Vandenberg SFB (FY24)_ORC Final PWS_v1.3.5 Revised 20230907 with AT-OPSEC.docx

Solicitation Number:

Solicitation Number:

PERFORMANCE WORK STATEMENT

FOR

OPTIMIZED REMEDIATION CONTRACT

AT

VANDENBERG SPACE FORCE BASE, California

CONTRACT NUMBER:

18 AUGUST 2023

Contents

1.0 SCOPE

This requirement is for environmental remediation activities at Vandenberg Space Force Base (SFB). 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 34 Installation Restoration Program (IRP) sites and 28 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

Vandenberg SFB covers approximately 100,000 acres along the central coast of California. It began as a World War II Army Camp in 1943; however, the current Space Force mission is military/commercial space launches. Neither Vandenberg SFB as a whole, nor any of its sites, is on the National Priorities List (NPL). Regulatory oversight is provided through a Federal Facility Site Remediation Agreement (FFSRA) with California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) and the Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). There is also involvement with California Department of Fish and Wildlife Services (CADFWS) and US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) as stakeholders. Underground storage tanks are remediated pursuant to the Santa Barbara County Leaking Underground Fuel Tank (LUFT) regulations along with the Low-Threat Underground Storage Tank (UST) Policy for total petroleum hydrocarbon (TPH) sites the State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board) adopted on May 1, 2012. This policy establishes several scenarios accounting for both general and media-specific criteria (groundwater, soil, and soil vapor) that ensures the protection of human health, safety and the environment pursuant to Health and Safety Code section 25296.10. Vandenberg SFB utilizes a base-wide groundwater monitoring program (BGMP) which includes monitoring and sampling once contamination has been demonstrated at a site. The Base obtains concurrence with the State stakeholders on a quarterly basis regarding BGMP monitoring scope and schedule.

Remediation activities at Vandenberg SFB are being conducted pursuant to the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), as amended by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA). Regulatory oversight is provided by the RWQCB, DTSC, CADFWS, and the DTSC Human and Ecological Risk Office (HERO).

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 – Administrative Record Spreadsheet Enclosure 2B – GFI CD Enclosure 3 – Government Furnished Property (GFP) Enclosure 4 – Community Involvement Plan (CIP) Guidance 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 ESDs or DD amendments, if required, to implement the remedial approach. This scope includes all known contaminants linked to the specific sites per Table 1 of the PWS (includes contaminants on, under, or sourced at/migrating from the specific sites) without regard to quantity (e.g., plume size, concentrations). See reference to Section 1.3.2.k of this PWS for exclusions. 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 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

NOT APPLICABLE

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.

Existing decision documents do not negate the need to install new assets (e.g., monitoring wells, treatment wells, soil vapor monitoring points, injection points, or infrastructure, etc.) required to maintain or enhance the remedy and/or to improve site characterization.

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.

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 Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR). Upon approval by the AF and the 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.

Vandenberg SFB

Upon achievement of RIP, continue RA-O with optimization in accordance with the ROD/DD throughout the duration of the POP

AF, USACE, and regulatory approval of RA-O documentation (e.g., Groundwater Monitoring Reports, System Operation Reports etc.).

RA-O with optimization in accordance with the ROD/DD throughout the duration of the POP Five (5) years

AF, USACE, and regulatory approval of RACCR.

AF, USACE, and regulatory approval of RA-O documentation (e.g., Groundwater Monitoring Reports, System Operation Reports etc.).

MU803A

Upon achievement of RIP, continue RA-O with optimization in accordance with the ROD/DD throughout the duration of the POP

AF, USACE, and regulatory approval of RA-O documentation (e.g., Groundwater Monitoring Reports, System Operation Reports etc.).

Upon achievement of RIP, continue RA-O with optimization in accordance with the ROD/DD throughout the duration of the POP

AF, USACE, and regulatory approval of RA-O documentation (e.g., Groundwater Monitoring Reports, System Operation Reports etc.).

Upon achievement of RC, continue Long Term Management (LTM) in accordance with the ROD/DD throughout the duration of the POP

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

Upon achievement of RIP, continue RA-O with optimization in accordance with the ROD/DD throughout the duration of the POP

AF, USACE, and regulatory approval of RA-O documentation (e.g., Groundwater Monitoring Reports, System Operation Reports etc.).

Upon achievement of RIP, continue RA-O with optimization in accordance with the ROD/DD throughout the duration of the POP

AF, USACE, and regulatory approval of RA-O documentation (e.g., Groundwater Monitoring Reports, System Operation Reports etc.).

Upon achievement of RIP, continue RA-O with optimization in accordance with the ROD/DD throughout the duration of the POP

AF, USACE, and regulatory approval of RA-O documentation (e.g., Groundwater Monitoring Reports, System Operation Reports etc.).

Upon achievement of RIP, continue RA-O with optimization in accordance with the ROD/DD throughout the duration of the POP

AF, USACE, and regulatory approval of RA-O documentation (e.g., Groundwater Monitoring Reports, System Operation Reports etc.).

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 ESD or ROD Amendment (i.e., Air Force and regulatory signatures on Final ESD or ROD Amendment).

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 ESD or ROD Amendment (i.e., Air Force and regulatory signatures on Final ESD or ROD Amendment).

Upon achievement of RIP, continue RA-O with optimization in accordance with the ROD/DD throughout the duration of the POP

AF, USACE, and regulatory approval of RA-O documentation (e.g., Groundwater Monitoring Reports, System Operation Reports etc.).

Upon achievement of RC, continue Long Term Management (LTM) in accordance with the ROD/DD throughout the duration of the POP

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

Upon achievement of RIP, continue RA-O with optimization in accordance with the ROD/DD throughout the duration of the POP Seven (7) years RA-O Through the duration of the POP

AF, USACE, and regulatory approval of RIP (e.g., Construction Completion Report and first RA-O Report demonstrating remedy is operating properly and successfully).

AF, USACE, and regulatory approval of RA-O documentation (e.g., Groundwater Monitoring Reports, System Operation Reports etc.).

Upon achievement of RIP, continue RA-O with optimization in accordance with the ROD/DD throughout the duration of the POP

AF, USACE, and regulatory approval of RA-O documentation (e.g., Groundwater Monitoring Reports, System Operation Reports etc.).

Upon achievement of RIP, continue RA-O with optimization in accordance with the ROD/DD throughout the duration of the POP

AF, USACE, and regulatory approval of RA-O documentation (e.g., Groundwater Monitoring Reports, System Operation Reports etc.).

Upon achievement of RC, continue Long Term Management (LTM) in accordance with the ROD/DD throughout the duration of the POP

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

Upon achievement of RIP, continue RA-O with optimization in accordance with the ROD/DD throughout the duration of the POP

AF, USACE, and regulatory approval of RA-O documentation (e.g., Groundwater Monitoring Reports, System Operation Reports etc.).

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 ESD or ROD Amendment (i.e., Air Force and regulatory signatures on Final ESD or ROD Amendment).

Upon achievement of RC, continue Long Term Management (LTM) in accordance with the ROD/DD throughout the duration of the POP

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

1.3.2 Additional Scope Discussion and Limits

In addition to the requirements identified in Table 1, the Contractor shall be responsible for:

1. Operations and Maintenance (O&M) of all remediation equipment to include all wells associated with requirements in this PWS and proper well destruction with AF, USACE, and regulatory approval (if required) when the well is no longer necessary.

1. Establishing a quality control/quality process to ensure documents are of an acceptable quality and do not contain typos, formatting issues, contradictory information in tables and text, etc.

b. Contaminants for which there are promulgated federal, state, or local standards.

c. AFCEC may determine that clean-up needs to be accomplished at a particular site at which PFAS is present, when there is a promulgated standard in that state that is approved for use as a promulgated Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements (ARAR) standard. These determinations may cause additional sites, or additional work related to existing sites, to be added to the contract via modification.

d. 1,4-Dioxane investigations shall be conducted as described in “Interim Air Force Guidance on Sampling and Response Actions for 1,4-Dioxane at Operational and [Base Realignment and Closure] BRAC Installations,” dated 24 May 2013.

Sites CG147, SA228, SD024, and TU077 are in Step 3 of the investigation process, and 1,4-Dioxane shall be included and managed along with the sites’ other contaminants of concern.

The Air Force and Department of Defense (DoD) do not have current guidance on management and disposal of investigation-derived waste (IDW) media associated with PFAS. Until formal guidance is established, the Contractor should manage IDW as non-hazardous waste and to go to the closest Type D landfill that will accept the waste, unless there is a less expensive Type C landfill option available. The following sites are validated PFAS sites; FT021P-SUB, SS292P, SS306P, SS409P, and SS518P. Comment by GERBER, KATHLEEN S CIV USAF AFCEC AFCEC/CZO: This section is incorrect as you are referencing RESCINDED Guidance.

I tried to track down this guidance through the EC Group and could only find the AFGM 219-31-01 and that this guidance was marked RESCINDED. So I contacted Cindy Cash and she says there are no current AF or DoD guidance on IDW. The EPA is working on a guidance but it is not due to be out in draft near the end of 2023. In the mean time IDW can be handled as non-Hazardous and go to the closes Type D landfill with a liner, or to a closer Type C landfill if that option is cheaper. Comment by GERBER, KATHLEEN S CIV USAF AFCEC AFCEC/CZO: Please update with the interim guidance that came out July 11, 2023.

e. Ensuring that remedial actions do not negatively impact the distribution of any other contaminants and/or emerging contaminants (e.g., PFAS, 1,4-dioxane).

Quarterly updates of the Basewide Well Monitoring Program Schedule including optimization, justification of proposed sampling changes, well inventory, inspections and repairs, and decommissioning for all wells. Provided in Microsoft Excel spreadsheets.

Quarterly validated analytical monitoring data (groundwater and soil vapor) and groundwater elevation tables in Microsoft Excel spreadsheets.

Remediation of sites that are within MMRP Military Response Sites (MRSs) that potentially have unexploded ordinance (UXO), discarded military munitions (DMMs), and/or munitions constituents (MCs). Any surface disturbance at these sites requires an UXO monitor to clear the location and or a munitions plan to support a construction effort or removal action. This applies to Sites LF020, SD015, SD025, SD032, SS004, WP005, WP008, and WP013.

The Contractor shall NOT be responsible for:

f. Reasonably unanticipated contaminants at sites identified in Table 1 (e.g., previously undetected mercury within a TCE plume);…