702-Sanford Gasification~FIRST AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT FOR SERVICE~;
This Amendment to Agreement for Services ("Amendment") is made and entered into this 3rd
day of December, 2002 (hereafter the "Effective Date") among Florida Power Corporation, a
Florida corporation with its principal offices located at One Power Plaza, 263 13th Avenue South,
BB1A, St. Petersburg, Florida, 33701-551 I, Florida Power & Light Company, with its principal
offices located at 700 Universe Boulevard, Juno Beach, Florida 33408, Atlanta Gas Light ~
Company, with its principal offices located at 303 Peachtree Street, Atlanta, Georgia 30308, ~_~
Florida Public Utilities Company, with its principal offices located at 401 South Dixie Highway, m
West Palm Beach, Florida 33402-3395, and the City of Sanford, Florida (c/o Thomas Maurer, ~--o
Foley & Lardner, 111 North Orange Avenue, Suite 1800, Orlando, Florida 32802) (hereinafter ~
collectively referred to as "the Clients") and Jacques Whitford Company ("the Consultant"), a
business organization with principal offices in Dartmouth, NS, Canada. Clients and Consultants ~ ~
will also be referred to individually as the "Party" and collcclivcly as the "Parties". to ~
RECITALS:
WHEREAS, Clients and Consultant have entered hito an Agreement for Services dated
March 6, 2002 t ne Agreement ) and
WHEREAS, the parties desire to amend the Agreement as described herein;
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises contained in this
Amendment, the sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged and incorporated herein by
reference, the Agreement is amended as follows:
The Clients have approved the following estimated additional budget costs in thc
amount of $750,577, as described in Exhibil A attached hereto, Io complete
various projects and tasks related to thc rcnlcdial design of Operable Units 1 and
2, including- ~
a) l'o conlptctc the implementation al'thc l)csixn San]piing and Analys~
Plan:
b) '1o develop and complete the Design ~mnplin- and Analysis
CI)SAR");
c) To respond to EPA commenls on thc I)SAR
d) '1 o (t~ vclop and complete the Rem~dial ,Xllmnalives J~va]nalion
;Jll(J
c) 'lo supporl thc Clients with efforts ~'qm~cd h) move forwa'( Ihrou, h
1~1',,% remedial process.
This willresuh hl lt revised overall tot; )~ .,,elo1'$1,470,858
2. ~reement
All other terms and provisions of the Agreement shall not be changed by this
Amendment.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have executed this Amendment as of the
Effective Date.
[Signature pages follow]
Risk Cons~l,~m~
T~i380 57? 7cq3 --, 577
-- -~x~83 72Si
December t7, 2002
Project FLT02 102
Sanford Gasification Plant Site Group
c/o Charles K. Ross
Carolina Power & Light Company
PEB 8A5
410 South Wilmington Street
Raleigh, NC 27601
Exhibit A
Former Sanford Gasification Plant
Revised Request for Additional Funds Associated with
The Design Sampling and Analysis Plan (DSAP) and
Project Management/Miscellaneous Tasks
Dear Charlie,
Jacques Whitford Company (JWC) has prepared this request for funds to cover additional
work required to complete the implementation of the Design Sampling and Analysis Plan
(DSAP), develop the Design Sampling and Analysis Report (DSAR), respond to EPA
comments on the DSAR, perform project management and miscellaneous tasks as needed
(including developing the Remedial Alternatives Evaluation Report [RAER]), and
support the Group with efforts required to move forward through the next steps of the
EPA process for the Sanford Gasification Plant Site. This proposal was prepared as
requested by thc Sanford Gasification Plant Site Group (Group) during our meeting on
August 22, 2002 in Raleigh, North Carolina. A summary of the task budgets, costs, and
requested funds are summarized in the table below A project budget analysis fbi ail
project tasks as of October 27, 2002 is attached as Table 1.
.... _Tas~ ! 8u~dget
ProjectManagcmcnl i $75,000
and Misccllanc-.us
Tasks _
DSA?/DSAR
$373
33O
] Estimated
Actual Costs Additional
as of 10t_27/02) I Costs
$141,342I $25~
_ o j ~2oo,0(~)o,
Total ]
Estimated Requested
Cost I Funds
$1 )9,342 ; $94,342
$829,560 ~ $456,236
.$_2_00,000 , $200,000
Sanford Gasification Plant Site Group
c/o Charles K. Ross
Carolina Power & Light Company
December 17, 2002
Page 2
.DSAP/DSAR
J'W'C submitted a revised proposal to the Group on February 2 I, 2002 that included a
request for funds to implement the DS/UP (estimated cost of $325,580) and other field
activities (estimated cost of $35,580) for an estimated total cost of $373,330. A copyof
the February 21, 2002 proposal is attached for your information. The estimated DSAP
costs included a 30% contingency for the step-out approach to delineate soil impacts
exceeding the cleanup levels specified in the record of decision (ROD) for operable unit 1
(OUI). The environmental field investigations proposed in the DSAP, inclusive of the
30% contingency for stepping-out, consisted of drilling 147 borings, collecting 308
subsurface-soil samples and 112 surface-soil samples. The actual environmental field
investigation consisted of drilling borings at 240 locations and collecting 618 subsurface-
soil samples, 166 surface-soil samples, and 28 groundwater samples (via hydropunch).
Additionally, approximately 50 borings were drilled at previous locations to collect soil
samples at specific depth intervals to better refine or to delineate the vertical extent of
impacts. It was anticipated that the DS.AP program would be completed within 8 to 10
weeks. The DSAP field program began in January 2002 and was completed in June
2002. The program duration was increased based on the drilling observations, surface-
and subsurface-soil analytical results, and the requirement to delineate impacts to the
OU1 ROD cleanup levels.
The scope of the hydrogeological investigation was expanded based on subsurface
conditions encountered during the geotechnical investigation. Limestone, which was not
previously observed in any borings advanced at the site, was encountered at a depth of
approximately 70 feet below land surface. The limestone underlies the sand unit that is
situated beneath the clay confining unit at the site. The DSAP proposed conducting a
short-term (maximum of 4 hours) aquifer test in the sand unit beneath the clay to provide
informatiou to evaluate dewalering operations and to allow development ora remedial
design that would accounts lbr the artesian condition below thc excavation bottom. The
estimated cost for the proposed test assumed that one pumpiug well and two piezometers
would be installed and used for the aquifer test. Because limestone was encountered
below the clay, the proposed test was modified to include evaluation of the contribution
of'the groundwater within Ibc limestone to the overlying sand under a pumping scenario.
As a result, one pumping well and seven piezometers were inst:dled and used to monitor
water levels during a 24 bout long-term test to eva]u:~t(,/be aft~ct of pumping the deeper
sand unit on the shallower sand unit, the deeper sand unSl and the underlying limestone.
Other field work that was to be pertbnned during the I)SA}~ included locating and
abandoning former product/on wells and performing a hazardous maleriaI survey of the
buildings on thc former gas pianl properly. The hazard~m:~ material surv'ey of the
Sanford Gasification Plant Site Group
c/o Charles K. Ross
Carolina Power & Light Company
December 17, 2002
Page 3
buildings has not been performed. One well was located on the former gas plant property
south of West 6th Street. Tkis well had already been plugged. One well was located on
the Bridge property on the north side of West 6th Street. This well had also been plugged
previously. Leaking water mains were identified and reported to the city during the
search for the former production wells. Several meetings were held with city personnel
regarding the water and sewer utilities in the vicinity of the site due to the localized
flooding at the site, to gain information for inclusion in the Preliminary Design
deliverable; and to identify the city's requirements for design and construction related
submissions. City drawings and personnel did not have knowledge or record of
storm/sanitary sewer or water mains on West 6th Street in the vicinity of the site.
Therefore, .P, VC coordinated and subcontracted Streamline Environmental, Inc. to
perform a utility survey in the vicimty of the site.
Finally, the DSAP proposal included costs for minimal data reduction for inclusion in the
Preliminary Design. Because the volume of impacted material requiring remediation in
OU1 more than quadrupled, it was decided that a report presenting and summarizing the
DSAP field efforts and data should be developed to assist in reevaluating remedial
alternatives to address soil impacts in OU1. The DSAR was developed and submitted to
the Group as a draft on July 31, 2002. The DSAR was revised based on Group comments
and submitted to the EPA on August 29, 2002.
The costs for the DSAP, other field activnies, and DSAR totaled $814,565.87 as of
Octobc~ 27, 2002. The Group received EPA comrnents on the DSAR via email dated
October ] 0, 2002. JWC will draft a response to comment letter to address EPA
comments and will provide a revised text and any revised tables and figurus to the Group
and EPA to replace portions of the August 29, 2002 document. Bascd on a review of the
EPA commcnts, JWC anticipates providing a draft response to tile Group, revising the
response and submitting it to EPA for an estimated cost of $15,000. Tberelbrc, the
anticipated tolal cost of the DSAP/DSAR is $829,565.87. The original budget estimated
for the I)SAP was $373,330. Therefore. JWC is requesting additional ftmds in tl~e
amoum of $456,235.87 to cover the costs Incurred to complete thc DSAP, to develop and
subn3il l]~c DSAR to EPA on August 29. 2002, and to respond to the October 10, 2002
EPA ct~nuncnls on the DSAR.
PRO.IE(?T MANAGEMENT/M1SCELI.ANEOUS TASKS
JWC's l:cb~-oary 21,2002 revised protx~sa] to the Group also included a pro.jccl
managelnenl budget which totaled $75,000 Tiffs budget was based on cslinlaled project
managcmcm costs of $5,000 per mout]~ for January 2002 through March 2003. The
budgel x~as ~o cover monthly progress rcpo~qs, invoicing, conference culls, and
Sanford Gasification Plant Site Group
c/o Charles K. Ross
Carolina Power & Light Company
December 17, 2002
Page 4
management meetings for the project. In addition to completing the progress reports and
invoicing tasks and participating in conference calls and meetings, JWC has completed
several miscellaneous tasks requested by the Group. These miscellaneous tasks were not
part of existing task budgets and therefore were included/tracked in the project
management task on a monthly basis. The miscellaneous tasks were described in the
cover letter attached to each monthly invoice and are summarized below by month.
Limited meeting costs were included in the February 21, 2002 cost estimate, however the
frequency of meetings was not anticipated and therefore meeting dates are included in the
summary below.
_January and February 2007
· Provided input and review on the Statement of Work for the RD/RA Consent
Decree.
· Attended the technical Group February 18, 2002 meeting in Raleigh, North
Carolina and prepared meeting minutes.
_March 2002 · Attended the Group March 27, 2002 meeting in Raleigh, North Carolina and
prepared meeting minutes.
· Researched utility records for the site area at the City of Sanford engineer's office
.April and May 200?
· Participated in telephone discussions with thc Group and EPA regarding field
results and efforts to map NAPL/DNAPL north of 4~h Street.
· Participated in a site visit on May 2, 2002 with EPA and Charlie Ross to provide
EPA a DSAP update.
· Developed the list of remedial alternatives for OUI for Group review.
· Developed the first draft of remedial action costs for the list of OUi remedial
alternatives approved by the Group (included multiple telephone conversations
with technology vendors for costing input).
" Developed costs for culverting Cloud Branch Creek for Group review, h]cludcd
coordination with Ellen Avery-Smith for City ~evicw and input on the cost
csthDatc.
· Prepared for ail(] attended the May 29, 2002 mccling with EPA in Tampa, Iqorida
and p~epa~ed mceling minutes.
~lune 2002
· Revised mid expanded remedial action cost estilnatcs based on Group commenls
and additional research with Dust Coating, Inc.
Sanford Gasification Plant Site Group
c/o Charles K. Ross
Carolina Power & Light Company
December 17, 2002
Page 5
· Reviewed the DSAP data and researched potential leachability studies for impacts
between 3rd and 4~h Streets.
· /ul¥ 2002
Further revised remedial action cost estimates based on additional cost refinement
information/assumptions fi-om Dust Coating, Inc.
· Developed the annotated outline and tables for the RAER.
· Evaluated DSAP data to identify locations at the site where chemical oxidation
may be used for soil remediation purposes. Developed a cost estimate to perform
chemical oxidation and performed a cost comparison with excavation and
treatment. A summary of the evaluation was distributed to the Group.
· Began drafting components of the RAER.
· Revised the estimated quantity of soil to be remediated based on the final DSAP
data.
· Prepared a list of questions and confidentiality agreements for vendors of off-site
thermal, landfill, and solidification/stabilization services to refine cost estimates
and alternative descriptions.
· Conducted a survey with vendors and compiled the results for use in the
engineering evaluation.
· Revised cost estimated to include information received fi-om tec}mology vendors
and to include long-term O&M costs that would need to be presented to EPA in
the draft RAER.
· Arranged and attended a meeting on August 6, 2002 with Cl~ristian Prison
Ministries to discuss DSAP findings and future potential remedial alternatives.
· Dcveloped flush models to evaluate the timeframe for MNA to remediate
subsurface soil impacts m two areas of the site. The results Were summarized in a
memorandum which was reviewed by tectmical Group members, revised
accordingly, and then forxvarded to EPA on August I6, 2002.
· Developed the draft RAEP, that was submitted to the Group on August 19, 2002.
· Assisted in the preparation of handouts for the August 22, 2002 meeting in
Raleigh, North Carolina.
· Attended the Group meeting on August 22, 2002 in Raleigh, Nonlt Carolina.
September 2002
· Prepared for and attended thc September 12, 2002 meelm,4 with thc Group mid
EPA in Orlando, Florida. ~
Sanford Gasification Plant Site Group
c/o Charles K. Ross
Carolina Power & Light Company
December 17, 2002
Page 6
· Prepared meeting minutes for the September 12, 2002 meeting.
· Participated in the September 11, 2002 site visit with members of the Group and
EPA.
· Began revising the RAER based on discussions from the September 12, 2002
meeting.
.October 2002
· Arranged and attended a meeting on October 2, 2002 with Donald Baurley (owner
of Codisco) to discuss DSAP findings and future potential remedial alternatives.
· Revised the draft RAER and submitted to the Group on October 18, 2002 for
review. This revision included incorporating alternatives from the FS for OU1
(January 2000), research/ng and appending vendor technology information for
Group and EPA use in evaluating technologies included in some of the potential
remedial alternatives presented in the RAER, developing an appendix presenting
surface-soil delineation issues, revising the MNA discussion to incorporate
PA s comments, and updating/modifying costs with recent information provided
by Frank Nesbihal on off-site thermal treatment and landfilling.
· Participated in two conference calls (October 21 and October 23) with the Group
to discuss Group member comments on the draft RAER.
· Revised the draft RAER based on Group comments and suggestions and shipped
seven copies to EPA and one copy to each Group for delivery on October 31,
2002.
The costs for tile project management and miscellaneous tasks, including the RAER,
totaled $141,341.92 as of October 27, 2002 which is $66,341.92 over the Febmm'y 21,
2002 budget cslimate. A review of the project management/miscellaneous task budgcl
since January 2002 indicates that these tasks have cost approximately $14,000 per lnonth.
In order to avoid requesting another an~endmenl to the agreement for services for project
manangemenb/miscellaneous tasks this calendar year and Io cover expenses for JWC to
prepare for and attend the project meeting with EPA in Tampa, Florida in Dccembe~
2002, JWC suggests that an additional $28,000 be added to the project managernen1 lask
to cover these activities through December 2002 Therefore, JWC is requesting
additional pr2ject management funds in the amounl o/-$94,341.92 to cover intruded
costs, attend tbe December meeting with EPA in Tampa, Florida and provide project
management services through December 2002.
Sanford Gasification Plant Site Group
c/o Charles K. Ross
Carolina Power & Light Company
December 17, 2002
Page 7
EPA PROCESS SUPPORT
JWC anticipates that the Group will request consulting and engineering support to
continue th. rough the EPA process towards remediating OUI and OU2. Because the
process for moving forward cannot be specifically defined at this time since the remedy
has not been selected, JWC cannot estimate the costs that may be incurred in providing
this type of support. Therefore, to avoid approaching the Group for additional funds to
cover support activities, PNC suggests that the Group set aside $200,000 to be allocated
to JWC on a task-specific basis (to be approved by the Group pr/or to initiation of the
task) to cover identified tasks. JWC anticipates that the tasks may include, but not be
limited to, responding to the EPA comments on the RAER, reviewing and commenting
on the upcoming Fact Sheet, preparing for and attending public meetings, and project
management activities such as conference calls, monthly progress reports, and meetings.
We appreciate your confidence in allowing us to keep you informed from the field and to
adapt to field conditions in order to complete the DSAP and DSAR. We hope that our
responsiveness to and our description of the miscellaneous tasks described under the
project management task have been satisfactory to the Group. Please feel free to contact
me with any questions or additional information you may require regarding this request
for additional funds.
Sincerely,
JAC~/~,UES ~RD C 0 M PANY, INC.
Project Manager
AS:ils
Enclosure
Lisa Coope~
Tim $ilar
Edward A. Kazm:uck, Esq.
Gaylen Brubake~
Frank J. Nesbihal
Hams Rosen
William L. Pence, Esq
']'hoiilas Maurer
Guy Kanl/nski
Sanford Gasification Plant Site
Budget Analysis. January through October 2002
DSAP and
Project Other Design
Month Management Field Work RDWP Services ERA Totals
Budget 75,000 373,330 30,000 221,951 20,000 $720,281.00
Jan-Feb 13,049.22 116,366.84 16,845.73 $146,261.79
March 5,197.21 172,019.33 8,067.23 18,601.28 2,438.95 $206,324.03
/~priI-Ma¥ 13,830.33 260,049.63 2,168.15 41,277.28 $317,325.39
June 16,809.66 128,429~38 780.00 1,152 50 $147,171.54
July 8,55415 79,114.42 $87,668.57
, &u~)ust 23,212.40 , 31,361.13 $54,573.53
September 20,559.92 27,225.14 $47,785.06
October 40,156.03 $40,156.03
Total $141,368.92 $814,565.87 $27,081.11 $60,658.56 $3,591.48 $1,047,265.94
Balance ($66,368.92/ ($441,235.871 $2,918.89 $161,292.44 $16,408.52 ($326,984.94)
Comments:
DSAP = Design Sampling and Analysis Plan, other field work, and includes Design Sampling
and Analysis Report Costs
RDWP = Remediar Design Work Plan
ERA = Ecological Risk Assessment
City of Sanford
P.O. Box 1788
San£ord, Florida 32772
Its: Ymyor
Print Name: Brady Lessard
Date:
Designated Representative for Receipt of Notice:
Tony Van Derworp
City Manager
P.O. Box 1788
Sanford, Florida 32772
(407) 330-5604
Facsimile (407) 330-5606
Print Name
BRUSSELS
CHICAGO
DENVER
DETROIT
JACKSON~LLE
LOS ANGELES
MADISON
MILWAUKEE
ORLANDO
SACRAMENTO
SAN DIEGO/DEL MAR
SAN FRANCISCO
TALLAHASSEE
TAMPA
WASHINGTON, D C
WEST PALM BEACH
December 23, 2002
FOLEY:LARDNER
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
Jerry Herman
Director of Public Works
City of Sanford
Dept. of Engineering & Planning
P.O. Box 1788
Sanford, FL 32772-1788
Charles Hargrove
City of Sanford
800 West Fulton Street
Sanford, Florida 32772
Re: Antendment to Agreement for Services/Sanford Gasi[ication Plant Site
Dear Jerry and Charles:
Enclosed is a First Amendment to Agreement for Services between members of the
Sanford Gasification Plant Site Group (the Group) and Jacques Whitford Company (JWS). The
Group has proposed a new budget of $750,577.00 for JWC work as described in Exhibit A, which
includes an additional $200,000.00 for future costs up to and including the limitation of on site
remediation The City's share, 12.9632 percent, is $97,298.80. We recommend that the City
approve this contract amendment to fulfill tile obligations of the Group under tile pendiug Consent
Decree.
Seven signature pages for thc City arc also enclosed as well as a copy of the
existing contract for reference. Please have thc City Council approve and cxccme the JWC
Amendmcm and have tile City's designated signatory sign, and have witncsscd, all seven signature
pages attached lo tile document. After tile document bas been fully exceulcd, please return it,
along with all signature pages, to me and I will send six of thc seven signature pages to other
members ill tile (Jroup. I will retain the seventh signature page ill our office.
Il yc, u IlaVe ally questions ah(Hit the recomnlendations nladc ]lclein, please do uot
Ilesilalc Il) call nit.
Sincerely yours,
l~nclosurcs
Th(unas K. Maurer
006 280341 1