ERS49MSection J_Oct2020 AM0001.pdf

Section J - List of Documents, Exhibits and Other Attachments

ATTACHMENTS

SECTION J- ATTACHMENT 1

PRICE SPREAD SHEET

Section J- Attachment PriceCost Spreadsheet

A. Home Office Personnel Fully Burdened Binding Capped Labor Rate (Hourly)

Units Quantity (plugged number)

Subtotal

Program Manager Hrs. 60 $

Project Manager Hrs. 220 $

Senior Contract Manager Hrs. 80 $

Procurement Specialist Hrs. 140 $

Safety and Health Manager (SHM)/Certified Industrial Hygienist

(CIH)

Hrs. 100 $

Clerical Hrs. 100 $

Total Section A- Home Office Personnel $

B. Field Office Personnel Fully Burdened Binding Capped Labor Rate (Hourly)

Units Quantity Subtotal

Site Superintendent/ On-Site Supervisor

Hrs. 170 $

Environmental Engineer Hrs. 170 $

Chemist Hrs. 150 $

Site & Safety Health Officer Hrs. 170 $

Contractor Quality Control Supervisor

Hrs. 170 $

Regulatory Specialist Hrs. 170 $

Hazardous Waste/Transportation Specialist

Hrs. 170 $

Process Engineer Hrs. 110 $

Total Section B- Field Office Personnel $

Attachment No. Description

Cost Price Spread Sheet

2 Chemistry Supplement to the Scope of Services (Note: This Supplement Scope of Services may be modified at a task order level.)

3 Health and Safety Supplement to the Scope of Services (Note: This Supplement Scope of Services may be modified at a task order level.)

4 Geology Supplement to the Scope of Services (Note: This Supplement Scope of Services may be modified at a task order level.)

5 PFAS Supplement to the Scope of Services (Note: This Supplement Scope of Services may be modified at a task order level.)

6 Resume Template

C. Other Direct Costs Units Quantity Subtotal

Materials, supplies, equipment, and other ODCs (plugged number)

Each 15,000.00 $

Markup Rate (Base Period Year 1)

Markup Amount (Base Period Year 1) $

Subtotal

Subcontract effort (plugged number) Each 125,000.00

Markup Rate (Base Period Year 1)

Markup Amount (Base Period Year 1) $

Subtotal $

Total Section C $

Total Estimated Cost (A+B+C)

Total Estimated Cost $

*Note: The fully burdened labor rate for each labor discipline should match the actual labor rates paid for each labor discipline with the applied fringes, overhead and G&A found in the Section B, Table 1. The overhead, G&A and other indirect costs should match the percentages found in Section B, Table 4. Please fill out the excel Price Spreadsheet provided and ensure your formulas are viewable.

SECTION J- ATTACHMENT 2

UNITED STATES ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS OMAHA DISTRICT (CENWO)

CHEMISTRY INSTRUCTIONS FOR SCOPES OF SERVICES FOR CONTRACTED ENVIRONMENTAL

STUDIES

May 2019

LIST OF ACRONYMS

AGC Advanced Geophysical Classification ANSI American National Standards Institute ASQ American Society for Quality CENWO United States Army Corps of Engineers Northwestern Division Omaha District CERCLA Comprehensive, Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act COPC Contaminant of Potential Concern CSM Conceptual Site Model DERP Defense Environmental Restoration Program DL Detection Limit DoD Department of Defense DoDI Department of Defense Instruction DOE Department of Energy DQCR Daily Quality Control Report DQO Data Quality Objective EDD Electronic Data Deliverable ELAP Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Program ERPIMS Environmental Resources Program Information Management Systems FUDS Formerly Used Defense Sites IDQTF Intergovernmental Data Quality Task Force IEC International Electrotechnical Commission ISO International Organization for Standardization

LOD Limit of Detection LOQ Limit of Quantitation MARLAP Multi-Agency Radiological Laboratory Analytical Protocols MFR Memorandum For Record NCP National Contingency Plan NELAP National Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Program OSD Office of Secretary of Defense PDT Project Delivery Team PFAS per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances PT Proficiency Testing (sample) QA Quality Assurance QC Quality Control QSM Quality Systems Manual RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act SEDD Staged Electronic Data Deliverable SOP Standard Operating Procedure SOS Scope of Services UFP-QAPP Uniform Federal Policy for Quality Assurance Project Plan U.S. United States USACE United States Army Corps of Engineers USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency

1 Introduction to Chemistry Scope of Services

1.1 Purpose and Applicability

The Chemistry Scope of Services (SOS) is a supplement to contractual actions requiring collection, management, and use of environmental data. It complies with Section 515(a) of Public Law 106-554 (the Data Integrity Act) as implemented by the Office of Secretary of Defense (OSD) Memorandum, Ensuring Quality Information Disseminated to the Public by the Department of Defense, February, 2003, and requirements of Department of Defense (DoD) Instruction (DoDI) 4715.15, Environmental Quality Systems, dated December 11, 2006, and revised July 8, 2019. The Chemistry SOS requirements are established to improve continuity in data among DoD components; provide a fair open competition among commercial laboratories and environmental professionals; and promote the collection of data of known, legally defensible, and documentable quality, suitable for their intended uses.

The requirements established herein are applicable to the execution of projects within the environmental programs, including the Defense Environmental Restoration Program (DERP). This SOS applies to DoD operations, activities, and installations, including Government-owned/Contractor-operated facilities and Formerly Used Defense Sites (FUDS). Requirements apply to Government personnel, as well as Contractors, and any subcontractors working on behalf of United States (U.S.) Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), and are contractually binding. All work shall be performed in accordance with the Chemistry SOS, unless otherwise specified in the Site-specific SOS. If there are any differences between this Chemistry SOS and the Site-specific SOS, execution shall follow Site-specific instructions. Site-specific instructions should be well documented along with any justifications for variance.

1.2 Compliance with Federal and State Environmental Regulations, and other non-DoD Programs

The majority of environmental work falls under the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) environmental regulations covered by the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) 42 U.S. Code 103, the National Contingency Plan (NCP) 40 Code of Federal Regulations Part 300, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), or other State-level programs. As such, each project’s lead regulatory agency must be identified, and any special certification or other unique requirements be firmly established. Work for non-DoD customers may apply to any or all parts of this SOS, or defer to project specific requirements.

2 Project Planning and Documentation

2.1 Quality Systems and Systematic Planning

The Contractor shall develop project specific Data Quality Objectives (DQOs) consistent with the project’s requirements and designed to ensure data of adequate quality are collected to support project decisions. DQOs shall be developed in consensus with the project team and in accordance with the DoD established policy for environmental quality systems in DoD 4715.15.RR-M-2, Uniform Federal Policy for Implementing Environmental Quality Systems, to improve the planning, collection, and use of environmental data. This guidance establishes consistency with American National Standards Institute (ANSI)/American Society for Quality (ASQ) Standard E4 and the International Organization for Standardization (ISO)/International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) standard 17025. The Uniform Federal Policy for Quality Assurance Project Plan (UFP-QAPP) manual was created by the Intergovernmental Data Quality Task Force (IDQTF), which is composed of the USEPA, DoD, and Department of Energy (DOE) personnel. It is based on ANSI/ASQ E-4 Section 6 (Part B) and complies with EPA QA/R-5 and QA/G-5.

In order to obtain data of sufficient quality to satisfy DQOs for legally-defensible data, the USEPA, and/or state regulators require the preparation of appropriate planning documents for all environmental measurements that will be used for environmental regulatory compliance. The Contractor is responsible for preparing the appropriate planning document that complies with the USEPA or other lead regulatory agency regulations, USACE guidance, the DoD Quality Systems Manual (QSM), and USEPA guidance.

The UFP-QAPP is the required format for all quality assurance (QA) planning documentation deliverables as outlined in the DoDI 4715.15, and satisfies all CERCLA and RCRA requirements for investigative purposes. The UFP-QAPP combines the work plan, the field sampling plan, and the quality assurance project plan into one uniformed standard format. The UFP-QAPP manual and instructions can be found at USEPA, IDQTF, Uniform Federal Policy for Implementing Environmental Quality Systems:

Evaluating, Assessing, and Documenting Environmental Data Collection/Use and Technology Programs, Final, Version 2, March 2005. The optimized UFP-QAPP worksheets recommended for use can be found at USEPA, IDQTF, Optimized Uniform Federal Policy for Quality Assurance Project Plans Worksheets, March 2012 or USEPA, IDQTF, Uniform Federal Policy for Quality Assurance Project Plans, Munitions Response QAPP Toolkit, December 2018 for Military Munitions Response Program (MMRP) projects, as applicable, or USEPA, IDQTF, Uniform Federal Policy for Quality Assurance Project Plans, Advanced Geophysical Classification for Munitions Response (AGC-QAPP), March 2016 for MMRP projects requiring AGC.

The UFP-QAPP integrates technical and quality control (QC) aspects of a project including planning, DQOs, implementation, assessment, and corrective action. The UFP-QAPP must provide information in sufficient detail regarding sample design, sample types, sample locations, interpretation scenarios, any field contingencies, sampling methodologies, and other sample handling techniques to collect data that meet the project objectives. All field tasks, including geological activities such as number of data points, grid, and placement; well design and installation; well abandonment; soil boring logging; field measurements; and surveying must be included. Please reference the Geology SOS for CENWO geology requirements. Specifics on detection and reporting limits of analytics used to support decisions, analytical methods, sample collection methods, field decision logic, data handling, application to the Conceptual Site Model (CSM), QC practices, data submittals, and CSM updating activities must also be addressed. Data management strategies must be established within the UFP-QAPP, and appropriately handled during fieldwork to ensure that all data generated are made available to any stakeholders, decision-makers, and personnel involved in the work or near real-time decision-making. The UFP- QAPP also describes the organization and QA objectives for field sampling and laboratory efforts, and any evaluation and interpretation of the data before their use. Please reference the per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) SOS for CENWO PFAS requirements.

All procedures and activities including, but not limited to, those required for the acquisition of data shall be presented in the UFP-QAPP for approval by the USACE Project Delivery Team (PDT), state representatives, and USEPA authorities, as necessary, prior to the initiation of any fieldwork. UFP- QAPP provides project-level guidance for implementing the systematic planning process including:

project management and objectives; measurement, field tasks, and data acquisition; assessment and oversight; data review; and data usability. The UFP-QAPP is intended to be a living document and should be designed such that page changes may be provided to update the document. Modifications shall go through the appropriate approval process, prior to implementation. Any variances from the UFP- QAPP format must be approved by the COR and documented in the project file.

It is highly recommended that an initial scoping session be held as soon as possible after award to discuss approaches and initial planning steps (Basewide or Facility UFP-QAPP with Site-specific Addenda, stand-alone Site-specific UFP-QAPP, etc.) prior to beginning any document writing. It is best to have all possible Stakeholders present to allow for better consensus on approaches and requirements.

2.2 Contractor’s Chemist’s Role in Project Delivery Team

The Contractor Project Chemist shall accomplish the objectives of the project, including planning appropriate data needs, and more specifically the scope of testing such as matrices, methods, target analytes, and measurement quality objectives. The Project Chemist also performs oversight of the laboratory’s scope of accreditation to ensure it meets project requirements and Measurement Performance Criteria. Other chemistry support roles include execution/oversight of field activities; data generation, data review, data validation, and data interpretation responsibilities; and identification of nonconformance issues and monitoring of corrective actions as necessary. The Contractor’s Chemist shall notify the USACE Project Chemist of any sample collection issues, laboratory issues or data quality issues as soon as the Contractor’s Chemist becomes aware of the issue. The Contractor/subcontractor team shall clearly define the program and Project Chemists’ involvement on all applicable project activities. General guidelines are provided in OSD memorandum, Acquisitions Involving Environmental Sampling or Testing Services, December 2007.

2.3 Environmental Laboratory and Analytical Testing

All laboratory services shall be conducted in accordance with the approved project QAPP. Samples shall not be submitted for analysis until the QAPP is approved by USACE and other stakeholders, as applicable. The laboratories shall perform QC requirements, as specified in the project QAPP. The analytical capabilities of the laboratory shall be sufficient for the methods specified in the QAPP, and the laboratory shall have sufficient through-put capacity to handle the necessary analytical work-load during all field activities. Laboratories performing environmental testing in support of DERP are required to be accredited per OSD memorandum, DoD Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Program (ELAP), December 2008. DoD ELAP accreditation is open to all environmental laboratories that can demonstrate conformance with the DoD QSM via inspection by a third party accreditation body. Proposed environmental laboratories shall follow, at a minimum, the most recent version of the DoD QSM for Environmental Laboratories. The DoD QSM was adopted into DoD policy guidance as DoDI 4715.15.RR-M-1, and is available at www.denix.osd.mil. The recommendation for acceptability of an environmental laboratory and any project-specific variances from the DoD QSM will be at the discretion of the USACE Project Chemist. A variance may be allowed if the laboratory’s most recent ELAP accreditation is based on the previous version of the DoD QSM and the current accreditation cycle has not been completed since the release of the most recent version of the DoD QSM. If a laboratory fails to meet the DoD QSM or project-specific requirements at any time, the USACE Project Chemist may request the use of the laboratory be discontinued and replacement analytical services be procured from a laboratory which can meet these requirements. In addition, specific state requirements for laboratory accreditation must be met, including National Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Program (NELAP) accreditation. Any subcontracted laboratories must meet all project requirements included in this SOS. The USACE may request certification, verification, and evaluation data from the laboratory at any time. These items include, but are not limited to DoD ELAP certification, NELAP certification, limit of detection (LOD) verification, limit of quantitation (LOQ) verification, and performance evaluation results.

Per the UFP-QAPP, “definitive data” is defined as analytical data that are suitable for final decision-making. Project-specific contaminants of potential concern (COPCs) must be clearly identified.

Additionally, the acceptance criteria for calibration standards, laboratory control samples, and project QC samples must be defined and strictly enforced for the COPCs or other contaminants of interest.

2.4 Data Management Procedures

The data management system covers capture and management of field data, lab data, data quality assessment, data interpretation, and waste profiles and manifests into a CSM for final decision-making or use. The data management system will include, but not be limited to, final archive storage and any data sharing platforms such as ftp sites or password-protected project websites. Documentation shall follow DoD standard record-keepingpractices, standard document control systems, and electronic data managementsystems. Details are presented as flow diagrams for a conceptual overview of the data management scheme, including various organizations’ coordination, execution, and release. In order to effectively and cost efficiently manage analytical data, all contracts require definitive analytical data to be captured electronically and be evaluated by experienced environmental professionals using automated and manual data review tools. These procedures must be captured in the UFP-QAPP and approved by all stakeholders.

Once specific projects are awarded, each project must prepare an electronic project library. The project library shall include all of the project-specific objectives in the form of measurement performance criteria for definitive data management. Default performance criteria are established within the DoD QSM for several analytical parameters in water and solid matrices. Modifications to widen or tighten criteria will be at the discretion of the USACE Project Chemist and be fully justified as a variance in a Memorandum for Record (MFR). Details to be included in the project library are the analytical methods, the matrices sampled, the target analytes reported, Detection Limits (DL), LOD, LOQ, associated precision and accuracy limits for method QC samples, and all method-specific criteria for investigative and investigation-derived waste data.

3 Assessment/Oversight

3.1 Onsite Assessments and Corrective Actions

The Contractor and any subcontractors shall be responsible for performing QC oversight of the field-sampling efforts, overseeing the Contractor laboratory performance and results, and proposing and implementing a system to improve overall effectiveness. These QC assessment activities shall be identified and discussed in the UFP-QAPP. Routinely, these activities ensure that the provisions of the UFP-QAPP are followed from the start through completion of the project, substantiate project objectives or performance-based milestones are met, and ensure payment is authorized. Acceptance criteria and contingencies are presented for each assessment activity and submitted to the Government for review and approval according to project schedule. All planned performance audits for measurement systems or field-activities and proficiency testing (PT) samples, if any, shall be identified and their frequency and reporting defined. As part of the QC assessment and oversight requirements, the Contractor shall propose solutions to any laboratory or field sampling problems that arise. Analytical problems that the laboratory and the Contractor cannot resolve shall be brought to the attention of the Contractor’s project manager, the COR, and the PDT as needed for resolution. For fieldwork, this includes supervising field sampling teams, performing field audits, and reviewing logbooks periodically to ensure the sampling standard operating procedures (SOPs) are being correctly executed. This secondary review of field and laboratory data ensures equipment is correctly calibrated and used in accordance with the approved UFP-

QAPP.

3.2 Data Assessment and Usability Activities – Data Verification and Validation

The Contractor shall be responsible for assessing the environmental data’s quality by performing full data verification and validation against criteria established within the analytical method, DoD QSM, project-specific DQOs, and as documented in the UFP-QAPP and electronic project library. The data assessment process applies to all data, regardless of whether the data are generated in the field or at a subcontract laboratory. The level of the data assessment required is dictated by the data’s intended use.

Data verification procedures evaluate the testing results compliance with the acceptance criteria established within the USEPA method (or other standard method), criteria in the most recent version of the DoD QSM, and/or project-specific DQOs. Full data verification is performed by evaluating documentation from sampling logs, sample shipment records, the sample’s condition upon receipt at the lab and through the analytical process (analytical instrument’s calibration, calibration verification, and all instrument performance checks), as well as the various method QC samples.

After data verification, the data are validated by the Contractor Project Chemist to determine if there is any impact to the integrity of the data or their usability. The minimum acceptable level of data validation for all data is Stage 2B as defined by USEPA Guidance for Labeling Externally Validated Laboratory Analytical Data for Superfund Use and the DoD General Data Validation Guidelines, and shall include validation of all items in the relevant DoD QSM, Appendix B, Quality Control requirement tables, and Appendix C, Laboratory Control Sample Control Limits and Requirements. Higher stages of data validation may be required depending on the data’s intended use. Higher level of data validation required shall be defined in the performance work statement.

Data verification and validation procedures shall be detailed within the UFP-QAPP per EPA QA/G-8, Guidance on Environmental Data Verification and Data Validation. Data validation procedures apply decision logic and qualifiers, as necessary. Routinely, data validation procedures follow the most recent version of the DoD General Data Validation Guidelines and any current releases of DoD validation guidelines as found at https://www.denix.osd.mil/edqw/documents/ or the USEPA National Functional Guidelines. These may be modified as appropriate, or the use of other project-specific protocols may be warranted. Multi-Agency Radiological Laboratory Analytical Protocols (MARLAP) shall be used for radiological parameters. Data assessment qualifiers must be clearly defined and documented along with the basis for the data qualification. It is also important to clearly present data assessment qualifiers separate from any qualifiers applied initially to the data by the laboratory to avoid confusion. For all X-or Q-flagged data, the Contractor team, including the project chemist, shall engage the entire USACE PDT to determine acceptance or rejection of the data. Calculations for precision, accuracy, representativeness, comparability, and completeness are required. Data representativeness may be evaluated within a context of general continuity with historic results, or within the spatial realm of a

CSM.

Several options are available for software that performs verification of batch method QC samples for a variety of analytical parameters; it may not capture or assess certain sample, instrument batch-specific, or method calibration data, however. Manual review of the method-specific calibration, calibration verification, and instrument performance checks are still mandatory, and shall be required to fully verify/validate the data’s compliance with USEPA methods, the DoD QSM, and project-specific criteria.

Any aspects not reviewed by automated software, but required by DoD QSM current version, Appendix

B, will be manually verified and validated by the Contractor’s Project Chemist to augment the automated data validation. The results of the data assessment including data qualifiers applied as interpreted by a chemist at validation shall be summarized in the Data Quality Control Summary Report/Data Validation Report. The Data Validation Report is routinely an appendix to the report or other construction completion submittals to address QC practices and conditions of the sampling and analyses, and summarize any potential impact to the data’s usability. Support for specific programs may also mandate the submission of chemical and/or sampling data in electronic formats for archival / retrieval within an agency-specific database systems. For FUDS projects, automated and manual data validation, as well as data usability assessments, must be performed in the FUDSChem system. Please reference the FUDSChem SOS for CENWO FUDSChem requirements.

4 Data Deliverables, Forms, and Reports

4.1 Daily Quality Control Report and Cooler Receipt Forms

During the field investigation activities, Daily Quality Control Reports (DQCRs) shall be submitted to the Government at the frequency defined in the UFP-QAPP. Should problems arise, the Contractor shall notify the Government immediately. DQCRs are routinely submitted weekly by electronic mail, fax or express mail; or on a daily basis or greater frequency when problems have triggered corrective actions.

The government may also elect to require periodic submission of Cooler Receipt Forms. These documents are required by the DoD QSM and can be requested on an as-needed basis or periodically to confirm the acceptability of critical samples’ condition upon receipt at the lab.

4.2 Data Deliverables

All data shall be submitted as an electronic data deliverable (EDD) in the required unique EDD format(s) for the DoD component(s) or non-DoD customers. The USACE prefers to receive all electronic data in an excel format. All FUDS projects require the use of FUDSChem. Please reference the FUDSChem SOS for CENWO FUDSChem requirements. The Contractor should assume that Air Force Projects will require an Environmental Resources Program Information Management Systems (ERPIMS) database format submission. Contractors shall coordinate data submission requirements with the USACE Project Chemist to ensure all required data are captured and submitted accordingly. Specific EDD requirements shall be developed for each specific contract or task order. Hard copy (PDF) reports must be compliant with a Stage 4 Laboratory Data Deliverable as described in the DoD General Data Validation Guidelines for all method quality objectives required by the DoD QSM that might need to be validated.

The electronically and manually reviewed results, including the EDD submissions, are considered to be part of the analytical data package. Failure to meet deliverable deadlines will be considered a failure to meet appropriate standards of project performance. The final data set should reflect the full complement of qualifiers and corrections that result from the dialogue between the Contractor, the Government, and other Stakeholders.

5 References

ANSI/ASQ E4. Quality Systems for Environmental Data and Technology Programs – Requirements with guidance for use.

Department of Defense (DoD). 2005. Directive 4715.1E. Environment, Safety, and Occupational Health. 19 March 2005.

DOD. 2018. Instruction (DoDI) 4715.15, Environmental Quality Systems. 11 December 2006. 31 August 2018.

08 July 2019

DoD. 2019. 4715.RR-M-1, Department of Defense Quality Systems Manual for Environmental Laboratories, Version 5.3, (Based on ISO/IEC 17025:2005(E), ISO/IEC 17025:2017(E) and the NELAC Institute (TNI) Standard, Volume 1, September 2009. 7 May 2019.

DoD. 2019. General Data Validation Guidelines, Revision 1. 16 September 2019

DoD. 2020. Data Validation Guidelines Module 1: Data Validation Procedure for Organic Analysis by GC/MS.

11 May 2020.

DoD. 2020. Data Validation Guidelines Module 2: Data Validation Procedure for Metals by ICP-OES. 11 May 2020.

DoD. 2020. Data Validation Guidelines Module 3. Data Validation Procedure for Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances Analysis by QSM Table B-15. 01 May 2020.

DoD. 2005. 4715.RR-M-2, Uniform Federal Policy for Implementing Environmental Quality Systems - Evaluating, Assessing, and Documenting Environmental Data Collection/Use and Technology Programs, Final Version. 2 March 2005.

DoD. 2012. 4715.RR-M-3, Uniform Federal Policy for Quality Assurance Project Plans, Optimized UFP-QAPP Worksheets. March 2012.

ISO/IEC 17025. General Requirements for the Competence of Testing and Calibration Laboratories.

Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD). 2007. Memorandum, Acquisitions Involving Environmental Sampling or Testing Services. 4 December 2007.

OSD. 2008. Memorandum, DOD Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Program (ELAP). 24 December 2008.

OSD. 2003. Memorandum, Ensuring the Quality of Information Disseminated to the Public by the Department of Defense. 10 February 2003.

OSD. 2006. Memorandum, Uniform Federal Policy for Quality Assurance Project Plans. 11 April 2006.

Staged Electronic Data Deliverable (SEDD) https://www.epa.gov/clp/staged-electronic-data-deliverable-sedd

USACE. 2006. Hazardous, Toxic, and Radioactive Waste Center of Expertise Memorandum, DoD/Army/USACE Implementation of the Uniform Federal Policy for Quality Assurance Project Plans, Attachment: DOD Instruction 4715.15. 8 January 2007.

USEPA. 2001. EPA Requirements for Quality Assurance Project Plans, EPA QA/R-5. March.

USEPA. 2002. Guidance on Environmental Data Verification and Data Validation, EPA QA/G-8. November.

USEPA. 2009. Guidance for Labeling Externally Validated Laboratory Analytical Data for Superfund Use, EPA 540-R-08-005. 13 January 2009.

USEPA. 2002. Guidance for Quality Assurance Project Plans, EPA QA/G-5. December.

USEPA. 2017. Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation, National Functional Guidelines for Inorganic Superfund Methods Data Review, OLEM 9355.0-135,EPA-540-R-2017-001. January.

USEPA. 2017. Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation, National Functional Guidelines for Organic Superfund Methods Data Review, OLEM 9355.0-136, EPA-540-R-2017. January.

USEPA. 2005. Uniform Federal Policy for Implementing Environmental Quality Systems - Evaluating, Assessing, and Documenting Environmental Data Collection/Use and Technology Programs, Final Version. 2 March 2005.

USEPA. 2012. Uniform Federal Policy for Quality Assurance Project Plans, Optimized UFP-QAPP Worksheets. March 2012.

USEPA. 2016. Uniform Federal Policy for Quality Assurance Project Plans, Advanced Geophysical Classification for Munitions Response (AGC-QAPP), Version 1.0. March 2016.

USEPA. 2018. Uniform Federal Policy for Quality Assurance Project Plans, Munitions Response QAPP Toolkit. December 2018.

SECTION J- ATTACHMENT3

HEALTH AND SAFETY REQUIREMENTS

April 2019

1. General The Contractor shall review all available site information and develop the necessary documents containing health and safety criteria, procedures, and work practices sufficient to protect on-site personnel, the environment, and potential off-site receptors from hazards particular to each site. The Contractor shall utilize the services of qualified personnel to oversee the development and implementation of required safety and health documents.

2. Health and Safety Regulatory Requirements All site investigation, construction, monitoring, and operations and maintenance activities and health and safety documents required by this scope of work shall be in compliance with all applicable guidance and regulations, including but not limited to, the following:

2.1 Federal Acquisition Regulation, F.A.R. Clause 52.236-13: Accident Prevention.

2.2 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Safety and Health Requirements Manual, EM 385-1-1

(2014).

2.3 USACE, Safety and Occupational Health Requirements for Environmental Cleanup Projects, ER 385-1-92 (2018).

2.4 USACE, Explosives Safety and Health Requirements Manual, EM 385-1-97 (2008; as revised by

Change 1, April 2013).

2.5 Nuclear Regulatory Commission Standards, 10 CFR 20.

2.6 Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) Construction Industry Standards, 29 CFR 1926, and General Industry Standards, 29 CFR 1910.

2.7 Other applicable Federal, State, and local safety and health requirements.

3. Documents The following health and safety documents are required:

3.1 Safety and Health Program

The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) requires all employers performing on-site activities at hazardous waste sites to develop and maintain an ongoing written Safety and Health Program in compliance with OSHA Standard 29 CFR 1910.120(b)/29 CFR 1926.65(b). The program, including updates, shall be made available upon request.

3.2 Accident Prevention Plan (APP)/Site Safety and Health Plan (SSHP) The contractor shall develop and implement an Accident Prevention Plan (APP) which includes a Site Safety and Health Plan (SSHP) as an appendix. The APP/SSHP shall address all occupational safety and health hazards (traditional construction as well as contaminant related hazards) associated with field activities. The APP/SSHP shall cover each SSHP element in Section 33.B.02 of EM 385-1-1 and each APP element in Appendix A of EM 385-1-1. SSHP elements that overlap with APP elements need not be duplicated in the APP/SSHP, provided each safety and occupational health issue receives adequate attention and detail and is documented in the APP/SSHP.

The APP/SSHP shall be developed under the direct supervision of a qualified Safety and Health Manager (SHM).

On-site activities shall not commence until the plan has been reviewed and accepted. On-site implementation and enforcement of the APP/SSHP shall be managed by a qualified Site Safety and Health Officer (SSHO). See Section 33.C of EM 385-1-1 for SHM and SSHO qualifications and experience requirements.

4. Document Revisions, Addenda, and Field Modifications Review comments issued prior to APP/SSHP approval shall be incorporated by revising and reissuing affected pages. Minor changes affecting only a few pages may be made by addenda sheets and resubmitted. On-site, unanticipated or changed field conditions encountered which were not addressed in the accepted APP/SSHP shall be immediately reported to the USACE point of contact. Field activities exposed to such situations shall be halted until the APP/SSHP has been modified to reflect the changed conditions and reviewed/accepted by

USACE.

SECTION J- ATTACHMENT4

GEOLOGY SUPPLEMENT TO THE

SCOPE OF SERVICES OR

PERFORMANCE WORK STATEMENT

REVISED: OCTOBER 9, 2018

1.0 INTRODUCTION

This supplement serves as the specifications for accomplishing the geology related tasks identified in the Scope of Services (or Performance Work Statement [PWS]), to which this supplement is attached. All work shall be performed in accordance with this supplement unless otherwise specified in the Site Specific Section of the Scope of Services. If there are any differences between this supplement and the Site Specific Section of the Scope of Services, the Contractor shall implement the Site Specific instructions.

The Contractor shall disregard all sections of this supplement that do not apply to the tasks as outlined in the Site Specific Scope of Services. For example, if no new monitoring wells are to be installed, then the Contractor has no reason to refer to the sections on monitoring well installation, construction diagrams, etc.

The Draft Project Report and Final Project Report referenced in this document shall be defined in the Site Specific Section of the Scope of Services. If there are any questions regarding this supplement, the Contractor shall contact the COR for clarification.

Regulatory Requirements. Field investigation procedures shall be conducted in accordance with all federal, state, and local requirements. If the specifications as set forth in this Scope of Services do not meet regulatory requirements, contact the USACE Contracting Officer’s Representative (USACE-COR) for resolution of differences. The Contractor is responsible for determining applicable federal, state, and local requirements.

2.0 QUALITY ASSURANCE/QUALITY CONTROL

2.1 Work Plans

A plan shall be submitted by the Contractor for approval before any fieldwork for the project is begun which addresses all quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) procedures to be implemented in the field. This plan shall comply with the appropriate regulatory requirements as referenced in the Scope of Services (SOS) for this project. This plan shall include, at a minimum, the Contractor’s methods, equipment, and procedures for carrying out all field work including drilling, sampling (soil, sediment, ground water, soil vapor, surface water, etc.)

monitoring well installation, well development, decontamination procedures, aquifer testing, geophysics, and surveying. This plan is not a separate document. This information shall be incorporated into the Contractor work plans, which address overall project QA/QC.

2.2 Qualified Personnel

The Contractor shall provide a qualified geologist or geological engineer who shall be on site and responsible for all logging and sampling during all soil/rock sampling activities. A qualified geologist/ engineer shall be on site and responsible for all monitoring well drilling, installation, development and testing activities. A qualified geologist/geological engineer is defined as having a baccalaureate degree in a geological science or geological engineering from an accredited university and a minimum of two (2) year’s experience in logging and/or analysis of subsurface conditions. The qualifications of the on-site geologist and/or geological engineer shall be included in the Contractor work plans. A person meeting these requirements shall be dedicated to each activity.

The Contractor shall notify the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) representative at least 2 weeks prior to the initiation of any field investigations so that a USACE representative can plan to be present for field oversight.

The Contractor shall notify the COR of any changes in personnel from that specified in the work plan.

3.0 SOIL BORINGS AND MONITORING WELL BORINGS

Soil borings and monitoring wells may be required to investigate the vertical and horizontal extent of site-specific contaminants. Soil samples for chemical analysis may also be required from borings drilled for monitoring well installations, as directed in the Site Specific Section of the Scope of Services. Guidance for field activities may be obtained from USACE EM 1110-1- 4000 (Nov. 98): “Monitoring Well Design, Installation, and Documentation at Hazardous, Toxic, and Radioactive Waste Sites”. All borings for soil sampling and monitoring well installations shall be drilled and sampled according to the requirements discussed in the following sections.

3.1 Utility Clearances and Permits

The Contractor shall be responsible for obtaining and coordinating all utility clearances and drilling/monitoring well permits. A copy of all monitoring well permits required by state or local regulations shall be included as an appendix in the final report. If it is necessary to move a boring in order to avoid utilities, the Contractor shall be responsible for relocating the boring to a suitable location that accomplishes the intent of the original location.

The new location shall be as close as possible to the original location. Both locations shall be shown on the boring log. The Contractor shall take all reasonable precautions to protect persons and property near the drill site.

3.2 Drilling Methods

All borings shall be drilled by a method of the Contractor’s choosing unless otherwise specified under the Site Specific Section of the Scope of Service. The method(s) shall be proposed by the Contractor and approved by the COR prior to use. The method(s) shall be discussed in the Contractor work plans. The drilling method must allow, or provisions must be made for, accurate determination of the depth to ground-water surface. If a well is to be installed in a boring, the boring shall be of sufficient diameter to permit at least two inches of annular space between the boring wall and the sides of the centered riser and screen. The boring diameter shall be of sufficient size to allow for the accurate placement of the screen, riser, centralizers, filter pack, bentonite, and grout. The Contractor’s drilling method shall maintain the integrity of the borehole (i.e. prevent collapse) during backfilling or well installation. No grease shall be used on drill pipe joints. The use of any lubricants shall be submitted for approval in the Contractor work plans and shall be noted on the boring logs. The Contractor shall provide documentation (brand name, chemical analysis of product composition, SDS, etc.) to the COR for all materials introduced into the boring during drilling, for approval prior to use.

3.3 Aquifer Protection

If other than the uppermost water yielding zone is penetrated during drilling, precautions shall be taken to prevent the downward (or upward) movement of any contaminants. The drilling method and procedure to be employed shall be described in detail in the work plans for COR review and approval prior to field deployment.

3.4 Decontamination

Site-specific decontamination procedures shall be addressed in the UFP-QAPP submitted for review and approval by USACE and appropriate regulatory agencies. All drill pipe, drilling tools, bits, etc. shall be free of potentially contaminating materials (i.e. grease, oil, paint, etc.) and shall be steam cleaned prior to use at each well boring.

Drilling equipment that is used down hole or may potentially cross contaminate samples, such as augers, auger center plugs, core barrels, clean out bits, down hole geophysical equipment, etc. shall be decontaminated between each boring location. The drill rig shall be steam cleaned prior to use at each site if the project consists of more than one site. The rig shall be free of leaks and debris, which could contaminate the holes (i.e. hydraulic fluid, oil, gas, loose paint, etc.).

3.5 Geotechnical Sample Requirements

During drilling of all borings, soil sampling shall be performed at regular intervals to allow for accurate logging of the soil lithology and to obtain material for geotechnical testing. Sampling may be performed using a split spoon sampler or thin wall (Shelby tube) sampler using the techniques given in ASTM D 1586 “Standard Test Method for Penetration Test and Split-Barrel Sampling of Soils” and ASTM D 1587 “Standard Practice for Thin- Walled Tube Geotechnical Sampling of Soils”, respectively. Other type samplers (California split tube, hollow stem auger continuous sampler, etc.) may also be used if included in the Contractor work plans for approval. All samplers used to collect samples for chemical analysis shall be stainless steel. Samples to be used only for logging and geotechnical testing may be taken with sampling devices that are not stainless steel.

3.5.1 Sampling Intervals

Unless otherwise indicated in the Site Specific Section of the Scope of Services, soil samples for lithologic logging shall be collected continuously for the first ten feet and at least every five feet for the remaining depth of each boring. Material recovered from geotechnical sample intervals may also be utilized to meet the requirements for chemical sampling, i.e. a sample for geotechnical testing and a sample for chemical analysis may be taken from the same split spoon. Where the material quantity is insufficient to meet all needs, samples for chemical analysis shall be collected first.

3.5.2 Soil Classification and Testing

All soil samples shall be visually classified in the field using the Unified Soil Classification System (ASTM D 2488 “Standard Practice for Description and Identification of Soils”). In order to verify the field classifications and to obtain additional data on the composition of the subsurface materials, the Contractor shall retain samples for laboratory geotechnical testing. Refer to the site-specific section of the SOS for specific sampling and testing requirements. This testing shall consist of Grain Size Distribution (ASTM D 421 “Standard Practice for Dry Preparation of Soil Samples for Particle-Size Analysis and Determination of Soil Constants” & 422 “Standard Test Method for Particle-Size Analysis of Soils”), Atterberg Limits (ASTM D 4318 “Standard Test Method for Liquid Limit, Plastic Limit, and Plasticity Index of Soils”), and moisture content (ASTM D 2216 “Standard Test Method for Laboratory Determination of Water (Moisture) Content of Soil and Rock”). If multiple borings are performed at a site, the Contractor shall attempt to select samples for geotechnical analysis that are representative of all materials on site. In monitoring well borings, one sample from the screened portion of the aquifer shall be tested to confirm validity of the screen design.

3.6 Logs

All drill logs shall subscribe to the following requirements:

3.6.1 Logs shall be prepared in the field, as borings are drilled, by a qualified geologist or geological engineer. The preparer shall sign each log.

3.6.2 All log entries shall be printed. Photo reproductions shall be clear and legible. Illegible or incomplete logs shall not be accepted. One legible copy of each field log shall be completed and sent to the COR within five days of completion of each boring. The boring shall not be accepted by the COR the drilling logs are received and approved.

3.6.3 Borehole depth information shall be from direct measurements accurate to one- tenth of a foot.

3.6.4 Logs shall be prepared on the HTRW Drilling Log Form (Eng Form 5056-R), included as Attachment A, that accompanies this supplement.

3.6.5 All relevant information blanks in the log heading and log body shall be completed. If surveyed horizontal control is not available at the time of drilling, location sketches referenced by measured distances from prominent surface features, shall be shown on, or attached to the log. If vertical control is not available, the depth measurement shall be recorded as feet below ground (grade) surface. The surveyed coordinates and elevations shall be recorded on the final log.

3.6.6 Log scale shall be 1-inch = 1-foot, unless otherwise specified in the Site Specific Section of the Scope of Services.

3.6.7 Each and every material type encountered shall be described in column c of the log form.

(Material types are to be logged directly from samples and indirectly interpolated using professional judgment, drill cuttings, drill action, etc., between sampling intervals.

3.6.8 Unconsolidated materials shall be described as outlined below and in the following sequence:

3.6.8.1 Descriptive USCS classification in accordance with ASTM D 2488;

3.6.8.2 Consistency of cohesive materials or apparent density of non-cohesive materials;

3.6.8.3 Moisture content assessment, e.g., moist, wet, saturated, etc.;

3.6.8.4 Color;

3.6.8.5 Other descriptive feature (bedding characteristics, organic materials, macrostructure of fine-grained soils e.g., root holes, fractures, etc.);

3.6.8.6 Depositional type (alluvium, till, loess, etc.)

3.6.9 Rock materials shall be described in the sequence outlined below and in accordance with ASTM C 294 and other standard geologic nomenclature including:

3.6.9.1 Rock type;

3.6.9.2 Relative hardness;

3.6.9.3 Density;

3.6.9.4 Texture;

3.6.9.5 Color;

3.6.9.6 Weathering;

3.6.9.7 Bedding;

3.6.9.8 Fractures, joints, bedding planes, and cavities, including any filling material and whether open or closed;

3.6.9.9 Rock Quality Designation (RQD);

3.6.9.10 Other descriptive features (fossils, pits, crystals, etc.).

3.6.10 Stratigraphic/lithologic changes shall be identified in column c by a solid horizontal line at the appropriate scale depth on the log, which corresponds to measured borehole depths at which changes occur, measured, and recorded to the nearest one-tenth of a foot. Gradational transitions, changes identified from cuttings or methods other than direct observation and measurement shall be identified by a horizontal dashed line at the appropriate scale depth based on the best judgment of the logger. All lines shall be drawn with a straight edge and not by free hand. Logs shall clearly show in columns e and f, the depth intervals from which all samples are retained, complete with sample number.

3.6.11 Logs shall identify the depth at which water is first encountered, the depth to water at the completion of drilling and the stabilized depth to water. The absence of water in borings shall also be indicated. Stabilized water level data shall include time allowed for levels to stabilize and amount of borehole collapse.

3.6.12 Logs shall show borehole and sample diameters and depths at which drilling or sampling methods or equipment change.

3.6.13 Logs shall show total depth of penetration and sampling. The bottom of the hole shall be clearly identified on the log with a double line across all columns at the bottom depth of drilling and with the notation “Bottom of Hole.”

3.6.14 Logs shall identify any drilling fluid losses including the depths, at which they occur, rate of loss and total volume lost.

3.6.15 Logs shall show drilling fluids used including, as appropriate:

3.6.15.1 Source and volume of make-up water;

3.6.15.2 Drill fluid additives by brand and product name, and mixture proportions; and

3.6.15.3 Type of filter for compressed air.

3.6.16 Logs shall show depths and types of any temporary casing used.

3.6.17 Logs shall identify any intervals of borehole instability.

3.6.18 Intervals of lost bedrock core shall be shown in column e. Intervals of intact soil sampling attempts shall also be shown in column e, including depths from which attempts were made and length of sample recovered from each attempt.