UNITED STATES 
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 
REGION 10 

____________________________________
)
IN THE MATTER OF: )   U.S. EPA Region 10
)        CERCLA Docket No. 10-2001-0055
Lower Duwamish Waterway )
Seattle, WA )
)
Port of Seattle, City of Seattle, )
King County, The Boeing Company )
)
Respondents )
)
Proceeding Under Sections 104, 122(a) )      FOURTH AMENDMENT 
and 122(d)(3) of the Comprehensive )
Environmental Response, Compensation, )
and Liability Act, 42 U.S.C.  9604, )
9622(a) and 122(d)(3) )
____________________________________)

Introduction 
In December 2000, the City of Seattle, King County, the Port of Seattle, and the Boeing
Company ("Respondents") entered into an Administrative Order on Consent for Remedial
Investigation/Feasibility Study, U.S. EPA, Region 10 Docket No. CERCLA 10-2001-0055,
Ecology Docket No 00TCPNR-1895 (12/20/2000) (the "RI/FS AOC") with the United States
Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") and the Washington State Department of Ecology
("Ecology"). Respondents performed a remedial investigation and feasibility study for the
Lower Duwamish Waterway Superfund Site ("Site" or "LDW") under the oversight of EPA and
Ecology pursuant to the RI/FS AOC. The RI/FS AOC has been amended thrice to provide for the
performance of additional studies related to the Site. The First Amendment, effective March 19,
2013, provides for the performance of the Fisher Study for the LDW. The Second Amendment,
effective July 17, 2014, provides for the performance of the Enhanced Natural Recovery
(ENR)/Activated Carbon (AC) pilot study. The Third Amendment, effective April 27, 2016,
provides for the performance of pre-remedial design studies. Respondents continue to perform
these studies pursuant to the terms of the RI/FS AOC.
The EPA issued a record of decision for the Site on November 21, 2014 (the "Lower Duwamish
Waterway ROD"). The Lower Duwamish Waterway ROD selected remedial actions for the inwaterway
portion of the Site.

Source control is an integral part of the strategy for addressing contamination throughout the
Site. An objective of the source control is to find and sufficiently control sources before
commencing in-waterway remediation. Ecology is the lead agency for implementing source
control actions and uses its existing regulatory authorities to control sources. For purposes of
assessing adequacy of source control in the immediate source area to the LDW, Ecology has
divided the LDW into three reaches: upper, middle, and lower. Consistent with Sections 4.2 and
13.2.7 of the LDW ROD, EPA intends to commence remedial action for the LDW Site or a
segment thereof after a source control determination for the LDW Site or segment thereof is
made. 
The objectives of this Fourth Amendment are to: 1) design the remedy for river mile 3.0 to river
mile 5 of Lower Duwamish Waterway Site (the "LDW Upper Reach"), consistent with the
Lower Duwamish Waterway ROD and CERCLA; 2) incorporate and supersede the work being
carried out under the Third Amendment to this AOC in support of the development of seafood
consumption institutional controls for the Site; and (3) provide for timely periodic monitoring of
selected site conditions, as necessary. The attached Scope of Work (SOW) provides an
overview of the work to be performed, a list of deliverables, and a schedule for these
deliverables. 
Fourth Amendment 
EPA, Ecology, and Respondents agree to amend the RI/FS AOC as follows: 
1.  The work performed pursuant to this Fourth Amendment shall comply with CERCLA
and its implementing regulations, the National Contingency Plan, 40 C.F.R. Part 300
and shall be subject to the review and approval of EPA. With the exceptions of the
authority to review (except as a support agency) and approve work, resolve disputes
(excluding Ecology's ability to resolve disputes related to its cost recovery), or
enforce work performed under this Fourth Amendment and any subsequent
amendment to the RI/FS AOC, Ecology shall retain all rights and obligations it has
under the RI/FS AOC, including those rights of access and cost recovery conferred to
it by Sections XIV and XXII of the RI/FS AOC. EPA will provide Ecology with an
opportunity to review and comment on any submittal requiring EPA approval before
EPA approves, modifies or disapproves the submittal. However, a failure by EPA to
allow such an opportunity to Ecology shall not be a basis for Respondents to dispute
an EPA decision to approve, modify or disapprove a submittal. 
2.  EPA and Respondents may by written agreement modify the work provided for by
this Fourth Amendment. 
3.  For the purposes of this Fourth Amendment, Paragraph 3 of Section X (Modification
of the Work Plan) of the RI/FS AOC shall be deleted and replaced by the following:
EPA may identify gaps in the work required under the Fourth 
Amendment that prevent the accomplishment of the objectives of the
Fourth Amendment as defined above. In that event, EPA may request
2

in writing that LDWG perform additional work under this Fourth 
Amendment, as necessary for the accomplishment of these objectives.
Respondents shall confirm their willingness to perform such additional
work, in writing, to EPA within twenty-one (21) days of receipt of the
EPA request, or Respondents shall invoke dispute resolution. Subject to
EPA resolution of any dispute, Respondents shall implement the
additional work requested by EPA. The additional work shall be
completed according to the standards, specifications, and schedule set
forth or approved by EPA in a written modification to a plan or written
work plan supplement. EPA reserves the right to conduct the work at
any point, to seek reimbursement from Respondents, and/or seek any
other appropriate relief. If EPA determines that conditions at the Site
are creating or have the potential to create a danger to human health or
welfare on-site or in the surrounding area or to the environment, EPA
may order Respondent to stop further implementation of this Order for
such period of time in the judgement of EPA is needed to abate the
danger.
4.  The amounts paid by Respondents to the EPA Hazardous Superfund pursuant to the
requirements of Section XXII (Payment of EPA Oversight Costs) of the RI/FS AOC
shall be deposited by EPA into the Lower Duwamish Waterway Superfund Site
Special Account pursuant to Section XXI (Reservations of Rights and
Reimbursement of Costs) of the RI/FS AOC to be retained and used to conduct or
finance response actions at or in connection with the Site. In addition, EPA has
several other site-specific accounts related to the Site within the EPA Hazardous
Superfund. Funds held in such site specific accounts may be transferred to the
Lower Duwamish Waterway Superfund Site Special Account if EPA determines
that the funds are no longer needed to finance or otherwise support the
implementation of response actions related to response action for which such site
specific account was created. After completion of response actions at or in
connection with the Site, any funds remaining in the Lower Duwamish Waterway
Site Specific Account may be transferred by EPA to the EPA Hazardous
Substance Superfund. 
5.  Remove and replace Paragraph 1 of Section XV with the following: 
All deliverables under this AOC shall be submitted in writing unless
otherwise specified. All deliverables must be submitted by deadlines in
the SOW attached to this Amendment or as otherwise approved by
EPA. Unless otherwise requested by the EPA Project Coordinator,
Respondents shall submit all deliverables to EPA in electronic form 
(native format and web-ready pdf) with a single hard copy of the first
draft and the final version of all documents subject to EPA comment.
3

Technical specifications for sampling and monitoring data and spatial
data are addressed in the SOW attached to this Amendment. If any
deliverable includes maps, drawings, or other exhibits that are in color
or larger than 8.5" by 11", Respondents shall also provide EPA with
paper copies of such exhibits. 
6.  The list of deliverables identified in Paragraph 4 of Section XIX (Delay in
Performance, EPA Stipulated Penalties, Enforcement) of the RI/FS AOC is amended
to delete deliverables (3) through (6) and to include the original and revised Remedial
Design Work Plan, and originals of the Preliminary Remedial Design, the
Intermediate Remedial Design, the Pre-Final Remedial Design, and the Final
Remedial Design. 
7.  The basis for violations identified in Paragraph 5 of Section XIX (Delay in
Performance, EPA Stipulated Penalties, Enforcement) is amended to delete 
deliverables (1) through (9) and to include the original and final deliverables
requiring EPA approval identified in the attached SOW except for a monthly progress
report and those deliverables identified in Paragraph 6 above.
8.  Respondents shall, subject to and conditioned upon the prior approval of EPA,
implement the activities required by the attached SOW, which is incorporated into
and enforceable under the terms of the RI/FS AOC as amended by this Fourth 
Amendment. 
9.  All work required by the Task 11 of the Third Amendment to the RI/FS AOC shall be
incorporated into and superseded by this Fourth Amendment to the RI/FS AOC. 

It is so ORDERED AND AGREED this ____________ day of ______________, 2018. 

BY:_______________________________________      DATE:__________ 
Shawn Blocker 
Unit Manager Office of Environmental Cleanup 
Region 10 
United States Environmental Protection Agency 

By: _______________________________________      DATE:__________ 
James J. Pendowski 
Program Manager 
Toxics Cleanup Program 
Washington Department of Ecology 

4

EFFECTIVE DATE: _________________________ 
Agreed this ___ day of ____________, 2018 
For Respondent Port of Seattle 

By: _____________________ 
Name 
Title 















5

Agreed this ___ day of ____________, 2018 
For Respondent City of Seattle 

By: _____________________ 
Name 
Title 















6

Agreed this ___ day of ____________, 2018 
For Respondent King County 

By: _____________________ 
Name 
Title 















7

Agreed this ___ day of ____________, 2018 
For Respondent The Boeing Company 

By: _____________________ 
Name 
Title 















8

Attachment to Fourth Amendment of the Administrative Order on Consent for Remedial
Investigation/Feasibility Study, U.S. EPA, Region 10 Docket No. CERCLA 10-2001-0055,
Ecology Docket No 00TCPNR-1895 (12/20/2000) 








REMEDIAL DESIGN 
STATEMENT OF WORK 
LDW UPPER REACH 
LOWER DUWAMISH WATERWAY SUPERFUND SITE 
Seattle, King County, State of Washington 
EPA Region 10 

May 2018

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

1.       INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND ........................................................................1 
2.       CONTINUED DEVELOPMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION OF SEAFOOD
CONSUMPTION ICs ..........................................................................................................2 
3.       REMEDIAL DESIGN .........................................................................................................2 
4.       PERIODIC MONITORING OF SELECTED SITE CONDITIONS ..................................3 
5.       DELIVERABLES ................................................................................................................4 
6.       SCHEDULE .......................................................................................................................13 
7.       REFERENCES ..................................................................................................................14 











i

1.        INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND 
1.1     Introduction. This Statement of Work (SOW) sets forth the procedures and
requirements for implementing Amendment #4 (also referred to as AOC4 or the
Fourth Amendment) of the Administrative Order on Consent for Remedial
Investigation (RI)/Feasibility Study (FS) of the Lower Duwamish Waterway
Superfund Site (Site or LDW) (U.S. EPA Region 10 Docket No. CERCLA 10-
2001-0055, Ecology Docket N. 00TCPNR-1895, RI/FS AOC). Amendment #4 
work includes remedial design for the upper reach of the Site, as defined in Section
3.2 below, and other tasks enumerated in this SOW, in accordance with the Record
of Decision for the Site signed November 21, 2014 (ROD). 
1.2     Structure of the SOW. 
Section 2 (Continued Development and Implementation of Seafood
Consumption Institutional Controls (ICs)) sets forth the process for continuing
to develop, pilot and/or implement outreach for appropriate and effective
institutional controls related to seafood consumption. 
Section 3 (Remedial Design) sets forth the process for developing the Remedial 
Design (RD), which includes the submission of specified primary deliverables. 
Section 4 (Periodic Monitoring of Selected Site Conditions) sets forth elements
of site monitoring to be performed by the year 2023 to generate tissue data
relevant to human health risk and to assess polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB) 
trends in surface water quality. Respondents shall perform this work under
AOC4 unless it is performed pursuant to another administrative order or
Consent Decree. 
Section 5 (Deliverables) describes the content of supporting deliverables and the
general requirements regarding Respondents' submission of, and EPA's review
of, approval of, comment on, and/or modification of, the deliverables. 
Section 6 (Schedule) sets forth the schedule for submitting the primary
deliverables, specifies the supporting deliverables that must accompany each
primary deliverable, and sets forth the schedule of milestones regarding the
completion of the RD. 
Section 7 (References) provides a list of references, including URLs. 
1.3     The terms used in this SOW that are defined in CERCLA, in regulations 
promulgated under CERCLA, or in the RI/FS AOC, have the meanings assigned to
them in CERCLA, in such regulations, or in the RI/FS AOC, except that the term
"Paragraph" or "" means a paragraph of the SOW, and the term "Section" means a
section of the SOW, unless otherwise stated. 


1

2.        CONTINUED DEVELOPMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION OF SEAFOOD
CONSUMPTION ICs 
2.1     This section incorporates and supersedes RI/FS AOC amendment #3 Task 11
(Support for Development of Seafood Consumption Institutional Controls).
Respondents are responsible for costs incurred by EPA related to work performed
under this section through the date of EPA approval of the upper reach Final (100
percent) Remedial Design, unless otherwise agreed to by EPA and Respondents. 
Respondents shall provide, fund, or participate in the following: (1) a planning 
group responsible for development and implementation of a plan for institutional
controls; (2) incentives for participation on the planning group by community
members who have relevant knowledge or experience, subject to public agencies'
legal authority to provide such incentives; (3) technical materials to support the
institutional controls; (4) pilot testing of potential institutional control tools, such as
outreach campaigns developed using community based social marketing principles;
(5) assessment of the pilot test and revisions to the plan, and (6) assessment of the
plan's success and recommendations for future ICs on the LDW. 
2.2     Respondents shall provide support for planning and managing the meetings of the
Healthy Fish Consumption Consortium.
2.3     Respondents shall fund a cooperative agreement between EPA and Public Health
Seattle & King County. The tasks under the Cooperative Agreement include: 
establishing a community based participatory process and producing a Duwamish
Seafood Consumption IC Plan; providing on-going direct health promotion and
outreach to implement the Duwamish Seafood Consumption ICs; building capacity
of community partners that serve the affected communities to design, pilot test and
implement community focused IC tools; monitoring and evaluating the IC program
effectiveness, as well as provide regular Progress Reports; and developing 
recommendations for adaptively managing the program and ensuring continued
community capacity building. 
3.        REMEDIAL DESIGN 
3.1     The remedial design is generally defined as those activities to be undertaken to
develop final construction plans and specifications, general provisions, special
requirements, and all other technical documentation necessary to solicit bids for
construction of the remedial action. The remedial design also includes
identification of the required documentation to be provided by the construction
contractor, subject to approval by EPA during the construction phase, and annotated
outlines, conceptual plans, or initial drafts of certain documents to be finalized after
construction. 
3.2     Respondents shall design the selected remedy in the LDW ROD as it applies in the
LDW Upper Reach. The LDW Upper Reach (LDW-UR) is defined as River Mile
3.0 to River Mile 5.
2

3.3     Plans and specifications shall be submitted in accordance with the schedule set forth
in Section 5 of this SOW. Subject to inclusion in the RD Work Plan and approval
by the EPA, Respondents may submit more than one set of design submittals
reflecting different components of the remedial action. Remedial design work,
including plans and specifications, shall be developed in accordance with the EPA's
Superfund Remedial Design and Remedial Action Guidance (OSWER Directive
No. 9355.0-4A) and shall demonstrate that the remedial action shall meet all 
requirements of the ROD. The Respondents shall meet regularly with the EPA to
discuss design issues.
3.4     Respondents shall use EPA guidance documents as the basis for development of
work plans, quality assurance project plans, sampling plans, water quality 
monitoring plans, and other documents. The remedial design and supporting
deliverables shall be consistent with current technical guidance, including but not
limited to Contaminated Sediment Remediation Guidance for Hazardous Waste
Sites, 2005; Guidance for In Situ Subaqueous Capping of Contaminated Sediments,
2012; Contaminated Sediments Remediation: Remedy Selection for Contaminated
Sediments, 2014, and shall meet professional engineering standards for sediment
remediation sites. 
3.5     Remedial Design will progress from the preliminary design phase (30%) through
60%, 90%, and final (100%), with deliverables as identified below and in the
RDWP. As information is developed during the phases of design, Respondents
shall be prepared to present information and receive input through the Community
Involvement process, which includes the Roundtable and other public fora. 
4.        PERIODIC MONITORING OF SELECTED SITE CONDITIONS 
4.1     Respondents shall repeat elements of the Pre-Design Studies work plan developed
under RI/FS AOC Amendment #3 for the Site as a whole (1) to assess fish and crab
tissue concentrations for Remedial Action Objective 1 risk drivers as conditions in
the waterway continue to change due to remediation activities and ongoing source
control; and (2) to assess PCB trends in near-bottom surface water using passive
samplers. Respondents shall perform this monitoring no less than five years from
the baseline monitoring performed under AOC3 unless it is performed pursuant to
another administrative order or Consent Decree. 
4.2     For work to be done under this section, Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) 
addendums and a data report that includes data evaluation (see supporting
documents) shall be submitted per the Schedule of Deliverables in Section 5. 



3



5.        DELIVERABLES 
5.1     Applicability. Respondents shall submit deliverables for EPA comment or approval
or comment as specified in the Section 5. Copies of deliverables shall be provided,
as directed by EPA, to Ecology, the Muckleshoot Tribe, and the Suquamish Tribe to
ensure a reasonable opportunity for review and comment. As requested by EPA,
Respondents shall provide additional hard copies for use in Community
Involvement, including the LDW Roundtable.
5.2     Technical Specifications 
(a)      LDWG shall submit electronic data in accordance with the Region 10 Data
Management Plan (May 2014) and associated guidance and templates.
Respondents shall submit sampling and monitoring data in Region 10 Electronic
Data Deliverable (EDD) format. Respondents shall upload the data into EPA's
SCRIBE and into Ecology's EIM database. Respondents shall provide EPA with
a copy of the files created to load data into the EPA database.
(b)     Spatial data, including spatially-referenced data and geospatial data, shall be
submitted following the procedures in the "U.S. EPA Region 10 Geographic
Information Systems (GIS) for External Entities"; and (2) as unprojected
geographic coordinates in decimal degree format using North American Datum
f1983 (NAD83) or World Geodetic System 1984 (WGS84) as the datum. If
applicable, submissions should include the collection method(s). The GIS data
must be submitted to EPA on discus at the same time as the final reports are
submitted. If requested by EPA, LDWG shall provide GIS data used in sampling
plans, QAPPs, reports, or other submittals where GIS and mapping programs
were used to generate maps, diagrams, and other visual aids. Projected
coordinates may optionally be included but must be documented. Spatial data
should be accompanied by metadata, and such metadata should be compliant with
the Federal Geographic Data Committee (FGDC) Content Standard for Digital
Geospatial Metadata and its EPA profile, the EPA Geospatial Metadata Technical
Specification. An add-on metadata editor for ESRI software, the EPA Metadata
Editor (EME), complies with these FGDC and EPA metadata requirements and is
available at https://edg.epa.gov/EME/. 
(c)      Each file must include an attribute name for each site unit or sub-unit submitted.
Consult https://www.epa.gov/geospatial/geospatial-policies-and-standards for any
further available guidance on attribute identification and naming. 
(d)     Spatial data submitted by Respondents does not, and is not intended to, define the
boundaries of the Site. 
5.3     Remedial Design Work Plan. Respondents shall submit a Remedial Design (RD) 
Work Plan (RDWP) for EPA approval. The RDWP shall include a proposed plan
and schedule for implementing all RD activities for the LDW Upper Reach and
4

identification and development of all RD supporting documents. The RDWP must
include: 
(a)      A description of the overall management strategy for performing the RD. 
(b)     A description of the proposed general approach to contracting, construction,
operation, maintenance, and monitoring in the LDW Upper Reach; 
(c)      A description of the responsibility and authority of all organizations and key
personnel involved with the development of the RD; 
(d)     A discussion of additional challenges, data needs, investigations or retesting
necessary to initiate or complete the remedial design (e.g., how to characterize
and remediate areas with structural or access restrictions); 
(e)      A Pre-Design Investigations (PDI) Work Plan, as specified in Section 4.4. 
(f)      Descriptions of any applicable permitting requirements and other regulatory
requirements (including but not limited to Applicable or Relevant and
Appropriate Requirements (ARARs) identified in the ROD); 
(g)     Description of plans for obtaining access in connection with RD and RA, such as
property acquisition, property leases, and/or easements, and for developing
institutional controls in accordance with the ROD; 
(h)     Proposed approach to reporting data from Pre-Design Investigation (PDI); 
(i)      Discussion of existing data (e.g., upstream suspended solids data, source control
storm drain solids data, flow and other hydrodynamic data, pre-design data, and
EAA monitoring data) and data to be collected as part of design or following
construction that will assist in anticipating the quality of surface sediments over
time. This discussion shall include a conceptual site model (CSM) that considers 
suspended and bedded sediments, including dredge residuals, and how they move
during and after construction, to aid in interpreting monitoring outcomes in the
Upper Reach; and 
(j)      A comprehensive listing and brief description of elements of remedial design to
be addressed or supporting deliverables to be submitted as part of remedial
design, including but not limited to those listed below or described in  4.9 
(Components of Supporting Deliverables). 
(1)     QAPPs and health and safety plan [HSP].
(2)     Remedial action basis of design report, including. 
(i)      Narrative basis of design of dredge, cap, ENR, and MNR>SCO
elements, including supporting technical evaluations. 
5

(ii)      Permitting and site access. 
(iii)     Construction sequence, scheduling and cost estimate.
(iv)     Anticipated long-term monitoring and maintenance approaches,
including any expected measures for climate change adaptation. 
(v)     Evaluation of institutional controls requirements for caps 
(vi)     Archaeological monitoring and discovery. 
(vii)    Transportation and disposal approaches. 
(viii)   Scheduling and coordination of work under this SOW with other
in-water work or navigation or development projects on the bank
and intertidal or subtidal areas, if they may substantively affect
remedial design or construction in the LDW Upper Reach. 
(ix)     Green and sustainable remediation evaluation and implementation
approach. 
(x)     Approach to implementation and assurance of institutional
controls. 
(xi)     Geotechnical basis of design. 
(xii)    Sediment excavation prism verification. 
(3)     Water quality monitoring plan. 
(4)     Biological assessment. 
(5)     Construction quality assurance plan. 
5.4     Pre-Design Investigation. The purpose of the PDI is to address data needs for
completion of design, by conducting field investigations. 
(a)      PDI Work Plan. Respondents shall submit a PDI Work Plan (PDIWP) per
Section 4.4.b, for EPA approval. The PDIWP must include: 
(1)     An evaluation and summary of existing data and description of data gaps; 
(2)     A strategy for timely characterization, testing or data gathering to support
delineation of areas where each remedial technology applies and
engineering design, a discussion of the timing and type of data collection
needed to document ARARs compliance, and a plan for natural recovery
monitoring where required;

6

(3)     A conceptual sampling plan including proposals and clearly stated
rationales for any proposed tiering analyses or phasing of work to refine
recovery categories, apply remedial technologies, including natural
recovery, and design the remedy. The sampling plan shall identify media
to be sampled, general location type and purpose, field sampling and lab
analyses, bathymetric, hydrogeologic, and geotechnical studies, and an
estimated number and spatial density of samples; and 
(4)     A schedule for implementing the PDI work. 
(b)     PDI Quality Assurance Project Plan. A QAPP addresses sample collection,
analysis and data handling. The QAPP must include a field sampling plan and an 
explanation of Respondents' data quality objectives, quality assurance, quality
control, and chain of custody procedures for all treatability, design, compliance,
and monitoring samples. The QAPP shall address disposal of Investigation
Derived Waste. Respondents shall submit a QAPP for each field sampling effort
and shall develop the QAPP in accordance with EPA Requirements for Quality
Assurance Project Plans, QA/R-5, EPA/240/B-01/003 (Mar. 2001, reissued May
2006); Guidance for Quality Assurance Project Plans, QA/G-5, EPA/240/R
02/009 (Dec. 2002); and Uniform Federal Policy for Quality Assurance Project
Plans, Parts 1-3, EPA/505/B-04/900A though 900C (Mar. 2005). 
(1)     To ensure that Respondents' Labs perform all analyses using EPA-
accepted methods (i.e., the methods documented in EPA Contract
Laboratory Program (CLP) SOW for Inorganic Superfund Methods
(ISM02.4, October, 2016); EPA CLP SOW for Organics Superfund
Methods (SOM02.4, October, 2016); EPA CLP SOW for High Resolution
Superfund Methods (HRSM01.2, October, 2014), or as updated; other
methods acceptable to EPA; 
(2)     To ensure that Respondents' Labs participate in an EPA-accepted QA/QC
program or other program QA/QC acceptable to EPA; 
(3)     To ensure that Respondents validate data in accordance with EPA-
accepted data validation guidelines: National Functional Guidelines for
Inorganic Superfund Methods Data Review (EPA-540-R-2017-001,
January, 2017); National Functional Guidelines for Organic Superfund
Methods Data Review (EPA-540-R-2017-002, January, 2017) National
Functional Guidelines for High Resolution Superfund Methods Data
Review (EPA-542-B-16-001, April, 2016) or as updated. 
(c)      PDI Health and Safety Plan(s). A Health and Safety Plan (HASP) describes all
activities to be performed to protect on site personnel and others transiting the
area or living or working nearby from physical, chemical, and all other hazards
posed by the Work. Respondents shall develop HASPs in accordance with EPA's
Emergency Responder Health and Safety and Occupational Safety and Health
7

Administration (OSHA) requirements under 29 C.F.R.  1910 and 1926. EPA
does not approve the HASP, but will review it to ensure that all necessary
elements are included and that the plan provides for the protection of human
health and the environment.
(d)     PDI Data. Respondents shall submit data in accordance with the Schedule of
Deliverables. 
(e)      PDI Data Evaluation Report. This report shall include: 
(1)     Summary of the investigations performed; 
(2)     Summary of investigation results; 
(3)     Narrative interpretation of data and results, with supporting figures and
tables, including updated graphics (similar to ROD Figure 18 or more
detailed) of where specific remedial technologies and details of how the
decision trees in the ROD (Figure 19 and corrected Figure 20) were
applied; 
(4)     Results of statistical and modeling analyses, as applicable; 
(5)     Photographs documenting the work conducted; and 
(6)     Conclusions and recommendations for RD, including design parameters
and criteria, and identification of any remaining data gaps needed to
support the design. 
5.5     Should additional data be needed to support the design, a QAPP addendum shall be
submitted 30 days after submittal of the draft PDI Data Evaluation Report. 
5.6     Preliminary (30%) RD. Respondents shall submit a Preliminary (30%) RD for
EPA's comment. The Preliminary RD must include the following elements and
deliverables: 
(a)      A basis of design report providing descriptions of the analyses conducted to select
the design approach, including a summary and detailed justification of design
assumptions, restrictions and objectives to be used in design of the selected
remedy; Essential supporting calculations shall be included (at least one sample
calculation presented for each significant or unique design calculation, such as
cap thickness or propeller wash modeling) 
(b)     Preliminary plans and drawings, and a list of all drawings to be included in the
intermediate, pre-final and final design; 
(c)      An outline of required specifications; 

8

(d)     Identification of candidate transloading location(s), transport methods, and
permitted upland off-site landfill facility, and import material sources 
(e)      A schedule, contracting strategy, contractor requirements, any needed controls
and monitoring to comply with ARARs and minimize impacts (in accordance
with Section 13.2.5 and Section 13.2.8 of the ROD), and plans to manage
potential conflicts with other in-water work, treaty-protected uses, navigation,
recreation and commerce, and upland developments and land use changes that
may affect remedial design and construction in the Upper Reach; 
(f)      Access and easement requirements. 
(g)     Descriptions of how compliance with ARARs will be achieved and documented,
specifying documentation requirements associated with ARARs identified in
Table 26 (such as a Biological Assessment, Compensatory Mitigation Plan if
needed, Archaeological Discovery plan); 
(h)     An outline and description of Long Term Maintenance, and Monitoring Plan
(LTMMP) elements for the Upper Reach; 
(i)      An outline of an Institutional Controls Implementation and Assurance Plan 
(ICIAP), including an evaluation of the most appropriate institutional, proprietary 
controls and location-specific use restrictions needed to ensure long-term
effectiveness, consistent with ROD Section 13.2.4 (This ICIAP is distinct from
plans developed under Section 2 of this SOW). 
5.7     Intermediate (60%) RD. Respondents shall submit the Intermediate (60%) RD for
EPA's comment. The Intermediate RD must: (a) be a continuation and expansion of
the Preliminary RD; (b) address EPA's comments regarding the Preliminary RD;
and (c) include the elements and deliverables required for the Preliminary (30%) 
RD at a 60% level of completion. 
5.8     Pre-Final (90%) RD. Respondents shall submit the Pre-final (90%) RD for EPA's
comment. The Pre-final RD must be a continuation and expansion of the previous
design submittal and must address EPA's comments regarding the Intermediate RD.
The Pre-final RD will serve as the approved Final (100%) RD if EPA approves the
Pre-final RD without comments. The Pre-final RD must include: 
(a)      A complete set of construction drawings and specifications that are: (1) certified
by a registered Professional Engineer; (2) suitable for procurement; and (3) follow
the Construction Specifications Institute's MasterFormat (or equivalent) and meet
other relevant standards for design of sediment cleanup; 
(b)     A survey and engineering drawings showing existing features in the LDW Upper
Reach, such as property boundaries, easements, bathymetry, structures to be
protected or removed, and other relevant conditions; 

9

(c)      A specification for all necessary construction documentation, including but not
limited to photographs and videos, bathymetric surveys, and GPS coordinates); 
and 
(d)     Those elements listed for the Preliminary Design, as well as the following (unless
previously approved by the EPA): 
(e)      Draft Construction Quality Assurance Plan (CQAP). 
(f)      Draft Water Quality Monitoring Plan. 
(g)     Draft QAPP/HSP for remedial action construction and monitoring activities. 
(h)     Draft Permitting and Site Access Plan. 
(i)      Outline of ICIAP, including specific IC elements for each affected area. 
(j)      Required elements of a vessel management plan (to be finalized by contractor) 
(k)     Annotated outline and conceptual description of LTMMP elements specific to the
Upper Reach, discussing how the elements and schedule fit into a likely LTMMP
approach for the LDW site as a whole. 
(l)      Habitat Area Identification. For the purpose of complying with Endangered
Species Act and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) (see Table 26 of the
ROD), Respondents shall identify habitat areas and proposed elevations and
substrate materials for caps, ENR, or placement of backfill materials in any
identified habitat areas and shall identify any areas where loss of aquatic habitat is
unavoidable. 
(m)    Draft Biological Assessment. 
(n)     Draft CWA 404 and Section 10 Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 memorandum 
(o)     Engineer's Capital and Operation and Maintenance Cost Estimate. 
(p)     Engineer's Construction Project Schedule. 
(q)     Community Outreach and Communications Plan 
(r)      Any additional plans identified in the Remedial Design Work Plan. 
5.9     Final (100%) RD. Respondents shall submit the Final (100%) RD for EPA
approval. The Final RD must address EPA's comments on the Pre-final RD and
must include final versions of all Pre-final RD elements and deliverables. The
ICIAP and LTMMP will remain as annotated outlines in the Final RD. 

10

5.10   Components of Remedial Design Reports. Respondents shall submit each of the
following supporting deliverables for EPA approval with each Remedial Design 
submittal, except as specified in Sections 5.6, 5.7, and 5.8 above. Respondents shall
develop the deliverables in accordance with all applicable regulations, guidance, 
and policies (see Section 7 (References)). Respondents shall update and refine
supporting deliverables related to design in accordance with the degree of design
completion (30/60/90/100%) or as directed by EPA. 
(a)      LDW Upper Reach Water Quality Monitoring Plan. The purpose of the LDW
Upper Reach Water Quality Monitoring Plan (WQMP) is to obtain information 
during construction to identify water quality impacts that may be caused by
remedy construction; The WQMP must include: 
(1)     Description of the data collection parameters, including existing and
proposed monitoring devices and locations, schedule and frequency of
monitoring, analytical parameters to be monitored, and analytical methods
employed; 
(2)     Description of how performance data will be analyzed, interpreted, and
reported, and/or other Site-related requirements;
(3)     Description of the communications and response protocols to respond to
detected exceedances of water quality parameters as defined in the EPA
401 memo; 
(4)     Description of deliverables that will be generated in connection with
monitoring, including sampling schedules, laboratory records, monitoring
reports, data reports and data evaluation reports to EPA; and 
(5)     Description of additional monitoring and data collection actions (such as
increases in frequency of monitoring, and/or installation of additional
monitoring devices in the affected areas) that would be triggered in the
event that monitoring results indicate higher than expected concentrations 
of TSS or the contaminants of concern in surface water. 
(b)     Construction Quality Assurance Plan. The purpose of the CQAP is to describe
planned and systemic activities that provide confidence that the RA construction
will satisfy all plans, specifications, and related requirements, including quality
objectives. In addition, the purpose is to describe the activities to verify that RA
construction has satisfied all plans, specifications, and related requirements,
including quality objectives. The CQAP must: 
(1)     Identify, and describe the responsibilities of, the organizations and
personnel implementing the CQAP; 

11

(2)     Describe the requirements to be met to achieve completion of the LDW
Upper Reach RA; 
(3)     Describe the key performance standards and quality control elements
required of the Contractor in the technical specifications; 
(4)     Describe verification activities, such as inspections, sampling, testing,
monitoring, and production controls, under the CQAP 
(5)     Describe procedures for tracking construction deficiencies from
identification through corrective action; 
(6)     Describe procedures for documenting all CQAP activities; and 
(7)     Describe procedures for retention of documents and for final storage of
documents. 
(c)      Emergency Response Plan. Specifications for an Emergency Response Plan
(ERP) shall be submitted as part of the 30/60/90 and 100% design submittal to
address requirements for clear procedures in the event of an accident or
emergency during remedial construction (for example, vessel or equipment
damage, failure or power outages, unauthorized discharges to water, water
impoundment failure, bank slope failure, etc.). The ERP may be updated in future
as part of the remedial action work plan (RAWP). Specifications for the ERP shall
address: 
(1)     Name of the person or entity responsible for responding in the event of an
emergency incident; 
(2)     Plans for meeting(s) with the local community, including local, State, and
federal agencies involved in the cleanup, as well as local emergency
squads and hospitals; 
(3)     Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasures (SPCC) Plan (if
applicable), consistent with the regulations under 40 C.F.R. Part 112,
describing measures to prevent, and contingency plans for, spills and
discharges; 
(4)     Notification activities in the event of a release of hazardous substances
requiring reporting under Section 103 of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C.  9603, or
Section 304 of the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-know
Act (EPCRA), 42 U.S.C.  11004; and 
(5)     A description of all necessary actions in the event of an occurrence during
the performance of the Work that causes or threatens a release of Waste
Material from the Site that constitutes an emergency or may present an
immediate threat to public health or welfare or the environment. 
12

(d)     Community Outreach and Communications Plan (COCP). The COCP shall 
describe actions being taken to minimize the potential impacts including safety
issues of remedy implementation on the community (e.g. residents, businesses,
fishers, commuters, waterway users) and a plan for communicating with and
responding to the community. Safety and other community concerns about
construction will also be discussed with the Round Table during RD. 
(e)      Archeological Discovery Plan. For the purpose of complying with historical and
archaeological preservation requirements, Respondents shall document any
districts, sites, buildings, structures or objects included or eligible for inclusion in
the National Register of Historic Places potentially impacted by remedy
implementation and shall include specifications for an archaeological discovery
plan to ensure protection of Native American artifacts and cultural or
archaeological resources. 
(f)      Biological Assessment. With the 90% RD, Respondents shall submit a biological
assessment for EPA review and use in consultation related to the Endangered 
Species Act. 
(g)     Compensatory Mitigation Plan. If necessary to comply with Clean Water Act
Section 404 requirements, Respondents shall submit a plan for compensatory
mitigation.
(h)     Section 408 Compliance Documentation. Respondents shall include
documentation necessary to evaluate compliance with 33 U.S.C. Section 403 and
Section 408. 
6.        SCHEDULE 
6.1     Applicability and Revisions. All deliverables and tasks required under this SOW
must be submitted or completed by the deadlines or within the time durations listed
in the Schedule of Deliverables set forth below. Deliverables not identified below
shall be due in accordance existing requirements (progress reports), an EPA
approved schedule proposed by Respondents or as directed by EPA. Respondents 
may propose changes to the Schedule of Deliverable for EPA approval. Upon
EPA's approval, the revised schedule supersedes the schedule set forth below and
previously-approved schedules. 
6.2     General. Unless otherwise approved by EPA, submittal revisions following initial
EPA comments shall be due 30 days from receipt of the comments. Subsequent
revisions shall be due 14 days or as directed in EPA comments on the prior
revision. 
Schedule of Deliverables  
Fourth Amendment of RI/FS AOC 
13

SOW or
Deliverable, Task     (AOC)        Deadline 
Item                           reference 
1          Notification of          (RI/FS AOC   150 days from Amendment #4 effective date 
contractor/sub-           VIII, 1) 
contractor selection 
2          RDWP                      5.3        120 days from Issuance of Notice to Proceed 
to Contractor 
3          PDIWP                      5.4a        same as #2 above 
4          PDI QAPP/HSP            5.4b/c       60 days after receipt of EPA comments on the
revised draft PDIWP 
5          Completion of PDI          5.4a        In accordance with the schedule in the
field work                              approved PDIWP, unless otherwise approved
by EPA. 
6          PDI Data                    5.4d        For each round of data collection, 10 days
after Respondents' receipt of validated PDI
sampling data. 
7          PDI Data Evaluation        5.4e        60 days after Respondents' submittal of PDI
Report  Phase I                       data for first phase of data collection to EPA. 
8          PDI Data Evaluation        5.4e        45 days after Respondents' submittal of PDI
Report  Phase II                      data for second phase of data collection to
EPA. 
9          Preliminary (30%)           5.6        45 days from EPA approval of PDI Data 
RD submittal                        Evaluation Report - Phase II. 
10        Intermediate (60%)         5.7        120 days after EPA comments on
RD Submittal                       Preliminary RD. 
11        Pre-final (90%) RD         5.8        90 days after EPA comments on
Submittal                             Intermediate RD. 
12        Final (100%) RD           5.9        60 days after EPA comments on Prefinal
RD. 
13        Periodic Monitoring        4.2        4 years from Amendment #4 effective date 
QAPP Addendum 
14        Periodic Monitoring        4.2        5 years from Amendment #4 effective date 
Data / Evaluation
Report 

7.        REFERENCES 
7.1     The following regulations and guidance documents, among others, apply to the
Work. Any item for which a specific URL is not provided below is available on one
of the two EPA Web pages listed in  7.2: 
(a)      A Compendium of Superfund Field Operations Methods, OSWER 9355.0-14,
EPA/540/P-87/001a (Aug. 1987). 
14

(b)     CERCLA Compliance with Other Laws Manual, Part I: Interim Final, OSWER
9234.1-01, EPA/540/G-89/006 (Aug. 1988). 
(c)      CERCLA Compliance with Other Laws Manual, Part II, OSWER 9234.1-02,
EPA/540/G-89/009 (Aug. 1989). 
(d)     Guidance on EPA Oversight of Remedial Designs and Remedial Actions
Performed by Potentially Responsible Parties, OSWER 9355.5-01, EPA/540/G-
90/001 (Apr.1990). 
(e)      Guidance on Expediting Remedial Design and Remedial Actions, OSWER
9355.5-02, EPA/540/G-90/006 (Aug. 1990). 
(f)      Guide to Management of Investigation-Derived Wastes, OSWER 9345.3-03FS
(Jan. 1992). 
(g)     Permits and Permit Equivalency Processes for CERCLA On-Site Response
Actions, OSWER 9355.7-03 (Feb. 1992). 
(h)     National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan; Final Rule,
40 C.F.R. Part 300 (Oct. 1994). 
(i)      Guidance for Scoping the Remedial Design, OSWER 9355.0-43, EPA/540/R-
95/025 (Mar. 1995). 
(j)      Remedial Design/Remedial Action Handbook, OSWER 9355.0-04B, EPA/540/R-
95/059 (June 1995). 
(k)     EPA Guidance for Data Quality Assessment, Practical Methods for Data
Analysis, QA/G-9, EPA/600/R-96/084 (July 2000). 
(l)      Guidance for Quality Assurance Project Plans, QA/G-5, EPA/240/R-02/009
(Dec. 2002). 
(m)    Institutional Controls: Third Party Beneficiary Rights in Proprietary Controls 
(Apr. 2004). 
(n)     Quality management systems for environmental information and technology
programs -- Requirements with guidance for use, ASQ/ANSI E4:2014 (American
Society for Quality, February 2014). 
(o)     Uniform Federal Policy for Quality Assurance Project Plans, Parts 1-3,
EPA/505/B-04/900A though 900C (Mar. 2005). 
(p)     USEPA Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. Geospatial Superfund
Site Data Definition and Recommended Practices Memo. OLEM Directive
9200.2-191. (November 29, 2017) 
15



(q)     Principles for Greener Cleanups (Aug. 2009), 
https://www.epa.gov/greenercleanups/epa-principles-greener-cleanups. 
(r)      Contaminated Sediment Remediation Guidance for Hazardous Waste Sites, EPA-
540-R-05-012 Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response OSWER 9355.0-
85 December 2005 
(s)      Guidance for In Situ Subaqueous Capping of Contaminated Sediments, USACE
2012 
(t)      Contaminated Sediments Remediation: Remedy Selection for Contaminated
Sediments, ITRC 2014 
(u)     USEPA Contract Laboratory Program Statement of Work for Inorganic
Superfund Methods (Multi-Media, Multi-Concentration), ISM02.4 (October
2016). 
(v)     USEPA Contract Laboratory Program Statement of Work for Organic Superfund
Methods (Multi-Media, Multi-Concentration), ISM02.4 (October 2016). 
(w)    EPA CLP SOW for High Resolution Superfund Methods (HRSM01.2, October,
2014) 
(x)     National Functional Guidelines for Inorganic Superfund Methods Data Review
(EPA-540-R-2017-001, January, 2017) 
(y)     National Functional Guidelines for Organic Superfund Methods Data Review
(EPA-540-R-2017-002, January, 2017) 
(z)      National Functional Guidelines for High Resolution Superfund Methods Data
Review (EPA-542-B-16-001, April, 2016) 
(aa)    Recommended Evaluation of Institutional Controls: Supplement to the
"Comprehensive Five-Year Review Guidance," OSWER 9355.7-18 (Sep. 2011). 
(bb)    Construction Specifications Institute's MasterFormat 2012, available from the
Construction Specifications Institute, http://www.csinet.org/masterformat. 
(cc)    Institutional Controls: A Guide to Planning, Implementing, Maintaining, and
Enforcing Institutional Controls at Contaminated Sites, OSWER 9355.0-89,
EPA/540/R-09/001 (Dec. 2012). 
(dd)    Institutional Controls: A Guide to Preparing Institutional Controls Implementation
and Assurance Plans at Contaminated Sites, OSWER 9200.0-77, EPA/540/R-
09/02 (Dec. 2012). 

16





(ee)    Guidance for Management of Superfund Remedies in Post Construction, OLEM
9200.3-105 (Feb. 2017), https://www.epa.gov/superfund/superfund-post-
construction-completion. 
(ff)     EPA Requirements for Quality Assurance Project Plans, QA/R-5, EPA/240/B-
01/003. Mar. 2001, reissued May 2006. 
7.2     A more complete list may be found on the following EPA Web pages: 
Laws, Policy, and Guidance   https://www.epa.gov/superfund/superfund-policy-
guidance-and-laws 
Test Methods Collections    https://www.epa.gov/measurements/collectionmethods
For any regulation or guidance referenced in the RI/FS AOC or Amendment #4 the reference
will be read to include any subsequent modification, amendment, or replacement of such
regulation or guidance. 











17