FY23 Carolina Group ORC_Final PWS_28NOV22.docx

PERFORMANCE WORK STATEMENT

FOR

CAROLINA Group

OPTIMIZED REMEDIATION CONTRACT

AT

joint base charleston-air, south carolina joint base charleston-weapons, south carolina NOrth auxiliary airfield, south Carolina Seymour Johnson Air force base, north carolina

CONTRACT NUMBER: tbd

29 NOVEMBER 2022

Contents

Enclosure 1 – Acronyms and Definitions

Enclosure 2 – Government Furnished Information (GFI)

1.0 SCOPE

This requirement is for environmental remediation activities at Joint Base Charleston-Air (JBCA), Joint Base Charleston-Weapons (JBCW), and North Auxiliary Airfield (NAAF), in South Carolina (SC); and Seymour Johnson Air Force Base (SJAFB), in North Carolina (NC). This Performance Work Statement (PWS) defines the scope of environmental services necessary to conduct site restoration under the Optimized Remediation Contract (ORC). The range of activities includes maintenance of established remedies, optimization at applicable sites, and achievement of site-specific objectives. The Contractor shall undertake Environmental Remediation activities to achieve Performance Objectives (POs) at fifty-four (54) Installation Restoration Program (IRP) sites and eleven (11) Military Munitions Response Program (MMRP) sites.

NOTE: For purposes of this ORC, the term “Government” includes the Air Force (AF) and United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). While regulators are a governmental entity, they are also a third party over whom the Air Force has no control and, as such, will be referred to as “regulators.”

1.1 Introduction

Joint Base Charleston-Air (JBCA) Joint Base Charleston-Air is located on the west bank of the Cooper River about ten miles north of Charleston, SC and is within North Charleston city limits. JBCA is home to the 437th Airlift Wing (AW), 315th Airlift Wing (AW) (Reserves), and 628th Airbase Wing (ABW) and encompasses approximately 3,400 acres of land. The 315th AW operates the C-17 Globemaster III strategic airlift aircraft and shares the same aircraft with 437th AW. The 437th AW provides airlift of troops and passengers, military equipment, cargo, and aeromedical equipment and supplies worldwide in support of tasking by Air Mobility Command and unified combatant commanders. The 628th ABW provides installation support to 53 Department of Defense (DOD) and federal agencies as well as mission-ready expeditionary Airmen to combatant commanders in support of joint and combined operations.

Remediation activities at Joint Base Charleston-Air are being conducted pursuant to the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Contingency Plan (NCP), and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) requirements. Regulatory oversight is provided by the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (SCDHEC). Cleanup is performed under RCRA, but the Air Force maintains its CERCLA authority. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) may be consulted by SCDHEC for issues with Risk Assessments and Permit Renewals.

JB Charleston-Air operates under RCRA Corrective Action Permit SC3 570 024 460 effective through 16 Aug 2029; issued 31 July 2019. The Compliance office plans on initiating the next permit renewal application in 2028. The ORC contractor will need to support, as needed, updates for the Environmental Restoration program sections of the RCRA Permit applications.

Tier I and Tier II partnering meetings are conducted with SCDHEC monthly via teleconference; the Contractor will attend in-person and support Tier I meetings semiannually during each year of the contract. These meetings are held in either Columbia, SC. or Charleston, SC.

Joint Base Charleston-Weapons (JBCW) Joint Base Charleston-Weapons is located in the town of Goose Creek, Berkeley County, and is approximately 10 miles from the Air Base and 14 miles from downtown Charleston. The Naval Weapons Station was commissioned in 1941, with two distinct missions: home for two strategic submarine squadrons and a tender, and an ordnance station with capacity for more than 60 million pounds of conventional ordnance. The ordnance mission continues today. JBCW is the only military installation in the continental US with completely unencumbered explosive safety arcs. JBCW is also a training center for the Naval Nuclear Power Training Command, Nuclear Power Training Unit, and other tenants.

Remediation activities at Joint Base Charleston-Weapons are being conducted pursuant to the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Contingency Plan (NCP), and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) requirements. Regulatory oversight is provided by the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (SCDHEC). Cleanup is performed under RCRA, but the Air Force maintains its CERCLA authority. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) may be consulted by SCDHEC for issues with Risk Assessments and Permit Renewals.

JB Charleston-Weapons operates under RCRA Corrective Action Permit SC8 170 022 620 effective through 2031; issued 2021. The Compliance office plans on initiating the next permit renewal application in 2030. The ORC contractor will need to support, as needed, updates for the Environmental Restoration program sections of the RCRA Permit applications.

Tier I and Tier II partnering meetings are conducted with SCDHEC monthly via teleconference; the Contractor will attend in-person and support Tier I meetings semiannually during each year of the contract. These meetings are held in either Columbia, SC. or Charleston, SC.

North Auxiliary Airfield (NAAF)

North Auxiliary Airfield is located 65 miles northwest of JBCA and 45 miles southeast of the state capital of Columbia. NAAF has 2,400 acres of land, of which 1,150 acres is undeveloped. The original dirt runway was constructed in 1943 and used by Hughes Aircraft Company for testing. Today the base has a 12,000 ft runway and a 3,000 ft assault runway. The 628th Civil Engineer Squadron operates the base. The base supports the 437th and 315th Airlift Wing’s C-17 Globemaster III aircrew training and proficiency training.

Remediation activities at North Auxiliary Airfield are being conducted pursuant to the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), as amended by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) and the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Contingency Plan (NCP). Regulatory oversight is provided by the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (SCDHEC). The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) may be consulted by SCDHEC for issues with Risk Assessments and Permit Renewals.

Seymour Johnson Air Force Base (SJAFB)

Seymour Johnson Air Force Base is annexed to Goldsboro, North Carolina, and occupies 3,300 acres in the southeast section of Goldsboro. Seymour Johnson Field was opened in April 1942 as Headquarters, Technical School, and Army Air Forces Technical Training Command. Seymour Johnson Field was deactivated in May 1946. Seymour Johnson Air Force Base was reactivated as a Tactical Air Command base on April 1, 1956. Seymour Johnson has been an active Air Force base since it reopened. The 4th Fighter Wing is the host unit at Seymour Johnson Air Force Base and accomplishes its training and operational missions with 92 F-15E Strike Eagle aircraft. Two of the Wing’s four fighter squadrons are operational units capable of deploying world-wide on short notice and immediately generating combat power. The other two squadrons are responsible for training all F-15E aircrews for the Air Force.

Remediation activities at Seymour Johnson AFB are being conducted pursuant to the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Contingency Plan (NCP), and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) requirements. Regulatory oversight is provided by the North Carolina Department of Environment Quality (NCDEQ). Cleanup is performed under RCRA, but the Air Force maintains its CERCLA authority.

Seymour Johnson AFB operates under RCRA Corrective Action Permit NC 7570024474R2 effective through 24 Sep 25. The Compliance office will submit the permit renewal application in FY24 (SJAFB RCRA permit will be due 24 Mar 25; the new permit will be effective for 10 years).

Tier I and Tier II partnering meetings are conducted with NCDEQ quarterly via teleconference (or virtual meeting); the Contractor will attend in-person and support Tier I meetings once annually during each year of the contract. These meetings have been held previously at either SJAFB or in Raleigh, North Carolina.

1.2 Overview of ORC Scope and Requirements

The Contractor shall perform all the necessary environmental remediation activities needed to achieve the performance requirement described in Section 1.3 of the PWS inclusive of the POs listed in Table 1, Performance Table, and additional scope in 1.3.2. This PWS and enclosures listed below detail the project requirements needed to meet the AF objectives:

Enclosure 1 – Acronyms and Definitions Enclosure 2 – Government Furnished Information (GFI) Enclosure 2A – Installation Administrative Record Spreadsheets Enclosure 2B – Additional Site GFI Files and Spreadsheets Enclosure 2C – Site Added Considerations Summaries The intent of the ORC initiative is to advance site cleanup during the Period of Performance (POP) in the most efficient and cost-effective manner as supported by a cost benefit analysis and exit strategy that achieves the greatest reduction in life-cycle cost (LCC). The AF is interested in substantial reduction of long-term environmental liabilities and total LCC. However, costs should be commensurate with the level of effort required to achieve each PO and all potential technical contingencies within reason. Technical approaches that are simply reduced to a minimal level of effort with no well-planned contingencies provide no insurance to the Government that the POs will be achieved without work stoppages or change orders which is not in keeping with the intent of this performance based contracting effort. The AF is required to implement remedies as necessary to enable the mission, protect human health and the environment, and comply with laws and regulations. The goal of the ORC initiative is to ensure the AF continues to fulfill all facets of its Environmental Restoration Program (ERP) mission, by effectively and efficiently managing the program in a performance-based, results-oriented, and cost-conscious framework.

The AF desires that all sites be cleaned up to standards that allow for the current or reasonably anticipated future land use of the property. Accurate documentation and reporting of contaminant removal and cost savings are critical adjuncts to optimization success. In keeping with Defense Environmental Restoration Program (DERP) and Air Force Instruction (AFI) 32-7020, the AF defines optimization under the ORC as: the reduction of contaminant mass and concentrations, reduction in LCC, or any combination of activities leading to acceleration of Response Complete (RC)/Site Closeout (SC) as a result of remedial implementation the Contractor undertakes, above and beyond what is required to maintain compliance in accordance with an approved Decision Document (DD).

The Contractor shall maintain compliance with all DDs/Records of Decision (RODs)/Proposed Plans/RCRA Permits that are currently in place until no longer required, or an alternate approach is approved. The contractor shall conduct DD/ROD amendments or Explanation of Significant Differences (ESD) as required to implement new approach(es).

The Contractor shall function as an integral team member in support of the Air Force Civil Engineer Center (AFCEC) mission to include the sharing of information with USACE, other AFCEC Contractors, and AF personnel, in cooperation with community stakeholders, regulators, and other Government entities.

Requirements for efficient management of this contract include, but are not limited to, the achievement of the POs in the Performance Period (PP) per Table 1 and work described in Section 1.3.2 of this PWS, and timely identification and solution of impediments to successful project execution. The Contractor shall provide all personnel, equipment, supplies, tools, materials, and other items necessary to perform the tasks defined in this PWS. The Contractor is solely responsible for reviewing all available information and forming their independent, professional conclusions/interpretations of site conditions and requirements to achieve the POs of this contract within PP specified for each site. AFCEC will rely on the Contractor’s expertise in recognizing and addressing problematic issues during the execution of this contract. The Contractor shall perform all work in accordance with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations. The Contractor shall also comply with installation regulations. Remedies shall conform to environmental permits, DD requirements, or other legal requirements. The Contractor shall continue work throughout the entire duration of the POP. The Contractor’s local office presence will be relied upon to provide rapid-response actions for field activities and on-site meetings.

Site specific POs are identified in Section 1.3.1 Table 1: Performance Table and in Section 1.3.2. POs that are in keeping with standard DERP milestones are defined in Enclosure 1. In addition, for certain categories of sites, the AF has set POs based on current site conditions and consistency with the POP of the contract and ORC goal.

1.2.1 Scope Discussion and Limits

The scope of this contract is to perform environmental restoration services for the sites listed in Table 1 and Section 1.3.2. The ORC Contractor shall assume contractual liability and responsibility for achieving the POs. If the selected technical approach is not working, as demonstrated by the trends in the performance model, the Contractor shall develop and implement a revised technical approach to achieve the POs, including DD amendments, if required, to implement the remedial approach. This scope includes all known contaminants linked to the specific sites (includes contaminants on, under, or sourced at/migrating from the specific sites) without regard to quantity (e.g., plume size, concentrations). The AF remains statutorily responsible for all sites listed in Table 1 and work described in Section 1.3.2. The Contractor shall perform all work in accordance with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations, as well as installation regulations, and is responsible for obtaining certifications and licenses required to complete all aspects of this project.

1.2.2 Preliminary Assessment/Site Inspection, Remedial Investigation or Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (including Supplemental Investigations), and Decision Document Table 1 of the PWS identifies Preliminary Assessment/Site Inspection (PA/SI), Remedial Investigation (RI) or RI/Feasibility Study (FS) (including Supplemental Investigations, and DDs as the PO for selected sites. The Contractor is responsible for achieving these POs as identified in Table 1 and work described in Section 1.3.2. See PO definitions in Enclosure 1, Acronyms and Definitions.

1.2.3 Response Complete or Site Closeout

Table 1 of the PWS identifies RC or SC as PO for selected sites. The Contractor is responsible for achieving these objectives as identified in Table 1 and work described in Section 1.3.2. See PO definitions in Enclosure 1, Acronyms and Definitions. The performance components are described in Section 8.1.3.

1.2.4 Remedial Action-Operation with Optimization

Table 1 of the PWS identifies the following POs utilizing with optimization as follows: 1. Remedy in Place (RIP) and Remedial Action-Operation (RA-O) with Optimization, 2. DD Amendment (or Explanation of Significant Differences [ESD]) with Remedy Implementation and RA-O with Optimization, or 3. RA-O with Optimization as POs for selected sites in accordance with the optimization initiative. The Contractor is responsible for achieving these POs as identified in Table 1 and work described in Section 1.3.2. See PO definitions in Enclosure 1, Acronyms and Definitions. The optimization and performance components are described in Section 8.1.3.

1.2.5 Remedial Action-Operation and Reduce Life Cycle Cost; Long Term Management and Reduce Life Cycle Cost Table 1 of the PWS identifies RA-O and Reduce LCC or Long-Term Management (LTM) and Reduce LCC as the PO for selected sites. The goal of these POs is to minimize future AF liability and cost to the greatest degree feasible. Reduce LCC sites have achieved RIP or RC, have remedies that are effective (source control, risk mitigation, and plume stability), and have the potential for LCC reduction by optimizing some component of the existing remedy, by, for example:

Reducing sampling frequency Reducing system operations Reducing number of wells sampled per event Reducing number of analytes per sampling event The Contractor shall achieve the following objectives for each Reduce LCC site:

Maintain compliance with all DDs and permits (currently in place or to be approved) throughout the POP.

For RA-O sites, develop performance models addressing all Contaminants of Concern (COCs) and breakdown products. Refer to Section 8.1.3.1, Performance Models.

Deliver a Reduce LCC Plan, as a stand-alone plan or in the Project Management Plan (PMP), that identifies opportunities to improve cost efficiency of RA-O or LTM activities, and the planned approach for implementation. The Reduce LCC Plan shall:

Provide a basis for proposed reductions in LCC throughout the POP compared to the cost of status-quo RA-O activities (those required to maintain compliance). The planned reduction can be illustrated using a line graph (current, planned, achieved) or verbiage describing the current and planned reductions.

Document risk and mitigation strategies for implementing optimization activities to reduce LCC.

Update or revise site-specific work plans, monitoring plans, and/or DDs, as appropriate.

Deliver Reduce LCC Reports to document progress in achieving the planned reductions when those reductions are achieved. Reduce LCC Reports may be combined with monitoring reports. Reductions in required RA-O activities are contingent upon regulatory approval.

Deliver an RA-O & Reduce LCC Summary and Forecasting Report two years prior to the POP end date. The Reduce LCC Summary and Forecasting Report shall:

Document optimization activities to date and forecast remaining activities and assumptions to further reduce LCC 10 years post-POP.

Provide a realistic projection to achieve SC or RC after the POP (the Contractor shall identify which PO is the optimal endpoint). See PO definitions in Enclosure 1, Acronyms and Definitions.

1.2.6 Remedial Action-Operation or Long-Term Management (as appropriate) Table 1 of the PWS identifies RA-O or LTM in accordance with the approved DD/ROD as the PO for selected sites. The Contractor shall achieve the following objectives for each RA-O and LTM site:

Maintain compliance with all DDs and permits (currently in place or to be approved) throughout the PP. Update or revise site-specific work plans, monitoring plans, and/or DDs, as appropriate.

For RA-O sites, develop performance models addressing all COCs and breakdown products. Refer to Section 8.1.3.1, Performance Models.

· Provide a realistic projection to achieve SC or RC after the POP (the Contractor shall identify which PO is the optimal endpoint).

1.2.7 Alternate Objectives

This section and the subparagraphs below describe the Alternate Objective Sites and a general overview of the work associated with these sites. Please see Table 1 and work described in Section 1.3.2 for specific elements of work required for each site with an Alternate Objective PO. These sites have complex attributes that have, to date, inhibited progress towards the achievement of RC. For Alternate Objective sites, as for all sites in Table 1 of the PWS where applicable, the Contractor shall maintain compliance throughout the POP of the contract with all existing regulatory requirements including but not limited to regulations, FFAs, RCRA Permits, final or interim RODs, or other equivalent remedial DDs. The Contractor is responsible for implementing changes to the monitoring program based on activities conducted in the Advanced Site Characterization (PWS Section 1.2.7.1) including the addition and decommissioning of wells in the monitoring well network as agreed by all parties and the addition of new delineation monitoring where new information indicates our understanding of the plumes is changed.

Based on technical review of existing site conditions/activities, the AF placed sites in the category of Alternate Objective if one or more of the following conditions exist:

Achieving RC is expected to require substantially longer than 30 years.

Achieving RC is unattainable with standard characterization and/or existing remediation technology due to technical or other limitations related to site conditions.

Achieving RC is anticipated to require advanced site characterization technologies to improve the Conceptual Site Model (CSM), determine appropriate remedial technology, and/or characterize recently regulated contaminants.

The AF will use data and information obtained during execution of this PWS to determine restoration potential and future investment strategies at Alternate Objective sites. Each Sub-CLIN for the Alternate Objective sites will only be awarded if the activities are needed to determine the future investment strategy for the site. The decision to award each Sub-CLIN resides solely at the discretion of the AF.

For each Alternate Objective site, a summary of site-specific considerations is provided as GFI. As with all GFI provided, this GFI is provided for informational purposes only; the Contractor remains responsible for developing their own independent, professional conclusions/interpretation of site conditions and requirements to achieve the PO. The Contractor shall conduct project scoping sessions before work plan development and throughout the planning and execution of the project to meet the PO including the Installation Point(s) of Contact (POC[s]), the AFCEC Program Manager (PM) and Remedial Project Manager (RPM), the AF technical support team, and the USACE Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR). Upon approval by the AF and the USACE COR, the Contractor shall participate in scoping sessions with the regulators, as appropriate.

1.2.7.1 Advanced Site Characterization

Based on existing data, the AF has determined that the existing remedial approaches at the Alternative Objective sites are not achieving satisfactory remedial progress towards their intended goals. In order for the AF to determine the best path forward for these sites, the Contractor shall conduct Advanced Site Characterization to collect data to update and refine the CSM in order to achieve the following goals: (1) Fill data gaps; and (2) Collect data needed to: (A) Determine why existing and previous remedial actions are not effective at achieving remedial progress; (B) Determine appropriate remedial technology(ies) based on site conditions; C) Develop remediation design parameters for recommended technology(ies); and D) Determine extent and concentrations of recently regulated contaminants, if required.

Advanced Site Characterization includes one or more of the following three activities: (1) Supplemental Site Investigation (SSI), (2) Revised CSM, and (3) Groundwater Monitoring Program Update.

1.2.7.1.1 Supplemental Site Investigation

The Contractor shall conduct an SSI to collect data necessary to improve the CSM, determine appropriate remedial technology, support remediation design and construction, and/or characterize recently regulated contaminants. The Contractor shall implement advanced characterization methods, both established approaches and state-of-science techniques consistent with AF, regulatory, Interstate Technology and Regulatory Council (ITRC), and Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program/Environmental Security Technology Certification Program (SERDP/ESTCP) guidance to attain these objectives. Data collection includes better definition of the geology, hydrogeology, geochemistry, and/or source(s) and distribution of COCs, as required. The Contractor shall evaluate the need for, and collect the following data where appropriate: (1) Source Zone Delineation; (2) Source Mass/Extent[footnoteRef:2],[footnoteRef:3],[footnoteRef:4]; (3) Vertical and lateral extent of contamination, if not sufficiently defined; (4) Plume Stability[footnoteRef:5]; (5) Migration pathway, rates, and fluxes in 3-D; (6) Mass distribution; (7) Biogeochemical conditions and influences on contaminant degradation pathways; (8) Impact of recent and historical remedies on site conditions; and (9) Comprehensive Risk including the vapor intrusion pathway. [2: ITRC. (2015). Integrated DNAPL Site Characterization and Tool Selection.] [3: SERDP/ESTCP. (2012). Matrix Diffusion Tool Kit.] [4: USEPA. (2009). Evaluating Natural Source Zone Depletion at Sites with LNAPL.] [5: USEPA. (2014). High Resolution Site Characterization for Groundwater Short Course, 23rd Annual NARPM Training Program.]

The SSI report shall document data collection efforts to include a risk evaluation, if appropriate. The Contractor shall evaluate and provide recommendations regarding whether additional source control is needed or whether the plume, or portions of the plume, are amenable to natural attenuation by conducting source strength and plume stability evaluations as needed.

1.2.7.1.2 Conceptual Site Model

The Contractor shall develop a revised CSM in 3-D to include establishing or updating existing fate and transport models based on existing data and data gathered during the SSI. The CSM should cover the source area and the distal plume, to include the lateral and vertical extent of the contaminants in the context of geologic/hydrogeological parameters and the remedial actions conducted to date.

1.2.7.1.3 Groundwater Monitoring Program Update

The Contractor shall evaluate the current horizontal and vertical well distribution to determine if the following can be properly evaluated:

Remedy performance in treatment areas Hydrogeology, plume geometry, horizontal and vertical plume stability, and matrix diffusion across site Plume migration through use of perimeter/boundary wells and sentinel wells Based on the well network evaluation coordinated and approved by the Government and regulators (if required), the Contractor shall optimize the monitoring well network to include adjusting sample collection frequency and the addition of new wells as appropriate. The Contractor shall update the Basewide or Site-Specific Monitoring Plan or other equivalent document, as appropriate.

1.2.7.2 Remedy Evaluation and Recommendation

Based on all existing data and data gathered during the Advanced Site Characterization, the Contractor shall evaluate the existing active and/or passive remedy(ies)[footnoteRef:6],[footnoteRef:7],[footnoteRef:8]. The Contractor shall provide recommendations to augment, modify, and/or replace the existing remedy[footnoteRef:9]. The evaluation and recommendations will include a cost-benefit analysis and evaluation of the usability, expandability, and/or discontinued use of any existing infrastructure. All remedy recommendations must include a performance model addressing all COCs and breakdown products. Refer to Section 8.1.3.1, Performance Models. [6: USEPA. (2010). Best Management Practices.] [7: USEPA. (2014). Groundwater Remedy Completion Strategy.] [8: ITRC. (2006). Performance-Based Management.] [9: ITRC. (2010). Use and Measurement of Mass Flux and Mass Discharge.]

Where necessary to evaluate the proposed technology, the Contractor shall conduct pilot scale technology demonstrations. The Contractor shall identify appropriate remedial technologies and target zones, design/plan, conduct, and evaluate the pilot and/or field scale technology consistent with AF, regulatory, and ITRC guidance. The Contractor shall determine performance monitoring criteria and identify a control sub-site (current state) for comparison and to evaluate results.

In some instances, achievement of RC may not be feasible with currently available technologies within a reasonable timeframe. If this is the case, Contractor shall develop and evaluate alternatives for site management that will be protective of human health and the environment. If this recommendation is made, it must include the rationale, recommended target when active remediation can cease, and a strategy for obtaining regulatory approval.

1.2.7.2.1 Cost/Benefit Analysis

The Contractor shall provide a cost/benefit analysis for proposed alternatives. Alternatives may include optimizing the remedy in the DD or other remedies with the potential for better performance. All alternatives identified should be evaluated against one another to determine which alternative can achieve RC in the shortest time and has the lowest overall LCC. The cost/benefit analysis should include:

· A focused analysis of alternative approaches, to include conceptual designs and engineering cost estimates. The analysis should identify the total cost of executing the optimized remedy (including the plan and reports).

· An estimate of the reduction of LCC of each alternative evaluated.

· Any risk inherent in implementing the alternative optimized remedy.

· A summary comparison of the LCC and risk of each alternative in a cost/benefit analysis that clearly states the recommended alternative.

1.2.7.3 Decision Document Amendment

Based on the results of the remedy evaluation and recommendation, it may be necessary to amend the Decision Document to augment, modify, and/or replace the existing remedy. If warranted, the Contractor shall update the Decision Document.

Table 1 presents the POs, PPs, and Performance Standards associated with all installations/sites under this ORC. The PP specified in Table 1 starts from the Obligation Date of the first Sub-Contract Line Item Number (CLIN) for the site unless otherwise specified. All approvals (both Government and regulator) per the Performance Standard are required in writing. Additional scope discussion and limits can be found in Section 1.3.2.

Table 1: Performance Table

1) Draft PMP

2) Final PMP

3) Updates as necessary

The PMP should be maintained with accuracy and completeness based on the current technical approach for each site, management structure, etc.

Draft IMS/MPS within 90 calendar days from contract award, Final IMS/MPS within 21 calendar days of receipt of AF and USACE comments on the draft, and updates monthly throughout the POP

AF and USACE approval of IMS/MPS.

AF and USACE and Regulatory approval of Basewide QPP.

Joint Base Charleston-Air

DD540

(AOC P)

Underground Fuel Line Leak

FT003

(SWMU 55)

Fire Training Area No. 3 RA-O in accordance with the approved Statement of Basis, RCRA Permit and Reduce LCC

LTM in accordance with the approved Statement of Basis and RCRA Permit Through the duration of the POP

Through the duration of the POP AF, USACE, and Regulatory approval of RA-O documentation (e.g., Annual Groundwater and Surface Water Monitoring Reports, Corrective Measures Implementation Progress Reports, etc.)

AF, USACE, and Regulatory approval of LTM documentation (e.g., Annual Land Use Control Inspection Reports).

LF002

(SWMU 69)

Landfill No. 4

AF, USACE, and Regulatory approval of Groundwater Monitoring documentation (e.g., Annual Corrective Measures Implementation Progress Reports, Annual Groundwater Monitoring Reports, etc.)

LF004

(SWMU 66)

Landfill No. 1

AF, USACE, and Regulatory approval of Groundwater Monitoring documentation (e.g., Annual Corrective Measures Implementation Progress Reports, Annual Groundwater Monitoring Reports, etc.)

LF006

(SWMU 68) Landfill No. 3

AF, USACE, and Regulatory approval of Groundwater Monitoring documentation (e.g., Annual Corrective Measures Implementation Progress Reports, Annual Groundwater Monitoring Reports, etc.)

LF017

(SWMU 67) Landfill No. 2

AF, USACE, and Regulatory approval of Groundwater and Surface Water Monitoring documentation (e.g., Annual Corrective Measures Implementation Progress Reports, Annual Groundwater Monitoring Reports, etc.)

OT011

(SWMU 60) Hardfill Area No. 3

AF, USACE, and Regulatory approval of Groundwater Monitoring documentation (e.g., Annual Corrective Measures Implementation Progress Reports, Annual Groundwater Monitoring Reports, etc.)

OT012

(SWMU 58) Hardfill Area No. 1

AF, USACE, and Regulatory approval of Groundwater Monitoring documentation (e.g., Annual Corrective Measures Implementation Progress Reports, Annual Groundwater Monitoring Reports, etc.)

OT016

(SWMU 137) Zone 2 Entomology Shop Response Complete (RC)

Upon achievement of RC, continue Long Term Management (LTM) in accordance with the Statement of Basis and RCRA Permit

AF, USACE, and Regulatory approval of LTM documentation (e.g., Land Use Control Inspection Reports, Annual Corrective Measures Implementation Progress Report).

OW507

(SWMU 82) Bldg. 210 Oil/Water Separator

RW052

(SWMU 123)

Bldg. 548 Wash Rack/ Sand Trap/ OWS

RW532

(SWMU 118) Bldg. 371 Wash rack Response Complete (RC)

Upon achievement of RC, continue Long Term Management (LTM) in accordance with the Statement of Basis and RCRA Permit

AF, USACE, and Regulatory approval of LTM documentation (e.g., Land Use Control Inspection Reports and Groundwater Monitoring documentation, e.g., Annual Corrective Measures Implementation Progress Reports, Annual Groundwater Monitoring Reports, etc.)

SS042

(SWMU 149) Zone 4 TCE - Bldg. 543 – Bldg. 532

SS042

(SWMU 149) Zone 4 TCE - Bldg. 543 – Bldg. 532 Alternate Objectives:

1) Advanced Site Characterization (Supplemental Site Investigation (SSI), Revised Conceptual Site Model (CSM), and Recommended Monitoring Program Update)

2) Remedy Evaluation and Recommendation (including results of any pilot study)

3) Decision Document Amendment

AF and USACE approval of the remedy evaluation and recommended proposed remedial strategy including successful demonstration of the existing or alternate remedy (e.g., through pilot or field test) showing decreasing trends in COCs.

AF, USACE, and Regulatory approval of Permit Modifications or Stmt. Of Basis Amendments (i.e., Air Force, and Regulatory signatures on new Final Permits or new Decision Documents.)

ST027

(SWMU 145) Bldg. 575 JP-4 Leak

TS837

(AOC X)

Skeet Range 2 Response Complete (RC)

Upon achievement of RC, continue Long Term Management (LTM) in accordance with the Statement of Basis and RCRA Permit

AF, USACE, and Regulatory approval of LTM documentation (e.g., Land Use Control Inspection Reports).

TU522

(SWMU 101) Bldg. 210 Sand Trap

TU542

(AOC V) Shoppette

TU543

(SWMU 108) Bldg. 58 Abandoned Diesel Tank

TU544

(AOC T)

Bldg. 129

UST

Joint Base Charleston-Weapons

AB062

(SWMU 62) South Annex, Landfill 1st & A-B Avenue

AF, USACE, and Regulatory approval of Groundwater Monitoring documentation (e.g., Annual Corrective Measures Implementation Progress Reports, Annual Groundwater Monitoring Reports, etc.)

CG074

(SWMU 74)

South Annex Boiler Slag Pile

CS023

(SWMU 23) Old South Annex Sanitary Landfill

DA017

(SWMU 17)

Old Southside Missile & Waste Oil Disposal

DA017

(SWMU 17)

Old Southside Missile & Waste Oil Disposal

Alternate Objectives:

1) Advanced Site Characterization (Supplemental Site Investigation (SSI), Revised Conceptual Site Model (CSM), and Recommended Monitoring Program Update)

AF and USACE approval of the remedy evaluation and recommended proposed remedial strategy including successful demonstration of the existing or alternate remedy (e.g., through pilot or field test) showing decreasing trends in COCs.

AF, USACE, and Regulatory approval of Permit Modifications or Stmt. Of Basis Amendments (i.e., Air Force, and Regulatory signatures on new Final Permits or new Decision Documents.)

DA951

(AOC Q) Eastside Ordnance Area 1

ED17178B

(SWMU 81) Southside EOD Storage Area

FL066

(SWMU 66) South Annex Bldg. 3221 – Old Entomology

FL066

(SWMU 66) South Annex Bldg. 3221 – Old Entomology

Alternate Objectives:

1) Advanced Site Characterization (Supplemental Site Investigation (SSI), Revised Conceptual Site Model (CSM), and Recommended Monitoring Program Update)

AF and USACE approval of the remedy evaluation and recommended proposed remedial strategy including successful demonstration of the existing or alternate remedy (e.g., through pilot or field test) showing decreasing trends in COCs.

AF, USACE, and Regulatory approval of Permit Modifications or Stmt. Of Basis Amendments (i.e., Air Force, and Regulatory signatures on new Final Permits or new Decision Documents.)

FL073

(SWMU 73) South Annex Bldg. 3440 Battery Shop Response Complete (RC)

Upon achievement of RC, continue Long Term Management (LTM) in accordance with the Statement of Basis and RCRA Permit

ID068

(SWMU 68) South Annex Bldg. 3637 Response Complete (RC)

Upon achievement of RC, continue Long Term Management (LTM) in accordance with the Statement of Basis and RCRA Permit

LF003

(SWMU 3) Old Northside Landfill

AF, USACE, and Regulatory approval of Groundwater Monitoring documentation (e.g., Annual Corrective Measures Implementation Progress Reports, Annual Groundwater Monitoring Reports, etc.)

LF010

(SWMU 10) Bldg. 930 Area Former Waste OTTO Fuel S

AF, USACE, and Regulatory approval of Groundwater Monitoring documentation (e.g., Annual Corrective Measures Implementation Progress Reports, Annual Groundwater Monitoring Reports, etc.)

LF016

(SWMU 16) Old Southside Landfill

AF, USACE, and Regulatory approval of Groundwater Monitoring documentation (e.g., Annual Corrective Measures Implementation Progress Reports, Annual Groundwater Monitoring Reports, etc.)

MU17175A

(SWMU 79)

South Annex Marsh Dumping Area

SA036

(SWMU 36) Old Southside Hazardous Waste Storage Response Complete (RC)

Upon achievement of RC, continue Long Term Management (LTM) in accordance with the Statement of Basis and RCRA Permit

SS012

(SWMU 112) Former Southside Bldg. 88

SS012

(SWMU 112) Former Southside Bldg. 88

Alternate Objectives:

1) Advanced Site Characterization (Supplemental Site Investigation (SSI), Revised Conceptual Site Model (CSM), and Recommended Monitoring Program Update)

AF and USACE approval of the remedy evaluation and recommended proposed remedial strategy including successful demonstration of the existing or alternate remedy (e.g., through pilot or field test) showing decreasing trends in COCs.

AF, USACE, and Regulatory approval of Permit Modifications or Stmt. Of Basis Amendments (i.e., Air Force, and Regulatory signatures on new Final Permits or new Decision Documents.)

ST042

(AOC G) Southside WW Treatment Facility

ST042

(AOC G) Southside WW Treatment Facility Alternate Objectives:

1) Advanced Site Characterization (Supplemental Site Investigation (SSI), Revised Conceptual Site Model (CSM), and Recommended Monitoring Program Update)

AF and USACE approval of the remedy evaluation and…