Exhibit C Draft Statement of Work.pdf

EXHIBIT C

DRAFT STATEMENT OF WORK

I. Project Description:

At listed Superfund Sites where waste remains in place or has not been cleaned up to

Unlimited/Restricted Use/Unrestricted Exposure Access (UU/UEA), a review and assessment of the site is statutorily required every five years as required under the Comprehensive

Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) and the National Oil and

Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP)Federal National Contingency Plan (NCP).

The Five-Year Review (FYR) process ensures that the remedies employed at the listed Superfund

Sites remain protective of Human Health and the Environment and are functioning as designed.

EPA is unable to complete these required reviews due to recent Federal budget cuts and staff shortages. EPA Region 8 EPA has asked Colorado to complete these reviews by their required statutory deadlines on behalf of the EPA. This project’s goal is to ensure that Superfund remedies remain protective and provide continued health outcomes for Colorado residents, visitors and the environment.

The purpose of this Task Order is to provide support for the Environmental Protection Agency

(EPA) with the development and completion of Five-Year Reviews (FYR) to assess the effectiveness and protectiveness of Remedial Actions (RAs) at various Superfund sites across

Colorado in EPA Region 83. This includes conducting site inspections, stakeholder interviews, data review, drafting documents, data review and providing requested support associated with

EPA’s FYR process.

Under the Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) and the National Contingency Plan (NCP), the EPA is required to review remedies at Superfund sites no less than every five years where hazardous substances remain on-site above levels that allow for unrestricted use and unlimited exposure and to determine if the remedy is or will be protective of human health and the environment. Depending on the action that triggers a FYR, the review may be conducted while a remedy is under construction, ongoing, or completed.

Five-Year Reviews are scheduled for completion in early 2027, requiring field work to be conducted in 2026. Colorado sites scheduled under this solicitation (and statutory EPA signature deadline) are as follows: Lowry Landfill (1/10/2027); Smuggler Mountain (2/10/2027); Chemical

Sales Co. (3/10/2027); Captain Jack Mill (9/26/2027); and California Gulch (9/28/2027). Some of these five-year reviews are due for signature early in the calendar year, requiring field work to be conducted in 2026.

Lowry Landfill Superfund Site Background:

The Lowry Landfill Superfund site is approximately 500 acres in western unincorporated Arapahoe

County, Colorado, 15 miles southeast of the City and County of Denver and one-half mile east of the City of Aurora.

From the mid-1960s until 1980, the City and County of Denver operated co-disposal landfills at the site, accepting liquid and solid municipal and industrial wastes, including sewage sludge disposed of in unlined pits or land applications. Prior to 1980 the landfill accepted liquid and solid municipal and industrial waste. These materials included hazardous substances such as volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and heavy metals. The liquids were placed into 78 unlined trenches over about 200 acres. Solids such as soil, old tires and household refuse were then added to the trenches to absorb the liquids. In 1980, Waste Management of Colorado, Inc. (WMC) took over operation of the landfill. At that time, waste disposal on-site was restricted to municipal waste and later asbestos waste. Municipal solid waste disposal activities ceased in 1990, and a four-foot soil cover was installed over the landfill unit. Landfilling operations contaminated soil, groundwater, surface water and sediment with hazardous chemicals. Additionally, gases from buried waste contaminated the air space in subsurface soils. EPA estimates about

138 million gallons of industrial waste were disposed of at the landfill.

Contaminants of concern (COCs) at the site include volatile organic compounds, semi volatile organic compounds, metals, pesticides, polychlorinated biphenyls, methane, and other landfill gases. The site was added to the National Priorities List (Superfund) in 1984. The City and County of Denver, WMC and Chemical Waste Management, Inc. (collectively the Work Settling

Defendants (WSDs)) entered into an agreement with the EPA and five other parties to implement the cleanup or remedy.

All components of the remedy have been completed, and an extensive monitoring network is in place to continuously monitor their effectiveness. Operation and maintenance activities continue at the Site.

Smuggler Mountain Superfund Site Background:

The 325-acre Site is in northeast Aspen in Pitkin County, Colorado, in the Roaring Fork River

Valley. OU1 is the largely developed area that includes condominiums, mobile home communities, a tennis club, city parks and single-family homes on the northeast edge of the town of Aspen. OU2 includes the mine site on the upward slope of Smuggler Mountain just northeast of OU1. Groundwater investigations found that the Site has not impacted groundwater.

Mining companies ran extensive silver, lead, and zinc mining operations on OU2 from 1879 to

1920. Records indicate that the bulk of the mining wastes at the Site were placed on the steep slope of the west side of Smuggler Mountain near the Smuggler Mine shaft. In the mid-1960s, a reprocessing facility operated at the Site. The mining wastes at the Site are the result of years of extensive mining, milling and smelting operations. As a result, waste is highly dispersed, and little was known about their disposition in the vicinity. Mining activities and wastes, including mill tailings and smelter byproducts, contaminated soil with heavy metals such as cadmium and lead. These wastes were exposed, covered, or mixed with native soils across the Site. There are several historical buildings on OU2 and a mine shaft reflecting the mining history across the property. Currently, the mine is primarily used to give tours, although limited mineral exploration and mining still occur. The mine is permitted for extraction, but the last shipment of ore went out in 1984 as it is no longer profitable to mine the estimated 860,000 tons of high-grade ore remaining in the mountain. In 1987, the mine was listed on the National Register of

Historic Places.

The Site is deleted from the National Priorities List and is in the operation and maintenance phase. Based on the October 2025 Lead Directive, the EPA is evaluating the risks from lead in soil/yards as lead is a contaminant of concern at this Site.

Chemical Sales Co. Superfund Site Background:

The five-square-mile Chemical Sales Co. site is in an industrial area of Denver, Colorado.

Operations at the Site began in 1962 with the construction of a warehouse. These operations included the storage and repackaging of bulk chemicals from rail cars and drums. In 1981, a random sample of municipal drinking water identified groundwater in South Adams County Water

Supply District as contaminated with volatile organic compounds (VOCs.) EPA studied groundwater and determined that the Site is the main source of VOC contamination in the area.

There are four operable units with decision documents at this Site, which has achieved the construction completion milestone.

The last five-year review found all four operable units to be protective in the short term however additional work needs to be conducted to ensure protectiveness in the long term. EPA and CDPHE are currently evaluating the most effective way to continue to remediate the source area and groundwater contamination.

Captain Jack Mill Superfund Site Background:

The Captain Jack Mill site is located at the headwaters of upper Left Hand Creek, about 1.5 miles south of Ward, in Boulder County, Colorado. The site is in a narrow valley known as California

Gulch. Mining for gold and silver in the region began in 1860 and ended in 1992. Historic mining operations contaminated soil and surface water with metals and other hazardous chemicals.

Cleanup of the site is ongoing. The site is being addressed through federal, state and potentially responsible party actions.

Site cleanup has also included removal actions, or short-term cleanups, to address immediate threats to human health and the environment. EPA removed several chemical drums and concentrated mine wastes. In 2004, an emergency removal by EPA removed miscellaneous hazardous waste from the site, including a large amount of household waste, debris, paint containers and chemical wastes discovered during the initial phase of the investigation. In 2007, an EPA emergency removal rehabilitated the tunnel and removed impounded mine water. EPA placed the site on the Superfund program’s National Priorities List (NPL) in September 2003.

The site’s long-term remedy, selected in 2008 and updated in 2011, included two components.

The first component addressed surface contamination sources. The second addresses subsurface contamination sources. The last FYR found that the surface remedy is functioning as designed.

The subsurface remedy continues to be optimized and modified.

California Gulch Superfund Site Background:

The California Gulch site consists of about 18 square miles in Lake County, Colorado. The area includes the city of Leadville, parts of the Leadville Historic Mining District and a 11-mile section of the Arkansas River from the confluence of California Gulch downstream to the confluence of

Two-Bit Gulch. Former mining operations contributed to contamination of metals in surface water, groundwater, soil and sediment. Cleanup is complete at over 90 percent of the site.

Operation and maintenance activities in these areas are ongoing. The site is split into 12 operable units. These were set based on the types of materials there and who owns the land.

Past mining left metals in surface water, groundwater, soil, and sediments. Since 1995, the EPA and companies or groups linked to the pollution (called Potentially Responsible Parties, or PRPs) have cleaned up and controlled more than 350,000 cubic yards of contaminated soil, sediments and mine wastes.

Nine of the twelve OUs have been deleted from the NPL, with operation and maintenance work continuing at those OUs. One of the OUs is in the remedial design phase. Based on the October

2025 Lead Directive, the EPA is evaluating the risks from lead in soil/yards as lead is a contaminant of concern at this Site, which may impact the existing remedy for some of the OUs.

II. Definitions:

● CDPHE Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment

● CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act

● EPA R8 United States Environmental Protection Agency Region 8

● EPA HQ United States Environmental Protection Agency Headquarters

● FYR Five-Year Review

● HASP Health and Safety Plan

● IC Institutional Control

● NCP National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan

● QMP Quality Management Plan

● QAPP Quality Assurance Project Plan

● RPM EPA Remedial Project Manager

● SOW Statement of Work (Scope of Work)

● UUUA Unrestricted Use / Unrestricted Access

III. Work Plan:

Goal #1: To improve the quality of the environment and public health for the Citizens of Colorado by continuously improving efforts to conduct proper management of hazardous material and waste.

Objective #1: No later than the timeline provided in this solicitation, Final FYR’s shall be completed.

Primary Activity #1 The Contractor shall attend a contract kick-off meeting

Primary Activity #2

The Contractor shall draft Quality Assurance Documents.

Sub-Activities #2

1. The Contractor shall submit a contract- specific Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP).

2. The Contractor shall submit a Health and Safety Plan

Primary Activity #3

The Contractor shall conduct Site Inspections.

Sub-Activities #3

1. The Contractor shall support the EPA RPM conducting a functional system review and technical compliance evaluation of remedy elements that protect human health and the environment including the following:

a. Review of all components of the remedy

b. Review each element has been implemented in accordance with the

Site’s decision document(s)

c. Review of each remedial component that it is operating in accordance with its intended function.

d. Document findings with site photos and a Site inspection checklist.

Primary Activity #4

The Contractor shall conduct interviews.

Sub-Activities #4

1. The Contractor shall support the EPA RPM coordinating and conducting interviews with key stakeholders, as appropriate.

a. The contractor shall utilize and reference the FYR Interview Form, as modified for the specific site.

b. Information collected from the interviews shall be incorporated into the FYR.

c. Document findings with completed interview summaries to be included as an appendix to the FYR report.

Primary Activity #5 The Contractor shall conduct reviews of Institutional Controls (IC).

Sub-Activities #5

1. The Contractor shall review decision documents and any Site Institutional Control and Implementation Plan (ICIAP) to identify all ICs and determine if they're in place and functioning as intended. The contractor shall review a variety of sources including but not limited to:

a. Review of online searches.

b. Visiting local municipal offices.

c. Consulting with the EPA RPM.

d. Documentation of the review and documentation of ICs shall be incorporated into the FYR report and included in a figure if applicable.

Copies of IC documents shall be included in the FYR Appendices.

Primary Activity #6 The Contractor shall develop the Five-Year Review (FYR) Report.

Sub-Activities #6

1. The Contractor shall support the EPA RPM in the development and writing of the

FYR, including all draft and final FYR reports.

2. The FYR report is for EPA use and final signature and shall be written as such.

3. The Five-Year Review Recommended Template was issued with the intent to reduce non-essential information and repetitiveness, while remaining focused on the information and conclusions necessary to evaluate whether the remedy is or will be protective of human health and the environment. The information included in the report shall focus on the last five years and should be tailored to specific circumstances.

4. Each FYR report shall identify all deficiencies that currently prevent the remedy from being protective or have the potential to do so in the future. Deficiencies currently impacting protectiveness of the remedy, or those that have the potential to impact protectiveness of the remedy in the future, shall be documented as “Issues” in the FYR, with associated “Recommendations.” Minor findings that do not impact protectiveness of the remedy shall be documented as “Other Findings.”

5. One or more protectiveness statements may document the determination of whether the remedy or remedies are protective of human health and the environment in the FYR report. For sites with more than one operable unit

(OU), separate protectiveness statements shall be written for each OU. Once these sites have reached construction completion, a site-wide protectiveness statement shall also be developed.

6. The contractor shall support the development of the FYR by developing figures and/or tables as needed. Examples of figures to be developed include but are not limited to:

a. site location

b. site features and Ous

c. groundwater flow maps

d. plume maps

e. institutional control maps.

f. institutional control summary tables

g. data summary tables

7. Each FYR report is for EPA use and directed to the general public

a. The FYR shall be written to be understood by someone unfamiliar with the

Site.

b. The FYR report shall clearly present all the information needed to understand the past activities at the site and the current status of all remedial actions.

c. The FYR report must be accurate, adequate, and concise.

8. The Contractor shall be expected to respond to comments from EPA R8 and EPA

HQ reviewers

9. The Contractor shall incorporate changes into revised draft documents.

10. The Contractor shall, depending on the nature of the comments, provide more than one FYR draft as requested by the EPA RPM.

11. The Final FYR shall be provided to EPA with adequate time to be signed on or before the statutory due date as follows:

a. Lowry Landfill 1/10/2027

b. Smuggler Mountain 2/10/2027

c. Chemical Sales Co. 3/10/2027

d. Captain Jack Mill 9/26/2027

e. California Gulch 9/28/2027

12. Each FYR, after EPA final review but prior to signature, will undergo a formal

Section 508 compliance review. www.Section508.gov

13. A fact sheet summarizing the results of the FYR report will be developed for Lowry

Landfill, Captain Jack Mill and California Gulch sites.

http://www.section508.gov/ http://www.section508.gov/

Standards and Requirements

1. The content of electronic documents located on CDPHE and non-CDPHE websites and information contained on CDPHE and non-CDPHE websites may be updated periodically during the contract term. The contractor shall monitor documents and website content for updates and comply with all updates.

2. The CDPHE Project Manager will hold a contract kick off meeting within 30 days of executing this contract.

a. The CDPHE Project Manager will create minutes for the contract kick off meeting.

b. The CDPHE Project Manager will distribute minutes for the contract kick off meeting.

3. The contractor shall obtain and review available information. This information may include FYR guidance documents (guidance documents are available at https://www.epa.gov/superfund/writing-five-year-reviews-superfund-sites various site related documents. The EPA RPM can generally assist in providing the necessary site-specific documents. The review of site related data and sampling results should generally focus on those produced within the last five years.

4. Examples of documents that may be reviewed include the following Guidance and site related documents (not an exhausted list):

a. Comprehensive Five-Year Review Guidance (June 2001), OSWER No.

9355.7-03B-P

b. Five-Year Review Recommended Template (January 2016), OLEM

Directive 9200.0-89

c. Recommended Evaluation of Institutional Controls: Supplement to the

"Comprehensive Five-Year Review Guidance" (September 2011), OSWER

9355.7

d. Guidance On Assessing Protectiveness at Sites for Vapor Intrusion -

Supplement to the “Comprehensive Five-Year Review Guidance”

(November 2012), OSWER Directive 9200.2-84

e. Clarifying The Use of Protectiveness Determinations for Comprehensive

Environmental Response, Compensation, And Liability Act Five-Year

Reviews, (September 2012), OSWER 9200.2-111

f. Decision Documents – Record of Decisions (ROD) (and amendments) and

Explanation of Significant Differences

g. Previous FYR Reports

h. Preliminary and Close-out Report

i. Remedial Designs

j. Operation and Maintenance (O&M) Manuals and Reports

k. Consent Decree or other Settlement Records

l. Ground Water Monitoring Plan and Reports

m. Remedial Action Completion Reports

n. Community Involvement Plans

o. Institutional Controls

p. Remedial action objectives and cleanup levels as specified in decision documents

q. Any changes to the assumptions underlying cleanup levels (e.g., Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements, contaminant characteristics, potential exposure, etc.)

r. The remedial actions and their design

s. The status of the implementation of the remedy and O&M https://www.epa.gov/superfund/writing-five-year-reviews-superfund-sites

t. The effectiveness of the remedy in achieving remedial action objectives.

5. The Contractor shall require all workers on project site to wear the appropriate personal protective equipment.

Expected Results of Activity(s)

1. The completion of each FYR will document the performance of each remedy at each site.

2. The documentation from each FYR will provide EPA and CDPHE with the necessary information to develop and implement long-term remedy changes to establish ongoing protection of human health and the environment.

Measurement of Expected Results

1. Completion of the each of the five FYR reports within time to allow 3 weeks for

EPA routing for signature.

Completion Date

Deliverables

1. The Contractor shall submit a draft schedule for each of the

5 FYR sites that highlights and allows for EPA R8 and EPA HQ review and signature routing time to the CDPHE Program

Manager via email.

No later than 7 days after the start date or the contract kick-off meeting.

2. The Contractor shall submit a draft of each FYR for State and

EPA initial review to the CDPHE Program Manager via email.

No later than 3 months before the Statutory Signature date.

3. The Contractor shall submit a revised draft of each FYR for

State and EPA Coordinator review to the CDPHE Program

Manager via email.

No later than 2 months before the Statutory Signature date.

4. The Contractor shall address all EPA and State comments and submit a Draft Final FYR for EPA Editorial review for each site to the CDPHE Program Manager via email.

No later than 3 weeks before the Statutory Signature date.

5. The Contractor shall submit quarterly reports to the CDPHE

Project Manager via email.

No later than 2 weeks after the completion of a quarter.

6. The Contractor shall submit monthly invoices to the CDPHE

Project Manager via email.

No later than 2 weeks after the end of the month

IV. Monitoring:

CDPHE’s monitoring of this contract for compliance with performance requirements will be conducted throughout the contract period by the CDPHE Project Manager. Methods used will include a review of documentation determined by CDPHE to be reflective of performance to include schedule setting, site inspections, interviews, invoicing, draft documents, commenting incorporation and other fiscal and programmatic documentation as applicable. The Contractor’s performance will be evaluated at set intervals and communicated to the Contractor.

V. Resolution of Non-Compliance:

The Contractor will be notified in writing within five (5) calendar days of discovery of a compliance issue. Within ten (10) calendar days of discovery, the Contractor and the State will collaborate, when appropriate, to determine the action(s) necessary to rectify the compliance issue and determine when the action(s) must be completed. The action(s) and timeline for completion will be documented in writing and agreed to by both parties. If extenuating circumstances arise and require an extension to the timeline, the Contractor must email a request to the CDPHE Project Manager and receive approval for a new due date. The State will oversee the completion/implementation of the action(s) to ensure timelines are met and the issue(s) is resolved. If the Contractor demonstrates inaction or disregard for the agreed upon compliance resolution plan, the State may exercise its rights under the provisions of this contract.