10b. Attachment - Fifth Amendment of the Lower Duwamish Waterway Administra
Item No. 10b attach 1 Meeting Date: June 8, 2021 REMEDIAL DESIGN STATEMENT OF WORK LDW MIDDLE REACH LOWER DUWAMISH WATERWAY SUPERFUND SITE Seattle, King County, State of Washington EPA Region 10 May 2021 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND ..................................................................... 1 CONTINUED IMPLEMENTATION OF SEAFOOD CONSUMPTION ICs.................. 2 REMEDIAL DESIGN ..................................................................................................... 2 PERIODIC MONITORING OF SELECTED SITE CONDITIONS ................................. 3 COMPILATION AND ASSESSMENT OF FISH AND SHELLFISH TISSUE TO REFINE BACKGROUND CONCENTRATIONS ........................................................... 4 DELIVERABLES ........................................................................................................... 4 SCHEDULE .................................................................................................................. 14 REFERENCES .............................................................................................................. 17 i INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND 1.1 Introduction. This Statement of Work (SOW) sets forth the procedures and requirements for implementing Amendment #5 (also referred to as AOC5 or the Fifth 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 #5 work includes remedial design for the middle 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). Work associated with sitewide Seafood Consumption Institutional Controls, periodic monitoring of fish, crabs, and surface water, and design of the remedy for the Upper Reach will continue under AOC4. Upon EPA approval of the 100% design submittal for the Upper Reach, Respondents shall continue the Seafood Consumption Institutional Controls work under AOC5, as described in this SOW, until EPA approval of the 100% design submittal for the Middle Reach. Respondents shall ensure that work under AOC5 and AOC4 is coordinated to minimize conflicts and address design needs for overlapping or contiguous areas. 1.2 Structure of the SOW. Section 2 (Continued Implementation of Seafood Consumption Institutional Controls (ICs)) sets forth the process for continuing to support the implementation of 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. Section 5 (Compilation and Assessment of Fish and Shellfish Tissue Data to Refine Background Concentrations) sets forth the process for recommending additional fish and shellfish sampling if needed to further refine background tissue concentrations, as required per Section 8.3.2 of the ROD. Section 6 (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 7 (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 8 (References) provides a list of references, including URLs. 1 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. CONTINUED IMPLEMENTATION OF SEAFOOD CONSUMPTION ICs 2.1 This section incorporates Support for Implementation of Seafood Consumption Institutional Controls. Respondents are responsible for costs incurred by EPA related to work performed under this section from the date of EPA approval of the upper reach Final (100%) Remedial Design through the date of EPA approval of the middle reach Final (100%) Remedial Design. Respondents shall provide, fund, or participate in the following: (1) a planning group responsible for 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) 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: continuation of a community based participatory process for the 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 providing regular Progress Reports; and developing recommendations for adaptively managing the program and ensuring continued community capacity building. 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 2 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 Middle Reach. The LDW Middle Reach (LDW-MR) is defined as River Mile 1.6 to River Mile 3.0. 3.3 Plans and specifications shall be submitted in accordance with the schedule set forth in Section 7 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. PERIODIC MONITORING OF SELECTED SITE CONDITIONS 4.1 AOC Amendment #4 requires Respondents to repeat elements of the Pre-Design Studies work plan developed under RI/FS AOC Amendment #3 for the Site as a whole, specifically to assess dissolved PCBs in near bottom surface water using passive samples and to sample fish and crab tissue samples for Remedial Action Objective 1 contaminants of concern as conditions in the waterway continue to change due to remediation activities, natural recovery processes, and ongoing source control. 4.2 Under AOC Amendment #5, Respondents shall add collection of clam tissue data to the AOC Amendment #4 fish and crab sampling. Sampling plans and reports 3 prepared for AOC Amendment #4 periodic monitoring work shall include clam sampling plans and results. COMPILATION AND ASSESSMENT OF FISH AND SHELLFISH TISSUE TO REFINE BACKGROUND CONCENTRATIONS 5.1 Section 8.2.3 of the ROD states that fish and shellfish target tissue concentrations based on background data are uncertain because they were developed with a limited dataset. The ROD calls for collection of additional fish and shellfish background data during the remedial design phase to increase understanding of non-urban tissue concentrations of the human health COCs. 5.2 Respondents shall compile and assess data gathered in Puget Sound since the dataset used for the ROD was established. Respondents shall recommend additional Puget Sound seafood sampling that may be necessary to establish statistically supported non-urban background levels for human health COCs in LDW relevant fish and shellfish species. 5.3 The data compilation and assessment, including any recommendations for additional Puget Sound seafood sampling, shall be presented in a technical report. DELIVERABLES 6.1 Applicability. Respondents shall submit deliverables for EPA comment or approval or comment as specified in this Section. 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. 6.2 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 4 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. 6.3 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 Middle Reach and 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 Middle 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 6.4. (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); 5 (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 Middle 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 6.10 (Components of Remedial Design Reports). (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. (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 Middle Reach. (ix) Green and sustainable remediation evaluation and implementation approach. 6 (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. 6.4 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 6.4.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; (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 (4) A schedule for implementing the PDI work. (5) A sampling design that uses the conceptual site model for the Middle Reach and multiple lines of conceptual and statistical evidence to identify RAL exceedance areas with a targeted level of accuracy and uncertainty. The specifics of sampling design will be in the QAPP and QAPP addendum. (6) Phasing of sampling and tiering for chemical and physical analysis will be limited to no more than 2 phases with no more than 2 analytical tiers within a phase, unless further tiering or phasing does not affect the project schedule and is approved by EPA. The purpose of this is to ensure timely completion of the pre-design investigation to support future design. 7 (7) Interpolation methods will be used in identifying RAL exceedance areas for design. Any interpolation model that is used for decisions, including additional sample placement shall be accompanied with an uncertainty analysis that summarizes the parameters selected for the model and the prediction accuracy and uncertainty of the model. A new uncertainty analysis shall be generated for each completed phase that incorporates new sample data. (8) A minimum of 20% of the samples collected to ensure spatial coverage will be analyzed for dioxin/furans to ensure development of a complete dataset. (9) The approach to be used to override existing data with new results shall be identified in the pre-design investigation work plan, including criteria for overriding subsurface data in limited cases (e.g., if the sampled location was later dredged), proximity requirements, and a process for evaluating discrepancies between existing and new data (e.g., magnitude of increase or decrease) that will be flagged for discussion and approval by EPA. (b) PDI Quality Assurance Project Plan. A QAPP addresses sample collection, analysis and data handling. The QAPP must include a field sampling plan, maps of sampling locations, 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, 8 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 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 Reports Phase I and II. 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. 6.5 Should additional data be needed to support the design, a QAPP addendum shall be submitted per the schedule in Section 7. 6.6 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 9 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; (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 Middle 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 Middle 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). 6.7 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. 6.8 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. 10 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 Middle Reach, such as property boundaries, easements, bathymetry, structures to be protected or removed, and other relevant conditions; (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 Middle 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. 11 (p) Engineer's Construction Project Schedule. (q) Community Outreach and Communications Plan (r) Any additional plans identified in the Remedial Design Work Plan. 6.9 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. 6.10 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 6.6, 6.7, and 6.8 above. Respondents shall develop the deliverables in accordance with all applicable regulations, guidance, and policies (see Section 8 (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 Middle Reach Water Quality Monitoring Plan. The purpose of the LDW Middle 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. 12 (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; (2) Describe the requirements to be met to achieve completion of the LDW Middle 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; 13 (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. (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. SCHEDULE 7.1 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 14 EPA's approval, the revised schedule supersedes the schedule set forth below and previously-approved schedules. 7.2 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. 15 Schedule of Deliverables Fifth Amendment of RI/FS AOC SOW or Deliverable, Task (AOC) Deadline Item reference 1 Notification of (RI/FS AOC 180 days from Amendment #5 effective date contractor/sub- VIII, 1) contractor selection 2 RDWP 6.3 135 days from Issuance of Notice to Proceed to Contractor 3 PDIWP 6.4a same as #2 above 4 PDI QAPP/HSP 6.4b/c same as #2 above 5 Completion of PDI 6.4a In accordance with the schedule in the field work approved PDIWP, unless otherwise approved by EPA. 6 Phase 1 PDI Data 6.4d 10 days after Respondents' receipt of Submittal validated PDI sampling data from Tier 1, or from Tier 2 if there are two or more tiers of analysis. 7 PDI Phase 1 Data 6.4b/e 80 days after Respondents' submittal of the Evaluation Report PDI data for Phase 1 data collection to EPA. and Phase II QAPP Addendum Phase II PDI Data 6.4e 10 days after Respondents' receipt of Submittal validated PDI sampling data from Tier 1, or from Tier 2 if there are two or more tiers of analysis 8 PDI Phase II Data 6.4e 60 days after Respondents' submittal of PDI Evaluation Report Phase II data to EPA. 9 Preliminary (30%) 6.6 45 days from EPA approval of PDI Phase II RD submittal Data Evaluation Report. 10 Intermediate (60%) 6.7 120 days after EPA comments on RD Submittal Preliminary RD. 11 Pre-final (90%) RD 6.8 90 days after EPA comments on Submittal Intermediate RD. 12 Final (100%) RD 6.9 60 days after EPA comments on Prefinal RD. 13 Periodic Monitoring 4 For clams: concurrent with plans for 2023 QAPP Addendum fish and crab sampling required under AOC for clam tissue Amendment #4. 16 14 Periodic Monitoring 4 For clams, included with or concurrent with Data Evaluation reporting of fish and crab sampling required Report under AOC Amendment #4. 15 Fish and Shellfish 5 15 months from Amendment #5 effective Background date. Compilation Report REFERENCES 8.1 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 8.2: (a) A Compendium of Superfund Field Operations Methods, OSWER 9355.0-14, EPA/540/P-87/001a (Aug. 1987). (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). 17 (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) (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) 18 (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). (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. 8.2 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 #5 the reference will be read to include any subsequent modification, amendment, or replacement of such regulation or guidance. 19
Limitations of Translatable Documents
PDF files are created with text and images are placed at an exact position on a page of a fixed size.
Web pages are fluid in nature, and the exact positioning of PDF text creates presentation problems.
PDFs that are full page graphics, or scanned pages are generally unable to be made accessible, In these cases, viewing whatever plain text could be extracted is the only alternative.