Attachment 10b. Attachment - Fifth Amendment of the Lower Duwamish Waterway Administra for Special Meeting held Jun 08, 2021 12:00pm at Remote

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

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.

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

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

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);

(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.

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.

(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

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.

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.

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).

(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)

(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.

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.