raw materials characteristic of the industry; environmental media that could be affected; sampling

strategies; and suggested parameters for analysis.

DATABASES AND SOFTWARE

Completed North America Innovative Remediation Technology Demonstration Projects Database 

http://clu-in.org/pub1.htm

The searchable database contains information about more than 300 completed innovative technology

field demonstration projects conducted in North America. The database consolidates key information

from innovative demonstration projects in a single source. Information is presented in a format that

enables the user to easily identify innovative technologies that may be appropriate to the user's

particular site remediation needs. The database, which is limited to completed demonstration projects

and a small number of full-scale cleanup efforts, does not include emerging technologies or

laboratory-scale projects.

Evaluation of Selected Environmental Decision Support Software

http://clu-in.org/pub1.htm

Developed by DOE’s Office of Environmental Management, the report evaluates decision support

software (DSS), computer-based systems that facilitate the use of data, models, and structured

decision processes in making decisions related to environmental management. The report evaluates

19 such systems through the application of a rating system that favors software that simulates a wide

range of environmental problems. It includes a glossary of terms and a statement of the rationale for

the selection of various aspects of the performance of the DSS for evaluation.

Tank RACER 99 

http://www.epa.gov/swerust1/tnkracr1.htm

Tank RACER 99 is a WindowsTM-based PC software that provides fast, accurate, and comprehensive

cost estimates for cleanups at leaking underground storage tank (UST) sites. The software estimates

costs for UST cleanups on a site-specific basis for all phases of remediation, including site

assessment, remedial design, remedial action, operations and maintenance, closure of tanks, and site

work and utilities, as well as the costs of using alternative technologies, such as air sparging,

bioremediation, bioventing, groundwater extraction wells, land farming, natural attenuation, soil vapor

extraction (SVE), and thermal desorption. The web site also provides information about training

workshops that are available. 
BROWNFIELDS TECHNOLOGY PRIMER: 

REQUESTING AND EVALUATING PROPOSALS THAT ENCOURAGE 

INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGIES FOR INVESTIGATION AND CLEANUP

Appendix A-3 Sources of Innovative Treatment Information

ONLINE REFERENCES AND RESOURCES

Field Analytic Technologies Encyclopedia (FATE)

http://fate.clu-in.org

EPA’s Technology Innovation Office, in collaboration with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,

developed a new online encyclopedia of field analytic technologies. This encyclopedia is intended to

provide information about technologies that can be used in the field to characterize contaminated soil

and groundwater, monitor the progress of remedial efforts, and in some cases, for confirmation

sampling and analysis for site close out. The encyclopedia posted on the web provides information on

ten classes of technologies, but EPA intends to expand the encyclopedia with additional field

analytical technology classes in the future.

Field Sampling and Analysis Technologies Matrix, Version 1.0

http://www.frtr.gov/site

The Field Sampling and Analysis Technologies Matrix Version 1.0 is an online tool that can be used

to conduct initial screening of site characterization and monitoring technologies. The matrix,

developed by member agencies of the Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable (FRTR), is a

quick-reference chart that provides consumer-response-style ratings in several categories for various

site characterization, monitoring, and sampling technologies. Each technology is rated in a number of

performance categories, such as detection limits, applicable media, selectivity, and turnaround time.

Other useful information provided includes technology descriptions; data on commercial status, cost,

and certification; and evaluation reports. The matrix is extremely helpful to users who are not

familiar with specific characterization, monitoring, or sampling technologies, but who know baseline

information about a site, such as contaminants and media; for such users, the matrix can identify and

screen technologies for potential use at a site.

Innovative Remediation and Site Characterization Technologies Resources CD-ROM

http://www.epa.gov/ncepihom

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response

(OSWER) Technology Innovation Office (TIO) Innovative Remediation and Site Characterization

Technologies Resources CD-ROM contains resources that provide information to help federal, state,

and private-sector site managers evaluate site assessment and cleanup alternatives. The ability to gain

access to resources that provide information about innovative site characterization and remediation

technologies will increase understanding of those technologies and of the cost and performance

factors related to them. Such understanding is essential to the consideration of those technologies for

use in addressing contamination at hazardous waste sites. The CD-ROM can be ordered by calling the

National Service Center for Environmental Publications at (800) 490-9198 or (513) 489-8190 or by

faxing a request to (513) 489-8695. The order number for the CD-ROM is EPA 542-C-99-001.

National Exposure Research Laboratory (NERL) Hazardous Waste Site

Characterization CD-ROM

http:///www.epa.gov/ncepihom

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) National Exposure Research Laboratory (NERL)

Hazardous Waste Site Characterization CD-ROM, developed by NERL's Environmental Sciences

Division - Las Vegas (ESD-LV), contains guidance documents and related software designed to aid

environmental professionals in the characterization of hazardous waste sites. The CD-ROM is a
BROWNFIELDS TECHNOLOGY PRIMER: 

REQUESTING AND EVALUATING PROPOSALS THAT ENCOURAGE 

INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGIES FOR INVESTIGATION AND CLEANUP

Appendix A-4 Sources of Innovative Treatment Information

compilation of computer programs developed by EPA and publications related to EPA's Resource

Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and Superfund programs that can be printed, as well as

searched by key word. The CD-ROM requires a 386 IBM-compatible computer with DOS Version

3.0 or higher, 640 K RAM, and 3 MB of hard-disk space. A math co-processor is recommended but

not required. The CD-ROM can be ordered by calling the National Service Center for Environmental

Publications at (800) 490-9198 or (513) 489-8190 or by faxing your request to (513) 891-8695. The

order number for the CD-ROM is EPA-600-C-96-001.

Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix and Reference Guide

http://www.frtr.gov/matrix2/top_page.html

The Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix and Reference Guide, prepared for federal agencies

that participate in the Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable (FRTR), provides information

about remediation technologies. The on-line searchable guide is intended to assist remedial project

managers (RPM) in screening and evaluating candidate cleanup technologies and selecting the best

remedial alternative(s). The guide includes available cost and performance data and focuses primarily

on demonstrated technologies. Information about emerging technologies also is included in the guide. 

This guide is continuously updated.

Site Characterization Library, Volume 1, Release 2.0, April 1998

http://www.epa.gov/ncepihom

The Site Characterization Library, Volume 1, Release 2.0 (October 1998) CD-ROM, developed by the

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) National Exposure Research Laboratory (NERL),

contains a variety of guidance documents, standard operating procedures (SOP), and risk assessment

guidelines, as well as a large collection of software tools, including groundwater flow and transport

models and statistical packages. The CD-ROM can be ordered from the National Service Center for

Environmental Publications at (800) 490-9198 or (513) 489-8190 or by fax at (513) 891-8695. The

order number for the CD-ROM is EPA-600-C-98-001.

The Hazardous Waste Clean-up Information (CLU-IN) Web Site

http://clu-in.org

This web site is searchable and provides information about innovative treatment and site

characterization technologies to the hazardous waste remediation community. It contains information,

publications, and software, many of which can be downloaded or viewed online from the site;

remediation and site characterization technology selection tools; recently published articles; and

information about partnerships and consortia and vendor support, as well as links to related web sites.

U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Preferred Alternatives Matrices (PAMs)

http://www.em.doe.gov/define

PAMs provides the user access to evaluations of site characterization and remediation technologies

preferred by DOE on the basis of the types of contaminants and contaminated media selected. PAMs

was developed by DOE’s Office of Environmental Restoration (EM-40) to assist decision makers in

selecting the most appropriate cleanup alternatives for remediation, waste processing, and

decommissioning of sites. It provides a tool for field personnel to use in focusing remedy selection;

expediting implementation of preferred alternatives; eliminating the cost of excessive or redundant

treatability studies; and allowing preselection of effective, low-cost remediation alternatives.
BROWNFIELDS TECHNOLOGY PRIMER: 

REQUESTING AND EVALUATING PROPOSALS THAT ENCOURAGE 

INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGIES FOR INVESTIGATION AND CLEANUP

Appendix A-5 Sources of Innovative Treatment Information

U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Vendor Database for Environmental Applications

http://www.cmst.org/vendor

This DOE web site is devoted to supporting the chemical and physical property measurements of

environmental samples. The Characterization, Monitoring & Sensor Technology - Cross Cutting

Program (CMST-CP) of DOE maintains this vendor database as a focal point for environmental

measurement technologies. The database contains information about 200 vendors that provide

equipment related to the analysis of environmental samples.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) REmediation And CHaracterization Innovative

Technologies (REACH IT)

http://www.epareachit.org

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) REmediation And CHaracterization Innovative

Technologies (REACH IT) online searchable database, developed by EPA's Technology Innovation

Office (TIO), provides users with comprehensive, up-to-date information about more than 150

characterization technologies and 1,300 remediation technologies offered by more than 750 service

providers. Information provided by service providers is matched with comprehensive information

submitted by project managers for EPA, the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD), and the U.S.

Department of Energy (DOE) about treatment technology projects at Superfund, DoD, and DOE sites. 

EPA REACH IT is accessible through the Internet; the guided and advanced search capabilities allow

users to develop custom searches based on such criteria as media, contaminant type, site type, and

technology type to gather information about innovative technology solutions and service providers

that meet their needs. 

PUBLICATIONS

A Guideline for Dynamic Workplans and Field Analytics: The Keys to Cost-Effective Site

Characterization and Cleanup 

http://clu-in.org/pub1.htm

This guideline provides users with information about the many factors that are to be considered in

incorporating field analytical instruments and methods into an adaptive sampling and analysis

program for expediting the site investigation process. One of the primary goals of the expedited site

characterization process is to minimize the collection and analysis of uninformative samples, thereby

saving time and money. The guideline was developed by Tufts University, Massachusetts, in

cooperation with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and was funded under President

Clinton's Environmental Technology Initiative (ETI). The guideline is intended to help federal and

state regulators, site owners, consulting engineers, and remediation companies understand how to

develop, maintain, and update a dynamic work plan.

Application of Field-Based Characterization Tools in the Waterfront Voluntary Setting

http://clu-in.org/pub1.htm

Voluntary action to redevelop potentially contaminated property operates under vastly different

market constraints than mandated corrective action programs. Pressures affect the time scale, cost-tobenefit ratio, priorities, and resources that allow the action to take place. non-market pressures,

usually in the form of regulation, also affect decisions over the course of redevelopment. Together,

those forces also determine the technologies and methods used to characterize the property, as well as

the media sampled. This report investigates the reasons behind the use of and details the current level
BROWNFIELDS TECHNOLOGY PRIMER: 

REQUESTING AND EVALUATING PROPOSALS THAT ENCOURAGE 

INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGIES FOR INVESTIGATION AND CLEANUP

Appendix A-6 Sources of Innovative Treatment Information

of application of field-based characterization tools at 115 waterfront brownfield and voluntary cleanup

program (VCP) sites.

Assessing Contractor Capabilities for Streamlined Site Investigations

http://brownfieldstsc.org

Innovative technologies are having a significant effect on the cost, schedule, and effectiveness of

environmental cleanup projects. The impact of these technologies has been demonstrated during

CERCLA and RCRA investigations, and such technologies should be incorporated into brownfields

projects, as well. The purpose of this document is: (1) to familiarize brownfields decision makers

with innovative methods for characterizing their sites and encourage them to investigate and employ

such methods; (2) to assist brownfields decision makers in assessing contractors' capabilities and

familiarity with such methods; and (3) to suggest additional factors for contractors to consider in

conducting their activities.

Assessment of Phytoremediation as an In Situ Technique for Cleaning Oil-Contaminated Sites

http://clu-in.org/pub1.htm

Drawing on a review of the relevant literature, this document provides examples of the

phytoremediation of petroleum hydrocarbons and discusses the key mechanisms, as well as the special

considerations, involved in phytoremediation of petrochemicals. The benefits, limitations, and costs

of phytoremediation, compared with those of alternative approaches – including natural attenuation,

engineering and bioremediation – also are discussed.

Brownfields Technology Primer: Selecting and Using Phytoremediation for Site Cleanup

http://brownfieldstsc.org

The Brownfields Technology Support Center developed this document to provide an educational tool

for site owners, project managers, and regulators to help evaluate the applicability of the

phytoremediation process at brownfields sites. The primer explains the types of biological processes

involved in phytoremediation; provides examples of the sites and contaminants where

phytoremediation has been applied; and discusses technical considerations in selecting and designing

phytoremediation systems, activities necessary to operate and maintain phytoremediation systems, and

examples of estimated potential cost savings from using phytoremediation versus more conventional

treatment processes. The primer also provides a comprehensive list of other resources that are

available to assist decision makers in evaluating phytoremediation as an option for cleaning up

contaminated sites.

Characterization, Monitoring, and Sensor Technology Crosscutting Program (CMST-CP)

Rainbow Book

http://em-52.em.doe.gov/ifd/RbBooks/cmst/cmstrb.htm

The CMST-CP Rainbow Book developed in August 1996, under the CMST-CP program provides the

user information about specific technologies and detailed descriptions of how each technology works. 

The book provides information about characterization, monitoring, and sensor technology for DOE’s

Office of Waste Management (EM-30), Office of Environmental Restoration (EM-40), and Office of

Nuclear Material and Facility Stabilization (EM-60). The book is designed to ensure that technology

development is cost-effective and appropriate, and recommends that the technology development

effort be concentrated on the following focus areas: subsurface contaminants; high-level waste tank

remediation; mixed waste characterization, treatment, and disposal; and decommissioning and final

disposition of facilities.
BROWNFIELDS TECHNOLOGY PRIMER: 

REQUESTING AND EVALUATING PROPOSALS THAT ENCOURAGE 

INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGIES FOR INVESTIGATION AND CLEANUP

Appendix A-7 Sources of Innovative Treatment Information

Directory of Technology Support Services to Brownfields Localities

http://brownfieldstsc.org

This directory provides information about EPA offices, non-government organizations funded by

EPA, and other federal agencies, that may be able to provide expertise to assist in the selection of

technologies to characterize and cleanup brownfields properties. 

EPA Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA) Sector Notebooks

http://es.epa.gov/oeca/sector

EPA’s OECA has developed a series of profiles or notebooks that provide information about selected

major industries that focus on key indicators that holistically present air, water, and land pollutant

release data and have been reviewed thoroughly by experts from both inside and outside EPA. The

notebooks provide a comprehensive environmental profile and information about industrial processes,

pollution prevention techniques, pollutant release data, regulatory requirements, compliance and

enforcement history, government and industry partnerships, innovative programs, contact names,

bibliographic references, and descriptions of research methodology for such industries as iron and

steel, metal mining, oil and gas extraction, and more.

Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) Site Characterization and Monitoring Technologies

Pilot (SCMT): Technology Verification Statements and Reports 

http://www.epa.gov/etv/02/ 02_main.htm

The Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) Site Characterization and Monitoring

Technologies Pilot (SCMT) web site provides access to ETV technology verification statements and

reports about site characterization technologies. To date, verification statements and reports are

available for the following technologies: cone penetrometer-deployed sensor; field-portable gas

chromatograph/mass spectrometer; field-portable x-ray fluorescence analyzer; technologies for

analysis for polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB); technologies for well-head monitoring for volatile

organic compounds (VOC); and soil sampling technologies. The SCMT pilot was established as one

of 12 pilots currently implemented by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) ETV

Program. The pilot is a partnership program of EPA, the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD), and the

U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and is responsible for evaluating and verifying the performance of

innovative and alternative monitoring, measurement, and site characterization technologies. The pilot

provides support for technology developers, evaluates and verifies data generated during technology

demonstrations, and develops and disseminates information about the performance of site

characterization technologies.

Federal Facilities Forum Issue: Field Sampling and Selecting On-Site Analytical Methods for

Explosives in Soil, November 1996

http://www.epa.gov/clarit on/clhtml/pubtitle.html

Federal Facilities Forum Issue: Field Sampling and Selecting On-Site Analytical Methods for

Explosives in Soil was produced by the U.S. Environmental Agency's (EPA) Federal Facilities Forum,

a group of EPA scientists and engineers who represent federal facility remediation interests. The

document identifies screening procedures for characterizing soils contaminated with explosive and

propellant compounds. (To find this document using the URL listed above, use the Find in Page

feature of your browser and type in 540R97501.)
BROWNFIELDS TECHNOLOGY PRIMER: 

REQUESTING AND EVALUATING PROPOSALS THAT ENCOURAGE 

INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGIES FOR INVESTIGATION AND CLEANUP

Appendix A-8 Sources of Innovative Treatment Information

Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable (FRTR) Case Studies 

http://www.frtr.gov/cost

The Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable (FRTR) case studies contain detailed information

about specific remedial technology applications. FRTR case studies are developed by the U.S.

Department of Defense (DoD), the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), the U.S. Navy, the U.S.

Air Force (USAF), the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), the U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI),

and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). As of September 1998, FRTR published and

made available on its Internet site 140 cost and performance case studies. The case studies focus on

full-scale and large field demonstration projects and include background information about the site, a

description of the technology, cost and performance data for the technology application, and a

discussion of lessons learned. Both innovative and conventional treatment technologies for

contaminated soil, groundwater, and solid media are included. A search function on the web site

allows a user to search the case studies using key words for media, contaminant, and primary and

supplemental technologies. 

Field Analytical and Site Characterization Technologies - Summary of Applications,

November 1997 

http://clu-in.org/pub1.htm

Field Analytical and Site Characterization Technologies - Summary of Applications lists more than

200 sites at which 23 different field analytical and site characterization technologies have been used. 

The information about the application of each technology was obtained from federal and state

program managers and provides insights into their experiences with the technology. The information

presented for each technology includes the types of pollutants and media for which the technology has

been used; reported advantages and limitations of the technology; and cost data for the technology,

when available.

Ground-Water Remediation Technologies Analysis Center (GWRTAC) Technology

Overview Reports 

http://www.gwrtac.org/html/tech_over.html

These reports provide general overviews and introductions to specific groundwater remediation

technologies. Information for the reports is gathered from a range of sources, including project

documents, reports, periodicals, Internet searches, and personal communications with parties involved

in the use of the technologies. 

Innovations in Site Characterization Case Study: Hanscom Air Force Base, Operable Unit 1,

September 1998 

http://clu-in.org/pub1.htm

Innovations in Site Characterization Case Study: Hanscom Air Force Base, Operable Unit 1 presents a

case study of a dynamic site investigation. The case study describes a 10-day adaptive sampling and

analysis program (SAP) under which six technologies were used to take more than 600 soil samples

and conduct quantitative analysis for volatile organic compounds (VOC), polychlorinated biphenyls

(PCB), polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH), and metals. The report documents cost savings

and discusses the other advantages of the use of the adaptive SAP.
BROWNFIELDS TECHNOLOGY PRIMER: 

REQUESTING AND EVALUATING PROPOSALS THAT ENCOURAGE 

INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGIES FOR INVESTIGATION AND CLEANUP

Appendix A-9 Sources of Innovative Treatment Information

Phytoremediation Decision Tree

http://clu-in.org/pub1.htm

This document, produced by the Interstate Technology Regulatory Cooperation (ITRC) workgroup,

provides a tool that can be used to determine whether phytoremediation can be effective at a given

site. It is designed to complement existing phytoremediation documents. It allows the user to use

basic information about a specific site, through a flow chart layout, to decide whether

phytoremediation is feasible at that site.

Quality Assurance Guidance for Conducting Brownfields Site Assessments, September 1998

http://clu-in.org/pub1.htm

Quality Assurance Guidance for Conducting Brownfields Site Assessments provides information for

brownfields site managers about concepts and issues related to quality assurance and provides

step-by-step instructions for identifying the type and quality of environmental data needed to present a

clear picture of environmental conditions at a given site.

Remediation Technologies Development Forum Reports

http://www.rtdf.org

The series of documents, prepared by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Office of

Research and Development (ORD), summarizes the activities of the Remediation Technologies

Development Forum (RTDF). The RTDF is a consortium of partners who represent industry,

government agencies, and academia and who work together to develop more effective, less costly

hazardous waste characterization and treatment technologies. It is designed to foster partnerships

between public-sector and private-sector entities to conduct laboratory and field research to develop,

test, and evaluate innovative technologies. Five action teams have been formed to address priority

research areas in the development, testing, and evaluation of in situ remediation technologies. Each

document in the series describes the purpose and activities of one of the action teams, identifies the

members of that team, and provides contact information. 

Road Map to Understanding Innovative Technology Options for Brownfields Investigation

and Cleanup

http://brownfieldstsc.org

and

Tool Kit of Information Resources for Brownfields Investigation and Cleanup

http://clu-in.org/pub1.htm

The Road Map to Understanding Innovative Technology Options for Brownfields Investigation and

Cleanup focuses on the site characterization and cleanup phase of brownfields redevelopment. It

provides a logical framework of steps involved in the characterization and cleanup of a brownfields

site to link technology options and resources to each of those steps. In addition, the road map is

linked to an accompanying document, the Tool Kit of Information Resources for Brownfields

Investigation and Cleanup, which describes information resources developed by the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to support innovative characterization and cleanup

technologies. It is intended to be used by local citizens and community groups that are not familiar

with available environmental cleanup resources. The tool kit provides abstracts of and access

information about a variety of resources, including electronic databases, newsletters, regulatory and

policy guidance, and technical reports.
BROWNFIELDS TECHNOLOGY PRIMER: 

REQUESTING AND EVALUATING PROPOSALS THAT ENCOURAGE 

INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGIES FOR INVESTIGATION AND CLEANUP

Appendix A-10 Sources of Innovative Treatment Information

Site Remediation Technology InfoBase: A Guide to Federal Programs, Information Resources, and

Publications on Contaminated Site Cleanup Technologies, First Edition, August 1998 

http://clu-in.org/pub1.htm

This guide was prepared by the member agencies of the Federal Remediation Technologies

Roundtable (FRTR). The guide identifies programs, resources, and publications of the federal

government related to technologies for the cleanup of contaminated sites. It presents information

about federal cleanup programs, federal site remediation technology development assistance

programs, federal site remediation technology development electronic databases, federal electronic

resources for site remediation technologies, and other electronic resources for site remediation

technology information. In addition, it provides a selected bibliography of federal publications on

alternative and innovative site remediation technologies, and technology program contacts at federal

agencies.

Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation (SITE) Innovative Technology Evaluation

Reports (ITER)

http:/epa.gov.ORD/SITE/reports.html

SITE ITERs provide the user information about independent data evaluation information about

specific site characterization technologies and how they work. SITE ITERs developed by the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) National Environmental Research Laboratory (NERL), Las

Vegas, are designed to assist decision makers in reviewing technology options and assessing a

technology’s applicability to a particular site. The reports include an evaluation of available

information about a technology; provide an analysis of its overall applicability to site characteristics,

waste types, and waste matrices; and present testing procedures, performance and cost data, and

quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) standards. The ITERs provide information about the

following technologies: the clor-n-soil polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) test kit, Dexsil Corp.;

envirogard PCB test kit, Millipore, Inc.; field analytical screening program: pentachlorophenol (PCP)

method; HNU-Hanby environmental test kit for PCP; and PCP immunoassay technologies.

Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation (SITE) Technology Profiles - Tenth Edition,

February 1999 

http://www.epa.gov/ORD/SITE/profiles3.html

SITE Technology Profiles - Tenth Edition provides the user information about specific site

characterization technologies and how they work. The document, prepared between July 1998 and

October 1999, is intended as a reference guide for those interested in technologies included in the Site

Demonstration Program (Volume I); the Emerging Technology Program (Volume II); and the

Monitoring and Measurement Technologies (MMT) Program (Volume III). The two-page profiles are

organized into two sections for each program (except the MMT program) for completed and ongoing

projects, and are presented in alphabetical order by name of the developer. Reference tables for SITE

program participants precede the sections and provide contact information for representatives of both

EPA and the developer. Each technology profile includes: (1) a technology developer and process

name; (2) a technology description, including a schematic diagram or photograph of the process, if

available; (3) a discussion of applicability to wastes; (4) a project status report; and (5) contact

information for the EPA project manager and the technology developer.
BROWNFIELDS TECHNOLOGY PRIMER: 

REQUESTING AND EVALUATING PROPOSALS THAT ENCOURAGE 

INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGIES FOR INVESTIGATION AND CLEANUP

Appendix A-11 Sources of Innovative Treatment Information

Test Methods for Evaluating Waste, Physical/Chemical Methods (SW-846) 

http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/test/sw846.htm

The SW-846 Internet site provides the user access to the third edition of the SW-846 base manual, as

well as finalized updates I, II, IIA, IIB, III, and IIIA; the fully integrated manual contains

approximately 3,500 pages. Developed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Office

of Solid Waste (OSW), SW-846 is a compendium of analytical and sampling methods that have been

evaluated and approved for use in complying with the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act

(RCRA) regulations. Advances in analytical instrumentation and techniques are continually reviewed

by OSW and incorporated into periodic updates to SW-846 to support changes in the regulatory

program and to improve method performance and cost effectiveness. The Methods Team of OSW has

also published Draft Update IVA for public use and is currently working on Draft Update IVB.

Treatment Technologies for Site Cleanup: Annual Status Report, Ninth Edition, April 1999 

http://clu-in.org/products/asr/index2.html

The report documents, as of the summer of 1998, the status of treatment technology applications at

more than 900 soil and groundwater cleanup projects in the Superfund program, selected Resource

Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) corrective action sites, and U.S. Department of Energy

(DOE) and U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) sites. It also includes information about 217

incineration and solidification and stabilization projects not previously covered. For the most

frequently selected technologies, the report analyzes selection trends over time, contaminant groups

addressed, quantities of soil treated, and the status of the project. For each technology application,

information about specific sites has been incorporated into the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

(EPA) REmediation And CHaracterization Innovative Technologies (REACH IT) on-line database. 

Information included in previous editions of this report is included in this edition.

Uncertainty Management: Expediting Cleanup Through Contingency Planning

http://clu-in.org/pub1.htm

This guide describes techniques for managing project uncertainty through decision rules and

contingency planning. This document was issued jointly by DOE and EPA.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Technical Project Planning (TPP) Process

http://www.usace.army.mil/inet/usace-docs/eng-manuals/em200-1-2

The USACE’s engineering manual published in August 1998 that describes the four-phase TPP

process can help project managers, technical personnel, customers, regulators, and stakeholders

identify project objectives and design data collection programs for hazardous, toxic, and radioactive

waste (HTRW) sites. The TPP process helps ensure that the requisite type, quality, and quantity of

data are obtained to satisfy project objectives that lead to informed decisions and site closeout.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Office of Research and Development (ORD)

Brownfields Guides

http://www.epa.gov/ncepihom

The series of publications are designed to assist communities, states, municipalities, and the private

sector to address brownfields sites more effectively. The guides provide decision makers, such as city

planners, private sector developers, and others who are involved in redeveloping brownfields, with a

better understanding of the technical issues involved in assessing and cleaning up automotive repair

sites, iron and steel mill sites, and metal finishing sites. After reading the guides, the user will have a

better understanding of activities commonly carried out at such sites and how those activities might
BROWNFIELDS TECHNOLOGY PRIMER: 

REQUESTING AND EVALUATING PROPOSALS THAT ENCOURAGE 

INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGIES FOR INVESTIGATION AND CLEANUP

Appendix A-12 Sources of Innovative Treatment Information

cause the release of contaminants into the environment. The guides also provide information about

the types of contaminants often found at such sites; a discussion of site assessment, screening and

cleanup levels, and cleanup technologies; a conceptual framework for identifying potential

contaminants; information about developing a cleanup plan; and a discussion of issues and special

factors that should be considered when developing plans and selecting technologies. The following

guides are available:

• Technical Approaches to Characterizing and Cleaning Up Automotive Repair Sites Under the

Brownfields Initiative (EPA 625-R-98-008)

• Technical Approaches to Characterizing and Cleaning Up Iron and Steel Mill Sites Under the

Brownfields Initiative (EPA 625-R-98-007)

• Technical Approaches to Characterizing and Cleaning Up Metal Finishing Sites Under the

Brownfields Initiative (EPA 625-R-98-006)

Writing a Request for Proposals: A Primer for Brownfield Pilots

http://www.engg.ksu.edu/HSRC/Tosc/toschome.html

This document was prepared by the Great Plains/Rocky Mountain Hazardous Substance Research

Center at Kansas State University. The purpose of the primer is to guide those who need to solicit

proposals for environmental assessments of brownfields. Communities that receive a Brownfields

Pilot Grant typically need to hire a contractor to conduct an environmental assessment of the property.

PROGRAMS

Ames Laboratory's Environmental Technology Development Program

http://www.epsci.ameslab.gov

Ames Laboratory, located in Ames, Iowa, was initiated by DOE through its Environmental

Management Division. A DOE Headquarters and Ames Lab work together to speed development and

transfer of technologies for faster, safer, better, and cheaper characterization, monitoring, and sensing

work. One such approach is Expedited Site Characterization (ESC). ESC is a team effort between

DOE's Environmental Restoration Program, U.S. EPA, state regulators, and Westinghouse Savannah

River Corporation.

California Environmental Technology Certification Program — California Certified

Technologies List

http://www.calepa.ca.gov/calcert/certified.htm

The California Environmental Protection Agency’s (Cal/EPA) Environmental Technology

Certification program Internet site provides the user access to the California Certified Technologies

List. The document, last updated on August 19, 1998, provides a list of technologies and their

respective vendors that have been certified by the state of California. Certification is granted to

technologies on the basis of an independent, third-party verification of the technology’s performance

and ability to meet regulatory specifications and requirements. Developers and manufacturers define

quantitative performance claims for their technologies and provide supporting documentation. 

Cal/EPA reviews that information and, when necessary, conducts additional testing to verify the

claims. Technologies, equipment, and products that are proven to work as claimed receive official

state certification.
For additional information, please see these other publications

issued by the Brownfields Technology Support Center:

• Road Map to Understanding Innovative Technology Options for

Brownfields Investigation and Cleanup, Second Edition

EPA 542-B-99-009

• Directory of Technology Support Services to Brownfields Localities

EPA 542-B-99-005

• Assessing Contractor Capabilities for Streamlined Site Investigations

EPA 542-R-00-001

• Brownfields Technology Primer: Selecting and Using

Phytoremediation for Site Cleanup

EPA 542-R-01-006

These publications are available online at:

http://www.brownfieldstsc.org

or can be ordered by contacting:

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

National Service Center for Environmental Publications

(NSCEP)

P.O. Box 42419

Cincinnati, OH 45242-2419

1 (800) 490-9198

FAX (513) 489-8695
Brownfields Technology Primer: 

Requesting and Evaluating Proposals That Encour

Innovative Technologies for Investigation and Clea

Visit the Brownfields TechnologySupport Center Web Site at:

http://www.brownfieldstsc.org